JEREMIAH – CHAPTER 3

A CALL FOR REPENTANCE

Vs 1-5: JUDAH’S INFIDELITY TO HER DIVINE HUSBAND

1. Verse 1 should be read with Deu 4:1-4. a. From this it appears that reconciliation and reunion between Judah and her God is legally impossible!

b. What right, then, has Judah (who has “gone a whoring” after false gods) to return to Jehovah as if His covenant has not been violated? (Jer 2:20; Eze 16:26-29).

2. The language of verse 2 suggests Judah’s participation in the immoral rites of the fertility cults, (contr. Deu 12:2-4); so passionate is her lust for idol-lovers, that she waits for them as a band of Arab robbers waits to plunder a passing caravan, (Eze 16:25) – polluting the land by her wicked whoredoms, (Jer 2:7).

3. The withholding of showers (both the Fall and Spring rains -essential to the fruitfulness of their crops, Jer 14:3-6; Lev 26:19) was divinely related to Judah’s SIN; but, like a whore with a seared conscience, she did not even blush at being confronted with her sin, and the necessary consequences thereof, (vs. 3; Jer 6:15; Jer 8:12; comp. Eze 3:7-8).

4. Instead, she self-righteously and boldly petitioned the Lord, whose holy name she had polluted by her fornication – addressing Him as “My Father,” and “the Guide” (companion, or friend) “of my youth”; she chided Him against nursing a grudge and retaining His anger as “My Father,” and “the Guide” (companion, or friend) “of my youth”; she chided Him against nursing a grudge and retaining His anger forever!(vs. 4-5a; comp. vs. 12; Psa 103:9; Isa 57:16).

5. The unfaithful wife is grossly presumptuous to expect instant relief from one upon whom she has practiced all the evil that her perverted heart and mind could devise! (vs. 5).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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 lam e r, 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.” (72)

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.

Now, God speaks thus by Isaiah,

“

Shew me the bill of your mother’s divorcement,” (Isa 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. (Lev 20:10; Deu 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 (73) 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 —

(72) The word at the beginning of this verse has puzzled most, the form being so unusual. It is left out by the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic The Vulgate has “ vulgo dieitur — it is commonly said.” But ל means at times “according to;” and it may be so rendered here, —

According to what is said, If a man sends away his wife, And she goes from him and becomes another man’s, Is he to return to her again? Polluted, shall it not be polluted, even that land? But thou hast played the harlot with many friends, Yet return to me, saith Jehovah.

The particle הן in the first line is Chaldee for אם; it is so rendered by the Targun and the early versions. The pronoun ההיא after “land” cannot be rendered as Calvin proposes; it agrees in gender with “land.” It is singular that the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have “woman” instead of “land;” yet the Syriac and Targum retain “land:“ but in them all this pronoun is construed with the noun. Gataker takes “land” here, and in Deu 24:4, as meaning “the state,“ the community, and refers to Num 35:33; Psa 106:38; Isa 24:5. — Ed

(73) The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, have by a mistake rendered the word “pastors” or shepherds; but the Vulgate has “lovers,“ which our version and Blayney have adopted. But the word means companions, friends, intimates, neighbors. Gataker renders it “mates.” — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

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, Rosenmller, 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 Speakers 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 Josiahs reign.

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 Josiahs 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 Jehovahs worship therein. Judahs 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 husbands 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 as the imperative. Keil renders it as interrogative, Wouldst thou return to me! as being forbidden. Speakers 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 Langes 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, Faithlessnot an adjective, but Judahs name.

Jer. 3:9. Lightness, as if were the infinitive of , levity. It is rather derived from , 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 . 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. . 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, Rosenmller, 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: , not hosts. The Hebrew idiom means a heritage of the chief beauty of nations.Speakers 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 is rendered the noise of revelry in Amo. 5:23; and here as the noisy gatherings for idle worship on the hill-tops.Speakers Com.

Jer. 3:24. Shame, ; lit., the shame, i.e., Baal; comp. chap. Jer. 11:13, where the word 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 Boshethshame, 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.

Israels 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 Judahs soliloquy upon hearing Gods appeal (Jer. 3:4). The prophet chides her, Behold, thou hast spoken! Such is thine answer to Gods 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 Gods wrath (Jer. 3:5); and more, unmoved by the pathos of love (Jer. 3:4).

Jer. 3:6-11. ISRAELS 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. Israels sin was apostasy (Jer. 3:6). Judahs 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 Israels 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 Gods 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 Saviours 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 daysGod 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; Gods people are restored to their long-lost rest. Here is fulfilled the condition of the sinners 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. Gods 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. Mans duty is to act on that thought; return. 5. There is healing for every wrong in Gods 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 Pauls 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 Josiahs reforms, and asserted Judahs 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 Judahs 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. sthetic 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). Mans 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 nations 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 kings 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 peoples 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. Kittos Bible Illustrations on this text.) The temporary withholding of all the rains for three and a half years during Elijahs 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: GODS 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: YOUTHS GRACIOUS HOUR; GODS 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. Youths 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. Youths 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. Youths 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. Youths precious opportunity. From this time; my youth. Young life most easily guided. Call the mountain wanderer back ere he fall! Young1. 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. Youths 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 SINNERS 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 mans 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 of1. Education; 2. Human laws; 3. Gods 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?Preachers 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 Judahs account. Her criminality is marked as having three stages: (1) she saw Israels 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 groundservile fear. 2. Its effectexternal reform.

ii. True repentance. 1. Its groundlove to God. 2. Its effecthonest 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 Judahs 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 Gods Spirit within.

2. It casts more dishonour upon God. A sinner openly casts off Gods yoke; but the hypocrite professedly says, I am Gods 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 Gods 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 LordsRev. 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. Gods 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 Godrefusing to own itno longer. Return to God might be through miserynot regret for the sin which caused it; or from policydesiring escape from evils and gain of benefits, without heart-grief or spiritual surrender.

I. What God asks of the sinner.

Acknowledge; which means1. 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 Gods 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. Israels 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 allfar 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 back1. Easily; 2. Gradually; 3. Silently.

Backsliding is generally preceded by1. 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 Gods heart (1Sa. 13:4).

The evangelical pastoratei. 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 prophets eye saw a glory which excelled the gladness of that event: the Messianic age. Those days point definitely to Christs 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 worlds 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 Christin 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 Saviours steps, following the Lord fully. This Christian walk will be the outward evidence of the inward allegiance to Gods 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).Speakers 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 prophets, 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 economyof which the Ark was the centre and the keywould 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 Sauls 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 Gods 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 Fathers 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 Spirits 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. Gordons Christ as made known to the Ancient Church.

Jer. 3:17. THE CHURCH CHRISTS THRONE. (Addenda to chap. 3. Jerusalem, Gods 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 Churchs 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 Christs 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 neversave in faithfulnessafflicting 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Israels past conduct rises unbidden in the mind to cross, like a dark cloud, this bright hope of Israels 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 sins 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 sinners substance (Jer. 3:24), as it did the younger sons 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 Gods living image on earth, Gods own nourished and beloved child, should thus lie down in shame!

I. An awakened sinners 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 sinners 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 Gods 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. Greys 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 dont 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 Gods 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 fathers 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, Gods throne.

Lord, Thou didst love Jerusalem,

Once she was all Thine own;

Her love Thy fairest heritage,

Her power Thy glorys throne:

Till evil came and blighted

Thy long-loved olive-tree,

And Salems shrines were lighted

For other gods than Thee.

Then sunk the star of Solyma,

Then passed her glorys 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 Gods 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.Warwicks 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.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

II. GODS APPEAL To HIS PEOPLE Jer. 3:1 to Jer. 4:4

After the blistering indictment of his inaugural sermon Jeremiah takes up the subject of repentance. He speaks here of (1) the possibility of repentance (Jer. 3:1-5); (2) the need for repentance (Jer. 3:6-10); (3) the call to repentance (Jer. 3:11-15); (4) the blessings of repentance (Jer. 3:16-22 a); (5) The prayer of repentance (Jer. 3:22 b25) and (6) the rewards of repentance (Jer. 4:1-4).

A. The Possibility of Repentance Jer. 3:1-5

TRANSLATION

(1) They say if a man divorce his wife and she shall go from him and shall become another mans, may he return unto her again? Would not that land become greatly polluted? But you have committed harlotry with many lovers; yet return unto Me (oracle of the LORD). (2) Lift up your eyes unto the high hills and look! Where have you not been lain with? Along the ways you have sat for them as an Arabian in the desert; you have polluted a land with your harlotry and with your iniquity. (3) So the showers were withheld and there was no latter rain; yet the forehead of a harlot you possessed, you refused to be ashamed. (4) Will you not right now call to Me, My Father! You are the Husband of my youth! (5) Will He keep His anger forever? Will He keep it always? Behold, you have spoken but you have done evil things and you have succeeded.

COMMENTS

Is it possible for Judah after years of spiritual harlotry to return to the Lord? According to the law of Moses a woman who had been divorced and who had married another could not be reclaimed by the original husband (Deu. 24:1-4). In the light of this law is it legally possible for the Lord to take Judah back again? The answer is No! Judahs case is much worse than that envisaged in the divorce law. In the law of Moses the woman who has been legally married to a second husband could not be reclaimed. But Judah has cavorted around with many lovers, i.e. false gods, and therefore no longer had any legal claim on the Lord. But grace triumphs over law. In spite of the legal impossibility of repentance and reconciliation God calls upon Judah to return to Him (Jer. 3:1).

That the guilt of Judah might clearly be established Jeremiah calls upon the people to lift up their eyes to the high places where their illicit religion was being practiced. One cannot find a prominent noll in all the land which had not been defiled by the licentious rites of Baal. Like a lonely Arab in the midst of the desert who eagerly joins himself to any caravans or passers-by, Israel has embraced every form of idolatry which has come along. This iniquitous spiritual harlotry has polluted the land (Jer. 3:2). Therefore God has punished them by withholding the showers and especially the latter rain of early spring which was so essential to an abundant harvest. Yet no amount of divine discipline could make Israel feel the shame of her wantonness. As a prostitute remains brazen and shameless when confronted with her deeds, so Israel gave no evidence of shame even when suffering the consequences of her sin (Jer. 3:3).

The past can be forgotten and forgiven if Israel right now, at this very moment, will acknowledge the Lord as God. Instead of calling the idols of wood and stone my father will you not give that appellation to Me?, the Lord pleads. Will you not acknowledge Me as the husband of your youth? (Jer. 3:4). The translation husband here is justified on the basis of Pro. 2:17 where the same word is used. The word can also mean intimate friend and even guide as in the American Standard and King James versions. As a matter of fact, according to Jer. 3:5 Judah had spoken the things which God had requested in the previous verse. At the same time, however; they had continued to do evil things thus indicating that their words were insincere and hypocritical. So far they had gotten by with this hypocrisy but God will not keep His anger for ever (Jer. 3:5). Shortly they will face the God of judgment.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

III.

(1) The parable of the guilty wife who is condemned in spite of all her denials is carried out to its logical results.

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, andin 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 questionit 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

YHWH Lays Down His Final Terms ( Jer 3:1-5 ).

The latter rains have failed to come because they have been faithless to YHWH, something that is evident to anyone who will look to the bare hills or the wayside resting places. For there their flagrant misbehaviour is made apparent. But if they will only return to Him, calling Him Father and taking Him as the guide of their youth, He may well yet be ready to listen to them. Their answer is, however, seen in their unresponsive attitudes.

Jer 3:1

“They say, ‘If a man put away his wife,

And she go from him, and become another man’s,

Will he return to her again?

Will not that land be greatly polluted?’

But you have played the harlot with many lovers,

Yet return again to me”, the word of YHWH.’

What ‘they said’ was strictly in accordance with the Law. See Deu 24:1-4. Once a man had put away his wife and she had belonged to another, he was not allowed to take her back again. And yet YHWH’s compassion was such that He was prepared, as it were, to set aside that Law and accept His people back from their lovers if only they would return to Him again. The door of mercy was still open, and this was to be seen as the dictate of YHWH (neum YHWH). It was not, of course, actually a breaking of the Law because no individual woman was involved, nor was an earthly marriage. Besides even on the facts Judah had not remarried. She had instead had many lovers. The real point is that God’s covenant love was so great that He was willing to receive Judah back if only she will truly return to Him with all her heart.

Jer 3:2

“Lift up your eyes to the bare heights, and see,

Where have you not been lain with?

By the ways have you sat for them,

As an Arabian in the wilderness,

And you have polluted the land with your whoredoms,

And with your wickedness.”

He charges them to look at the bare heights where they have been carrying out their lewd activities, and point out any place which was free from the taint of their sexual misbehaviour. There was none. And He calls on them to consider the resting places by the way where they have awaited prostitutes, in the same way as an Arabian in the wilderness (who, because they lived in the wilderness had to wait for their favours in places where prostitutes might be found) would do. Thus had they polluted the land by their irresponsible sexual activities and by their wicked ways.

Alternately the reference to the Arabian in the wilderness may have in mind Arabians waiting in the wilderness for unsuspecting travellers to pass by whom they could rob. They wait for prostitutes like the Arabian waits for victims.

Jer 3:3

“That is why the showers have been withheld,

And there has been no latter rain,

Yet you have a harlot’s forehead,

You refused to be ashamed.”

And it was because they had polluted the land that the showers had been withheld and that there had been no latter rain (the March/April rain on which the final harvest depended). Yet even when they had become aware of this they were so hardened in sin that they had refused to be ashamed. ‘You have a harlot’s forehead.’ Unlike other women who were discreet and pure, covering their heads from the eyes of men, harlots brazenly bared their foreheads so that the men whom they sought would know that they were available. It was a sign that they too, like Judah, were hardened in sin.

Jer 3:4

“Will you not from this time cry to me,

‘My Father, you are the guide of my youth?’ ”

But YHWH, ever patient in His faithfulness and compassion, still wants His people to turn to Him, so He asks them whether they will not from this time call to Him, saying, ‘My Father, You are the guide of my youth’. He wants them to look back to earlier days in the wilderness when they had initially sought the truth of YHWH, before they had become so hardened. If they will once again respond to Him as their Father on a continuing basis, He will gladly take them up.

Jer 3:5

“Will he retain his anger for ever?

Will he keep it to the end?

Behold, you have spoken and have done evil things,

And have had your way.”

Jeremiah then adds the final words. Will YHWH retain His anger for ever? Will He keep it to the end? The answer, if only they will truly repent and turn to Him as their Father, is ‘No’, but if they remain as they are it is ‘Yes’. For Jeremiah recognises that they are so steeped in sin that it is preventing their response. They have ‘spoken and done evil things’, and have ‘continually had their own way’. It will not be easy for them to relinquish those ways and respond to God as their Father. So like Jesus would after him Jeremiah calls on his countrymen to respond to God as their heavenly Father, but similarly to Jesus He makes clear to them that it will depend on a true and obedient response. They cannot call Him Father and not do what He says.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Subsection 1. YHWH’s Complaint Against His People ( Jer 2:4 to Jer 3:5 ).

YHWH commences by presenting His complaint against Israel/Judah. This was because, having responded avidly to the love and faithfulness that He had demonstrated to them in the arid wilderness, where they had earnestly sought Him, they had afterwards, once He had brought them into a fruitful land, turned against Him (Jer 2:4-8). He then continues by expressing bafflement and horror at the way that they have rejected Him as the well-spring of living water, preferring broken waterless cisterns which can hold no water, and have become a degenerate vine, incapable of being cleansed. This was in consequence of their having followed the pathway of idolatry, rejecting His prophets and cosying up to foreign nations, something which He points out could only result in their own destruction (Jer 2:9-37). And He finishes by pointing out that that is why they have had no rain and calls on them to repent and look to Him, with the assurance that if they do He will receive them (Jer 3:1-5).

This is not necessarily to be seen as one address, but as covering the main elements of Jeremiah’s teaching during the reigns of Josiah and Jehoiakim. That the latter’s reign is included is suggested by the apparent references to Josiah’s death and Judah’s subjection to Egypt.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

SECTION 1. An Overall Description Of Jeremiah’s Teaching Given In A Series Of Accumulated, Mainly Undated, Prophecies, Concluding With Jeremiah’s Own Summary Of His Ministry ( Jer 2:4 to Jer 25:38 ).

From this point onwards up to chapter 25 we have a new major section (a section in which MT and LXX are mainly similar) which records the overall teaching of Jeremiah, probably given mainly during the reigns of Josiah (Jer 3:6) and Jehoiakim, although leading up to the days of Zedekiah (Jer 21:1). While there are good reasons for not seeing these chapters as containing a series of specific discourses as some have suggested, nevertheless they can safely be seen as giving a general overall view of Jeremiah’s teaching over that period, and as having on the whole been put together earlier rather than later. The whole commences with the statement, ‘Hear you the word of YHWH O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel, thus says YHWH —.’ It is therefore directed to Israel as a whole, mainly as now contained in the land of Judah to which many northerners had fled for refuge. We may divide up the main subsections as follows, based partly on content, and partly on the opening introductory phrases:

1. ‘Hear you the word of YHWH, O house of Jacob and all the families of the house of Israel —’ (Jer 2:4). YHWH commences by presenting His complaint against Israel/Judah because they have failed to continue to respond to the love and faithfulness that He had demonstrated to them in the wilderness and in the years that followed, resulting by their fervent addiction to idolatry in their losing the water of life in exchange for empty cisterns. It ends with a plea for them to turn back to Him like an unfaithful wife returning to her husband. This would appear to be mainly his initial teaching in his earliest days, indicating even at that stage how far, in spite of Josiah’s reformation, the people as a whole were from truly obeying the covenant, but it also appears to contain teaching given in the days of Jehoiakim, for which see commentary (Jer 2:4 to Jer 3:5).

2. ‘Moreover YHWH said to me in the days of King Josiah –’ (Jer 3:6). This section follows up on section 1 with later teaching given in the days of Josiah, and some apparently in the days of Jehoiakim. He gives a solemn warning to Judah based on what had happened to the northern tribes (‘the ten tribes’) as a result of their behaviour towards YHWH, facing Judah up to the certainty of similar coming judgment if they do not amend their ways, a judgment that would come in the form of a ravaged land and exile for its people. This is, however, intermingled with a promise of final blessing and further pleas for them to return to YHWH, for that in the end is YHWH’s overall purpose. But the subsection at this time ends under a threat of soon coming judgment (Jer 3:6 to Jer 6:30).

3. ‘The word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH –’ (Jer 7:1). In this subsection Jeremiah admonishes the people about the false confidence that they have in the inviolability of the Temple, and in their sacrificial ritual, and warned that like Shiloh they could be destroyed. He accompanies his words with warnings that if they continued in their present disobedience, Judah would be dispersed and the country would be despoiled (Jer 7:1 to Jer 8:3). He therefore chides the people for their obstinacy in the face of all attempts at reformation (Jer 8:4 to Jer 9:21), and seeks to demonstrate to them what the path of true wisdom is, that they understand and know YHWH in His covenant love, justice and righteousness. In a fourfold comparison he then vividly brings out the folly of idolatry when contrasted with the greatness of YHWH. The section ends with the people knowing that they must be chastised, but hoping that YHWH’s full wrath will rather be poured out on their oppressors (Jer 9:22 to Jer 10:25).

4. ‘The word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH –’ (Jer 11:1). He now deprecates their disloyalty to the covenant, and demonstrates from examples the total corruption of the people, revealing that as a consequence their doom is irrevocably determined (Jer 11:1 to Jer 12:17). The section closes with a symbolic action which reveals the certainty of their expulsion from the land (13).

5. ‘The word that came from YHWH to Jeremiah –’ (Jer 14:1). “The word concerning the drought,” gives illustrative evidence confirming that the impending judgment of Judah cannot be turned aside by any prayers or entreaties, and that because of their sins Judah will be driven into exile. A promise of hope for the future when they will be restored to the land is, however, once more incorporated (Jer 16:14-15) although only with a view to stressing the general judgment (Jer 14:1 to Jer 17:4). The passage then closes with general explanations of what is at the root of the problem, and lays out cursings and blessings and demonstrates the way by which punishment might be avoided by a full response to the covenant as evidenced by observing the Sabbath (Jer 17:5-27).

6. ‘The word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH –’ (Jer 18:1). Chapters 18-19 then contain two oracles from God illustrated in terms of the Potter and his handiwork, which bring out on the one hand God’s willingness to offer mercy, and on the other the judgment that is about to come on Judah because of their continuance in sin and their refusal to respond to that offer. The consequence of this for Jeremiah, in chapter 20, is severe persecution, including physical blows and harsh imprisonment. This results in him complaining to YHWH in his distress, and cursing the day of his birth.

7. ‘The word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH –’ (Jer 21:1). This subsection, which is a kind of appendix to what has gone before, finally confirming the hopelessness of Jerusalem’s situation under Zedekiah. In response to an appeal from King Zedekiah concerning Judah’s hopes for the future Jeremiah warns that it is YHWH’s purpose that Judah be subject to Babylon (Jer 21:1-10). Meanwhile, having sent out a general call to the house of David to rule righteously and deal with oppression, he has stressed that no hope was to be nurtured of the restoration of either Shallum, the son of Josiah who had been carried off to Egypt, nor of Jehoiachin (Coniah), the son of Jehoiakim who had been carried off to Babylon. In fact no direct heir of Jehoiachin would sit upon the throne. And the reason that this was so was because all the current sons of David had refused to respond to his call to rule with justice and to stamp down on oppression. What had been required was to put right what was wrong in Judah, and reign in accordance with the requirements of the covenant. In this had lain any hope for the continuation of the Davidic monarchy. But because they had refused to do so only judgment could await them. Note in all this the emphasis on the monarchy as ‘sons of David’ (Jer 21:12; Jer 22:2-3). This is preparatory to the mention of the coming glorious son of David Who would one day come and reign in righteousness (Jer 23:3-8).

Jeremiah then heartily castigates the false shepherds of Judah who have brought Judah to the position that they are in and explains that for the present Judah’s sinful condition is such that all that they can expect is everlasting reproach and shame (Jer 23:9 ff). The subsection then closes (chapter 24) with the parable of the good and bad figs, the good representing the righteous remnant in exile who will one day return, the bad the people who have been left in Judah to await sword, pestilence, famine and exile.

8. ‘The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah –’ (Jer 25:1). This subsection contains Jeremiah’s own summary, given to the people in a sermon, describing what has gone before during the previous twenty three years of his ministry. It is also in preparation for what is to follow. He warns them that because they have not listened to YHWH’s voice the land must suffer for ‘seventy years’ in subjection to Babylon, and goes on to bring out that YHWH’s wrath will subsequently be visited on Babylon, and not only on them, but on ‘the whole world’. For YHWH will be dealing with the nations in judgment, something which will be expanded on in chapters 46-51. There is at this stage no mention of restoration, (except as hinted at in the seventy year limit to Babylon’s supremacy), and the chapter closes with a picture of the final desolation which is to come on Judah as a consequence of YHWH’s anger.

While the opening phrase ‘the word that came from YHWH to Jeremiah’ will appear again in Jer 30:1; Jer 32:1; Jer 34:8; Jer 35:1; Jer 40:1 it will only be after the sequence has been broken by other introductory phrases which link the word of YHWH with the activities of a particular king (e.g. Jer 25:1; Jer 26:1; Jer 27:1; Jer 28:1) where in each case the message that follows is limited in length. See also Jer 29:1 which introduces a letter from Jeremiah to the early exiles in Babylon. Looking at chapter 25 as the concluding chapter to the first part, this confirms a new approach from Jer 26:1 onwards, (apparent also in its content), while at the same time demonstrating that the prophecy must be seen as an overall unity.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jer 3:4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?

Jer 3:4 “My father” – Comments – The description of the God of Israel as “Father” is extremely rare in the Old Testament Scriptures. It was first used by David the psalmist (Psa 2:7; Psa 89:26), then by Isaiah (Isa 63:16; Isa 64:8), then by Jeremiah (Jer 3:4), and finally by Malachi (Mal 2:10).

Jer 3:15  And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jer 3:15 Illustration – King David was a pastor who fed God’s children the statutes of God.

Jer 3:16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

Jer 3:16 Comments – In Jer 3:16 Jeremiah predicts the forsaking of the Levitical system and the loss of the ark of the covenant, both of which took place when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.

Jer 3:17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Jer 3:18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

Jer 3:19  But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.

Jer 3:19 “and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father” Comments – In Mat 6:9, Jesus teaches the Jews to address God as “our father,” or “my father.”

Mat 6:9, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jeremiah’s First Prophecy Against Jerusalem Jer 2:1 to Jer 3:5 contains what is likely Jeremiah’s first prophecy against the children of Jerusalem. We can date it to the time of Josiah’s reign from the statement made in Jer 3:6, “The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king,” which immediately follows this prophecy.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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.

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

That this chapter (to which the first four verses of Jer 4:1-31. ought to have been attached) belongs to the time of Josiah seems to be proved by Jer 3:6, and the years immediately following the reformation are not obscurely referred to in Jer 3:4, Jer 3:10. 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 (Deu 24:1-5). Then he describes successively an invitation already uttered in the past, and its sad results (Deu 24:6-10), and the call which will, with a happier issue, be sounded in the future (Deu 24:11 -25); this is followed by an earnest exhortation, addressed first to Israel and then to Judah (Jer 4:1-4).

Jer 3:1

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 Rosenmller, 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 Jer 3:6, 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 Deu 24:12, Deu 24:14, Deu 24:22. 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. verse 4).

Jer 3:2

Lift up thine eyes, etc. No superficial reformation can be called “returning to Jehovah.” The prophet, therefore, holds up the mirror to the sinful practices which a sincere repentance must extinguish. The high places; rather, the bare hills (comp. on Jer 2:20). In the ways hast thou sat for them. By the roadside (comp. Gen 38:14; Pro 7:12). As the Arabian in the wilderness. So early was the reputation of the Bedouin already won (comp. Jdg 6:1-40.). Jerome ad loc. remarks, “Quae gens latrociniis dedita usque hodie incursat terminos Palaestinae.”

Jer 3:4

Wilt thou not, etc.? rather, Truly from this time thou callest unto me (literally, Dost thou not, etc.? a common way of giving an energetic assurance). The prophet admits the apparent revival of faith in Jehovah which attended the compulsory reformation under Josiah, but denies that it was more than apparent (comp, Jer 3:10). The guide of my youth; rather, the companion (the familiar associate); so in Pro 2:17. Comp. Jer 2:2, and especially Isa 54:6, “and a wife of youth”, “that she should be rejected [how incredible a thing!]”

Jer 3:5

Will he reserve? rather, Will he retain, etc.? It is a continuation of the supposed address of Judah. To the end? rather, everlastingly? Behold, thou hast spoken, etc.; rather, Behold, thou hast spoken it, but hast done these evil things, and hast prevailed (i.e. succeeded). The substance of the two verses (4 and 5) is well given by Ewald: “Unhappily her power truly to return has been exhausted, as not long ago after fresh signs of the Divine displeasure she prayed in beautiful language to [Jehovah] for new favor and abatement of the old sufferings, [but] she immediately fell again into her sin, and carried it out with cool determination.”

Jer 3:6

The Lord said also unto me, etc. It has been suggested (see on Jer 3:1) that this introductory clause belongs rather to Jer 3:1. Some sort of introduction, however, seems called for; Ewald supposes a shorter form, such as “And the Lord said further unto me.” The view is not improbable, for although there is evidently a break between Jer 3:5 and Jer 3:6, there are points of contact enough between Jer 3:1-5 and the following discourse to prove that they represent the same prophetic period (comp. Jer 3:10 with Jer 3:3, Jer 3:8, Jer 3:9 with Jer 3:1, Jer 3:12 with Jer 3:5, Jer 3:19 with Jer 3:4). Backsliding Israel; literally, apostasy Israel. Usually a change or modification of a name is a sign of honor; here, however, it marks the disgrace of the bearer. Israel is apostasy personified (comp. Jer 3:14, Jer 3:22). She is gone up; rather, her wont hath been to go up.

Jer 3:7

And I said after she had done, etc.; rather, and I said, After she hath done all these things, she will return unto me. And her treacherous sister. Observe the distinction between the two sisters. Israel had openly broken the political and religious connection with Jehovah (Hos 8:4); Judah nominally retained both, but her heart was towards the false gods (comp. the allegory in Eze 23:1-49; which is evidently founded upon our passage).

Jer 3:8

And I saw, when for all the causes, etc.; rather, and I saw that even because apostate Israel had, etc. But this is exceedingly strange in this connection. The preceding words seem to compel us either (with the Vulgate) to omit “and I saw” altogether, or (with Ewald) to read the first letter of the verb differently, and render “and she saw,” taking up the statement of Jer 3:7 (“saw; yea, she saw,” etc.). The latter view is favored by a phrase in Jer 3:10 (see note below). The same corruption of the text (which is palaeographically an easy one) occurs probably in Eze 23:13. The error must, however, be a very ancient one, for the Septuagint already has .

Jer 3:9

Through the lightness of her whoredom; i.e. through the slight importance which she attached to her whoredom. So apparently the ancient versions. The only sense, however, which the word kol ever has in Hebrew is not “lightness,” but “sound,” “voice,” and perhaps “rumor” (Gen 45:16). Hence it is more strictly accurate to render “through the cry.” etc. (comp. Gen 4:10; Gen 19:13), or “through the fame,” etc.. But neither of these seems quite suitable to the context, and if, as King James’s translators seem to have felt it necessary to do, we desert the faithful translation, and enter on the path of conjecture, why not emend kol into klon (there is no vav, and such fragments of true readings are not altogether uncommon in the Hebrew text), which at once yields a good meaning”through the disgrace of her whoredom ?” Ewald thinks that kol may be taken in the sense of k’lon; but this is really more arbitrary than emending the text. With stones, etc. (see Jer 2:27).

Jer 3:10

For all this; i.e. though Judah had seen the punishment of apostate Israel (Jer 3:7, Jer 3:8). So Rashi, Naegelsbach, Payne Smith. Most commentators suppose the phrase to refer to Judah’s obstinate wickedness (Jer 3:9), but this gives a weak sense. “Judah defiled the land, etc; and yet notwithstanding her repentance was insincere”this is by no means a natural sequence of ideas. The right exposition increases the probability of the correction proposed at the beginning of Jer 3:8.

Jer 3:11

It is very noteworthy that Jeremiah should have still so warm a feeling for the exiles of the northern kingdom (more than a hundred years after the great catastrophe). Hath justified herself. “To justify” can mean “to show one’s self righteous,” as well as “to make one’s self righteous,” just as “to sanctify” can mean, “to show one’s self holy” (Isa 8:13), as well as “to make one’s self holy.” In spite of Israel’s apostasy, she has shown herself less worthy of punishment than Judah, who has had before her the warning lesson of Israel’s example, and who has been guilty of the most hateful of all sins, hypocrisy (comp. verse 7).

Jer 3:12

Israel, therefore, shall be recalled from exile. Her sins are less than those of Judah, and how long and bitterly has she suffered for them! Toward the north. For Israel had been carried captive into the regions to the north of the Assyrian empire (2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 18:11). Comp. the pro-raise in Jer 31:8. I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; rather, my face to fall towards you (i.e. upon your return).

Jer 3:13

This condition of restoration to favor. Israel is to acknowledge, or perceive, notice, recognize, her guilt. And hast scattered thy ways; alluding to that “gadding about” in quest of foreign alliances, reproved in the preceding chapter (Jer 2:36). Comp. “interlacing her ways,” Jer 2:23.

Jer 3:14

Turn, O backsliding children. There is a play upon words, or rather upon senses, in the original, “Turn, ye turned away ones” (comp. Jer 3:12). To whom is this addressed? To the Israelites in the narrower sense, for there is nothing to indicate a transition. Long as they have been removed from the paternal hearth, they are still “sons.” For I am married unto you. The same Hebrew phrase occurs in Jer 31:32. Its signification has been a subject of dispute. From the supposed necessities of exegesis in Jer 31:32, some (e.g. Pococke and Gesenins) have translated, “for I have rejected you,” but the connection requires not “for” but “though,” which, however, is an inadmissible rendering; besides, the Hebrew verb in question nowhere has the sense of “reject” elsewhere. The literal meaning is for I have been a lord over you, i.e. a husband. Israel is despondent, and fears to return. Jehovah repeats his invitation, assuring Israel that he does not regard the marriage bond as broken. He is still (in spite of Jer 31:8) the husband, and Israel the bride (comp. Hos 2:1-23.; Isa 1:1; Isa 54:6, etc.). One of a city, and two of a family. The promises of God are primarily to communities, but this does not prevent him from devoting the most special care to individuals. “One of a city, and two of a family,” even though there should be but one faithful Lot in a city, and two such in a family (larger than a city, a single tribe containing only a few mishpa-khoth, or clans), yet I will admit these few to the promised blessings.” Calvin’s remark is worth noticing: “Hie locus dignus est observatu, quia ostendit Deus non esse, cur alii alios expectent; deinde etiam si corpus ipsum populi putreseat in suis peccatis, tamen si pauci ad ipsum redeant, se illis etiam fore placabilem.” The historical facts to which the prophecy corresponds are variously regarded. Theodoret, Grotius, etc; suppose it to have been fulfilled exclusively in the return from Babylon; St. Jerome and others think rather of the Messianic period. Hengstenberg finds a continuous fulfillment, beginning at the time of Cyrus, when many belonging to the ten tribes joined themselves to the returning Judahites. He finds a further continuation in the times of the Maccabees, and in fact a continually growing fulfillment in preparation for that complete one brought in by Christ, when the premised blessings were poured out upon the whole (Luk 2:36). “Zion and the holy land were at that time the seat of the kingdom of God, so that the return to the latter was inseparable from the return to the former.” Dr. Guthe, however, the latest critical commentator on Jeremiah, thinks that the passage can be explained otherwise, viz.” from each city one by one, and from each family two by two.” This gives a more obvious explanation; but the ordinary rendering is more natural, and the explanation based upon it is in the highest degree worthy of the Divine subject. The doubt, of course, is whether in the Old Testament a special providence is extended elsewhere so distinctly to the individual. But Jeremiah is pre-eminently an individualizing prophet; he feels the depth and reality of individual as opposed to corporate life as no one else among the prophets. (At any rate, one point is clear, that the prophet foresees that the number of the exiles who return will be but small compared with the increase to be divinely vouchsafed to them; see verse 16.)

Jer 3:15

Pastors. In Jer 23:4, the same word is rendered in the Authorized Version “shepherds,” which would he less open to misunderstanding here than “pastors,” civil and not spiritual authorities being intended (see on Jer 2:8). The prophecy is, of course, not inconsistent with passages like Jer 23:5, but as the national continuance of Israel was guaranteed, it was natural to refer to the subordinate civil authorities. According to mine heart; better, according to my mind; for here, as also in 1Sa 13:14, it is something very far from perfection which is ascribed to the chosen rulers. “Heart” is sometimes equivalent to “understanding.”

Jer 3:16

When ye be multiplied; a common feature in pictures of the latter days (Jer 23:3; Eze 36:11; Hos 2:1). They shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord. A definition of the Messianic period on its negative sidethe ark shall he no longer the center of religious worship. We must remember that the ark is represented in the Law as the throne of Jehovah, who was “enthroned upon the cherubim” on the lid of the ark. It is in virtue of this sacramental presence that the temple is called the “dwelling-places” of Jehovah (e.g. Psa 46:4; Psa 84:1, where Authorized Version has wrongly “tabernacles”). Now, in the Messianic period the consciousness of Jehovah’s presence was to be so widely spread, at any rate in the center of God’s kingdom, the holy city, that the ark would no longer be thought of; it would be, if not destroyed (we know, as a matter of fact, that the ark was destroyed in some unrecorded way), yet at least become utterly unimportant. Jerusalem would then naturally succeed to the title “Jehovah’s throne” (applied to the temple in Jer 14:12). Neither shall it come to mind. The same phrase is used of the old heaven and earth as compared with the new (Isa 65:17). In the concluding clauses, “visit” should rather be “miss,” and “that be done” should be “it [viz. the ark] be made.” On the whole subject of the prophetic descriptions of the worship of the Messianic perioddescriptions which often wear at any rate a superficial appearance of inconsistency, see the luminous remarks of Professor Riehm, ‘Messianic Prophecy,’ pp. 161-163. At the same time, we must be extremely cautious how far we admit that Old Testament prophecies of the latter days have received a complete fulfillment in the Christian Church, considering how far the latter is from the realizable ideal, and also the importance attached in the New Testament as well as in the Old to the continuance of Israel as a nation.

Jer 3:17

Jerusalem‘s spiritual glory. With Jeremiah’s description, comp. that of Ezekiel,” The name of the city from that day shall be, “The Lord is there” (Eze 48:35). This gives us the positive aspect of the Messianic period (comp. on verse 16). Jerusalem shall be the spiritual center of the universe, because it is pervaded by the presence of the Most High (comp. Isa 4:5). May we explain with Dr. Payne Smith, “Jerusalem, i.e. the Christian Church?” Only if the provisional character of the existing Church be kept well in view. All the nations; i.e. all except the chosen people. The word for “nations” (goyim) is that often rendered “heathen.” To the name; or, because of the name, i.e. because Jehovah has revealed his name at Jerusalem. The phrase occurs again with a commentary in Jos 9:9, “Thy servants are come because of the name of Jehovah thy God, for we have heard the fame of him, and all that he did in Egypt.” But we must not suppose that “name” is equivalent to “revelation;” rather, there is here an ellipsis”because of the name” is equivalent to “because of the revelation of the name,” or better still, ” of the Name.” The “Name of Jehovah” is in fact a distinct hypostasis in the Divine Being; no mere personification of the Divine attributes (as the commentators are fond of saying), but (in the theological sense) a Person. The term, “Name of such and such a God,:’ is common to Hebrew with Phoenician religion. In the famous inscription of Eshmunazar, King of Zidon, Ashtoreth is called “Name of Baal;” and to whichever proper name the religious term Name may be attached, it means a personal existence in the Divine nature, specially related to the world of humanity; or, to use the language of Hengstenberg, the bridge between the latter and the transcendent heights of God as he is in himself. In short, the Name of Jehovah is virtually identical with the Logos of St. John, or the second Person in the blessed Trinity. Hence the personal language now and again used of this Name in the Old Testament, e.g. Isa 30:27, “The Name of Jehovah cometh from far his lips are full of indignation;” Isa 26:8,” The desire of our soul was to thy Name;” Isa 59:19, “So shall they fear the Name of Jehovah from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun.” Comp. also Pro 18:10; men do not run for safety to an abstract idea. Nor will all nations in the latter days resort either to a localized or to a spiritually diffused Jerusalem in the future, to gratify a refined intellectual curiosity. Neither shall they walk, etc.; i.e. the Israelites of the latter days; not the “nations” before mentioned (as Hengstenberg). The phrase occurs eight times in Jeremiah, and is always used of the Israelites. The word rendered “imagination” is peculiar (sheriruth). As Hengstenberg has pointed out, it occurs independently only in a single passage (Deu 29:18); for in Psa 81:13, it is plainly derived, not from the living language, from which it had disappeared, but from the written. (The close phraseological affinity between the Books of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah has been already indicated.) The rendering of the Authorized Version, which is supported by the Septuagint, Peshito, Targum, is certainly wrong; the Vulgate has pravitatum; the etymological meaning is “stubbornness.” The error of the versions may perhaps have arisen out of a faulty inference from Psa 81:13, where it stands in parallelism to “their counsels.”

Jer 3:18

The reunion of the separated portions of the nation (comp. Eze 37:16, Eze 37:17; Hos 1:11; Isa 11:12, Isa 11:13). Observe, Israel is converted first, then Judah. This detail in the prophecy is not to be pressed. Not that the force of any prophecy is to be evaded, but that in this case the form of the statement is so clearly conditioned by the abounding sympathy of the prophet for the ten tribes. These had been so long languishing in captivity that they needed a special premise. The form of the promise is imaginative; this seems clearly to follow from the fact that in no other passage (except, indeed, Jer 31:9) is there a reference to the spiritual primacy of Etihraim in the restored nation. Out of the land of the north; i.e. Assyria and (Jer 1:14) Babylonia. The Septuagint inserts, “and from all the countries,” agreeably to Jer 16:15; Jer 23:3; Jer 32:37. Of course, it would not be an accurate statement that the exiles from Judah were confined to “the land of the north.” This is a fair specimen of the supplementing tendency of the Septuagint, though it is possible, and even probable, that the Hebrew text has suffered in a less degree from the same tendency on the part of later copyists.

Jer 3:19

The concluding words of the last verse have turned the current of the prophet’s thoughts. “Unto your fathers.” Yes; how bright the prospect when that ideal of Israel was framed in the Divine counsels! Condescending accommodation to human modes of thought; But I said fails to represent the relation of this verse to the preceding. Render, I indeed had said, and continue, How will I, etc. Put thee among the children. This is a very common rendering, but of doubtful correctness. It assumes that, from the point of view adopted (under Divine guidance) in the prophecies of Jeremiah, the various heathen nations were in the relation of sons to Jehovah. This is most improbable; indeed, even Exo 4:22 does not really favor the doctrine of the universal fatherhood of God in the fullest sense of the word. Moreover, the pronoun rendered “thee” is in the feminine, indicating that the prophet has still in his mind the picture of Israel as Jehovah’s bride. It would surely be an absurd statement that Jehovah would put his bride among the children! Render, therefore, How will I found thee with sons! comparing, for the use of the Hebrew verb, 1Sa 2:8, and for that of the preposition, Isa 54:11. It is, in fact, the familiar figure by which a family or a nation is likened to a building (“house of Abraham,” “of Israel”). Jehovah’s purpose had been to make Abraham’s seed as the dust of the earth (Gen 13:16). Instead of that, the restored exiles would be few, and weak in proportion, so that the Jewish Church of the early restoration period is represented as complaining, “We made not the land salvation, neither were inhabitants of the world produced” (Isa 26:18). A special Divine promise was needed to surmount this grave difficulty. A goodly nations; rather, a heritage the most glorious among the nations. So in Ezekiel (Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15) Palestine is described as “the glory of all lands.” The want of irrigation, and the denudation of the land, have no doubt much diminished the natural beauty and fertility of Palestine; but wherever moderate care is bestowed on the soil, how well it rewards it! Thou shalt call me shalt not turn; rather, thou wilt call me wilt not turn. It is the continuation of Jehovah’s ideal for Israel. In response to his loving gifts, Israel would surely recognize him as her Father, and devote to him all her energies in willing obedience. Father is here used, not in the spiritual and individualizing sense of the New Testament, but in such a sense as a member of a primitive Israelitish family, in which the pairia potestas was fully carried out, could realize. The first instance of the individualizing use of the term is in Ecclesiasticus 23:1-4. (For the Old Testament use, comp. Isa 1:2; Isa 63:16; Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1.)

Jer 3:20

Surely. The word acquires an adversative sense from the context, as in Isa 53:4, and is virtually equivalent to “but surely.” From her husband; literally, from her friend or companion. The choice of the word seems to indicate the inner hollowness of the married life. The woman only sees in her husband the companion, behind whoso back she can follow her own inclinations.

Jer 3:21

Another of those rapid transitions so common in emotional writing like Jeremiah’s. The prophet cannot bear to dwell upon the backsliding of his people. He knows the elements of good which still survive, and by faith sees them developed, through the teaching of God’s good providence, into a fruitful repentance. How graphic is the description! On the very high places (or rather, bare, treeless heights or downs, as verse 2) where a licentious idolatry used to be practiced, a sound is heard (render so, not was heard)the sound of the loud and audible weeping of an impulsive Eastern people (comp. Jer 7:29). For they have; this evidently gives the reason of the bitter lamentation; render, because they have.

Jer 3:22

Return, ye backsliding children, etc.; more literally, Turn, ye turned-away sons; I will heal your turnings (as Hos 14:4). It seems strange at first sight that this verso does not stand before Jer 3:21. But the truth is that Jer 3:21 describes not so much the “conversion” of the Jews as their willingness to “convert”, or “turn” to God. Christ must touch, or at least make his presence felt, in order that the sick man may be healed; a special call of God must be heard, in order that the sinner may truly repent. Behold, we come unto thee. Efficacious, and not “irresistible” grace, is the doctrine of the Old Testament.

Jer 3:25

Truly in vain, etc. An obscure and (if corruption exists anywhere) corrupt passage, which, however, it is hopeless to attempt to emend, as the corruption consists partly in wrong letters, partly in omitted letters or words (or both); and, moreover, the text employed by the Septuagint appears to have presented the same difficulty. The latter point is especially noteworthy. It is far from proving that the traditional text is correct; what it does suggest is that the writings of the prophets were at first written down in a very insecure manner. The rendering of the Authorized Version is substantially that of Hitzig, who explains “the multitude of [the] mountains,” as meaning “the multitude of gods worshipped on the mountains”too forced an expression for so simple a context. It seems most natural to suppose (with Ewald, Graf, and Keil), a contrast between the wild, noisy cultus of idolatrous religions, and the quiet spiritual worship inculcated by the prophets. Compare by way of illustration, the loud and ostentatious demonstrations of Baal’s ritual in 1Ki 18:1-46; with the sober, serious attitude of Elijah in the same chapter. The word rendered in the Authorized Version “multitude” has a still more obvious and original meaning, viz. “tumult;” and probably the Targum is not far from the true sense in rendering, “In vain have we worshipped upon the hills and not for profit have we raised a tumult on the mountains.”

Jer 3:24

For shame; rather, and the Shame (i.e. the Baal). The words Bosheth (“Shame”) and Baal are frequently interchanged; so again in Jer 11:13 (comp. Hos 9:10). So, too, Jerubbesheth stands for Jerubbaal (2Sa 11:21; comp. Jdg 6:32); Ishbosheth for Eshbaal. Hath devoured the labor of our fathers, etc.; a condensed way of saying that Baal-worship has brought the judgments’ of God upon us,, our flocks, and herds, and all the other labor (or rather “wealth;’ i.e. fruit of labor) of our fathers, being destroyed as the punishment of our sins (comp. Deu 28:30-32). Another view is that the “devouring” had to do with the sacrifices, but it is improbable that the sacrificial worship of Baal bad developed to such a portentous extent, and the former explanation is in itself more suitable to the context.

Jer 3:25

We lie down; rather, Let us lie down; said in despair, just as Hezekiah says, “Let us enter the gates of Sheol” (Isa 38:10). A prostrate position is the natural expression of deep sorrow (2Sa 12:16; 2Sa 13:31; 1Ki 21:4). Our confusion covereth us; rather, Let our confusion (or reproach) cover us (like a veil) (comp. Jer 51:51; Psa 69:7).

HOMILETICS

Jer 3:4

Filial reminiscences of God.

We are here brought from the view of God as a Husband to that of him as a Father, for only when we consider his various relations with us can we measure the depth of our sin or the motives we have for returning to him.

I. GOD‘S PEOPLE CAN CALL TO MIND OLD MEMORIES OF HIS FATHERLY GOODNESS.

1. In our own experience of his grace he has revealed himself as a Father. He is the Source and Origin of life. In him we continue to exist (Act 17:28). He is constantly protecting us and enriching us with his gifts.

2. God may be discerned as the Companion of his people’s early days.

(1) He was with his peoplea Companionnot merely blessing them from a distance.

(2) He was with his people as a Friend, holding kindly intercourse, condescending to intimate communion, accompanying them as a Stay and Solace through their pilgrimage.

(3) He was with his people in their youth. None are too young to be honored with the friendship of God. Happy are they who have been in communion with God from their youth up, instead of only coming to him at the eleventh hour! They enjoy the most of him, have longest time for his service, have most advantages for growing and ripening in religious experience. As we look back on our early days, we may often discern how God has been with us in dark scenes where his presence was unrecognized at the time, and has been sustaining and cheering us when we have not recognized the hand from which the comfort was coming.

II. OLD MEMORIES OF GOD‘S FATHERLY GOODNESS MAY BE ABUSED. It would seem that the Jews often fell into this mistake.

1. We may assume that the past blessing of God is all that we need. Because we once enjoyed his presence we may be too ready to rest satisfied as though all must be well with us henceforth forever. But we cannot live in the past. It is vain to waste our time in idle self-congratulations on our early devotion if later years have found us wandering far from God. We must not say that all is done that our souls need if we can point to an early time when we were introduced to filial relations with God. It is nothing to us that God was the Friend of our youth if he has been rejected in our later days. Indeed, this early memory will be our accuser for subsequent unfaithfulness.

2. We may assume that if God was once our Father and Friend he will always stand in those relations to us. But if we lose our first love we lose the blessings which are connected with it. The past is no security for the present. The momentous questions is, Do we now stand in a true filial relation with God? Is he still our Friend? If he was valued as a Companion in the freshness of youth, is he not wanted in the toils and battles of manhood? will he not be needed in the Weariness of age? in the darkness and mystery of the lonely passage of death?

III. OLD MEMORIES OF GOD‘S FATHERLY GOODNESS MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH PROFIT.

1. They may reveal our subsequent unfaithfulness. We compare ourselves with ourselves and see how we have fallen.

2. They may lead us to see the blessedness of an earlier estate, to be awakened to the loss we have suffered, and to be roused to the desire for a return to it.

3. They may help us to trust God. He was our Father and our Friend in early days. He is changeless. If, then, we repent and return to him, will he not permit us still to cry, “My Father;” and again to enter into the blessed influences of friendly fellowship with him? So the prodigal remembers his early days, and is induced by old memories to say, “I will arise and go to my father” (Luk 15:18).

Jer 3:10

Insincere repentances.

I. REPENTANCE IS INSINCERE WHEN IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE WHOLE HEART. Judah is accused of being “false,” and of turning to Jehovah “feignedly,” because she did not turn “with her whole heart.”

1. True repentance must be found in the heart. Mere confession with the lip without a change of feeling is a mockery (Isa 29:13). Simple amendment of external conduct is no repentance unless it is prompted by a sincere desire to do better, by a return to the love of goodness.

2. True repentance must possess the whole heart. It is not consistent with a lingering affection for sin. The penitent must not look back regretfully, like Lot’s wife, on the pleasant things he is renouncing. Repentance must be for sin, not for certain sins selected from the rest for condemnation; it means the desire to abandon all wickedness. People sometimes repent insincerely by confessing and abandoning trifling faults, while they cling to greater evils. A right repentance searches the dark depths of the soul and brings forth old buried sins, forgotten but not yet forgiven, darling bosom sins which have grown into the very life and can only be torn out from a bleeding heart, common sins which are classed among a man’s habits and which he excuses to himself as being “his ways.” Such repentance is no superficial emotion, no sentiment of the hour stirred in the church only to be forgotten as soon as a man re-enters his worldly associations. It must be thorough, profound, overwhelming. Yet it is not to be measured by the number of tears shed, but by its practical fruits, the solid proofs of a desire for a better life (Luk 3:8-14).

II. INSINCERE REPENTANCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY GOD.

1. Such repentance is inexcusable. Judah had failed to profit by the solemn lessons of her sister’s sin and ruin. In face of such terrible warnings, how foolish to cling still to the old life even while pretending to turn from it!

2. Such repentance is only self-deceiving. The hypocrite would deceive God, but failing to do this he deceives himself. He is the dupe of his own design. For he imagines that his fraud will serve him some good purpose, whereas it is detected by God and frustrated from the first.

3. Such repentance is useless. Judah gains no deliverance by her feigned repentance. God is Spirit, and can only be approached in spirit (Joh 4:24). Any other pretended return to him is no return. We do not come to God by simply entering a church, nor please him by the mechanical observance of an external service (Isa 1:11-15). The insincere repentance is a double mistake, its trouble is all wasted, its tears all shed to no purpose, and the falsehood of it is a new offence increasing guilt before God. To turn to God only with the lip is thus not merely not to turn to him at all, it is to wander still further from him. Let us beware, therefore, of using the familiar language of confession if we are not really desiring to renounce sin and be reconciled to God. Let repentance, of all things, be true and whole-hearted.

Jer 3:12, Jer 3:13

God inviting the return of his sinful children.

This invitation is offered to “backsliding Israel” in preference to “false Judah” (Jer 3:11). There seemed to be more hope of the former. Openly wicked men are more easily led to repentance than hypocritical pretenders to goodness. Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Mat 9:12, Mat 9:13), and his invitations were more readily accepted by publicans and reprobates than by Pharisees.

I. THE INVITATION IS FROM GOD. Before men return to God he seeks them. The Father calls to his children while they are yet in rebellion against him. In the quarrel between man and God all the wrong is on man’s side, yet God is the first to bring about a reconciliation.

1. We have not to reconcile God to us, but to be reconciled to him (2Co 5:20). Any difficulty on God’s side has been removed by his own act in the sacrifice of his Son. Now it only remains for us to return.

2. We have not to wait for God‘s willingness to receive us, nor to persuade him. Already he has invited as, and he now waits to be gracious.

II. THE MOTIVE FOR THE INVITATION IS THE GOODNESS OF GOD. We must not imagine that there is in us any inherent attractiveness, any merit which in the eye of God outweighs our sin, any valuable qualities which make us necessary to him. The reason for God’s anxiety to have his children return is simply his love for them, and this love is not derived from their worthiness, but from his nature.

1. It is because God is “merciful,” i.e. this is his peculiar characteristic; and mercy is exercised not according to desert, but according to need. Therefore the less man’s desert is the greater will be the outgoing of God’s mercy, because the deeper will be man’s wretchedness.

2. It is because God‘s anger is temporary, while his mercy “endureth forever.” God says, “I will not keep mine anger forever;” but he does keep his love forever. We say “God is love,” but we do not say “God is anger.” He exercises anger when this is required, but to serve an endto establish justice, to punish sin, etc; whereas he exercises love for its own sake. This latter is more fundamental, in the very heart of God, and outlives the wrath. Hence behind the passing anger that denounces and punishes, there is the eternal love that invites to reconciliation.

III. THE ONE CONDITION FOR ACCEPTING THE INVITATION IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GUILT. “Acknowledge thine iniquity.”

1. This acknowledgment is necessary. We can only return to God by forsaking our sin, for it is just our sin which keeps us from him, and as long as this is retained must still keep us from him. Indeed, separation from God and sin are but two aspects of the same spiritual condition. We can only be forgiven when we admit our guilt, and only be welcomed by God when we humble ourselves before him.

2. This acknowledgment must be complete. It must include a recognition of

(1) positive disobedience”thou hast transgressed,” etc.;

(2) the multitudinous variety of sins”and hast scattered thy ways;”

(3) the disregard of God’s voice even when he has spoken in love and urged us to return.

3. This acknowledgment is sufficient. “Only acknowledge thine iniquity. No sacrifice, penance, or partial reformation is first required on our part. The new and better life must begirt with our return to God.

Jer 3:14

(second clause, “and I will take you,” etc.).

Religious individualism.

I. BY NATURE MEN LIVE SEPARATE, INDIVIDUAL LIVES. Man is social, yet he is personal.

1. Each soul has its own personality, separate from that of every other soul by immeasurable oceans. Sympathy unites souls, but does not destroy this individuality of being. Each soul has its own secret life, and the deeper the spiritual experience is the more lonely, hidden, and incommunicable will it be. There are dark recesses of consciousness in the shallowest heart which no stranger can fathom (Pro 14:10).

2. Each soul has its own separate course to live, its peculiar privileges and privations, blessings and trials, its duties which no other soul can fulfill, its reserved heritage, its vast destiny. Starting from near points, our lives may branch out in all directions till they are utterly isolated in the lonely solitudes of the infinite possibilities of being.

3. Each soul has its own necessary Variety of nature. No two are alike. The unity of mankind is a oneness, not of unison, but of harmony.

II. GOD DEALS WITH MEN SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY.

1. His love is towards men as individuals. The size of the human family is no impediment to this with an Infinite Being who possesses infinite capacities of thought and affection. Even among men the parent of a large family has as individual a love for each of his children as the parent of a small family.

2. God approaches man individually. The outward voice of invitation is general: “whosoever will” is invited. But the inward voice, in conscience and spiritual communion, is private. Yet this fact is not a restriction on our enjoyment of God’s favors, for he speaks thus inwardly to all who will listen to him.

III. MEN MUST RETURN TO GOD SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY. Each must repent, trust, pray for himself. A nation can only return as the units return, “one of a city, and two of a family.” We must enter the “wicket-gate” in single file. No association with Christendom, a Christian nation, a Church, a Christian family, will secure our personal redemption. Even families are divided here. Each must say for himself in the singular, “will arise;” “My Father; My God.” Still:

(1) We may help one another, and owing to the influence of sympathy there may be “two of a family,” while perhaps there is only “one of a city;”

(2) after we return to God we may naturally unite in his service as his family, his Church, the one body of which Christ is the Head; and

(3) though a few may return at first, it is to be the work of these few to increase their number till the whole apostate family is reconciled to God.

Jer 3:16-18

The blessings of redemption.

The blessings which are here described as following the restoration of Israel are partly national and material in form, but they contain, in the heart of them, those deep spiritual elements of the Messianic ideas which constitute the blessings of redemption. Note the chief characteristics of these

I. THE NEGATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BLESSINGS OF REDEMPTION.

1. Freedom from the old life of sin. “Neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil hearts.” This implies

(1) that the conquest of sin is itself a good to God’s people, and not merely a painful and self-denying means for securing some other good; and

(2) that this conquest is to be complete and final. Bad as were the subsequent failings of the Jews after the Captivity, they were cured forever of their old sins of idolatry and of participation in the immoral and cruel rites of their neighbors’ religions. Many as are the defects and falls of the Christian, these do not equal the evil of his old life.

2. A change from the old habits of religion. The Jews will no longer have the ark, the seat of a localized Divine presence, and they will not want this. We can never exactly recover the past. Paradise cannot be regained. The new Jerusalem will not be like the old garden of Eden. The restored Christian cannot return to the primitive innocence of childhood. But he need not altogether regret this impossibility. With the innocence of childhood there were associated its ignorance, its weakness, its restraints. With redemption there comes a new and larger life. The ark is lost; but this need not be regretted since with it the limitations and material conditions of the Divine visitations are gone also.

II. THE POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BLESSINGS OF REDEMPTION.

1. The enjoyment of God‘s full presence. God’s throne is to be no longer the mercy-seat at the ark:

(1) confined to one small sanctuary;

(2) separating the religious from the secular;

(3) hidden from the common gaze of men.

All Jerusalem will be God’s throne. God will dwell in the midst of his people, revealed to all, consecrating the affairs of daily life (Zec 14:20).

2. The glorifying of God in the earth through the instrumentality of his people. “All the nations shall be gathered,” etc. God’s people are honored by being the means of attracting others to him. Thus they are “a city set on a hill” (Mat 5:14). The blessings of the gospel in Christ are offered to the world. The glory of the Savior and the joy of his people will be completed by the acceptance of them by all nations.

3. Brotherly love. The old enmity of Israel and Judah will cease (Isa 11:12, Isa 11:13). Christ is the Prince of peace. His advent prepared the way for peace on earth. As his kingdom spreads, peace must also extend over the troubled world. Even now the individual Christian must find his joy in exercising the peaceful spirit and practicing brotherly love (Heb 13:1).

III. THE CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING THE BLESSINGS OF REDEMPTION.

1. Return to God in repentance. This is implied in the previous verses. Repentance precedes restoration.

2. Multiplication of numbers. These blessings were to come after the people were “multiplied and increased.” We cannot expect the full Christian blessings till the Church has grown largely in numbers. God has special blessings for his Church. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, when the whole Church was gathered together (Act 2:1). These privileges of Christianity are of such a nature that they are not lessened by distribution, but the more they are scattered abroad, the more valuable do they become to every individual who enjoys them.

3. A fitting time. These blessings were not enjoyed at once. For some we still wait. “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed.” Its growth is gradual; so is also the enjoyment of its blessings.

Jer 3:22

Invitation and response.

I. THE INVITATION.

1. The object of the invitation. God calls on his people to return to him. Not simple reformation of morals, but the restoration of personal relations with God as the Father of his people is desired.

2. The condition of the invited. They are apostate children; i.e.

(1) they are far from God, though

(2) they were once near to him, and

(3) they are still his children.

As sinners, men have all lost a first estate of innocence, but have not lost, and can never lose, their filial relationship to God. Hence

(1) the greatness of their guilt and

(2) the hope of their restoration.

3. The accompanying promise. God invites and does not drive; he here exchanges threats for promises. God will heal, not simply receive his children. God alone can heal their apostasies. Man repents of sin, but God cures it. It is our part to turn from the evil, God’s to destroy that evil. Sin is washed out, not by the tears of penitence, but by the blood of Christ. The healing is of the apostasies themselves, not simply of their painful effects. Christ saves from sin. This is what God most requires in us, and what we most need for our own blessedness (Joh 1:29).

II. THE RESPONSE.

1. An expression of willing obedience. “Behold, we come unto thee.” This response must be voluntary. God waits for man’s return, does not force it; since what he desires is not the abject submission of vanquished enemies, but the loving reconciliation of children. This response must also be active. “We come.” The penitent does not simply “accept” the grace of God in a passive faith. He must “arise and go” (Luk 15:18). This implies exertion of will, active obedience.

2. An indication of the grounds of that obedience. “For thou art the Lord our God.” God invites by a promise of blessing to his people; they respond by turning from the thought of their own profit to that of the character and claim of God. The great motive to return is found in what God is rather than in what he does, because the return is to him and not merely to his blessings. Men will return to God when they see what there is in him to attract them to his feet. Hence the importance of knowing God (Job 22:21). Christ invites us by revealing the Father (Joh 14:6, Joh 14:7).

(1) We should think of the revealed character of God as a ground for returning to him. Israel returns by remembering the ancient Name “Jehovah,” with its glorious significance and its sacred memories.

(2) We should think of God’s peculiar relations with us. Israel thinks of “Jehovah our God.” This relationship points to God’s claim upon us, rising out of his recognized authority as “ours,” and the special covenant bonds of those who have once yielded themselves to him, and also to the peculiar grace God bestows on his people, which both increases the obligation and facilitates the effort to return.

Jer 3:23

From false to true salvation.

I. THE NEED OF SALVATION. This seems to be confessed before as much as after repentance. In both conditions Israel must turn somewhere for deliverance.

1. The need is universal. Israel was in national danger; but socially and privately men felt a vague sense of unrest and helplessness, and their heathen rites were a proof of this. The mystery of existence, the weariness of toil, the sorrow and disappointments of common experience, the terror of death, make men feel their helplessness. All religions witness to this fact.

2. The need is felt to be such that only religion can meet it. Men instinctively cry to their gods in the storm (Jon 1:5). This element of religion is retained when every other vestige of it has vanished. This element is common to the most diverse forms of religion, the most degraded equally with the most elevated. Is not such a fundamental fact of human nature a ground for hope? Can we believe that such a deep, instinctive cry will meet with no response?

II. THE FALSE HOPE OF SALVATION. Israel had turned to the pagan worship on the hills for deliverance; but in vain.

1. Superficially regarded, there was much to recommend this.

(1) It was conspicuous and imposingon the hilltops.

(2) It was noisy; there was tumult on the mountains. The more noise and hustle there is in a thing the more important does it seem to those who forget that the real power is with “the still small voice” and the “gentleness” that makes great.

(3) It was popular; in religious matters, as in all else, unthinking people go with the multitude.

(4) It was multiform; not one temple service, but sacrifices on every hill. Unspiritual people put faith in the number of prayers, the amount of gifts, etc; rather than in the motive and spirit which prompt them.

(5) It was easy to follow; it required no purity of life, no spiritual effort of faith. Men like a cheap religion.

2. Experience proved the hope to be false. The salvation was hoped for in vain. Heathen gods neither protected from external foes nor cured the internal wretchedness of Israel. This must have been the case, because

(1) they were not gods at all, the ground of the hope did not exist;

(2) the corruption which was permitted and encouraged in the rites with which these gods were served was the very source of the nation’s ruin. The hope of salvation was the cause of destruction. So is it whenever men turn from God to lower grounds of confidence. The very apostasy thus committed is the source of the ruin which it is expected to avert. It is a great thing to have made the discovery of this fact. To see the mistake of the false hope is the first step towards deliverance.

III. THE TRUE HOPE OF SALVATION. “Truly in Jehovah our God is the salvation of Israel.”

1. God only caw deliver, since he only can control nations and subdue the hearts of individual men.

2. God does deliver by his providence in outward events and his spiritual help in the internal battle with sin.

3. God is known as the Deliverer by his actions in the past. Israel turns to “Jehovah our God,” the God who had often shown himself as a Savior. He who rightly reads the story of his own past life will see in it reasons for trusting God for the future.

4. God is sought as the Deliverer when all other refuges fail. After making the painful discovery mentioned in the earlier part of the verse, Israel comes to recognize the true salvation, but not till then. Trouble is good if it reveals the rottenness of our mistaken hope in time to set us free to seek the true hope. Yet how sad that men should need to have the veil thus forcibly torn from their eyes!

Jer 3:24, Jer 3:25

Shame.

I. SHAME IS A NATURAL ACCOMPANIMENT OF GUILT.

1. Distinguish shame from modesty. Modesty is the fear of shame. Modesty shrinks from doing the thing which when done will result, or ought to result, in shame. Thus modesty pertains to innocence, shame to guilt.

2. Distinguish natural shame from guilty shame. Natural shame results from the exposure of what should be kept private but is pure in itselfthis applies to spiritual as well as bodily delicacy; guilty shame is associated with that which, whether revealed or not, is morally bad.

3. Distinguish false from true shame. The blush of innocence when falsely accused, the shrinking from the disapproval by others of conduct which we feel conscientiously bound to pursue, and similar feelings, are instances of the former. They simply result from weakness. Such shame is a needless pain, but it is only culpable when it leads to weak subserviency to what we know is not rightthe fear of man which bringeth a snare. True shame is not simply the distressing consciousness of the disapproval of others, but the consciousness that this is well deserved.

II. REPENTANCE LEADS US TO REGARD SIN WITH SHAME. Israel then names Baal, the god of her former worship, “Shame.” To the penitent “all things are new.” The sins in which he gloried are now objects of the deepest shame.

1. Men must see sin in a true light to regard it with shame. The Israelites are here represented as confessing sin; they feel it is their Own act: “We have sinned;” they feel that their fathers’ sin does not extenuate the guilt of the new sin of the children, but, on the contrary, adds to the cumulative guilt of the nation.

2. When sin is thus regarded, the shame is overpowering and overwhelming: overpowering, for Israel says, Let us lie down in our shame,” there is no resisting the influence of it, it crushes to the dust in humiliation; and it is overwhelming, “let our confusion cover us;” such shame is no superficial and transient emotion. It is all-absorbing.

III. THE SHAME FOR SIN IS A WHOLESOME CORRECTIVE. Nothing is more painful. Self-love, self-conceit, and self-respect are all cruelly wounded. Yet the bitter medicine is a true antidote to the sweet poison of sin.

1. It opens our eyes to the fatal consequences of wickedness. In regarding Baal as “shame,” the people seem to discover for the first time that he had “devoured the labor of their fathers from their youth.” The passion of sin throws a false glamour about it and its effects which shame dissolves.

2. It serves as a strong deferrer from future sin. It makes our old ways look horrible, disgusting, contemptible. We wonder how we could have loved them, and so long as the shame lasts nothing could induce us to return to them. Unfortunately, shame soon dies away, and if disregarded leaves men harder than before. Therefore it should not be trusted in by itself, but used as a means to lead us to the enduring security against sin in Christ (Rom 8:1-5).

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

Jer 3:4

A call to the young.

We need not hesitate so far to turn these words aside from their original meaning as to regard them as a Divine appeal to the young; especially if we understand that the prophet is here calling on Judah to return to the freshness of her “youth;” that “at this time,” this hopeful reign of the good King Josiah, she should renew her covenant with Jehovah and the “love of her espousals” (Jer 2:2). In the days of youth the heart is most freely open to Divine influences, and it may be expected to respond readily to such an appeal as this. Note

I. THE DEEPEST TRUTH OF RELIGION IS THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD. That he is the Father of our spirits is the basis of his claims upon us. The quality of our religious thought, the drift of our religious opinions, the tone of our religious life, depend very greatly on our faith in this truth. Fatherhood is our highest conception of God, and includes within it all aspects of his being, and all the relations he sustains towards us. This crowns them all, embraces all. We cannot rise above and beyond it. Our ideas are essentially defective if we fall short of it. Not that the actual human fatherhood worthily represents it; that, at its best, is but a marred and broken copya feeble, distant reflectionof the Divine. And yet the essential elements remain in spite of accidental faults. Power, wisdom, love, judicial authority, kingly rule, protective tenderness,these are the attributes of its ideal. And from the human, with all its imperfections and perversions, we rise to the Divine.

II. THE APPREHENSION OF THIS SACRED RELATIONSHIP IS SPECIALLY BEFITTING THE SEASON OF YOUTH. What more natural than that young people should think of God as their Father; that this idea of him should give shape and coloring to all their other religious ideas, and blend with all their views of life, and all their impressions of personal duty? Those who have grown oldold in the habit of frivolous thought, in the carnalizing ways of the world, in the debasing service of sin, are often dead to the impression of it. Their hearts are too much estranged to feel its charm. But shall not they who still have the dew of their youth upon them, the bloom of its quick sensibility and pure affection, love to hear a Father‘s voice?

III. Nevertheless, THE FULL DISCOVERY OF THIS RELATION MARKS A CRISIS IN THE HISTORY OF ANY SOUL. It is generally connected with the painful discovery of sin and need. “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his Name’s sake . because ye have known the Father” (1Jn 2:12, 1Jn 2:13). How suggestive is this of the bidden causes, the secret springs, the earliest realizations of Divine life in the soul! One of its first evidences is the recognition of the Father. The cry, “Abba, Father!” is the first that it breathes forth. But this comes with and through the recognition of Christ, the Son, the Savior. “No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him “(Mat 11:27). And it is a revelation that brings the assurance of “forgiveness for his Name’s sake.” The sense of dreary distance from Godguilt, shame, hunger, degradation,this is the prelude to the sweet satisfactions of the life of sonship. It is the prodigal “coming to himself.” When we are thus painfully feeling our way back to him, God comes forth in Christ to meet us, embracing us in the arms of his great love, breathing, weeping out upon us the infinite tenderness of his fatherly heart. Then we feel that we can dare to take that sacred name “Father” on our lips. It has a deep and blessed meaning in it never known before. And fear and shame and sorrow give place to the joy of eternal reconciliation.

IV. THE NATURAL RESULT OF THIS DISCOVERY WILL BE FULL PERSONAL SURRENDER TO THE FATHER‘S GUIDANCE AND CONTROL. “Guide,” literally, Husband; and them word “husband “is suggestive of all thoughtful and kindly guardianship, the wisdom that directs, and the strength that sustains. Youth needs such guardianship:

1. Because of its special moral dangers, worldly fascinations, Satanic temptations, acting on quick natural susceptibility.

2. Because of its inexperience. Experience is the growth of years. It is not of itself always the parent of the highest practical wisdom, but the want of it calls for the help of a superior power.

3. Because of its weakness of moral principle. There may be excellent natural dispositions, germs of Christian virtue in the soul, but they are not yet developed. They are but latent possibilities of good. When put to the test, they may be found wanting. God’s grace alone can ripen them into mature and steadfast principles.

4. Because beneath its fairest promise there may be hidden seeds of evil, which only need the outward incentive to bring forth deadly fruit.

5. Because the after-destiny depends so much on how the steps of youth are guided. Let the young give heed to the Father’s voice, and yield themselves to his loving control, if they would tread the path of honor and safety and blessedness.W.

Jer 3:22

Backsliding Israel.

“Backsliding” was the characteristic vice of the Jewish people throughout the whole course of their history. Their career was one of perpetual sinning and repenting, until the great apostasy, the final “falling away.” And in this we see what is too often a truthful reflection of the individual life of men. The Jews were emphatically a representative people. Not merely does their recorded history represent the method of God’s ways, but it illustrates the folly and treachery, the moral weakness and waywardness of our human nature. Dwell on the individual application of this passage. Consider

I. THE EVIL INDICATED. “Backsliding” is suggestive of a turning away from God, a departure from the path of truth and righteousness, a fall from some higher state of spiritual consciousness or moral life. This evil may assume different forms. It may consist:

1. In the loss of the simplicity and integrity of religious faith. In an age of mental restlessness like the present, men too easily lose their hold of truth, which is the very hope and life of their souls. We may look with perfect composure upon the conflict between truth and error as regards its general and ultimate issues, but dare not forget how disastrous its bearings upon the individual life may be. There are revolutions in the history of religious thought, as in the history of nations, which it is as vain to think of arresting as it would be to attempt to turn back the ocean tide; but it is a mournful thing when, under such conditions, the mind that once had a firm grasp of the vital elements of Christian truth has slipped from its moorings and drifted out into the wild sea of doubt and uncertainty. To a really earnest spirit the recovery of a lost faith is generally a painful process. How many have traveled back, as with wounded, bleeding feet, to positions of clearer vision and firmer standing which they once occupied, but in an evil hour had forsaken! As sometimes after a bright morning, which has been followed by a day of cloud and storm, there is again at sunset a glorious outbursting gleam of the radiance that had been obscured; so is it with their souls. They return to rest calmly in the truth that they had for a while lost sight of, and “at eventide,” as in the morning, “it is light.”

2. In the decline of religious feeling, the decay of those affections in which religious life consists. This is that secret spiritual “backsliding” that directly affects the soul’s personal relation to God, and the consciousness of which sometimes extorts the bitter cry, “Oh that I were as in months past!” etc. (Job 29:2-4). It may arise from no change in religious belief. While a departure from the simplicity of the faith is generally connected with a lowering of the tone of religious feeling, the converse of this is not always true. But the faith has lost its life-giving force. The light it sheds has no warm, kindling glow. It is the light of the moon rather than the sunclear and cold, having no power to quicken the frame of nature, to develop its beauty and fruitfulness, to awaken its music, and fill it with exulting joy. The carnalizing influences of the world, the wear and tear of daily life, inevitably lead to this internal spiritual decay, unless there is a perpetual renewal of the life “whose springs are hidden and Divine.”

3. In practical departure from the standard of religious duty. The backsliding of the heart cannot long be concealed. It betrays itself in many waysin a forsaking of the paths of Christian service, in some manifest lack of moral integrity, in a relapse into some form of vicious habit, perhaps in a complete loosening of the bonds of religious restraint, and utter abandonment to the pursuits of an ungodly life. It is of such a case that our Lord says, “If the salt have lost his savor,” etc. (Mat 5:13); and again, “No man, having put his hand to the plough,” etc. (Luk 9:62); and St. Peter afterwards affirms, “It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,” etc. (2Pe 2:21).

II. GOD‘S METHOD OF HEALING. “I will heal your backslidings.” This is the gracious persuasion by which he seeks to reclaim his children from their guilty wanderings. How may we expect him to fulfill the promise?

1. By awakening in us a vivid sense and penitent acknowledgment of the wrong. We can scarcely be delivered from it till we have seen all the sin and shame of itits real meaning, the source from whence it springs, the end to which it leads. Until all this is deeply felt and freely confessed before God, the first step in the process of recovery has not been taken (see Psa 51:3, Psa 51:4; Psa 32:5; 2Co 7:10, 2Co 7:11).

2. By moving us to trust simply in his forgiving and renewing mercy. Our only refuge is in the Divine mercy, and there is no other way of mercy than that which the gospel reveals. The guilt of our backslidings can alone be cancelled by the blood of Christ, and the secret cause of them removed by the grace of his Spirit (1Jn 2:1, 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 3:5-9). “There is no prescription for the sickness of the heart but that which is written in the Redeemer’s blood,” for in this alone have we both the pledge and the channel of the saving love of God.

3. By creating in us the energy of a nobler life: “Return,” etc. It is a question, after all, of moral resolution and serf-determining spiritual power.

“Full seldom does a man repent, or use
Both grace and will to pick the vicious quitch
Of blood and custom wholly out of him,
And make all clean, and plant himself afresh.”

But God gives this gracious energy to those who seek it, and such “repentance unto life” is the true “healing.”W.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Jer 3:1

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 Num 5:1-31. 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 an 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 risesif one may thus put ithigher 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 now” (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 Rev 21:1-27; 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.

Jer 3:4

Israel’s cry to the Father and the Friend.

I. OBSERVE THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF RELATION WHICH IS THUS BROUGHT BEFORE US. Hitherto we have had before us Jehovah’s description of Israel under the guise of a wife departing from her husband into the most degrading and shameless conduct. And now our thoughts are suddenly turned, with nothing to prepare for the transition, to a new relationthat of father and child. Note that it is not God who directly presents himself in this relation. “Father” is a term put into the mouths of the people in the preceding chapter and also in this. In Jer 2:27 they are represented as saying to a stock,” Thou art my father;” and now they say to Jehovah, “Thou art my Father, the Friend, the Companion of my youth.” It may be that there was no depth of real sincerity in the cry, even though it is described as a cry, and not a mere perfunctory recognitionat all events, it sets forth fact. Jehovah was a Father to the nation of Israel in this sense, that it was by his peculiar and necessary power that Israel was separated in all sorts of profoundly significant ways from the great mass of mankind. When Abram started forth, not knowing whither he went, this was to him a sort of Being born again; an- entirely new life lay before him, with expectations that he never could have cherished but that God planted them deep in his heart.. And thus the name is a right and needful name to use. Israel is doing what it ought to do when it says, “Abba, Father!” The idea evidently is that Israel has learned to speak to God much in the same way that an English child learns to say “papa” or “father” (Isa 8:4).

II. OBSERVE THE CONDUCT BY WHICH WHAT IS GOOD IS RECOGNIZED RELATION OF FATHER IS MANIFESTED. It was true that Jehovah had been Father to Israel; it was moreover true that he had been Guide, Friend, and Companion to Israel’s youth. It is not always the case that fatherhood means a loving and cherishing companionship. But here it is emphatically the case. Jehovah was a very close Companion to Israel in its youth; not really nearer, of course, than he had been since, but near in such a way that the people were compelled to note his proximity to them, and constant watchfulness over them. This, therefore, as Israel looked back upon its youth, was the right way for it to speak of Jehovah. Being Father, he had also been a true Companion and Support. “Guide of my youth’ does very well for a rendering, if we bear in mind all that the guiding implies. There is a guiding which is a mere trade, a mere selling of the guide’s knowledge. He takes up any stranger, shows him the way, gets his pay, and then the relation is at an end. But the practical guiding here comes from a deep love and solicitude. Further, it must be remembered that Jehovah’s friendship and companionship were the friendship and companionship of one competent to guide. Friendship by itself is, of course, not sufficient to constitute guiding capacity. We see, then, that the expression of this verse is a very suggestive one by which to address God. All fathers may learn from it the spirit of a right relation towards their children. It is the name which they should desire their children to associate with their childhood. It should be a remembrance having a binding power when the child has become a man, and the father an old man. It should be possible to look back on a childhood where the father was a true companion, one whose companionship was full of true befriending and guiding. There is also indicated the spirit in which youth should look beyond earthly dependencies to God himself. He who was so much to a youthful nation of old will be of inestimable service to the ignorance, weakness, and abounding need of all youth. Especially should this consideration have force when one thinks of the significance in the doctrine of being born again. He who is born again has then a second youth, even though he be in the full strength of natural manhood. And what is wanted is that the man in his strength and his wide outlook on the possibilities of life should choose a truly humble position before God. The expression is also one that may point back to a submissive, hopeful youth, wherein many Divine impressions were made, and from which there has been a great backsliding. Then how beautifully would such an expression come from the lips of the returning prodigal, “My Father, thou wast the Guide of my youth, and now after a bitter experience of trying to make my own way, which has ended in a mere drifting before the strong currents of passion and self-indulgence, I come back to thee!” It is sad to have the friendship of father and child broken, sad at any time, but saddest of all when it is not through some meddling whisperer or repeater of a matter (Pro 16:28; Pro 17:9), but through the voluntary and obstinate departure of one of the friends.Y.

Jer 3:5

Actions speak louder than words.

Israel, we see, is represented as speaking with a very pathetic remembrance of God’s great favors in the remote past. At present, indeed, there is a withholding of the rain that means fruitfulness and prosperity, but that Father who has been the Guide of Israel’s youth, surely he will soon bring the rain, with all that follows it, in spite of any appearances to the contrary, such as his anger with Israel suggests. Such is the way that Israel speaks; but how does it act? Is there to be alteration in God without alteration in man? It is of no use for the sinning nation simply to wait as if God’s righteous chastisements would be exhausted by lapse of time. There might have to be waiting, but assuredly there would have to be repenting, and the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance. But instead of this God is confronted with persistent transgression. He who had been Friend, Companion, and Guide in youth could not have been so without a docile acceptance of the companionship. The guidance in youth meant that Jehovah had a right to expect a manhood of holy service. But so far from the people giving this, the expectation in their heart is that God will still provide for them and let them do as they like. They do not seem to understand that it is they who by their transgressions provide for the sustenance and continuance of the anger of Jehovah. That anger is not like a storm which rises one knows not how, and presently subsides without man being able to do anything for its removal. God’s anger was as a fire, and the wickedness of the people was like dry and highly combustible fuel before the flame. The one thing needful was to stop the fuel, and the fire would then very speedily burn out. To say with the lips, “My Father, thou wast the Guide of my youth,” will only be of use when there is something like correspondence between what is spoken and what is done.Y.

Jer 3:15

God will provide pastors according to his own heart.

I. THE NEED SO EMPHATICALLY IMPLIED THAT SUCH PASTORS SHOULD BE GIVEN. The shepherd’s occupation, it need hardly be said, is one that comes up again and again in the Scriptures, both in the literal sense of the word and the figurative one. And even in the literal occupation there was, doubtless, often need of men who could be described as shepherds after God’s own heart. Every shepherd who was faithful, observant, courageous, and altogether superior to the hireling spirit, was to that extent a shepherd after God’s own heart. Such a one might possibly not be after God’s own heart in other respects. Many are very watchful over the brutes committed to their charge, and utterly thoughtless about the shepherding of their own souls and of the various human beings dependent on them and influenced by them. Then passing to the figurative flocks and shepherds, there are very pathetic representations in the Scriptures of the mischief consequent on the unfaithfulness of those rulers and providers who had been set over God’s people. Take such a man as King Ahab. He was not a man after God’s own heart, and what is the result? Going out against the King of Syria, Ahab, not very hopeful of a favoring word, consults Micaiah, the faithful prophet of God: “I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd;” which was not only a warning of utter defeat, but a bitter charge against Ahab that he had been utterly faithless to his trust (1Ki 22:17). There is so much of the sheep-nature in the human breast. How many have been troubled because there is no shepherd (Zec 10:2)! Every time the confession is uttered, “All we like sheep have gone astray,” there is a hint of pastoral unfaithfulness somewhere or other. The sheep-nature in the human breast has never been better set forth than in the anxiety of the departing Moses with respect to a competent successor (Num 27:17). Food needs to be provided. There must be a guarding against self-willed wandering away from the supplies and comforts belonging to a constant member of the flock. There are the perils from wild beasts (1Sa 17:34). There is the work needed to bring back that which is lost. Look at Zec 11:16, where there is a hint of what the shepherd has to dovisiting those that are cut off, seeking the young ones, healing the broken, bearing that which standeth still (see also Jer 1:6; Eze 34:1-31.; Joh 10:1-42.).

II. THE FACT THAT SUCH PASTORS WILL ASSUREDLY BE PROVIDED. Great is the requirement, and there has often been a grievous disappointment in getting it met, but assuredly it can be met. The rulers in Israel had not all been as Ahab. That same Moses, who was so anxious concerning his successor, had been himself taken from faithful oversight of another man’s sheep in order to deliver Israel from Pharaoh’s clutch, and lead him towards the green pastures and still waters of the promised land (Exo 3:1-22.). David, who had followed the ewes great with young, no doubt gently leading them when needful, gathering the lambs in his arm and carrying them in his bosom, who also had smitten the lion and the bear, was now taken to feed Jacob the people of God, and Israel his inheritance (Psa 78:71; Isa 40:11). Not only had he been faithful as a shepherd, but he had also grown ever more conscious of the sheep-nature in himself, and the sheep like requirements of his own life, and so, looking away from his flock upwards, he beautifully says, “Jehovah is my Shepherd.” He had lions following his own soul (Psa 7:2; Psa 10:9; Psa 17:12; Psa 22:13). Those are fitted to be shepherds after God’s own heart who, feeling their own needs, make Jehovah their Shepherd. It is important to remember how David is declared as the man after God’s own heart (1Sa 13:14; Act 7:46; Act 13:22). So God is here speaking through Jeremiah, with that confidence which comes from actual experience of the true and the brave among his own chosen. Then there is the great work of Jesus to be considered. It is very significant that in Jer 23:1-40; after a reference to the unfaithful shepherds, there is a promise of faithful ones, their work being set forth more explicitly even than here; and then God goes on to speak of the righteous Branch which shall be raised to David, the King who shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and justice in the earth: he is the Governor who shall feed the Lord’s people Israel (Mat 2:6); he is the Great Shepherd of the sheep brought again from the dead (Heb 13:20); he who is also the Lamb in the midst of the throne, shall meet those who are gathered out of the great tribulation, and feed them, and lead them “unto living fountains of waters” (Rev 7:17); and thus being himself the Great Shepherd, he is competent to convey to all under-shepherds the resources whereby in all wisdom they may feed the hungry with knowledge and understanding. If Jesus makes us truly righteous, then with the lips of the righteous we shall be able to feed many. The duties of a pastor after God’s own heart will appear in all their magnitude to one who is considering the pastoral work of Jesus himself. Such a one will take heed to himself, and to all the flock ever which the Holy Ghost hath made him overseer, feeding the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, He will have his eye on the grievous wolves that enter in, not sparing the flock. He will carry out the spirit of the commandment which God gave to Moses at Sinai: “Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before the mount” (Exo 34:3); by doing his best to keep all within his charge from thoughtless trifling with holy things. It is a great matter to be put in a position of spiritual pastoral responsibility; and all in such positions may joyfully remember that God will give them all needed strength. It is a sad thought for the careless pastor that it should so often be needful for the strangers to stand and feed the flocks he should feedmen that to a certain extent may be reckoned unauthorized. And yet what can be done? Flocks must not die of hunger; and as the real physician is he who cures the disease, whatever his professional standing may be, so the real shepherd is he who feeds the flock, and the brand of interloper is affixed to him in vain. And so God would invite all his people to do what they can to be true shepherds. In one sense the shepherds are as many as the sheep. It is better to be ministering to the deep, undying wants of men, than just to their passing pleasures. He who strives to make himself acceptable to men by an incessant watching of their whims and prejudices is very much like the prodigal who found nothing better to do than feed the swine. It is God’s will that we should feed sheep.Y.

Jer 3:16

The superseding of the ark.

Along with the denunciations and painful descriptions which Jehovah has put into the mouth of the prophet, there now begins to be mingled a gracious, evangelical element. God’s severest condemnations are meant to pave the way for return, repentance, reconciliation, and a reception of still more abundant gifts than before. Far and wide Israel has been scattered, but scattered only to be brought together again. Though there be but one in a city and two in a nation, God will find out the isolated ones and draw them back to him. Then, with pastors after God’s own heart, what can there be but increase and multiplication of the flock of God? And then comes what is evidently meant to be considered as a great blessing, though at first it seems to point to another sad apostasy, and to forgetfulness of one of the holiest and most precious treasures of the past. The ark of the covenant, with the tables of the Law deposited within, was the very center of religious associations to the nation. But now it is to be no more spoken of. God, indeed, trusts that the memory of it was to pass away. Reading such a verse as this, how one is made to feel the importance of time as an element necessary to the proper understanding of things! Such words as these spoken by Israel at an earlier date would have been a very bad sign, but spoken at the time when all was ripe for them, they become just as much a sign for good. The ark of the covenantthe literal ark with the literal tables of stonecould not be a permanent institution. For centuries it had been holyholy not in word only, but also in deed. Consider how God honored it, when for a time it was lodged in Philistia; consider the calamities that came upon the men of Bethshemesh and upon Uzziah, for their thoughtless handling of the ark. Much thus happened to make the Israelite very careful how he dealt with it. David and Solomon in particular were very solicitous to honor the ark to the utmost of their power. This is seen not only in the bringing of the ark up into the city of David, and the putting of it into the temple by Solomon, but perhaps even more in the conduct of Solomon to Abiathar, when Abiathar was implicated in the offence of Adonijah. Solomon spared the man he would otherwise have slain, because he had borne the ark of the Lord God before David (1Ki 2:26). But there can be no doubt that as generation succeeded generation, the general feeling would become so mixed with superstition as to do more harm than good. The people had said, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord,” but their saying had not amounted to much. The ark had been remembered, but the writing on the stones within had been forgotten. The longer it stood as the central object of a unique ritual, the more it became a symbol of separation from other nations. That which had been given so that one set of thoughts should be associated with it, thoughts to help in making pure, reverent, and watchful, had ended in having quite another set of thoughts associated with it. And so both the object itself seems to have vanished, and at the same time its dominion to have ceased. It is surely a very remarkable thing that all through the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah there is no reference to the ark. The vessels of God’s house are mentioned, an altar was set up and offerings made, and in due time a temple built; but there is no word of the ark. Its work was done, and we are not so much as told what became of it. We know that the brazen serpent was declared Nehushtan, but the withdrawal of the ark God manages in complete silence. So true it is that

“God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”

Y.

Jer 3:17

The gathering of the nations to Jehovah’s throne.

I. THE NEW CHARACTER IN WHICH JERUSALEM APPEARS. It is no longer to be considered simply as the center of Israelite affection and devotion, the city where was the palace of a human king, and the temple of Jehovah as the peculiar deity of Israel. It is no longer to be the place of a peculiar worship. Its character henceforth is to be far more glorious, one in which Israel shall lose nothing, yea, rather gain, in remembering what it has been able to contribute in attaining such an end. Jerusalem, that had been associated with all sorts of idolatrous abominations, is first of all to be desolated and humbled, whatever human pride and glory there was in it extinguished; and then the true glory will come. The city shall be Jehovah’s throne, the throne of him who is God above all gods and King above all kings. And when men would recognize the authority of a king, his throne is the place they must come to. Hence to Jehovah, seated on his throne, all the nations are to be gathered; forsaking national idols and national ideals, all that is local and narrow and self-originated will vanish. The ark of the covenant passes away, and the tables of stone become unnecessary, for from his throne Jehovah will take means whereby he may write on the fleshy tables of every human heart the two great principles, “Love God and love thy fellow-man.”

II. How THE GATHERING IS TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT. How clear it is that, the Ark of the Covenant passing away, mere local, terrestrial Jerusalem must also cease to have any peculiar value! The taking away of the Ark of the Covenant is really the taking away of all in the way of dependence that is merely visible and material. It is plain that the gathering together to Jerusalem cannot mean an actual travelling there from all parts of the earth’s surface. Not that the mere local Jerusalem can become as a common spot of earth. After these northern desolators, of whom Jeremiah so often spoke, had done with it, it was rebuilt, and in due time became the scene of great spiritual redeeming acts profoundly affecting every child of man. The thought of the local scenes where-Christ-died, rose again, and ascended into glory, may well help every sinner in his believing approaches to his Savior. Those who gather at Jerusalem gather there by virtue of the power which there is in every believing heart. Innumerable pilgrims, on piety intent, have gone on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, doing laborious penances by the way, only to discover in the end that they have been walking after the imaginations of their evil hearts. There may be great value in a journey to the Holy Land, if only those who go there have first of all had their minds opened to apprehend the work which he who died at Jerusalem did for them; otherwise their travels, whatever the human joy and interest of them, may only add to their subsequent condemnation. To go to Jerusalem spiritually is the great thing. The Jerusalem of our journey is situated in the pages of the New Testament rather than in Palestine. It is as we read the Gospels that we feel how Jerusalem is indeed the throne of Jehovah in this sense, that there, through his Son Jesus, he manifested righteousness, power, and love, all the glorious attributes of his eternal reign. The transactions at Jerusalem are incomparable. No transactions in any one nation, however much they may affect the career of that nation, can rival the transactions at Jerusalem. The Englishman as an Englishman may feel his deep concern in Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. The American as an American thinks of Philadelphia and the Declaration of Independence. The Negro as a Negro remembers Lincoln and the proclamation, which gave freedom to the slaves. But underneath the natural, the peculiar, the merely terrestrial, there is another man, the man who has to think of sin within him, and death and eternity before him. Such a man, if he thinks rightly, will feel that it is towards Jerusalem that his most earnest considerations should gather. All who truly ponder the great questions of life must gather there, and thence in faith their thoughts will ascend to the true, the heavenly, the everlasting Jerusalem.Y.

Jer 3:21

A sincere repentance in an appropriate place.

How came this voice to be heard on the high placesthis weeping and this supplication? The answer seems to lie in Jer 3:20, where there is interposed a suggestion that Israel, because of its past defections, would fail to prove capable and worthy of that glorious future which has been just depicted. How then can Israel reply except by an abundant outflow of the signs of penitence? There is weeping; there is deprecation of any such withdrawal of Jehovah’s contemplated goodness; there is a most emphatic declaration that they had indeed been utterly perverse and had forgotten Jehovah. The submission to him, the acknowledgment of him, shall now be complete. The words put into the lips of the repentant people (Jer 3:22-25) are not extorted and grudging words, with a counter-resolution underneath to back out if any chance should offer. The eyes of the apostates have been opened; Israel has come to itself. What has been sought in vain on hills and mountains in the cruel service of heathen deities is to be got in full and abiding power from God. Observe now how

I. THESE HIGH PLACES WERE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THESE TEARFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND THESE ENTREATING APPROACHES TO GOD.

1. The thing done had been great public wrong. Where men have sinned is the place for them to confess their sin. Now, this was not a sin in some secret place; it was not a sin confined to the thoughts of the heart, and known only to God; it was not some private, domestic wrongdoing. The whole nation shared in the sin of the high places. Even if some were not actually idolatrous, yet by their silence and inaction they condoned the idolatry. All surrounding nations must be cognizant of it. Sins in public cannot be got rid of without an equally public repentance and suffering. Who can tell what audacious and mocking words the heathen around may have spoken concerning Jehovah? – “Why, this Jehovah, whose temple and service are in Jerusalem, and who has no image, has really no power over the people! He has a name to live, but surely he is dead!” Elijah mocked the priests of Baal, and he had cause, for, unhappy men that they were, they had believed in a lie. But priests of Baal might also many times have mocked the people of Israel, for in one sense they had the truth, but they did not believe in it. Of course, in the end, such people were bound to make a very public acknowledgment of their folly and unbelief.

2. By this weeping, etc; on the high places, there was a particularly impressive condemnation of idolatry. He who forsakes a course of action necessarily condemns that action, and reproaches all who still continue in it, reproaches them none the less because reproach may not be at all intended. Such a return to Jehovah as is indicated in the concluding verses of this chapter is also, by the very act, a downright blow against idolatry. Let men who will persist in wrong courses know that they must be prepared for painful experiences when their companions, every now and then, desert them. There will always be some one discovering that the course is wrong, and going over to the other side. Take a very important instance of such exposure as we find it in the New Testament. Pharisaism and Jewish pride are there condemned from two great sources of judgment. One of these we find in Jesus, who spoke, we know how severely, against the Pharisees and their doings. From his words we feel how bad their spirit must have been and their inner life. But perhaps it is not too much to say that Saul’s condemnation of them is still more striking; shown not in words so much, but oh, how clearly in deed! when he came out from them, showing he was no more of them.

3. There is thus a Feat warning to all who are acting doubtfully in the blaze of public life. If such have occasion to turn, they must turn in public. Any one who stands well out before his fellows had need take care what he says and does, for he knows not what may be the force of circumstances, what revolutions there may be in his convictions. How much nations have had to suffer-perhaps will have to suffer to the end of timejust because they are not careful of the beginnings of evil in their midst! Look at what it cost America to get rid of Negro slavery when once it had grown into a far-spreading and lucrative custom.Y.

HOMILIES BY S. CONWAY

Jer 3:1-5

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 adulterycrimes 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 (Jer 3:1). They had become lost to all sense of shame in regard to it (Jer 3:2, Jer 3:3). They had not waited to be tempted and persuaded, but had gone after their sin, greedily, seeking it rather than it them (Jer 3:2). They had persisted until the land was polluted by their sin (Jer 3:3). 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 (Jer 3:3). And they had gone on to this degree of criminality that they dared to mock God with mere lip service (Jer 3:4, Jer 3:5). “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. (Jer 3:1; 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. Jer 3:1, “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 (Jer 3:12) 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 Churchis 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 (cf. Rom 8:1).C.

Jer 3:6-10

An old and sad but very true story.

I. GOD LOOKING FOR FRUIT BUT NONE FORTHCOMING.

1. The fruit God looked for was Judah’s repentance (cf. the history of the times to which Jeremiah refers). Idolatry was rampant in the northern kingdom. The southern also had been very far from free from it. But at this time God looked for a true repentance on Judah’s part.

2. And such fruit was reasonably expected. There was the personal example and influence of King Josiah and the band of faithful men who were endeavoring to promote a true religious reformation. They had seen the degradation which followed Israel’s sin (Jer 3:9); how Israel had fallen so low as to worship stocks and stones, the “most scoundrel idols,” as Matthew Henry calls them. They had heard the gracious appeal of God to Israel (verse 7). They had seen the judgments of God which had followed when his grace was rejected. How severe and terrible these had been! God “had put Israel away” (verse 8). For nearly a century Israel had been in dread captivity by reason of their sins. And the sin which had brought down their judgments was the sin which Judah herself was guilty of. And the judgment had not happened to an alien nation or in a remote land. No, but to Judah’s own sister, to members of the same family, of one blood and lineage; and close to her Own door, hence under her own eye. What more arousing and alarming call to the unconverted could there have been than all this? And to lend further force to this call, there was in Judah the presence of the temple, the possession of all manner of religious privilege. How reasonable, then, was the expectation that Judah should turn away from her idolatry and unfeignedly repent! But the like of all such reasons for the expectation of a true turning to God exists in the case of many today. Every influence and argument for such turning to God as bore upon Judah then, bears upon many still.

3. But that which God desired was not forthcoming. It is the burden of the prophet’s complaint that what Israel had done, and worse, was chargeable against Judah. And as now, all too often, those from whom real religion may reasonably be expected are found not only as evil, but outstripping others in ungodly ways. This is part of the story told us by these verses.

II. Another is that of MEN SEEKING TO PALM OFF ON GOD FICTITIOUS FRUIT INSTEAD OF GENUINE. (Verse 10.) Cf. the history of the reformation in Josiah’s dayhow justly it is described in this verse! It was sudden, partial, external, short-lived. And such feigned reformations are common enough still. Cf. Luk 11:21-26; and sermon No. 613 by Spurgeon: “And as the devil looks round and finds the place swept, he finds it garnished too. The man has bought some pictures: he has not real faith, but he has a fine picture of it over the fireplace. He has no love to the cross of Christ, but he has a very handsome crucifix hanging on the wall. He has no graces of the Spirit, but he has a fine vase of flowers on the table of other peoples’ experiences and other peoples’ graces, and they smell tolerably sweet. There is a fireplace without fire, but there is one of the handsomest ornaments for the fireplace that was ever bought for money. It is swept and garnished. Oh, the garnished people I have met with! garnished sometimes with almsgiving, at other times with long-winded prayers; garnished with the profession of zeal and the pretence of reverence. You will find a zealous Protestantoh, so zealous!who would go into fits at the sign of a cross, and yet will be guilty of nameless vice. You find persons shocked because another boiled a teakettle on a Sunday, or insured his life, or assisted at a bazaar, who will cheat and draw the eye-teeth out of an orphan child if they could get sixpence by it. They are swept and garnished. Walk in, ladies and gentlemen!Did you ever see a house so delightfully furnished as this? How elegant! how tasteful! Just so: but men may be damned tastefully, and go to hell respectably, just as well as they can in a vulgar and debauched fashion.” Wherefore do men thus act? Because conscience has been aroused by God’s dealings with them, and it will not let them rest without doing something. The question now comes, how little can they do which will be sufficient to still the inconvenient and uncomfortable clamor of conscience? And such turning to God “feignedly,” such reformations as that of Judah under King Josiah, such sweeping and garnishing of the house empty of any true love to God, is the device they resolve upon. Then next, in this sad story, we see

III. GREATER CONDEMNATION THAN EVER COMING UPON MEN IN CONSEQUENCE.

1. They are branded with a worse name than others (cf. “treacherous Judah,” Luk 11:7, Luk 11:10). Under pretence of being faithful to God, guardians of the temple, the priesthood, the Law, making loud profession, they were idolatrous even as Israel. Hence the name of infamy, “treacherous.” And Christ’s most terrible words were for the “hypocrites” of his day.

2. A place less tolerable in the Day of Judgment will be assigned them, than that of those who sinned in like manner but without any suck religious profession (Luk 11:11). Oh, then, what need for the prayer

Search me, O God, and try my heart,

For thou that heart canst see;

And turn each cursed idol out

That dares to rival thee.”

C.

Jer 3:11

The comparative advantages of Judah and Israel; professors and non-professors.

I. LET JUDAH AND ISRAEL BE TAKEN AS REPRESENTING RESPECTIVELY PROFESSORS OF RELIGION AND THOSE WHO MAKE NO SUCH PROFESSION. Judah did make such profession, but Israel stood aloof, neither worshipping at the temple nor joining in the appointed feasts.

II. OBSERVE THAT ISRAEL IS SAID TO HAVE “JUSTIFIED HERSELF MORE,” ETC. (Jer 3:11.)

1. This was true, for a sterner sentence went out against Judah than against Israel.

(1) A more infamous name is given to her than to Israel; she is called “Treacherous.”

(2) And her punishment was more severe. Israel had long been prepared to mingle more or less readily with other nations. An assimilating process had been going on for many generations, religiously, socially, and politically. Hence they were looked upon much as the Pharisees of our Lord’s day looked upon the publicans and sinners whom he so graciously welcomed. And we find that, as a fact, they soon became merged into the nations whither they had been carried away captive. They had no such memories, no such antipathies as the people of Judah, and hence their exile must have been more tolerable. The piteous psalms, which bewail the hard lot of the captive, came not from them, but from the exiles of Judah. It was they who “by the rivers of Babylon sat down and wept as they remembered Zion.” The iron entered into their soul as it could hardly have done in the case of Israel. And the like facts(1) and (2)are seen in the case of unworthy professors of religion. See our Lord’s holy hate, hear his scathing words of scorn and doom, in regard to the hypocrites of his day. And the world, too, looks on them with a contempt it keeps for none other. And they suffer as none other can. If the grace of God be still in them, who can describe the remorse, the self-abasement, the shame, with which they view the punishment that has come upon them?

2. And the reasons wherefore it was less tolerable for Judah than for Israel were:

(1) Judah’s privileges were so much greater.

(2) Her warnings had been more numerous, more plain, more arousing, more prolonged (cf. the history and previous verses).

(3) Her inducements to loyal obedience were stronger. Hence her sin brought the greater doom, “And the Lord said,” etc. (Jer 3:11). And these are the reasonsgreater privileges, louder warnings, more powerful inducements to obediencewhich, when they are all disregarded and set at naught, compel, yea, create a scourge for the fallen Church, such as they who have never made any such profession can never feel. Therefore

III. INQUIRE WHAT IS THE JUST CONCLUSION THAT SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT NOW OBSERVED.

1. Is it this: that it is better to be Israel than Judah; to stand aloof from all profession of religion than to make such profession?

(1) No; for it was better to be Judah than Israel. There were possibilities, and these generally realized, of greater blessedness in Judah than could be attained in Israel. Compare the histories of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and see if the brightest and most numerous examples of sanctity, as well as the greatest displays of God’s favor, to say naught of the joy of his appointed worship, were not in Judah rather than in Israel. And so in like manner we affirm that it is better to be the avowed disciple of Christ, notwithstanding the possibility of a more terrible fall, than to be numbered with the crowd of those who neither possess nor profess any regard for God. For larger blessing, in the form of increased moral resemblance to God, of joy in God, and of greater security from the power of sin,these certainly belong to those who are as Judah rather than to those who are as Israel. All God’s favor is open to them as it is not to those in whom God’s fear does not dwell.

(2) And again, No; for we do not reason in such manner in regard to other thing. True, “He that is down need fear no fall;” but we do not, on the strength of that dismal proverb, begin immediately to prefer the lot of the fallen one to that of him who, by God’s providence, is set on high and stands Upright. The rich man does not hasten to make himself poor that he may be free from the fear of becoming so. Nor does the man who is blessed with vigorous health desire the condition of the invalid because in that condition there can be no fear of loss of health. Then why should the far less blessed lot of Israel, and of those outside the professed Church of God whom Israel represents, be preferred to the better and brighter lot of Judah and of God’s Church, though a fall terrible and sad is possible here which could not be there?

(3) And it would be right still to prefer the lot of Judah, even if Israel had been simply let alone by God. If God had sent no punishment to Israel, it would have been better to be Judah, with the possession of God’s favor, although the possession involved the possibility of its loss, than to have been without that favor at all. But when we see that the judgment of God came upon Israel as well as upon Judah, then much more, notwithstanding the sad fact declared in this Jer 3:11, was it better to have been Judah than Israel. And so, were there no judgment on the world, and God’s anger came only on a fallen Church, better even then to be of the Church than of the world. But when we know that there is a judgment of the world as well as of the Church, that sin has no immunity anywhere, then, though sin in the Church be worse than sin in the world, still let me be there where the favor, the joy, and the grace of God are, and not where they can never come.

2. But the true lesson of what we have been considering is, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Judah, and the Church of God whom Judah represents, need to remember that, notwithstanding their high position of privilege, corruption and sin may lay hold upon them, and should that happen, their sin and their doom will be the most terrible of all (cf. Epistle to Church at Laodicea). Therefore hearken to our Lord’s words, “Watch and pray.”C.

Jer 3:12-19

Confession of sin the indispensable prerequisite for its pardon.

That this is so is shown by the evident fact that if it could have been dispensed with it would have been. For the desire of God to pardon his guilty people is, as this section shows, intense. He will not cease to seek after them even when the punishment of their sin has actually come upon them. Hence (Jer 3:12) he addresses them in the lands of their exile, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Media (2Ki 17:6), and three times (Jer 3:12, Jer 3:14, Jer 3:22) implores them to “return.” He “fills his mouth with arguments,” and endeavors by every kind of assurance and promise to induce them to return. Jer 3:12 : they shall be completely forgiven. Jer 3:14 : they ought to return, for they are his by right, as the wife is the rightful possession of the husband. Jer 3:14 : they are the object of his constant regard, so that they cannot be concealed from his eye or hindered from his help. No, though in a whole city, or tribe, or nation, there should be but “two” or even “one,” still his hand would reach them there, and bring them out and restore them to Zion. Jer 3:15 : and those who in days gone by had so happy rule they should greatly multiply in the land. And, better still, they should so realize and rejoice in the spiritual presence of God that they should no longer need the aid of the ancient symbols of that presence, such as the ark of the covenant of the old dispensation. Jer 3:17 and Jerusalem should be so filled with the Lord’s presence that they should call the city “the throne of the Lord.” And the “nations” should be converted, and their wickedness be forsaken. Jer 3:18 : and Judah and Israel should be one, and in unity and affection possess the land. Such were the glorious hopes with which God sought to win back his people’s hearts to himself, and they conclusively show how intensely the heart of God was set upon his people’s return. But eagerly desirous as God was for this restoration of his lost children to his heart and home again, he is evidently held back from indulging such affectionate promptings by considerations that could not be overlooked. What they were, the demand that he makes for confession of sin plainly shows. They are

I. The Law of righteousness. Sin is the violation of that Law, and until due atonement and acknowledgment have been made, sin ought not to be forgiven. I may, in accordance with cur Savior’s commands, refrain from inflicting punishment on one who has wronged me, even though he have not repented of his wrong; and that refraining from inflicting punishment, or from demanding what is my right, is forgiveness in the sense our Lord meant; but he did not mean, for it would be a command impossible to obeythat I should receive such a one into the same confidence and love which I bear towards a dear friend who has never deserved anything else. Therefore my forgiveness of such an unrepentant offender, though granted in accordance with our Lord’s command, and well-pleasing in his sight, and the best I am capable of, is nevertheless not complete, not perfect; for perfect forgiveness, that which God would bestow upon sinful men, means far more than the remission of penalty: it means restoration to the love, the fellowship, and the confidence of God. But this cannot be apart from due atonement made on the part of the wrongdoer. The Law of righteousness, the Law written upon our hearts as well as inherent in the nature of things, forbids such forgiveness apart from the essential condition of such forgiveness.

II. And the well being of his household is that other consideration which restrains the prompting of affection to forgive sin unconditionally and from mere pity. Man is not the whole of God’s household. He may be only the one sheep who has gone astray. The rest, the ninety and nine blessed ones who need no repentance. But to pardon sin without atonement would be to confound all moral distinctions, to discourage the good, and to teach the wrong-doer to regard his wrong as a very slight matter; it would be to carry the discords of earth into the presence of God, and to reproduce there the sins and sorrows of this world. Therefore let the love of God towards sinful man be inconceivably great, and it is so, still it is held back in its exercise by these considerations now named. But where sin is confessed as God demands it should be, then, as is promised here and in many other Scriptures beside, God’s pardoning love can go forth and the sinner be restored to the favor, which he had lost. And the reason of this is not because the sinner’s poor and inadequate confession of his sin is a sufficient atonement for the wrong he has done, but because, when he sincerely makes that confession, he is invested with the acceptableness of Christ.

For Christ has made that atonement perfectly which man can only offer in the most imperfect way; “man’s repentance needing too often, to be repented of, and his very tears to be washed in the blood of Christ. But Christ looked upon sin as God looks upon it, hated it as God hates it, consented to God’s judgment concerning it by bearing the penalty of it; “he bore our sins in his own body on the tree,” and so made that true, that perfect confession and atonement which we can never make. And he did this in our nature, and as our Representative. So now, when we come in his Name, sincerely repenting of sin, though that repentance be inadequate in itself, yet because it is “the mind of Christ,” and looks upon sin sorrowing over it as he did, our imperfect atonement is accepted in his perfect one, we have the fellowship of his sufferings, his atonement is in our measure reproduced in us, and we are made conformable to his death. Pardon thus bestowed neither violates the Law of righteousness nor is inconsistent with the well being of the whole family of God. Hence it is that, as in Jer 3:13, the demand is made for confession of sin, and then of their iniquity in all its aggravated forms. Without such confession pardon cannot be bestowed. Not till the prodigal “came to himself,” went to his father and said, “I have sinned,” was he forgiven, notwithstanding all the yearning of the father’s heart after his lost child. Now, to bring men to this looking upon their sin as God looks upon it, as the Lord Jesus looks upon it, is the object of God’s disciplines, of the pain and smart which so often accompany sin, and of so much of the teaching of the Bible and of God’s providential government. And those who have trusted in Christ are continually to be “looking unto Jesus,” for in that trustful look is the sure guarantee of the preservation of the “mind of Christ” in them in regard to sin, and so of their forever abiding in the favor and love of God. This mind of holy hatred and sorrow on account of sin it is the especial work of God’s Holy Spirit to produce in men; that Spirit who is given to them that ask his aid, more readily than even parents give to their children what those children they so much love need and ask for.C.

Jer 3:14

Married to God.

“Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you.”

I. THIS SEEMS AN INCREDIBLE STATEMENT. Had it been spoken of angels, or of unfallen man, or of eminent saints, it would have been more easy of belief. But it is of men desperately wicked, and to such, that God says, “I am married unto you.” What infinite condescension and love!

II. BUT NEVERTHELESS IT IS TRUE. For:

1. We have the marriage lines, the record of the transaction, the very words of the covenant deed (cf. Psa 89:3, Psa 89:28; Heb 8:1-13.; Jer 32:38-40). In all these God declares that he has taken us to be his forever: “They shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

2. Our children are his. He bids them all call him by the blessed name of Father.

3. He repeatedly declares that we were the objects of his choice. Cf. Eph 1:1-23; “He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” And this because we “were partakers of flesh and blood, he himself also took part in the same;” “God so loved the world;” “He came to seek and to save that which was lost” (cf. also Eph 5:25-27).

4. He has given us the sign and token of our being his in the sacrament of our baptism. That which the wedding ring is to the wife, baptism is to us: it declares the blessed fact that we are God’s, and separates us for his Name, the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

5. He has endowed us with his goods: “All things are yours the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours” (1Co 3:22).

6. He is always with us: “In him we live and move,” etc. He is not far from any one of us: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.”

7. He is jealous of our love: “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.” What is the Bible but one long record of the disquiet of the heart of God? When the love of those to whom he is “married” is turned from him? Hence the eternal law, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me;” “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” A man has a right to claim that she whom he has married should love him. He has no such claim on any other. And so because the Lord God condescends to hold this relationship towards us, he too claims our love: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”

8. We are on the way to dwell with him in his eternal home. We are not there yet, but we are on the way. “We are coming up from the wilderness,” and if we faithfully recognize our relationship to God, we shall be “leaning upon our beloved” (Son 8:5).

9. He has done for us, and does for us still, what only such a near and dear relationship can account for. Even the compassionate friend will not feel himself bound, though he will minister relief, to go and share the very same lot as that of those whom he compassionates. And the father of the prodigal did not make himself poor as that prodigal was. He lifted him up, but he did not himself stoop down. To; that which the Lord God has done is more than the love of friend, brother, father; it is the love of the husband alone. For the husband, if he be worthy of the name, will sly. are the lot of the wife. And if she must suffer hardship, he will share it with her. If she dwell in mean abode, he will not be happy to dwell elsewhere. But does not all this describe what the Lord God hath done? “He, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor.” The word “married” is not a mere metaphor, it is the alone explanation of the Incarnation and of the Atonement. The general benevolence of God, not even the fatherhood of God, will adequately tell wherefore he so humbled himself and lived here “as a poor meek man upon earth,” and then died for us; but the husbandhood of God, the fact that he declares when he says, “I am married unto you,” will account for it and explain all. We have to live here in this wilderness world, to be tried, tempted, troubled, and at length to die, and we have also to resist even unto blood, striving against sin; and therefore he himself- also took part in the same. Then if this statement of the text be true

III. VAST CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW.

1. Forgetfulness or disregard of this relationship in which we stand to God must be utter misery. Perhaps hell is never so nearly brought up and made known in all its hideous wretchedness here on earth as by means of a marriage in which one side has lost all love for the other. Oh, the drag of the marriage bond then! What an iron chain; what a fetter it is! How it frets! How it galls! How simply horrible it has become! Penal servitude for life is but a mild description of it. From ever knowing it by experience, may God deliver us all! But such things, alas, are, and between men and women who have vowed to love and cherish each other “until death do them part.” But we do not recognize so readily that well-nigh all the sorrow of this life of ours is because we have forgotten or disregarded our relationship to God. That marriage also is a bond which can never be severed. And if we have no love to God, no delight in him, no trust or confidence, oh, how that bond will gall, will irritate, will fret, and so become the very “strength of sin!” The unrest, the distress, the wild attempts to win happiness in lawless ways, the sting of conscience, the inward remorse, are all accounted for by the consciousness that men have of their obligation to God whilst that obligation is being grievously disregarded. On the other hand:

2. Due response rendered to the love of God towards us must be our deep, our indestructible, our ever-advancing joy. See the proofs of this in the return of the prodigal: “They began to be merry.” Listen to David: “O God, thou art my God,” etc. “I will go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy.” Behold the martyrs. Rather than be severed from God by denial of him, let what shame, agony, loss, death, that might come upon them. Ask those who know what the love of God is, if it be not as we say. That pure joy which a true wife has in the husband she loves and reveres, that is the type of the joy in God which we may have and should have, and to which even the worst of us, the miserable backsliders, are by God himself entreated to return. How happy in his protection! How certain that he will be prompt to help in all peril and emergency! How free the outpouring of the heart in loving confidence! How sure of his love always!no doubt ever clouding that certainty. And how sure, too, of his sympathy, his wise counsel, his constant support! And to all this God invites us, yea, he by this word of his bids us claim it as our righta right he will at once recognize. It is wonderful; the condescension and the love of it are so marvelous that we are slow to comprehend, slower still to believe it, and slowest of all to realize and rejoice in it. But yet it is most assuredly true. Therefore, Lord, increase our faith; we believe, but help thou our unbelief.C.

Jer 3:19

The great difficulty overcome.

“How shall I,” etc.? A different rendering has been proposed for this verse, but inasmuch as the general meaning and spirit of the prophecy are maintained in our common translation, we prefer to abide thereby. So read, the verse brings before us

I. GOD‘S GRACIOUS PURPOSE OF LOVE TOWARDS SINFUL MEN. He would put them, among the children,” etc. Think what this involves. Picture to ourselves the lot of the children in the homo of an affluent, affectionate, wise, and godly father. What condition fairer, more enviable, can be conceived? What freedom from all care! What unrestrained, confiding, loving intercourse between the children and their father! What healthful development and direction of character and disposition! How sheltered; how secure; how happy in the abiding consciousness of their father’s love! How full of all good their position cannot but be! But the brightest, fairest lot that ever fell to any children in an earthly home fails fully to set forth what it must be to be set amongst God’s children, and to be numbered amongst his sons and daughters. Blessed indeed are such; how blessed none but they who are thus “set among the children” can fully know. But such was the gracious purpose of God towards man, nothing less than this. He created us for this very purpose, with this very intent. And it is the reason and motive of the creation of every newly born child. For this every human soul is endowed with faculties which can find their complete exercise and enjoyment only amongst God’s children: “God hath made us for himself, and our hearts have no rest until they find rest in him.” But the verse, by its very form, indicates

II. THE TERRIBLE THWARTING AND HINDERING OF THAT GRACIOUS PURPOSE WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE. “How shall I put thee,” etc.? plainly denoting that there is some giant obstacle in the way. In the case of Israel the previous portions of this prophecy show clearly what this was. But it is equally true of us all. And this dread hindrance to God’s carrying out his purposes of grace towards us consists not so much in what we have done as in what we are. The heart of man is not right in the sight of God, and whilst that is so, God cannot set us amongst his children. Transgressions and offences are but the symptoms of the deadlier evil that lurks within, not the evil itself. That consists in the state of heart Godwards which, alas! characterizes us all, until the new heart and the right spirit be given. What should we say if towards ourselves as parents our children were to order themselves as we do towards God?rarely thinking of us, placing no confidence in us; though we would delight to have them speak to us, yet maintaining a sullen silence always; in their hearts disliking us and resenting the expression of our will; disobeying us on the slightest pretext, and choosing for their friends those they well know to be our foes. If any parent was so unhappy as to have such a son or daughter, how could he set such a one amongst his other children who love him as children should? And that this is the case between the unrenewed man and God, let conscience and men’s works, words, and ways witness. This being so, how can we “marvel” that our Lord hath said, “Ye must be born again?” But we are shown also

III. THIS DIFFICULTY, VAST AS IT IS, TRIUMPHANTLY OVERCOME. In the latter part of the verse and in the confessions of the twenty-second and following verses it is clear that a great change has taken place. The rebel heart has gone, the child’s heart has come in its place. The erewhile sinful godless soul is heard calling upon God as “My Father,” and in daily conduct is found not turning away from him. What a change! No wonder that the Scripture emblems of it are all drawn from contrasts the most vivid and intense that experience furnishes or the mind can conceive: life and death, darkness and light, crimson red and snow whiteness, leprous and pure; as one possessed of the devil, and as one calm, sober, and in his right mind;such are some of them. But the beholding of so great a change leads of necessity to the inquiry how it was brought about. Hence note

IV. THE MEANS WHEREBY THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED. These were as they ever are, the manifestation of the love of God. In Christ God came to seek and to save his self-lost children. But they, instead of welcoming the Christ of God, crucified and slew him. That rebel alienated heart which is common to us all wrought this awful crime. But it is when by the Holy Spirit men are led to see what they have clone to him who so loved them as to come from heaven to save them, there is produced that conviction of sin, that deep and genuine repentance, that sense of his infinite love, and that consequent entire trust in him,all which are the very elements of that heart of a dear child which calls God “My Father,” and which will not turn away from him. I have read of one who was forever reclaimed from the deadly sin of drunkenness by the deep anguish of heart which he experienced when he found that one day, when brutalized by drink, he had smitten to the ground his own dear child, and wounded her with a wound the scar of which she would never lose; and that he had done this whilst she was lovingly seeking to lead him away from the place and the people who were tempting him to his ruin. When he came to himself and knew what he had done, his horror and remorse had no bounds. “The drink! ay, it was all the drink!” he exclaimed when, years after, telling the story. “Could I ever touch it again? I kept my finger lightly on the little maid’s forehead, and lifted my face to heaven, and vowed that I would never touch the murderous thing again as long as I lived, and with a broken heart I prayed the Lord to help me.” That well-known story serves to illustrate how, in this great matter of man’s restoration to God, he who once was a godless rebel becomes filled with another heart, and God can, as he desires to, place him amongst the children. For when I clearly see the wounds which I in my mad sin have inflicted on him who sought to save me, and who tenderly loves me still notwithstanding all I have done, the sight of his cross and of those wounds will fill my soul with such a hatred of sin and love of God that I am no longer what I was; I am born again, I have passed from death unto life. Yes, it is the sight of the love of God in Christ which turns the sinner into the child of God, and wins for him a place amongst the children of God. With what fervor, then, may we pray the blessed Spirit to fulfill his work in and for us and for all men!C.

Jer 3:20

Jer 4:2

God’s way of restoration; or, the experiences of a young convert.

In Jer 4:19 we have given us the expression of the Divine perplexity in regard to lost Israel: “How shall I place thee among the children,” etc.? But ere the verse closes we behold the problem solved, the seeming impossibility accomplished, for the lost is found, and he that was dead is alive again. The rebel Israel has become the loving obedient child. And now in these verses (20- Jer 4:2) we seem to have a telling of the experience of the restored one, a setting forth of how God had dealt with him. It is given in the form of a dialogue between God and Israel, and is an accurate description of the Divine process of restoration.

I. THERE IS THE BRINGING HOME OF SIN TO THE CONSCIENCE. (Jer 4:20.) God charges upon lost Israel great and grievous sin. He likens the wrong he has suffered at the hands of Israel to the most grievous wrong it is possible for a man to suffer, and which of all others a man resents the most. The accusation is terrible. Thus sharply and sternly does God deal with the soul he would save. He does not gloss over, or palliate, or in any way make little of our sin, as we are apt to do; but he shows it to us so clearly that the sight of it is almost more than the heart can bear.

II. THIS CONVICTION OF SIN IS FOLLOWED BY A DEEP REPENTANCE. (Jer 4:21.) Israel is represented as seeing her sin, and then from the very high places which had witnessed her guilt is heard her weeping and supplication. The soul that has never known the smart and pain of the conviction of sin will never earnestly turn to the Great Physician for the healing that is needed.

III. THE PROCLAMATION OF MERCY FOLLOWS. Jer 4:22, “Return, ye apostate children, I will heal your apostasies.” Just as to the enraptured ears of the penitent who was weeping over the Savior’s feet there came the blessed sound of his pardoning word, assuring her, her sins were forgiven and that she might go in peace, so here God is represented as declaring his mercy to the weeping, supplicating Israel. And the heart the Lord hath dealt with knows that thus it is. A voice not audible, but real, is heard in the soul, assuring the contrite one of the forgiveness he needs and craves.

IV. IN SUCH A HEART PROMPT BELIEF, INSTANT ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFERED MERCY, FOLLOWS. Jer 4:22, “Behold, we come unto thee; for,” etc. As well might the steel filings refuse to be moved by the magnet that lies by them as the sin-convinced and contrite heart fail to lay hold on the promise set before it in the gospel. No sooner has God said, “Return, I will heal,” than the answer is heard, “Behold, we come.”

V. Then follows THE CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE OF FAITH. (Jer 4:23-25.) There had been confession and repentance before the soul had heard and accepted the offer of pardon; but that which follows is more full, more deep than that which went before. We repent more deeply of sin after we have known God has pardoned us than before we had that blessed knowledge. See here:

1. Their confession of the utter vanity of all their idols (Jer 4:23).

2. Their confident assurance that God alone can be their salvation (Jer 4:23).

3. Their confession of the disgrace and infatuated folly which had characterized them as a people for so long a time (Jer 4:24). They call their idolatry “shame,” and own how it has destroyed both their substance and themselves.

4. They acknowledge the complete righteousness of God’s judgment against their sin, and their own just exposure to his wrath (Jer 4:25). “Let us lie in our shame and our disgrace cover us, that we have sinned,” etc. (Lange’s translation). And thus it ever is: the more we realize God’s pardoning love, the more intense will be our perception of the baseness and utter evil of the sin that has been forgiven.

VI. This CONFESSION IS FOLLOWED BY FURTHER ASSURANCES OF GRACE. (Jer 4:1, Jer 4:2.) Return to God shall be followed by return to their own land. “If thou returnest to me, thou shalt return (unto thy land), and if thou puttest away, etc; thou shalt not remove,” i.e. into exile again. “And if thou shalt swear by Jehovah with sincere, righteous, and true heart,” i.e. “if thou wilt truly give thyself up to God, then the heathen nations outside, seeing how thy God shall bless thee and shall heap his favors upon thee, shall come and bless themselves in him, and shall glory in him,” i.e. they shall have done with their idolatries and be converted unto God. With such gracious promises would God encourage Israel in the new and better way in which they are represented as walking; with such gentleness would he make them, as he in like manner makes all who truly turn to him, great.C.

HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR

Jer 3:16

Supercession of external religious ordinances and institutions.

This is because of the necessarily temporary nature of these, and the spirituality to which they are intended to minister, and which subsequently they may hinder.

I. THE TRUE WORSHIP OF GOD IS SPIRITUAL. It is not to bow before an altar or an ark that God calls us to his temple, but to see himself face to face, to discover our need of him, and to delight in his presence. Nor is this communion to be occasional or intermittent, The whole life is to be affected by spiritual influences. A true life may thereby become worship, and “daily toil temple service.” This arises from the nature of God. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth’

II. THE MOST SACRED SYMBOLS ARE ONLY USEFUL AS THEY HELP TO THIS, AND WHEN IT IS ATTAINED ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. This may be said not only of external church furniture, rites of worship, etc; but even of words and doctrines themselves, which are but imperfect representations of the Divine glory. When the building is finished the scaffolding is removed. The final end of education is not to load the mind with dead knowledge, but to culture and strengthen it. Ceremonial and doctrinal teaching are intended to lead men into personal experience of God and communion with him. When that is attained they fall into the background.

III. THAT RITUAL WORSHIP SHALL GIVE PLACE TO SPIRITUAL IS DISTINCTLY PROMISED.

1. An incentive to the spiritual use of rites.

2. An assurance of Divine favor and love.

3. A promise of Christ and communion through him.M.

Jer 3:19

Put among the children.

A promise deeply and tenderly evangelical. Israel and Judah had forfeited this position because they had broken the covenant. But the forgiving love of God is shown in his declaring that they should be reinstated. The force of the phrase is well explained as that of “bestowing a rich paternal benediction,” or of restoring to the rights and privileges of inheritance.

I. THE SINNER HAS FORFEITED HIS POSITION IN THE FAMILY OF GOD. All through Scripture this relation is shown as depending upon mutual agreement and obligation. The covenant is the title-deed to the inheritance of God’s children. The breaking of this on the part of the sinner destroys his claim and position. In the parable of the prodigal son we have the consciousness of this on the part of the transgressor beautifully described”I am no more worthy to be called thy son.” Moral harmony between the soul of man and God is of the essence of the filial relation. A lost position; a possibility that we have destroyed by our own act. Henceforth the sinner is a spiritual orphan, or a “child of Satan.” There is no claim upon God save on condition of renewed obedience. He is subject to the wrath of God’s wounded love and outraged honor.

II. READOPTION IS THE GUARANTEE OF ALL HIGHEST BLESSINGS. It is only children of God who are heirs of God; if, then, we would enjoy the privileges and blessings of his house, we must be reinstated in that which we have lost. But this is only possible on repentance and belief. We are assured here and elsewhere that the sinner can regain this title and relation without lessening of the dignity, privilege, and affection. When once this has taken place there is no bar to the bestowal of God’s richest benediction. As his children, as those who are actuated by his love and governed by his Spirit, there is ample security that his blessings shall not be abused. A holy confidence and communion are established, and the true end of being is once more secured.

III. THIS IS AN ACT OF GOD‘S FREE GRACE. The initiative is not the sinner’s. Overtures of mercy come from him he has offended. There is nothing to compel God to do tills. He is perfectly free, and any obligation into which he enters is sealed only by his voluntary promises. There is abundant evidence, too, of a Divine satisfaction and joy in the exercise of pardoning love. It is spoken of as a long hoped for and gladsome consummation. The “Abba, Father!” of the restored one is music in the heart of God. This is the only true joythe joy of reconciliation. Who can doubt his welcome with such assurances as this? God wills not that any should perish, but that all should come to him and live.M.

Jer 3:21-25

Typical penitence.

It is difficult if not impossible to fix any historic date for the fulfillment of this prophecy. Not a few competent scholars maintain that it is yet unfulfilled. But in any case it is a picture of the future, and may be accepted as a description of the penitence that is well-pleasing in the sight of God. All through it is spiritual, and the national circumstances involved are put thoroughly into the background.

I. THE UPSPRINGING OF GODLY SORROW FOR SIN. (Jer 3:21.) It is not the expression of annoyance and pain at the consequences of sin. A deeper sentiment inspires the host of weeping supplicants. Sin itself is the grief. The cry is from men who feel they have lost their way, that there is no satisfaction in the foul and inconsequent rites of idolatry. The religion and the life that flows from it are felt to be profoundly and utterly false. Memories of past spiritual privileges and endearing ties overpower their hearts. They do not wait, but pour forth their sorrow on the very scene of transgression. Their sin is before them. God is the Being they have offended, and to him therefore do they cry, in heartfelt and unrestrainable sorrow.

II. THE DIVINE RESPONSE. (Jer 3:22.) The fatherly heart of God cannot resist the “voice heard upon the high places.” He waits not, but forthwith addressing them already as “children,” encourages their approach. Their offence is declared, but equally is the promise given, “I will heal your backslidings [apostasies].” This expresses the objective and subjective influence of Divine forgiveness. It not only removes the sin so that forthwith and henceforth it is as if it had never been, but it destroys the causes and tendencies of the evil. The source is cleansed, the disposition changed, and the way cleared for thorough reconciliation with God.

III. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DIVINE INVITATION. (Jer 3:22.) God is taken at his word. No delay takes place. As the way of return has been shown, so they hasten to avail themselves of it. His authority and relation to them are acknowledged. They obey him.

IV. THE ACCEPTED SINNER‘S CONFESSION. (Jer 3:23, Jer 3:24.) The “vanity,” waste, and ruin attendant upon idolatry are declared. God is recognized as the only Savior. Testimony like this has often proved more powerful in converting sinners than many sermons. It is due to God, and may be profitable to others.

V. THE ACCOMPANYING EMOTIONS. (Jer 3:25.) Shame predominates. But it is not accompanied by despair. There is a false shame which prevents the sinner coming to God; there is a true shame which coexists with acceptance of proffered mercy, and earnest effort to retrieve the past, We ought not too readily to forget “the wormwood and the gall.”M.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

THE SECOND DISCOURSE

(Jeremiah 3-6)

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,

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,

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 mans,
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.

2Raise 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.

3And the showers were withheld,

And there came no latter rain:
But thou hadst the brow of a harlot,
And wouldst not be ashamed.

4Hast thou not henceforth cried4 to me, my Father!

Thou, the companion of my youth!

5Will 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 Jehovahs 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 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 .

Jer 3:1. therefore: If a man dismiss his wife yet return to me, saith Jehovah. The various explanations of 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., , Jer 2:37, by Kimchi, Abarbanel, Luther, Bugenhagen, colampadius, 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 is separated from 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 , supplying , , ,; 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 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 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 manire 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? etcyet saith Jehovah, thou hast been lewd, yet return to Me. But leaving out of account that would then be superfluous, this absolute use of it is quite undemonstrable. 5. J. D. Michaelis, Ewald and Graf acknowledge that this isolated is a grammatical anomaly, and therefore declare the text to be corrupt. They assume that either before a formula like has dropped out, or that the date in Jer 3:6, after which 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 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.] 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 in an intransitive sense (comp. Lev 18:25) as in Isa 24:5; Psa 106:38 = profanari, to be desecrated. The LXX. reads v ; probably in connection with the previous translation ; 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 . So also Spohn. Both are certainly wrong. with accus. of the person is found also in Eze 16:28. Most of the ancients (with the exception of the LXX. , Ar. et revertereris?Theodor. . Victor. Presb., ); render 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 adversativealthough 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 b5).

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 , 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 Jeremiahs 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 Josiahs 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 Israels 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.didst 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 (to be grown, to be able, to set through) seems to require. But leaving out of account that and 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 anothers. 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 husbands 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 qudam 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. Per verecundiam the Masoretes always put for this the corresponding form from Deu 28:30; Isa 13:16; Zec 14:2. [A few MSS. and the Soncin. Edition also exhibit . Henderson].

[3]Jer 3:2. a plural formation like , which occurs besides only in Num 14:33, analogous to , 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 and , comp. rem. on Jer 2:20.

[5]Jer 3:5.To and suppl. . Comp. Jer 3:12; Psa 103:9.

[6]Jer 3:5.On the form (for .) 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 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.. 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 (Jer 47:7) as an Aramaism (comp. Ewald, 191, c, and Anm.) or according to the analogy of (Jer 18:23) as a 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 in the sense of I thought, and 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 is like in Jer 3:5And Faithless, her sister Judah. To take as subst. abstr. corresponding to = faithlessness, would form a fine parallelism; but we should then expect . The form with firm a ( even or 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 is unnecessary, does not indeed occur elsewhere, but does (1Sa 17:42; 2Ki 5:21; Job 42:16; Eze 18:14, Keri. 28); and (1Sa 10:14) leaving out of account the analogous forms of other verbs, ex. gr., 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 depends on the other, whether the following 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 andalso 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 Judahs 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 , the same word twice, and this Ewald regards as the correct reading.If 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 or .For all the causes. before and after it, are found here only. Elsewhere 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) expresses the multitude of the adulteries (hence Graf suitably translates alldieweilen = for all the causes). is rendered necessary to the connection of 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. is elsewhere always written plene. On account of this unusual defective manner of writing the ancient translations seem to have derived the word from ; for the Vulgate translates facilitate fornicationis su contaminavit terram; LXX. . 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 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 with Ewald, nor to strike out 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, 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. (2Sa 11:25; coll. 1Sa 8:6 : See Naegelsb.Gr., 69, Anm. 1; 100, 2.) Certainly 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, ( , 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. Herzogs 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 sculares 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 groundservile fear; (b) its effectexternal reform. (2) True repentance; (a) its groundlove to God; (b) its effecthonest 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. 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.. The plural here only, comp. Deu 24:1; Deu 24:3; Isa 50:1.

[10]Jer 3:8. is related to as (Jer 3:14; Jer 3:22) to . On the form comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 47, 1; Ewald, 188, b.

[11]Jer 3:9. here as in 1Sa 13:22; 1Sa 25:20, and elsewhere, stands for . Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 88, 7, Anm.

[12]Jer 3:9. , a frequent paratactic construction. Comp. , 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

11And Jehovah said to me, Apostasy Israel

Has justified her soul before Faithless Judah.

12Go 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

13Only 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.

14Return, 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.

15And give you pastors after my heart,

And they shall pasture you with understanding17 and judgment.18

16And 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.

17At that time Jerusalem will be called Jehovahs 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 , 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, , 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 .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., comp. Jer 2:23; Jer 2:25; Jer 2:36 () [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. , 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., (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 (1Ch 4:22). But the construction with 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 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 in the sense of although. It is also grammatically incorrect to take in the sense of the future, as some do, following the example of the LXX. ( ). Rather does the Lord ground His promise of blessing on the fact that He is Israels 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 , or . 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 Gods 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 Gods kingdom upon earth. There is here an unmistakable allusion to David, the man after Gods own heart (1Sa 13:14; Act 13:22), and at the same time the representative of the idea of Gods 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 ( ). 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 ( , Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1), of which we are reminded by the sound of the words here ( ), 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 , these words belong, at any rate in meaning to it will no more be said. They correspond to 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 , 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 qu nunc in bello fieri solent; the previously stated). The only natural subject is ark.Jehovahs 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 prophets 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 21The 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 designates the direction in space, so before 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 , before which 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 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 23:17in 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 prophets 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 Israels 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 ( Mic 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 prophets 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, Gods 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., apart from the assonant 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. nom. verbale. Comp. Exo 2:4; Isa 11:9; Isa 28:9.

[18]Jer 3:15. 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.. The Kal with 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 Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 112, 5, a. On . 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

18In 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.

19And 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.

20But! Was ever a woman faithless to her lover,

So were you faithless towards me,
O house of Israel, saith Jehovah.

21A 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.

22Return, ye apostate children,

I will heal21 your apostasies!

Behold, we come22 to thee,

For thou art Jehovah, our God.

23As 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.

25Let 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 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 sqqComp. 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 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 Israels 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 , 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 givenNot a man, but I, Jehovah, declare this. 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 Lords word is true, and what He says is certain (Psa 33:4). The strange addition, , which the LXX. make after , may be explained by the circumstance, as we may gather from Theodoret, that they understood 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 in 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 from or from . Both are grammatically possible. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. S. 106; Olshausen, 145, 6; Ewald, 186 e; 55, e. Comp. (Gazelles) 1Ch 12:8; and (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 (Exo 12:41; 1Ki 2:5), and that 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 . Yet I would prefer the derivation from . Since the juxtaposition of seems more pregnant and forcible than the flat and tautological . Besides which the Holy Land is elsewhere called , Eze 20:6; Eze 20:15; Dan 11:16; Dan 11:41. 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? 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 (which like 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, b25)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 forte 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 with Dag. forte., in order thus to secure the meaning of hills. Now the explanation of the prepares new difficulties. The ancient translators ignore this altogether, and yet take the rest in the sense of colles. The later commentators (if they do not with Lud. de Dieu take =offerre i.e. victimas) either supply before or alter into Besides this they differ very widely in determining the meaning of .It seems to me that the prophet understood the word 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 which means tumult, strepitus, there may be an allusion to the bacchanalian noise of the unchaste idol-worship. Comp. Amo 5:23 like 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). 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. ,): as certainly as the hills are vanity and nothing, so certainly is Israels 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. . From 11, 13; Hos 9:10 we see that is here placed in parallelism with . Kimchi remarks that in ancient names composed with the place of this word is afterwards supplied by . Hence for 2Sa 2:8; 1Ch 8:33. For Jdg 6:322Sa 11:21. From all this we see that the abstract is to be regarded primarily as an ironical synonym of , the chief deity. From what, however, is ascribed in this passage to 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 and on account of and , 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 in the singular occurring immediately before. The LXX, Arab., and Syr., however, have read the present textual reading. Henderson.S. R. A.]

[21]Jer 3:22.On the exchange of the forms and comp. Ewald, 142, c; 198, b; Olshausen, 233.In reference to and 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. instead of (Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. 10, 11, Anm. from comp. Isa 21:12), and this instead of ; 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. should be pointed 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 of Christs 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, ( , Mat 11:22; Mat 11:24).

2. Erubesce Sidon, ait mare. Quasi enim per vocem maris ad verecundian Sidon adducitur, quando per comparationem vit scularium 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 confessioCessat vindicta divina, si confessio prcurrat 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 justiti 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. 1112): (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 Israels 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. Nrnberg, 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, Gods 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 fathersdear 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 subjectprimary, 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 Christians pilgrimage through Life (Der Christen Pilgerfahrt, etc. Halle, 1865) on the subject. The gracious hours of life at and after confirmation.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This Chapter is a continuation of the same sermon as the former. Added to what was there said, in a way of expostulation, the Lord is pleased to follow it up, with invitations, and of the most gracious nature.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

It is the uniform custom of human life, that, if a woman prove unfaithful to her husband, and the thing be notorious and publicly known, by her open departure from him, never is she permitted to return to him again. There are none such compassionate husbands among men as to allow it. But, saith the Lord, with me things shall not be so. I will receive my Church, though she hath set up her idols in every place of her iniquity. Reader! do pause I beseech you, and admire the abundant grace of the Lord. In all things, his ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts. Jesus indeed seems to take occasion from the unworthiness of our poor fallen nature, to display and magnify the riches of his grace. Isa 55:8-9 ; Rom 5:20-21 . The Arabian in the wilderness is a fine image, to illustrate the earnestness with which Israel had revolted from the Lord. It had been, not the casual inadvertency of temptation, but the deliberate purpose and contrivance of the heart.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Heavenly Guide (Sermon to the Young)

Jer 3:4

We are all travellers, but are not all travellingin the same direction. We need a guide. There is no difficulty in finding one. There is only one to be relied upon.

I. Some of the Reasons Why we Need a Guide.

1. Our ignorance of the way.

2. Our liability to take the wrong path.

3. Our liability to leave the right path after we have chosen it.

II. Some of the Reasons Why we Should Take God as Our Guide.

4. Because He knows the way.

5. Because He knows the trials that will befall us.

6. Because He knows the perils that we shall encounter.

7. Because He is our Father, and therefore kind and considerate.

III. III. Some of the Reasons Why we Should Ask God to Guide us now.

8. Because the present time is the best.

9. Because the present time is the safest.

10. Because the present may be the only time.

F. J. Austin, Seeds and Saplings, p. 27.

The Limitation of Evil

Jer 3:5

I. We indicate some of the restraining influences of life.

1. There is the restraint imposed by revelation. That Israel did not fall into the flagrant wickedness of the surrounding nations was not the consequence of their innate strength or goodness the Lord their God restrained them. The voices of Sinai ringing in their ears warned and strengthened them against the destructive errors of paganism. Are we not Today restrained by the same gracious influence?

2. There is the restraint imposed by grace. The direct Divine action on our mind, will, conscience, feeling. This was the master-restraint of the antediluvian world. So has the selfsame Spirit striven in all hearts, and in all generations.

3. There is the restraint imposed by society. There is the restraint of civil law. There is the restraint of public opinion. There is the restraint of our business. There are the restraints of domesticity.

II. ‘Notwithstanding the restraints of life, we discover the wickedness of our nature by going as far as possible in the direction of transgression.’ Men have power to fling themselves over a precipice, but for obvious reasons they usually stop short of these desperate deeds. So Israel hitherto had abstained from the extreme acts of transgression which would have involved immediate retribution, but they showed their disposition by playing with the fire, by trifling on the edge of the abyss. The lively manner in which we have used our rarer opportunities to sin shows that increased leisure and facility would only have exaggerated our misdoing.

III. It is sufficiently clear that ‘many would at once proceed to greater lengths of wickedness if the restrictive influences of life were withdrawn’.

1. Note the extent to which men ‘resist these saving influences’. Opportunity no longer permits us to stone the prophets, or to crucify the Son of man, but we reveal the same hatred of truth and righteousness by doing despite to the Spirit of grace.

2. And the second sign of ‘the irregularity and inordinativeness of our desire is found in the popularity of certain imaginative literature’. The lark singing from its little cage in Seven Dials is a pathetic attempt on the part of the city poor to restore in some measure the rural delights they may no longer share; and just as certainly do we seek in our literature to compensate ourselves for liberties and pleasures denied or curtailed by civilization.

We conclude with a few practical reflections:

1. Let us recognize ‘the glory of God’s preventing grace’. The Dutch call the chain of dykes which protects their fields and their firesides from the wild sea ‘the golden border’. God’s grace directly affecting our heart, or expressed in the constitution of society and the circumstances of life, is a golden border shutting out a raging, threatening sea of evil.

2. Let us confess ‘the folly of our self-righteousness’. The consciousness of a self-righteousness often stands in the way of men attaining the righteousness which is of God, but the foregoing reflections show how little our self-righteousness may be worth.

3. We see ‘the necessity and urgency of the grace which converts and perfects’. It is by no means wholly satisfactory that we are kept by restraining grace; we must go on to seek the grace which renews.

W. L. Watkinson, The Transfigured Sackcloth, p. 47.

References. III. 12, 13. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxi. No. 1833. III. 12, 14, 22. Ibid. vol. li. No. 2931. III. 13. C. Holland, Gleanings from a Ministry of Fifty Years, p. 41. III. 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii. No. 762. III. 16. Ibid. vol. xxvii. No. 1621.

The Tenderness of God

Jer 3:19

The thought of the verse refers not so much to the saying as to the thinking and reflection which go before the speaking. ‘I thought how I would put you among the children.’ The text comes to us through Jeremiah, to whom we owe so much of true, tender, and adequate teaching about God. He brings men into the secret of the Divine presence, and enables them to hear the consultation of God with Himself.

I. The problem is how to put among the children one who is not a child. The person who is not a child would be miserable and far from home among the children of God. The Bible reveals to us the way which God took to solve the problem. It is the story of the making of man, and it is the story of the Divine patience and hopefulness for man that man will yet be placed among the children. Follow the line of Divine action down through the centuries, follow it on to the greatest manifestation of Divine love in the gift of the only begotten Son, and you have the practical illustration of the answer to the question of our text. All these great doings are a revelation of the Divine thought of how to put men among the children.

The Divine thinking issued in Divine action, and the action is just the story of redemption. The Divine action is also the Divine appeal to man. Answer it by the attempt to see that your place is among the children, and you can never find rest till you take your place.

II. Follow for a little the thought of God as to the way by which a man is to be put among the children. ‘I thought thou wouldst call me, My Father; and wouldst not turn away from Me.’

It is the return to the Father of children made in the image of God; it is the restoration of the power of speaking to the Father; it is the placing of a son in his right place in the family of God. With this return there is the new quality of real thought, of spiritual worth, of Divine fellowship.

To say ‘My Father’ is not merely to say the words, or to take them on our lips; it means experience with God, speaking to Him, hearing Him speak, being filled with the Spirit of God, and being entered into the secret of God’s purpose.

III. ‘I thought thou wouldst not turn away from Me.’ It is enough to break the heart of any one who believes what is here said. This word of the Prophet, this picture of the living God stretching forth hands of tenderness and love to men, saying to them, ‘Thou wilt not turn away from Me,’ is a real and true portrait of God. It is the truest revelation of Him that man can ever know. Think of Him, finally, as Jesus Christ His Son has revealed Him to us, who through the Son may become children.

J. Iverach, The Other Side of Greatness, p. 68.

References. III. 19. J. T. Forbes, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiii. 1903, p. 257. R. J. Drummond, Faith’s Certainties, p. 149. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2742. III. 21, 22. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture-Isaiah and Jeremiah, p. 254. III. 22, 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlii. No. 2452.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Contending Emotions

Jer 3

We often speak about contending emotions. We do not know certainly whether the love or the wrath will overcome at the last. We burn with anger, and then we are melted with pity; we denounce and repel, and then in some sudden inspiration not human we hold out the sceptre and bid the alien return. We need not go beyond the range of our own consciousness to verify all this marvellous play of emotion. We are not the same in the evening we were in the morning: sometimes we sleep off our anger and awake radiant with benignity; then the sudden thought of ill-usage returns, and we frown again, and our forehead is clothed with denser clouds. Such is the panorama of emotion its marvellous colour, its changing energy, its variant tone. All this we find on the widest scale in the Book of God. How God’s method changes! He will destroy, and yet he will not hurt; he offers men great blessing, and on their ill-behaviour he suspends, if not withdraws, the offer; he is clothed with judgment, yet his mercy abideth for ever. Here we find the harmony of contraries. All this is needful, in order that our own consciousness may be covered and satisfied by the revelation of God’s person and government. We understand all the action and interaction: when God is angry and when he is grieved; when he sorrows and when he beams with complacency upon those who have returned in humbleness to seek his pardon and to kiss his hand. We need not travel the whole Biblical space in illustration and confirmation of this, for we have here, as in a little Bible, all the ups and downs, all the dark thunder and all the vivid lightning, all the tender music, all the wrestling love, all thunder-crowned Sinai, and all blood-besprinkled Calvary, within the few lines which constitute the parable cf this chapter. A wonderful structure is the Bible: sometimes it runs itself altogether into one little chapter, so that we may see its whole purpose at a glance; now it bewilders; now it is too profound for us, and we dare not plunge into its mysterious depths; and now it is higher than heaven, what can we do? and now it is brighter than the white flame of midday, who can look at its dazzling glory? and then it tabernacles itself in some brief sentences, attempers itself, atmospheres itself, and comes within our own condition, so that we may look at it whilst it looks at us, and study it, and reply to its appeals, and make acquaintance with its mystery of judgment and its mystery of gospel. To this chapter we may come with the high expectation of finding in it the whole gamut of divine emotion.

God tells us why there are difficulties in our culture and experience of nature. The sentence is a bold one, and he would be a bold man who would read it today loudly. Yet so must we read it:

“Therefore the showers have been withholden” ( Jer 3:3 ).

Some men smile at the fanatical notion that God so interferes in nature as to express moral disapprobation or moral regard: but who are they that smile? what have they done for the world? There is nothing so easy as to smile with a kind of benignant contempt not the bitter scorn which great subjects might elicit from great scorners, but a sort of modified and semi-benignant contempt, as should say, The poor creatures! how little they know of the constitution of the universe, the laws of nature, the economy of time and space, and the general condition of things! All this reproach ought to have an effect upon us; but what effect? Because some man has smiled at our piety, is our piety therefore not worth entertaining, preserving, and extending? First, who is the man? What will he do for us in the great crisis? If he should turn out to be wrong, will he stand in our place and bear the issue bravely like a vicarious hero? What if his smile be turned against himself, and God should laugh at his calamity and mock when his fear cometh? Men who can smile at deep convictions are never to be trusted. A man who can smile at a pagan idolater, when that idolater is really and truly expressing his soul’s uppermost temper in relation to the idol which he worships, is not a religious man; he, too, is a mocker: he may mock from a different level, but the same mockery is in him, and he does not understand human nature when religiously fired, elevated, inflamed, ennobled. There does not seem to be such a violation of reason in this declaration as might at first sight appear. If God is immanent in the universe, not a deity immeasurable distances away from his creation; if he is in it, part of it; 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 same 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, Put it in what way we may, we still have under all the external appearance the reality of our being so identified with the life of the house that we cannot allow evil behaviour, evil temper, ingratitude to pass without showing that it is undesirable, unwelcome, improper. 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 deluge 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 sometime, 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.

God penetrates the most skilfully contrived disguises:

“Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?” ( Jer 3:4 ).

Yet God proclaims the great Gospel. Here we see the contending emotion:

“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel” ( Jer 3:12 ).

Men will never be brought back by force. God never arrests a man, and by some constabulary energy fixes him in heaven. That would be no heaven to such a man. We are not in heaven unless we are heavenly. God has no heaven for us if we are not godly. Men themselves must act. Here is a mystery of will and necessity, divine sovereignty and human volition; and great battles may be fought around these theological terms to no effect. We must recognise the real philosophy of things, the actual sense of life, the innermost motive and pulse of being; then we shall understand how it is that men cannot return, and yet they can return, that they can only return by the attraction of a welcome, and that the attraction is itself an assistance to their upward home-going emotion. If we cannot explain it in words, we have felt it in the deepest places of the heart.

God reveals his character; he says, “I am merciful,… and I will not keep anger for ever” ( Jer 3:12 ). How could he? Sweet are these words! No man ever made them or put them together about any other god. Have you in all the history of mythology or idolatry found such a description of any hand-made deity? We might almost say it of the dear, beneficent sun: he does seem to be merciful; he who could burn us with light, kisses the tiny flower as if it were a little child; he who pours so much light upon the earth that it runs off, so to say, at the edges to water with glory under-worlds and other spaces, never hurts the earth with a dart of fire. But all this mercy is ascribed to the Living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he will continue to reveal his mercy until he consummates the revelation in the Cross of Calvary, the death, the atonement, of his own Son.

God never varies the essential conditions of pardon “Only acknowledge thine iniquity” ( Jer 3:13 ). That is New Testament speech: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” But we must acknowledge, and we must acknowledge fully; we must keep back nothing. How difficult actually to empty the heart! We can confess a great deal, but we keep back the blackest word; we can confess all things in general terms, but to detail our sin, to write out a bill of particulars, to hand to God the diary of the heart, who could do it? Blessed be God, we have not to hand that diary to one another. If we have done wrong to any man, to that man we are bound to confess the wrong we have done; but we are not bound to tell priest or friend or dearest brother all we have done: we are to say to God, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” We believe in confession, but not in confession to any fellow-sinner, who may even have exceeded ourselves in the enormity of iniquity. If you have done wrong to man, woman, or child, go and say so; without that there can be no forgiveness. Having done wrong to God, enter thou into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door tell him all, and say that this very telling of it all means trust and love: thou couldst not whisper it in the ear of judgment, thou venturest to whisper it in the ear of mercy.

Prayer

Almighty God, our joy is in thy greatness, and not in our own resources. Thou wilt wonderfully beautify thy church in the days to come; we know not with what adornment thou shalt adorn thy bride. Behold, all things are at thy disposal, and thou wilt spare nothing that Zion may be glorified, and that the work of the Son of man may be completed in victory. Thou hast ever held out an alluring prospect to thy church; there has always been better wine to drink; there has always been some higher height to scale whence could be had a clearer and further view of things, lighted up with undreamed-of glory. In this prospect we serve; we say that what is now round about us cannot be the end of things; all that we see must be but a beginning, an opening gate, a dawning opportunity, a momentary glimpse, whatsoever signifies that which is significant; but the end who can tell? We rest in thy word; we are strengthened by thy promise; we are quieted by thy grace; we say, Let the Lord work as he will, and in the end he will justify his ways to men. Thou hast given us great words to live upon, yea, exceeding great and precious promises with which to nourish the soul. Lord, evermore give us this bread. Make the Cross our meeting-place, for there the angels are, there heaven begins because Christ died for the sons of men, and there is sealed the pardon of a believing world. For that Cross how can we thank thee? It meets all our necessities, it answers all the cry and pain of the afflicted soul; in that Cross is the balm of healing; otherwhere that balm cannot be found. May we live at the Cross, and live for the Cross; then the crown is assured, and all heaven shall welcome those who have loved the Son of God. Thy Holy Spirit thou wilt not withhold; he will work miracles in our life day by day, he will open our eyes that we may see, and our ears that we may hear, and every night shall hear the astounding tale of increase of light and multiplication of comfort. Let thy word be precious to us as water is to men who are in wildernesses; let thy promises lure us as bread draws men towards it who have known the gnawing of hunger; thus may we declare plainly that we hunger and thirst after righteousness, that the wells of the earth cannot satisfy our thirst, and that all the provisions of time are too small for the holy desire thou hast enkindled within us. Son of man, Son of God, God the Son, we throw our crowns at thy feet, for thou didst give them; we say. Not unto us, but unto thyself, be every ray of glory, world without end. King of kings, Lord of lords, only Potentate, reign over us, and put down all other rule. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

V

THE IMPEACHMENT, CALL, AND JUDGMENT

Jeremiah 2-6

This chapter is a discussion of the prophecies of Jeremiah during the reign of Josiah, chapters 2-6. They are abstracts from Jeremiah’s sermons, preached sometime between 626 B.C. and 608 B.C., eighteen years of his public ministry. Here we have the essential points of his discourses for that time, the best parts of the prophecies which he had uttered during that long period. Josiah was one of the best kings that Israel ever had. There are no sins recorded against him. The most complete reformation ever enacted in the nation was wrought under his direction. But it was an external reformation. It is true that he destroyed all the idols, all the high places and stopped the idolatrous worship throughout the entire realm, but he did not change the hearts of the people. “The serpent of idolatry was scorched but not killed.” The renovation was not deep enough; it was a reformation only. We cannot enforce religion by statutory law, legal authority, or royal mandate. It is a matter of the heart. During those years and following, the prophet Jeremiah was at work. His keen prophetic and penetrating mind was able to see deeper than Josiah. He perceived that the reformation and the revolution were external. He knew that many of the people, in fact, most of them, had never really repented. He knew that the nation was still inclined to idolatry, and ready to lapse into heathen worship; yea, he knew that as soon as the pressure was removed, the nation would fall back into the old life of wickedness and idol worship.

Now, the subject matter of these five chapters is this: Israel’s history one long apostasy which would bring on her inevitable destruction. For eighteen years Jeremiah sought to drill that into the people’s minds and hearts and produce the needed reformation which alone could save. Let us see how he went to work; how he brought this truth before them; how he appealed to them; what arguments he used; what threats he uttered against them, if possible to turn them from idolatry and bring them back to the true worship of Jehovah.

The subject of Jer 2 is this: Israel’s history a continual defection to idolatry. He is dealing with all Israel. He makes no distinction between Northern and Southern Israel. He is talking here to the whole race. He reviews their history, that is, their religious history and their present condition.

He has a very beautiful statement here in Jer 2:1-3 , picturing the former fulness of Israel. He says, “The word of Jehovah came unto me saying, Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, I remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals; how thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness unto Jehovah.” Thus he introduces his arraignment with this reference to their former fidelity. Israel started out faithful and true. Hosea pictures her as a faithful bride. She was faithful and true at first. Israel was true to God, and God was true to Israel. Now that is the same picture here and it may be that he got it from Hosea. The relation between the nation and God was fidelity and love. It was the “honeymoon” of the nation’s life. That is how she started.

Since then Israel’s history has been one of repeated acts of unfaithfulness to her God. The prophet seeks to drive it home to their very hearts by a series of questions. We have this question in Jer 2:4-8 : “What unrighteousness have your fathers found in me, that they have gone from me?” Was it because they had found unrighteousness in God? Had they found Jehovah untrue? Had they discovered unfaithfulness in him? We might ask the backslider today, “Is it because there is something wrong with God that you turn from him?” There is a great sermon in that. He shows next that the leaders turned from him: “I brought you up into a plentiful land, to eat the fruit thereof.” I was kind to you; I gave you no occasion to turn from me; I never forsook you and left you in need; I cared for you. Still you and your leaders turned from me. “I brought you up into a land of plenty, to eat the fruit thereof; but when ye entered ye defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination. . . . They that handle the law knew me not; the rulers also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.”

A serious question is raised in Jer 2:9-13 : Has any other nation changed gods but you? “Pass over to the isles of Kittim and see; send unto Kedar, and consider diligently; and see if there hath been found such a thing.” Kittim here refers to the island of Cyprus and the isles of Greece. Go there and see if they have ever changed their gods. Has it ever been done in the world except as you have done it? Hath a nation changed its gods? “But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.” Do you know of any nation in history that has ever done such a thing? These Hebrews had changed their God? Why had they done so? What reason could they give? Jeremiah says, You Israelites have changed to other gods, and in that you are an exception to the nations of the earth. The strange thing about it, too, is that you have changed from your true God to those that are not gods. “My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” Here we have for the first time in the history of religion, a statement that the idols of the nations are not gods. Verse 13 is one of the most beautiful passages in all the Bible. God is a fountain of living waters. That sounds like the words of Jesus to the woman of Samaria at Jacob’s well. Idolatry is pictured as cisterns that are broken; that cannot hold water. He means to say that every other form of religion but the worship of Jehovah is a false religion; there is no saving truth in it; it is dry; it will not hold water; it is man made. That is a true description of all false religions. Some scientists and men who study religions deny this; they say that there is a certain amount of truth in other religions as well as in Christianity. Well, so there is some truth in every one, but not saving truth. All other religions are man-made cisterns that will not hold water. This is one of the most suggestive texts in all the Bible, as to the comparative value of the religion of Jehovah and other religions; as to the value of Christianity as compared with heathen religions.

He says, in Jer 2:14-17 : “Is Israel a servant? is he a home-born slave?” Is he such that he must become a prey? “The young lions have roared upon him, and yelled.” Now it is only the slave in the household that is whipped to make him do his duty. Is that the case with Israel? Must he be whipped like a slave to compel him to do his duty? to obey Jehovah? Other nations have whipped him, they have chastised him, “They have broken the crown of his head.” Was Israel but a slave to be thus whipped and beaten? Is there no manhood in the nation? What a powerful appeal to national pride and honor is this? He raises another question in verses Jeremiah 18-19: “Now what hast thou to do in the way to Egypt, to drink the waters of the Shihor? or what hast thou to do in the way to Assyria, to drink the waters of the River?” What business have you turning from Jehovah to make alliances and seek help from Egypt? What business have you to be turning to Assyria for aid? We have seen that one of the causes of the destruction of both the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms was that they made alliances with Egypt rather than trust in Jehovah. It was an evil thing that they should turn from Jehovah to seek aid from human strength.

Other questions are raised in Jer 2:20-25 . He says, Jer 2:21-22 : “I planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate branches of a foreign vine?” That reminds one of Isa 5 . Here he is saying that they were bad to the heart: “Though thou wash thee with soap, with lye, yet is thine iniquity marked,” or ingrained, “before me.” In Jer 2:23-25 we see Israel trying to condone her sin. She has tried to make out that she has not done wickedly. Now can you say you have not been faithless? You are like the wild ass in the wilderness, snuffing up the wind in her desire who can turn her away? They, like an animal, were running hither and thither, wild with passion, raving with desire for other gods, crazed with eagerness for idolatry. It is not a very elegant figure, but a highly suggestive one.

Then the question of Jer 2:26-28 is, Why don’t you go to your idols in the time of trouble? As a thief is ashamed when found out, so is the house of Israel; priests, princes, and king, that say to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou art my mother. Now why do you come to me in trouble? Why don’t you let your gods help you? This passage tingles with sarcasm. It is a very striking arraignment, showing the helplessness of heathenism.

In Jer 2:22 he presents the impossibility of improving the internal nature by external applications. This is true because:

1. Of the nature of the operation. Wash and paint are applied only to the external.

2. They do not affect the diseased will.

3. They do not free one from fascinating and enslaving pleasure.

4. They do not affect a morbid appetite which increases with indulgence.

5. They have no power to break habit.

6. They cannot remove the blindness of the understanding.

7. They cannot purify a drugged conscience.

If this be true then why should we preach? Because:

1. There is a law that condemns and a gospel that liberates from the bondage of the law;

2. The only hope of a change lies in driving one from the conviction that he can change himself.

The following poem contains the whole story: O Endless Misery I labor still, but still in vain; The stains of sin I see Are woaded all, or dyed in grain, There’s not a blot will stir a jot, For all that I can do; There is no hope in fuller’s soap Though I add nitre, too. I many ways have tried; Have often soaked it in cold fears; And when a time I spied, Poured upon it scalding tears; Have rinsed and rubbed and scraped and scrubbed And turned it up and down; Yet can I not wash out one spot; It’s rather fouler grown. Can there no help be had? Lord, thou art holy, thou art pure: Mine heart is not so bad, So foul, but thou canst cleanse it sure; Speak, blessed Lord; wilt thou afford Me means to make it clean? I know thou wilt; thy blood was spilt; Should it run still in vain?

A sinner released from hell would repeat his sins.

There are yet other questions propounded in Jer 2:29-37 : Why do you plead with me when all the while you transgress against me? I have smitten you; I have smitten your children but they are incorrigible; they will not be corrected. You have killed the prophets that were sent unto you. Why then will you still plead with me? Why do you have anything to do with me? Go after those gods that you have made for yourselves.

Jer 2:31 : “O generation . . . have I been a wilderness unto Israel, or a land of thick darkness?” Now that is a question full of suggestion. You have turned away from me. Is it because my religion and my services have been like living in a wilderness where there is no light, no love, no joy, no food? Have I never been a blessing? Is that the reason you have left me? How suggestive! Many people think the services of God are like a wilderness. O Backslider, have God and his services been as a wilderness to you, that you have strayed away? You have not been a faithful bride. “Can a virgin forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me, days without number. How trimmest thou thy way to seek love!” Just like a married woman fixing up to make love to a man that is not her husband. See her as she adorns herself to look attractive that she may win favor of strange men. Now that is the picture here. “Why gaddest thou about?” This is the only place in the Bible where that word, “gad,” occurs.

Jehovah shows his love and faithfulness to Israel in spite of her sins (Jer 3:1-5 ). Though Judah has been faithless, there is a prospect of a better future for her: If a man put away his wife, can she return to him? No, “Yet return again to me, saith Jehovah.” I will take you back in spite of all. See what you have been doing; you have been like a watcher in the wilderness, watching for false gods and religions to come along that you might adopt them. They have betrayed you. “Wilt thou not now cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?”

A special lesson by Jehovah is given to Judah (Jer 3:6-18 ). This is a contrast, unfavorable to Judah (Jer 3:6-10 ). Judah had taken no warning from the downfall of the Northern Kingdom. Notice especially Jer 3:10 : “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not returned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith Jehovah.” Now that gives us some idea of the opinion of Jeremiah in relation to Josiah, the great king, in his work of reform. Josiah had touched only the outside of the matter. Judah was no better than Northern Israel, but rather worse. Her improvement was only feigned.

Note the comparison in Jer 3:11-13 . The promise was to Northern Israel first. In that promise was blessing on condition of return. Jer 3:12 : “Go, and proclaim these words toward the north. . . . I will not look in anger upon you; for I am merciful, saith Jehovah.” These blessings are going to come when Judah repents, Jer 3:18 : “In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers.” Observe that the blessing is to come when Judah and Israel walk together; when they are united again. By that statement he shows that Northern Israel was not more steeped in iniquity than Southern Israel. The Messiah’s advent is coming and Judah will come in with Israel.

Jehovah holds out hope of Judah in Jer 3:19-22 : “But I said, How I will put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land. . . . Ye shall call me My Father, and shall not turn away from following me. Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, saith the Lord. . . . Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings.”

The prophet bases his hope for Israel on the fact that the perverted nation shall confess its sin Jer 3:23-25 , especially Jer 3:24 : “The shameful thing [the thing ye have been worshiping, Baal] hath devoured the labor of our fathers. . . . for we have sinned against Jehovah our God, we and our fathers.” Now that is a great confession. The prophet presumes to speak for the people by way of prediction that they will do this someday. He still has hope for Israel.

Jehovah makes a proposition to Israel in Jer 4:1-4 , that he will bless them if they will return: “If thou wilt return to me, and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight; then shalt thou not be removed.” But the change must be thorough (Jer 4:3-4 ) a very suggestive passage: “Thus saith Jehovah to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground.” Finney, in his great book on revivals, has several sermons on this text. He says that every revival of religion ought to begin with preaching on this text. The fallow ground must be broken up. “Fallow ground” stands for two things: First, undeveloped possibilities; and, second, unused powers. The ground must be both broken up and sown with right kind of seed. “Sow not among thorns.” Every revival of religion has that object in view. Put the weeds and briers out and put the unused talents and powers to work. Sow the seed of righteousness and benevolence where the weeds of sin and waywardness have been. If we are going to be Christians, let us be wholehearted ones. Break up the fallow ground by putting sin out and service in. All this means that the change must be complete.

The following is a digest of the coming judgment of Jer 4:5-6:30 . In this description of the coming judgment he pictures it as advancing from the North. He had in mind the coming Babylonian invasion. Note these items:

1. They are told to get themselves to the fortified cities, Jer 4:5-10 : “Blow ye the trumpet in the land: cry aloud and say, Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the fortified cities. . . . flee for safety, stay not; for I will bring evil from the north.”

2. It is coming even to Jerusalem herself (Jer 4:11-18 ). Jeremiah now speaks of the invasion as a hot, withering blast from the desert. He sees the foe coming as a swift cloud; the watchers are at hand; he hears the snorting of their horses; he sees them enclose the cities.

3. The anguish of the prophet. Here we have the suffering of this magnificent patriot, Jer 4:19 : “My vitals, my vitals!”

4. The devastation is pictured Jer 4:23-26 : “The earth was waste and void.” The same expression is used in Genesis (Jer 1:2 ). The heavens had no light. The mountains trembled, the cities were broken down. The whole land was devastated. All this is a vision of the destruction to come.

5. The destruction is almost complete (Jer 4:27-31 ). Notice verse Jer 4:27 : “I will not make a full end.” There is a remnant to be left, the root, the stock, not the entire people. It is not to be utter destruction.

6. This is merited, for all are corrupt (Jer 5:1-9 ). Here is a striking statement: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see if you can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly.” He means to say, You cannot find a true man in the whole city. There was not one manly man in Jerusalem. This reminds us of Diogenes, going through the streets of Athens with a lantern looking for a man. In Sodom there were not to be found ten righteous men, only one, and he was a poor specimen. So it is here in Jerusalem. All are corrupt. Verse Jer 4:5 : “I will get me unto the great men,” the leaders. But he finds that they were corrupt, too.

7. Jer 4:10-19 is a picture of the disaster. They are not to make a full end, but disaster is to come, Jer 5:16-17 : “Their quiver is an open sepulchre, . . . they shall eat up thy harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat; . . . they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig-trees; they shall beat down thy city.” But remember they shall not make a full end. There shall be a remnant. The cause of all this is the corruption of the people (Jer 4:20-29 ). Both people and prophets are evil. He repeats these warnings and messages over and over again. He describes the moral condition of the people. A wonderful and horrible thing is come to pass in the land, Jer 5:30-31 : “The prophets prophesy falsely.” The preachers are deceiving the people. And the worst thing about it is that the people like to have it so.

8. The foe is still nearer. The capital is invested and must be prepared, for the enemy plans to storm it; another vivid picture, Jer 6:1-8 : “Flee for safety, ye men of Jerusalem.” Flee to Tekoa, flee to the wilderness, for evil is coming from the north. A great destruction is coming. Thus he goes on with his awful picture of the destruction hastening upon the city. The enemy says, We will take it by storm, at full noon; no, it is past noon; the shadows begin to decline; let us go up at night; let us take it by a night attack.

9. The doom is certain and fixed (Jer 4:9-21 ). Note Jer 4:14 : “They have slightly healed the hurt of my people, saying, Peace, peace; where there is no peace.” We are indebted to Jeremiah for that oft-quoted sentence. It is classic. Spurgeon preached a great sermon on that passage. His theme was a blast against false peace. Jer 4:16 : “Stand ye in the way and see, and ask for the old paths.” There has been many a sermon preached from that text, on the subject, “The Old Paths.”

10. In Jer 4:22-26 is a full description of the enemy. Note the minuteness of it, Jer 4:23 : “They have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; they ride upon horses; they are against the daughter of Zion.”

11. There is another picture of the nation. In Jer 6:28-30 : “They are as grievous revolters.” “Going about with slanders, they are brass and iron. . . . They are refuse silver, fit only to be thrown out in the street. As silver amalgamates with other metals and loses its value, so these people by amalgamated religion become refuse to be tossed aside into the dump pile of rubbish. This is a magnificent passage. It sums up what Jeremiah preached and taught for eighteen years.

QUESTIONS

1. When were these prophecies uttered and what the conditions under which they were spoken?

2. What is the subject matter of these chapters and what the general content?

3. What is the subject of Jer 2 and to whom addressed?

4. What is the picture of Jer 2:1-3 ?

5. What, in general, Israel’s history after the first love, what question raised in Jer 2:4-8 , and what the charge here brought against the leaders?

6. What question is raised in Jer 2:9-13 , what two sins charged against Israel and how illustrated?

7. What are the questions of Jer 2:14-19 and what their application?

8. What tare he other questions raised in Jer 2:20-25 , and what the application of each, respectively?

9. What is the question of Jer 2:26-28 and what its application?

10. What is the import of Jer 2:22 ?

11. If this be true, then why should we preach?

12. Can you recite from memory the poem based on Jer 2:22 ?

13. What are the questions propounded in Jer 2:29-37 and what are their application?

14. How does Jehovah show his love and faithfulness to Israel in spite of her sins (Jer 3:1-5 )?

15. What special lesson by Jehovah is given to Judah and what the result?

16. What hope does Jehovah hold out to Judah in Jer 3:19-22 ?

17. On what does the prophet base his hope for Israel and how is it signified?

18. What proposition does Jehovah make to Israel in Jer 4:1-4 and of what homiletic value is this section?

19. Give a digest of the coming judgment of Jer 4:5-6:30 .

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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.

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jeremiah Chapter 3

Jer 3 . God, however, is nowhere more Himself than in His pitiful mercy to His fallen people. A man could not take back the wife who had deserted him for another. “Israel had committed fornication with many lovers: yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” He points out their frequent and shameless unfaithfulness, calling Him withal the father and guide of their youth. But whatever they said, they persevered in evil-doing. (Ver. 1-5.) Israel’s uncleanness was notorious, and God had called her back in vain; but Judah was yet more treacherous, despised the warning with better knowledge, and sinned yet more audaciously. (Ver. 6-11.)

In the face of all the prophet is bid say, “Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for 1 am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for 1 am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: and I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall Jerusalem the throne of God; and all the nations shall be gathered into it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.” (Ver. 12-18.) It is in vain to refer such language as this to the past. Such interpretations not only mislead as to the drift of the passage itself, but do the far greater damage of enfeebling all Scripture in the eyes of those who accept them. For if God can exaggerate or fail as to the one point, how can His word be trusted absolutely anywhere else? Apply such a prediction to the future, when, beginning with ever so small a gathering from this or that place, God will bring back His people to Zion, and the new order will far outshine the past, and Jerusalem be His throne, a centre for all nations, and the long-divided houses of Judah and Israel be re-united once more and for ever, not in another world, or after a mystical sort, but in the land given for an inheritance to their fathers. But it will be no mere external resuscitation of Israel. They will truly repent and cleave to the lord with purpose of heart. (Ver. 12-19.)

The rest of this chapter (Ver. 20-25.) resumes the appeal to the conscience of the people; and the prophet replies in their name with a confession of their sins.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 3:1-5

1God says, If a husband divorces his wife

And she goes from him

And belongs to another man,

Will he still return to her?

Will not that land be completely polluted?

But you are a harlot with many lovers;

Yet you turn to Me, declares the LORD.

2Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see;

Where have you not been violated?

By the roads you have sat for them

Like an Arab in the desert,

And you have polluted a land

With your harlotry and with your wickedness.

3Therefore the showers have been withheld,

And there has been no spring rain.

Yet you had a harlot’s forehead;

You refused to be ashamed.

4Have you not just now called to Me,

‘My Father, You are the friend of my youth?

5Will He be angry forever?

Will He be indignant to the end?’

Behold, you have spoken

And have done evil things,

And you have had your way.

Jer 3:1

NASBGod says

NKJVthey say

LXX, NRSV,

NJB, REB – Omit –

TEVthe Lord says

JPSOA[the word of the LORD came to me] as follows

The MT simply has the Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT (BDB 55, KB 65) saying. The UBS Text Project suggests (p. 180)

1. it introduces a principal, a proverb, or judicial statement

2. it relates to Jer 2:37

If a husband divorces his wife This reflects Moses’ statement in Deu 24:3-4. YHWH uses divorce as a metaphor of His peoples’ spiritual adultery of idolatry. Israelites could not take back a wife after another man had married her (cf. Deu 24:4), but YHWH’s great love will remarry Israel even after her idolatry (cf. Jer 4:1; Hosea 1-3).

YHWH was stating what had occurred years ago (cf. Jer 2:20-25).

Will he still return to her This was not allowed (cf. Deu 24:1-4). Their return was for political reasons, not for spiritual reasons.

land be completely polluted The VERB and INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE of the same root (BDB 337, KB 335) are used to intensify the sense of the idolatrous pollution. This very thing is discussed in Lev 18:24-28; Lev 19:29; Deu 24:4.

The LXX has woman, , but the MT has land, . The UBS Text Project rates land as B (some doubt); both fit the context.

you are a harlot with many lovers YHWH is depicted as a husband, possibly based on Deu 10:20; Deu 11:22; Deu 13:4 (i.e., cling to Him). This is one of several anthropomorphic metaphors used of God and His relationship to His faith children (see Special Topic: God Described As Human [anthropomorphism] ).

NASBYet you turn to Me

NKJVyet return to Me

TEVnow you want to return to Me?

LXX, NJBwould you return to me?

JPSOAcan you return to Me?

This is the INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE of a VERB (Qal IMPERFECT, BDB 996, KB 1427) used earlier in the verse (and throughout this chapter). It can be

1. turned into an IMPERATIVE (NKJV)

2. turned into a VERB (NASB)

3. turned into a question (TEV, NJB, JPSOA following the LXX)

Jer 3:2 Lift up your eyes. . .see These are both Qal IMPERATIVES.

1. lift up – BDB 669, KB 724

2. see – BDB 906, KB 1157, cf. Jer 1:10; Jer 2:10 (twice), 19, 23, 31

bare heights This was the place of the worship of Ba’al (cf. Jer 3:21; Jer 4:11; Jer 7:29; Jer 12:12; Jer 14:6; Hos 4:11-14). See Special Topic: Fertility Worship of the Ancient Near East .

NASBviolated

NKJVlain with men

NRSVoffered your sex!

TEVacted like a prostitute?

NJB, JPSOA,

REBlain with

LXXcontaminated or utterly defiled

The MT has be ravished (, BDB 993, KB 1415, cf. NASB), but the Masoretic scholars suggest be lain with (, BDB 1011, KB 1486).

The covenant people were not raped. They voluntarily committed spiritual adultery with foreign idols.

By the roads you have sat This is an historical/cultural reference to what the prostitutes did (cf. Gen 38:14; Pro 7:12 ff; Eze 16:25).

NASB, NRSV,

TEV, REBArab

NKJVArabian

NJBnomad

JPSOAbandit

The MT has steppe-dweller (, BDB 787 IV, cf. Isa 13:20), but the Septuagint has raven (, BDB 788 VI).

The JPSOA interprets the word as a robber (see UBS Handbook, p. 94). The LXX’s raven could be parallel to polluted land, as the raven was an unclean scavenger, but it could also mean a supposed helper, cf. 1Ki 17:4.

harlotry See Special Topic at Jer 2:20.

Jer 3:3 The first two lines are parallel. God tried to use the cycles of nature to open the eyes of His people (cf. Lev 26:14-20; Deu 28:15-68), but they would not see. There are two rainy seasons in Palestine (cf. Deu 11:14), one at planting time and the other as the plants mature. Most moisture came from daily dew.

harlot’s forehead This is a reference either to

1. characteristic ornamentation (cf. Rev 17:5)

2. a metaphor for stubbornness and lack of shame (cf. Eze 3:7-8)

Jer 3:4 My Father This is another family metaphor for God.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FATHERHOOD OF GOD

Jer 3:5 Will he be angry forever They were trying to take advantage of God’s mercy. This same concept is discussed in Psa 103:8-14. God’s mercy was not the issue, but their willful and repeated idolatry (cf. Jer 3:12-14).

spoken. . .done evil Their lips said one thing, but their actions showed another (cf. Isa 29:13).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

They say = [It is a common] saying. Reference to Pentateuch (Deu 24:1-4).

yet return again to Me = yet [thinkest thou to] return, &c. It was contrary to the law of Deu 24:1-4. It will be the new Israel of Mat 21:43 of a yet future day. God never mends what man has marred. This is the lesson of the potter’s house. See Jer 18:1-4.

to Me. See Jer 3:7; Jer 4:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

They say ( Jer 3:1 ),

That is, in quoting the law and in speaking of the law, Deuteronomy.

If a man puts away his wife, and she goes from him, and becomes another man’s wife, shall he return unto her again? shall not the land be greatly polluted? ( Jer 3:1 )

Under the law if you divorce your wife and she married another man, then you could not marry her again. That was under the law of Deuteronomy, chapter 24, I think it is. Yet God said, even so,

you have played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again unto me, saith the LORD ( Jer 3:1 ).

“I’ll take you back.” Oh, the patience of God. The love of God. It’s just so amazing to me. “Though you’ve become a harlot and you’ve had many lovers, yet turn back to Me,” saith the Lord. “Come on back.”

Lift up your eyes unto the high places ( Jer 3:2 ),

Just find a place that you haven’t committed spiritual adultery.

In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness ( Jer 3:2 );

That is, the robbers in the wilderness. You’ve just lurked and waited.

and thou hast polluted the land with your whoredoms and with your wickedness. Therefore [because of this] the showers [the rain] has been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain; and you had a whore’s forehead, and you refused to be ashamed. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as evil as you could ( Jer 3:2-5 ).

Now, that is the end of the first message that the Lord gave to Jeremiah. Verse Jer 3:6 starts the second message that the Lord gave to Jeremiah concerning the backsliding of Judah.

The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king ( Jer 3:6 ),

He introduces his second message with that phrase.

Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot ( Jer 3:6 ).

As I said, the places of worship were established on the high mountains and then in these groves. And the worship, of course, God speaks of it as playing the harlot. And most of the worship was involved with the goddess of fertility, and thus, they were fertility rites, and the worship of the gods involved sexual intercourse in various fertility rites and all.

And I said after she has done all these things, Turn unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it ( Jer 3:7 ).

Now you’ve seen what happened to Israel. You saw how that they went into idolatry, how that they worshipped all of these gods. And I called them to return to me but they didn’t. And you saw them, treacherous sister Judah, down here. She saw what happened to Israel, her sister Israel.

And I saw, when for all of the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went out and played the harlot also ( Jer 3:8 ).

In other words, they should have learned from what happened to the Northern Kingdom. They should have learned the lesson when the Northern Kingdom was carried away captive by Assyria. And they should have returned to God with a whole heart and completely, but they didn’t learn from it. But they themselves persisted in the same kind of actions that brought the judgment of God upon the Northern Kingdom.

And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks ( Jer 3:9 ).

That is, with the little idols made of stone and of wood.

And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but only feignedly, saith the LORD ( Jer 3:10 ).

It was only a surface revival that was going on. It wasn’t really down deep affecting the heart of the nation. It was just something that was taking place on the surface. Somewhat like what is happening in the United States as churches are reporting increased attendance and Gallup poll is reporting fifty percent Christians, sixty percent born again in the United States. That’s just a surface thing. It hasn’t really affected the real life of the individual. There is a lack of real commitment to God and to Jesus Christ. People mouth the words. It’s a popular movement. They’re using born again for everything now. Shampoos or anything else, you know. It’s a term that has been picked up and become popularized in the worldly jargon. But it is without meaning or significance in so many cases.

Let us examine ourselves. Is it meaningful with me? Have I really made a true commitment to God? Is my love divided? Do I love God partially? Am I committed partly? Or is there a total, full commitment of myself unto God and to Jesus Christ and the things of the Spirit? Or am I still desiring and lusting after the things of my flesh? And do I have a divided heart? Now God is calling us for a full commitment of ourselves to Him. God is calling us away from the idolatry, the things of the world, the love of the world and the things that are in the world. “Come ye apart from them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Touch not the unclean thing. And I will be a Father unto you and you shall be my sons and daughters” ( 2Co 6:17-18 ).

So many are being enticed by the things of the world. They’re being drawn and attracted by the excitement of the things of the world. But, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. For he that hath the love of the world in his heart hath not the love of the Father” ( 1Jn 2:15 ). And many of you are like treacherous Judah. Your love for God is only feigned; it is only a surface thing. It really isn’t a full true commitment of your life to Him. You go through the motions. You say the words. But God is looking at your heart and He sees a heart that is divided. He sees a heart that is lusting after the world. And God knows your heart and it is breaking God’s heart.

What iniquity, God said, have I done that you should turn from Me? I can remember that day when your commitment was so fervent. When you were singing praises unto Me all day long. When all you could think of was Me and you were in this beautiful harmony and communion with Me. What happened? Why is it that you’ve turned away and you’re drawn after the things of the world? And God said, I’m calling to you. Listen. Wake up. Come back.

And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel has justified herself more than treacherous Judah ( Jer 3:11 ).

Now Judah is more to blame because she saw the example of Israel and what happened. And yet she did not turn.

Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep my anger for ever. Only acknowledge your iniquity ( Jer 3:12-13 ),

That’s all God asks you to do. Acknowledge your iniquity. “If we confess our sins, then He is faithful and just” ( 1Jn 1:9 ). But if you cover, “Oh, it’s all right. I am not too bad. I still love the Lord. I still do this and that.” And you’re justifying yourself, then God can’t do anything with you. Acknowledge your iniquity and your transgressions against the Lord thy God. Acknowledge the things that you’ve done.

how that you’ve turned to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married to you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding ( Jer 3:13-15 ).

God gave me this passage of scripture several years ago, and He said, “This is the kind of a pastor I want you to be. This is a pastor after God’s heart. The pastor who will feed the people with knowledge and understanding of God. That’s the pastor after God’s heart.” And I said, “Lord, I want to be a pastor after Your heart. To feed the people with the knowledge and the understanding of God.” And God is speaking of this day that is coming when He gives them this kind of pastors.

And it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more ( Jer 3:16 ).

Talking about the glorious Kingdom Age. You won’t be talking about the ark of the covenant because you’ll have the new covenant–Jesus Christ dwelling with us. You’ll not be thinking about the laws and the tables of stone and all that were in that ark, the covenant that God made with Israel. Whereas if you keep these laws I will be a God unto thee. That will be taken away, for Jesus said, “This blood is a new covenant in my blood which is shed for the remission of sins.”

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD ( Jer 3:17 );

For Jesus is coming and He will reign over the earth from Jerusalem.

and all of the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imaginations of their evil hearts. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. Surely as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so have you dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD. A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God. Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God ( Jer 3:17-22 ).

This is the response of the people in that day.

Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills ( Jer 3:23 ),

That is, those that are worshipping on the tops of the mountains.

and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel ( Jer 3:23 ).

You won’t find salvation in any of the cisterns that you may have hewed out. Salvation only lies through Jesus Christ.

For shame hath devoured the labor of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. We lie down in our shame, and in our confusion we are covered: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God ( Jer 3:24-25 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

In this chapter, the sin of Gods people is put in the strongest possible light. The figure used may be even said to be a coarse one, but mans sin is itself a coarse thing. The thoughts suggested in this chapter are not what the delicate might desire; but then there is no delicacy in sin.

Jer 3:1. They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another mans, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?

God himself seems here to be at a non plus. His people had gone away from him, they had acted unfaithfully to him, they had joined themselves unto other gods. The case was a very difficult one. If the Lord takes these people back again, will it not look like putting a premium upon sin? That is just the question that is constantly being raised. If God freely forgives great sinners, will it not look as if he treated sin too leniently? Will not free salvation, by faith in Jesus, lead to sin? The world says that it will; and even the Scripture seems to raise the question: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another mans, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? Yet Judah had been worse than the woman here described.

Jer 3:1. But thou has played the harlot with many lovers;

Here was an awful depth of sin, a terrible enormity of wickedness.

Jer 3:1. Yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

What a splendor of divine love is here revealed! I do not wonder that the question should be put, How can God act thus, and yet be just? He can do it, and yet be just, as we have often showed you; but, still, it is a very great wonder of grace.

Jer 3:2-3. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whores forehead, thou refused to be ashamed.

This was very strong, rough language, but oh! how true it was! The people had gone astray from God into all manner of filthiness and pollution; and even when God had chastened them by withholding the showers till they were threatened with famine, they did not turn to him. They seemed to have a brow like adamant, they could not be made ashamed. There may be some persons of that kind in this assembly; if so, let them notice what God says:

Jer 3:4. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?

Will not you come back again? You are invited to return unto the Lord, despite your wandering, your perverseness, your abominable iniquity. Will you not remember the better days when God was the Guide of your youth? You were not always what you are now. Will you not from this time cry unto the Lord, My Father, thou art the Guide of my youth?

Jer 3:5. Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end?

No, that he will not; there is none so slow to anger as our God, and there is none so ready to be rid of it as he is. He is a God ready to pardon, waiting to forgive, delighting in mercy. Even though the sin should be so foul that, as I read it to you, I seem almost to blush in the reading, as you may in the hearing, yet, black as it is, God can put it all away in the greatness of his mercy.

Jer 3:5. Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.

Thou hast gone as far in sin as thou couldst go; only lack of power has prevented thee from being even worse than thou art. Yet this is the kind of people to whom God speaks in mercy, inviting them to return unto him.

Jer 3:6. The LORD said also unto me in the days, of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

Building temples to false gods on every mountain and in every grove.

Jer 3:7. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

That made Judahs sin even worse than that of Israel; she saw this great iniquity in another, and yet went and committed it herself.

Jer 3:8-9. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Bowing down before idols made of wood or stone.

Jer 3:10-12. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north,

What must these words be? Must they not be, You have treated me so ill that I will never have anything to do with you again; even common decency requires that I should put you away from all hope for ever? No; listen to these words, and be astounded:

Jer 3:12. And say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Oh, the measureless mercy of these gracious sentences! Deep and black as the sin is, and fearful and terrible as is the description of it, how bright, how clear is the immeasurable love which promises to put that sin away, and forget and forgive it once for all!

Jer 3:13. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord.

Confess that sad fact, acknowledge that you have thus sinned. Into the ear of God pour out the full confession of your criminality. He cannot ask for anything less than this; surely you cannot demur to it. If you have thus treated him, come and confess it with your head in his bosom, for he is willing to receive you even if you be the very biggest sinner out of hell.

Jer 3:14-15. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: and I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

When God once begins to pardon men, there is no end to it. He goes on to bless them with all that they need He makes them to be like the sheep of his pasture, who shall be richly and happily fed.

Jer 3:16. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

You know that they had been accustomed to the old ceremonial religion, which was full of outward rites and forms. God says that, when he brings his erring people back to himself, they shall have done with all that mere externalism. They shall come to worship God in spirit and in truth, and to commune with him without the medium of the ark of the covenant or an earthly priest. They shall walk before him in the joy of their spirits; yet these, mark you, are some of the people who are described in this chapter as having defiled the house of God, and gone astray from him to their utter disgrace.

Jer 3:17. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem:

Even to that very city that had become like a harlot, and was full of abominations.

Jer 3:17-18. Neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel,

There is no more quarrelling when grace comes in. Israel and Judah in the old days fought against each other; but when they alike taste of pardoning grace they shall love each other.

Jer 3:18-19. And they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. But I said, how shall I put thee among the children,

When God had said all this, he appears to have come to a pause, and even in his own heart the question seems to arise, How can he deal with these greatly sinful ones as his children? I said, How shall I put thee among the children,

Jer 3:19. And give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the host of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.

God knew how to change the character and to change the heart, so that these filthy ones, who went farthest astray, should come back to him, and should become among the most holy, the most loyal, the most obedient of all his children. Oh, that his grace might work that miracle again in our midst! Remember what he did for Saul of Tarsus, that transcendent persecutor, how he made him to be the very bravest of his apostles; and he can at this moment take those who form the chosen body-guard of the devil and so change them that they shall become the soldiers of the cross, nearest to Christ, the great Commander. The Lord, by his servant the prophet, goes over this sad story again:

Jer 3:20. Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.

But listen

Jer 3:21. A voice was heard upon the high places,

The places where they had built the altars to the false gods: A voice was heard upon the high places,

Jer 3:21. Weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.

How pleasant to the ears of God is the weeping of his backsliding people! The happy God does not wish men to be sorrowful, but he is glad that they should be sorrowful for sin. Now that they have begun to bemoan their wanderings and their wickedness, they will come back to their God, so he says to them:

Jer 3:22-23. Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God. Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel.

So they come back to him, and find the salvation which they need.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Jer 3:1-5

JUDAH MORE SINFUL THAN ISRAEL

We continue to find little interest in the guessing game connected with assigning dates to the various chapters of Jeremiah. In very few instances can it be affirmed that the exact date makes much difference. Jellie gave the date of the first paragraph here as the thirteenth year of Josiah, the next paragraph as the seventeenth year of Josiah, pointing out that some scholars favored the eighteenth year (E. Henderson), and some the year 620 B.C. (MH).

Salient teachings of the chapter proclaim the final divorce of Israel as God’s wife, and the impossibility of her return to her former status (Jer 3:1-5); the refusal of Judah to learn her lesson despite the wretched example of Israel (Jer 3:6-10); God’s continued pleading for both Israel and Judah to return unto their God in full repentance (Jer 3:11-13); the promise of God to receive a remnant from both of the treacherous sister nations in the Messianic Age (Jer 3:14-18); the healing to take place in the days of the New Covenant; a further admonition regarding the uselessness and hurtfulness of idolatry (Jer 3:19-22); but Israel and Judah alike consent to lie down in their shame (Jer 3:13-25).

Jer 3:1-5

“They say, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s wife, will he return unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah. Lift up thine eyes to the bare heights, and see; where hast thou not been lain with? By the ways hast thou sat for them, as an Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hadst a harlot’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? Will he retain his anger forever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and hast done evil things, and hast had thy way.”

“They say, if a man put away his wife …” (Jer 3:1). Many scholars are quick to point out that this corresponds to Deu 24:1-4, with the implication that this information had only recently come to Jeremiah through the discovery of that Book of the Law in the temple. This is by all odds an improper deduction, “This does not necessarily presuppose the discovery of the Book of the Law in the temple in 622 B.C.”

The words, `they say,’ here clearly indicate that the knowledge revealed in Deu 24:1-4, at the time Jeremiah wrote, was already well known by the whole Jewish nation, that the impossibility of a divorced woman going back to her first husband after being married to someone else was a common proverb known to the whole Jewish world of that period. Why not? Deuteronomy was nothing new to Israel, having already been in their possession since the great Lawgiver had written it and left it for them, along with the whole law.

Of course, this little phrase is a death-blow to the theory of the late `discovery’ of Deuteronomy; and that accounts for all the confusion among so many scholars, as pointed out by Cheyne, of whom he said, “Various ingenious attempts have been made to explain this!” However, no amount of ingenuity can remove the obvious import of the words.

“Will he return unto her again …” (Jer 3:1)?. This type of question in Hebrew always requires a negative answer, therefore affirming that God will not return to the divorced Israel; but the final clause of the verse represents the Lord as inviting the reprobate apostate wife to return? This can be nothing on earth except a mistranslation.

“Yet return again to me, saith Jehovah …” (Jer 3:1). The marginal reading in the American Standard Version has, “And thinkest thou to return unto me?” This alternative has been adopted in the Revised Standard Version, “And would you return to me, says the Lord?” This is obviously to be preferred above the American Standard Version. Some scholars have appealed to the analogy of Hosea and Gomer in this passage, even affirming that Hosea’s example in taking Gomer back, “Indicated that God would do even this.” We are astounded that so many scholars believe this but seem totally unaware that Hosea made it perfectly clear that he was NOT taking Gomer back as his wife, but as a slave!

“And Hosea said unto her: Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be any man’s wife: so will I also be toward thee!”(Hos 3:3).

Yes, there is a triple betrothal mentioned later in Hosea; but it was for Jezreel, not Israel, to the New Israel, not to the old reprobate whore! (See the full development of this in Vol. 2 of my series on the Minor Prophets.)

The true meaning of the last phrase of Jer 3:1, therefore is this: “After your wretched conduct, do you really suppose that you can return as the wife of God?”

“Lift up thine eyes unto the bare heights …” (Jer 3:2). These words explode the arrogant notion of Israel that she might again be God’s wife. Jeremiah here challenges her to look everywhere and find a single tree under which she has not committed whoredom by worshipping false gods and indulging in their sexual orgies. Israel has been like the Arabians in the wilderness, (1) either lying in wait to rob a caravan, or (2) sitting by the highway seducing travelers to adultery. That this was a device often followed by immoral women is proved by Tamar’s seduction of Judah (Gen 38:14 ff).

“The showers have been withholden … no latter rain …” (Jer 3:3). God’s punishment of the Once Chosen People by the withholding of rain and other blessings had not led them to repentance, but rather to a bold and presumptuous arrogance. The “latter rains” were the ones in the spring, without which it was not possible to have an abundant harvest.

“Wilt thou not from this time cry, My father… Behold thou hast spoken and hast done evil things!” (Jer 3:4-5). Yes, yes, Israel continued to claim Jehovah as their national God, and they always called upon him when in trouble, but their conduct made it impossible for God to help them. The last lines in this paragraph were rendered thus by Feinberg:

“This is how you talk,

but you do all the evil you can.”

Matthew Henry considered the meaning of these last two verses to be:

“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 hadst not the opportunity!”

“The essential message of these first five verses is simply this: `Judah, after it has turned away to other gods will not be received again by Jehovah (as his espoused wife), especially in view of all her chastisements and her adherence to evil ways.'”

At this early period in Jeremiah’s ministry, he evidently entertained high hope that Judah would indeed repent and that the looming punishment of their captivity might yet be averted. However, the shocking development of Judah’s guilt being even greater than Israel’s occurred to Jeremiah as raising another problem. If indeed Judah (more guilty than Israel) was to be spared, “Then the privilege of forgiveness and restoration must be offered to the Northern Kingdom also, because Judah’s sins were worse than theirs.” This great privilege of forgiveness and restoration to all men would be realized under the gracious and benevolent terms of the New Covenant, prophesied a moment later in this chapter.

Nothing even resembling the repentance and return of Judah to their true God, however, came to pass. Surely God yearned for such repentance; but it never happened; and as Cook pointed out, “The words of this paragraph are not the language of consolation to the conscience-stricken, but they are the vehement expostulation with hardened sinners. They prove the truth of the interpretation put upon the last clause of the 1 st verse.”

And what was that interpretation? Here it is:

“`Yet return again unto me’ should be rendered, `and thinkest thou to return unto me?’ The whole argument is not of mercy, but is proof that after her repeated adulteries, Israel could not again take her place as a wife. To think of returning to God with the marriage-law unrepealed was folly.”

A vital point so often misunderstood by expositors is the difference between God’s covenant with Racial Israel, which was terminated irrevocably in the total apostasy of the Once Chosen People and the New Covenant without any racial requirements whatever. The promises a few verses later pertain to that New Covenant, and not to the old Racial Covenant that endowed the race of Israel with the status of being Jehovah’s espoused wife. That status was terminated irrevocably and finally by the events of the apostasy of both Israel and Judah. And yet, no racial descendant of Abraham who ever lived was in any manner excluded from the mercies and blessings of God. It only means that his access to those blessings would be upon the same terms applicable to everyone who ever lived on earth. “Whosoever will may come”!

As Harrison observed, “Even though from the analogy here the nation (that is racial Israel) could not take her place again as God’s wife because of her repeated adulteries, she could still be forgiven if she was truly repentant.” That forgiveness, however, would not be under the old Sinaitic covenant, but under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant.

GODS APPEAL To HIS PEOPLE Jer 3:1 to Jer 4:4

After the blistering indictment of his inaugural sermon Jeremiah takes up the subject of repentance. He speaks here of (1) the possibility of repentance (Jer 3:1-5); (2) the need for repentance (Jer 3:6-10); (3) the call to repentance (Jer 3:11-15); (4) the blessings of repentance (Jer 3:16-22 a); (5) The prayer of repentance (Jer 3:22 b-25) and (6) the rewards of repentance (Jer 4:1-4).

The Possibility of Repentance Jer 3:1-5

Is it possible for Judah after years of spiritual harlotry to return to the Lord? According to the law of Moses a woman who had been divorced and who had married another could not be reclaimed by the original husband (Deu 24:1-4). In the light of this law is it legally possible for the Lord to take Judah back again? The answer is No! Judahs case is much worse than that envisaged in the divorce law. In the law of Moses the woman who has been legally married to a second husband could not be reclaimed. But Judah has cavorted around with many lovers, i.e. false gods, and therefore no longer had any legal claim on the Lord. But grace triumphs over law. In spite of the legal impossibility of repentance and reconciliation God calls upon Judah to return to Him (Jer 3:1).

That the guilt of Judah might clearly be established Jeremiah calls upon the people to lift up their eyes to the high places where their illicit religion was being practiced. One cannot find a prominent noll in all the land which had not been defiled by the licentious rites of Baal. Like a lonely Arab in the midst of the desert who eagerly joins himself to any caravans or passers-by, Israel has embraced every form of idolatry which has come along. This iniquitous spiritual harlotry has polluted the land (Jer 3:2). Therefore God has punished them by withholding the showers and especially the latter rain of early spring which was so essential to an abundant harvest. Yet no amount of divine discipline could make Israel feel the shame of her wantonness. As a prostitute remains brazen and shameless when confronted with her deeds, so Israel gave no evidence of shame even when suffering the consequences of her sin (Jer 3:3).

The past can be forgotten and forgiven if Israel right now, at this very moment, will acknowledge the Lord as God. Instead of calling the idols of wood and stone my father will you not give that appellation to Me?, the Lord pleads. Will you not acknowledge Me as the husband of your youth? (Jer 3:4). The translation husband here is justified on the basis of Pro 2:17 where the same word is used. The word can also mean intimate friend and even guide as in the American Standard and King James versions. As a matter of fact, according to Jer 3:5 Judah had spoken the things which God had requested in the previous verse. At the same time, however; they had continued to do evil things thus indicating that their words were insincere and hypocritical. So far they had gotten by with this hypocrisy but God will not keep His anger for ever (Jer 3:5). Shortly they will face the God of judgment.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Following the impeachment, the prophet appealed to the people to return. This appeal commenced with a declaration that Jehovah’s love was greater than man’s in that He was willing to receive back the people who had been unfaithful if they would return to Him.

Jeremiah then pointed out the conditions of return, describing the sin of Israel, and of Judah, and appealing to each in turn. Of course, his message was principally to Judah, as he pointed out that because Judah had persisted in her sin, in spite of all she had seen of the evil results in the case of Israel, her attitude was more terrible than that of Israel.

This is followed by the recitation of an ideal confession for the sinning people. Weeping, they make their supplication. Recognizing the vanity of expecting help from any source other than Jehovah, they turn to Him with confession of sin.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

This did not mean, however, that He had done with them. Far from it. He might chastise and punish them, but He loved them still, and assures them of it; for although to a wife put away, who had become another man’s, her first husband would not return, despite the lewdness of Judah, He cries after her, “Yet return again to Me!” (Jer 3:1).

What patient, matchless grace is this! Have we, too, wandered from Him? Have we forgotten the word that says, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God” (Jam 4:4)?

Oh, then, in contrition of heart and self-judgment, may we turn again to Himself, confessing the evil of our unhallowed love for that which is so opposed to His holiness, and prove the sweetness of His restoring mercy. Our GOD has withholden the rain (Jer 3:3) that We might prove the barrenness of a life out of communion with Himself; but He longs for the moment when, realizing the depth of our backsliding, the heart turns back to Himself with this cry: “My Father, Thou art the guide of my youth!” (Jer 3:4).

Observe here, that though He would have Israel cry “My Father,” (Jer 3:4) this is far different from crying “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:15) by the Spirit of adoption, which we have, but they had not. Nationally Israel was GOD’s son (Hos 11:1; Exo 4:22-23).

It is only since the Cross that believers know Him in the individual relationship of Father – not merely national adoption – and, having life from Him, as the One revealed by the Son in resurrection as “My Father and your Father.” (Joh 20:17)

Our privileges are far greater than theirs. How much holier should be our lives!

~ end of chapter 2 ~

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

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.”

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.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

They say: Heb. Saying

If a man: Deu 24:1-4

shall not that: Jer 3:9, Jer 2:7, Lev 18:24-28, Isa 24:5, Mic 2:10

but thou hast: Jer 2:20, Jer 2:23, Deu 22:21, Jdg 19:2, Eze 16:26, Eze 16:28, Eze 16:29, Eze 23:4-49, Hos 1:2, Hos 2:5-7

yet return: Jer 3:12-14, Jer 3:22, Jer 4:1, Jer 4:14, Jer 8:4-6, Deu 4:29-31, Isa 55:6-9, Eze 33:11, Hos 14:1-4, Zec 1:3, Luk 15:16-24

Reciprocal: Gen 38:24 – played the harlot Lev 17:7 – gone a whoring Num 14:33 – bear Deu 24:4 – Her former Deu 31:16 – and go a Jdg 19:3 – to bring 1Sa 12:20 – turn not Psa 106:39 – went Isa 1:21 – become Isa 44:22 – return Isa 50:1 – the bill Isa 55:8 – General Jer 2:33 – Why Jer 3:6 – played Jer 3:8 – when for Jer 3:14 – for I am married Jer 3:20 – so have Jer 11:13 – For according Jer 11:15 – seeing Jer 13:27 – thine adulteries Jer 14:10 – have they Jer 16:18 – they have defiled Jer 18:11 – return Eze 16:15 – and playedst Eze 16:32 – General Eze 16:35 – O harlot Eze 36:17 – they defiled Hos 2:2 – let Hos 2:7 – first Hos 3:1 – friend Hos 4:12 – gone Zec 5:7 – is Mat 5:31 – whosoever Mat 19:9 – doth Mar 10:4 – General 1Co 7:11 – or

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jer 3:1. They say is rendered saying in the margin, and the American Standard Version and Moffatt also translate it thus, making it a continuation of the preceding chapter. The words from if through polluted are a quotation of what the unfaithful wife was saying in her awakening of shameful realization of her unworthy conduct. She is represented as admitting that if a fleshly wife is untrue to her husband he will not live with her again, because to do so would pollute the land. But in spite of such a well-established principle the Lord is willing to take back his unworthy wife. In so doing He shows himself to be more lenient than a wronged fleshly husband. This ease is even worse than an ordinary one in that the wife has been intimate with many lovers.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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 mans 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jer 3:3. Therefore the showers, of the former and the latter rain, have been withheld. Other prophets make the same remark. God is not obliged to give luxuriant harvests to furnish feasts to a guilty people, who would ascribe those gifts to their idols.

Jer 3:6. The Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah, when idolatry had prevailed for fifty years, from Manassehs ascension to the throne to the minority of this young king: nor could the king wholly suppress it during his reign, though he made great efforts.

Jer 3:10. Yet for all this, her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly. She took no warning by the fall of Samaria; and even at the great passover celebrated by Josiah in the eighteenth year of his reign, the princes had their idols concealed: Jer 34:18-20. In this view, the sin of Samaria was less than the sin of Judah, for she worshipped idols professedly, while Judah, bowing in the temple of the Lord, worshipped all the gods of Syria. Her gods were as numerous as her cities: Jer 11:13.

Jer 3:12. Go, and proclaim these words toward the north. The principal part of the holy land lay north of Jerusalem, where some remains of the ten tribes still continued. Others say the phrase means, proclaim this great, this royal proclamation of grace, through the lands where the ten tribes were dispersed, as named in 2Ki 17:6.

Jer 3:14, Turn, oh backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you. The prophet refers to the prayer of Solomon concerning Hebrew captives in a foreign land, that God would hear their prayer and restore them, 1Ki 8:47; and give them pastors such as Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Jer 3:16. And it shall come to pass when ye are multiplied and increased they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord. Here a new scene opens, as in Isa 65:17; a new law, when the Messiah, not the ark of wood, should be the boast and glory of Israel. The ark, in which Christ then dwelt, divided the Jordan, and threw down the walls of Jericho; but then the same Lord will openly put all his enemies under his feet.

Jer 3:17. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord. Whatever gracious comfort this great promise might afford the Jews under the second temple, (and they apply it wholly to themselves) all critics seem agreed that its grand bearings are on the new-testament church in the glory of the latter day. Not the earthly, says Poole, but the spiritual Jerusalem, even the church, of which the earthly was a type. Vide Synopsis in loc. Professor Cocceius, of Leyden, anno 1663, from whose Latin Commentary I translate this note, says, This is that greater good and superior glory, which Jehovah shall reveal; not dwelling in the sanctuary, the holy place, but about to be manifested in the ways of Jerusalem, nay in all the earth. Jeremiah explains what John means by dwelt among us, 1:14; and which Isaiah, Isa 2:2, calls the mountain of the house of the Lord, established on the top of the mountains; that is, all his future glory, and indeed a greater glory than any mountain ever saw. This is the Jerusalem and the mountain hereafter to be the throne of Jehovah. Thus Psa 82:1, is understood. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Besides, in or before that throne, Christ is the , the propitiation, the mercyseat here after to be set forth. Rom 3:25.

All the nations shall be gathered to the name of the Lord. They shall join in the worship of his name, detesting all idols. Joe 2:32.

Jer 3:24. Shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers. The altars and worship of Baal, and all the gods of Syria, which are called a shameful thing: Jer 11:13.

REFLECTIONS.

It is a doubt with some whether this chapter be connected with the preseding; the subjects however are not dissimilar in design. If argument would convert the wicked, here is argument of the most cogent kind: a harlot church recalled with all the eloquence of the ancient church. Man, biased by pride and self-love, is not in a state to judge of his own faults; but the mote in his brothers eye he sees with perfect ease. A woman who leaves the best of husbands to prostitute her person, degrades herself to the lowest dregs of human nature; and the Hebrew doctors would make no scruple to sign her divorce, and absolutely prohibit her return. The prophet, founding his doctrine on this received opinion, exclaims, Ye are the men, ye are the nation, ye are the harlot church, ye have committed adultery with a thousand idols; and I hold against you the sentence of divorce in my hand.

The mercy of God to penitent sinners is greater than any mercy a harlot could expect from man. The law of the Hebrews, Deu 24:1-4, and the law of the Romans forbade an adulteress to be received back who had been married to another; yet God would still receive his backsliding people! Oh the grace, the unspeakable grace, which God from the bowels of his mercy discovers to fallen man! One would think that grace so great would warm the coldest heart, and draw the remotest offender back by repentance to his love.

The sin of Judah, as is frequently noticed, became much aggravated by her apathy concerning the Assyrian vengeance which fell upon the ten tribes. She saw all this, and still trifled with idols, and dallied with crimes. It is a sad mark that we are come to the last stage of depravity, when we can see multitudes perishing in their sins with perfect indifference and stupor of mind.

Israel, all polluted and depraved as she was, is yet invited to return as a profligate child to a parent, and as a faithless wife to the bosom of her husband. Yea, she is invited to return with promises which not only belonged to the age of adversity, but which reach down to the times of the Messiah. Though the ten tribes so far perished in exile that there returned but one of a city, and two of a family, yet they should be multiplied in the land. And so great shall be the glory of the latter day, that the ark of the covenant, once so celebrated in Israel, should not come into their mind. Christ, the true ark, should so far surpass it in excellence. He the ark contains the law; he is the hidden manna; he is the dry almond rod which ever buds, and rules the nations; yea, he is the God of glory who fills the mercyseat, and kindles the altar of the heart with heavenly fire. Why then remember the ark of wood burnt by the Chaldees?

The riches of divine grace are so great as to occasion, humanly speaking, some difficulty with the divine justice. But, I said, how shall I put thee among the children, and make thee the happiest of nations? How shall I do it consistently with my truth? How shall I do it in the eyes of angels, in the sight of the heathen who have known thy perfidy? Here the church is silent. He who asks the question must give the answer. Truly it must be first by regeneration and unfeigned piety: Thou shalt call me, my Father. It must also be secondly by confirmation: Thou shalt no more turn away from following me. It must be by seeking the opposite virtues of all thy vices, and by all the habitudes of piety and holiness. Hear this, oh backsliding soul. How shall God ever save thee! Thou who hast been so great a sinner, and hast backslidden in a thousand forms. Thou who hast been lukewarm in religious duties, and hast so often fallen in temptations hour. Yea, thou who in thy riper years, and perhaps after thy conversion, hast committed so many deliberate and premeditated acts of wickedness. With what face then can mercy place thee on the throne; and with what truth can the Lord say of thee, Well done, good and faithful servant. Oh make haste, and return to the Lord, that he may create thy soul anew in righteousness, for the God of truth cannot lie.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jer 3:1-5. Israels Infidelity.(Some introductory formula, like that of Jer 2:1, has dropped out before Jer 3:1; note mg.). Israels marital unfaithfulness to Yahweh is too gross for a facile repentance to avail. The analogy of the law of divorce (mg. reference) suggests that Israel cannot deal with her Divine Husband as lightly as she will. She has waited for her lovers as persistently as a nomad plunderer for his victims. The loss of that prosperity which depended on the latter rain (of the spring) has brought no compunction. Recent promises have not been kept.

Jer 3:1. land should be woman, with LXX; mg.3 to be read.

Jer 3:4. Render Hast thou not just cried; some see a reference here and in Jer 3:5 to the Reformation under Josiah, and its relative failure.guide is friend or lover (cf. mg.); for the idea of Yahweh as both father and husband to Israel, see Hos 2:16; Hos 11:1.

Jer 3:5. hast . . . done: read mg.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

3:1 They {a} say, If a man shall put away his wife, and she shall go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return to her again? shall not that land {b} be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many {c} lovers; yet {d} return again to me, saith the LORD.

(a) According as it is written, De 24:4 .

(b) If he take such a one to wife again.

(c) That is, with idols, and with them whom you have put your confidence in.

(d) And I will not cast you off, but receive you, according to my mercy.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The spiritual unfaithfulness of Judah 3:1-5

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Yahweh’s call for His people’s repentance 3:1-4:4

A passionate plea for repentance follows logically and textually the indictment of God’s people for their sins (ch. 2).

"There is a problem with free forgiveness. If you can always wipe the slate clean, how much does it matter what you write on it next? It is a problem for both parties-not only for the one in the wrong, who may feel that he can get away with more and more, but also for the one who forgives, who has to wonder what his forbearance may be doing to the other person. Here God sets about shaking his people out of their complacency." [Note: Kidner, p. 35.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

God posed the question to His people of what happens in a divorce. The answer to His rhetorical question is: "No, if a husband divorces his wife, and she goes to live with (or remarries) another man, he will not return to (or remarry) her." [Note: The Septuagint has the question being, "Will the woman return to her first husband." But there is inferior support for this translation.] The Mosaic Law prohibited such a thing (cf. Deu 24:1-4). If Judah was a wife and Yahweh was her husband, He would not normally "return" to her. The Israelites believed that sin and evil in the people had repercussions on the land and polluted it (cf. Jer 3:2; Jer 3:9; Lev 18:25; Lev 18:28; Lev 19:29; Deu 24:4; Hos 4:2-3; Amo 4:6-10). "Return" is a key word in this sermon, as it is in the whole book. There are three specific commands to "Return" in this section (Jer 3:12; Jer 3:14; Jer 3:22), as well as numerous other occurrences of the word and its relatives. "Return," for example, appears nine times in the NASB (Jer 3:1; Jer 3:7 [twice], 10, 12, 14, 22, Jer 4:1 [twice]) and "turn" twice (Jer 3:1; Jer 3:19).

A second figure compares Israel to a harlot with many lovers. She was worse than a divorced wife. Would such a woman expect her husband to receive her back if she returned to him? No. The people of Judah had no reasonable expectation that Yahweh would receive her back-even if she repented (cf. Hos 2:14 to Hos 3:3). [Note: See Joe M. Sprinkle, "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):542-43.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

7

CHAPTER II

THE TRUST IN THE SHADOW OF EGYPT

Jer 2:1-37; Jer 3:1-5

THE first of the prophets public addresses is, in fact, a sermon which proceeds from an exposure of national sin to the menace of coming judgment. It falls naturally into three sections, of which the first {Jer 2:1-13} sets forth Iahvahs tender love to His young bride Israel in the old times of nomadic life, when faithfulness to Him was rewarded by protection from all external foes; and then passes on to denounce the unprecedented apostasy of a people from their God. The second (Jer 2:14-28) declares that if Israel has fallen a prey to her enemies, it is the result of her own infidelity to her Divine Spouse; of her early notorious and inveterate falling away to the false gods, who are now her only resource, and that a worthless one. The third section {Jer 2:29-37; Jer 3:1-5} points to the failure of Iahvahs chastisements to reclaim a people hardened in guilt, and in a self-righteousness which refused warning and despised reproof; affirms the futility of all human aid amid the national reverses; and cries woe on a too late repentance. It is not difficult to fix the time of this noble and pathetic address. That which follows it, and is intimately connected with it in substance, was composed “in the days of Josiah the king,” {Jer 3:6} so that the present one must be placed a little earlier in the same reign; and, considering its position in the book, may very probably be assigned to the thirteenth year of Josiah, i.e., B.C. 629, in which the prophet received his Divine call. This is the ordinary opinion; but one critic (Knobel) refers the discourse to the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, on account of the connection with Egypt which is mentioned in Jer 2:18, Jer 2:36, and the humiliation suffered at the hands of the Egyptians which is mentioned in Jer 2:16; while another (Graf) maintains that chapters 2-6 were composed in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, as if the prophet had committed nothing to writing before that date-an assumption which seems to run counter to the implication conveyed by his own statement, Jer 36:2. This latter critic has failed to notice the allusions in Jer 4:14; Jer 6:8 to an approaching calamity which may be averted by national reformation, to which the people are invited; -an invitation wholly incompatible with the prophets attitude at that hopeless period. The series of prophecies beginning at Jer 4:3 is certainly later in time than the discourse we are now considering; but as certainly belongs to the immediate subsequent years.

It does not appear that the first two of Jeremiahs addresses were called forth by any striking event of public importance, such as the Scythian invasion. His new born consciousness of the Divine call would urge the young prophet to action; and in the present discourse we have the firstfruits of the heavenly impulse. It is a retrospect of Israels entire past and an examination of the state of things growing out of it. The prophets attention is not yet confined to Judah; he deplores the rupture of the ideal relations between Iahvah and His people as a whole (Jer 2:4; Jer 3:6). As Hitzig has remarked, this opening address, in its finished elaboration, leaves the impression of a first outpouring of the heart, which sets forth at once without reserve the long score of the Divine grievances against Israel. At the same time, in its closing judgment, {Jer 3:5} in its irony, {Jer 2:28} in its appeals, {Jer 2:21; Jer 2:31} and its exclamations, {Jer 2:12} it breathes an indignation stern and deep to a degree hardly characteristic of the prophet in his other discourses, but which was natural enough, as Hitzig observes, in a first essay at moral criticism, a first outburst of inspired zeal.

In the Hebrew text the chapter begins with the same formula as chapter 1 (Jer 2:4): “And there fell a word of Iahvah unto me, saying.” But the LXX reads: “And he said, Thus saith the Lord,” a difference which is not immaterial, as it may be a trace of an older Hebrew recension of the prophets work, in which this second chapter immediately followed the original superscription of the book, as given in Jer 1:1-2, from which it was afterwards separated by the insertion of the narrative of Jeremiahs call and visions. {cf. Amo 1:2} Perhaps we may see another trace of the same thing in the fact that whereas chapter 1 sends the prophet to the rulers and people of Judah, this chapter is in part addressed to collective Israel (Jer 2:4); which constitutes a formal disagreement. If the reference to Israel is not merely retrospective and rhetorical, -if it implies, as seems to be assumed, that the prophet really meant his words to affect the remnant of the northern kingdom as well as Judah, -we have here a valuable contemporary corroboration of the much disputed assertion of the author of Chronicles, that king Josiah abolished idolatry “in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon even unto Naphtali, to wit, in their ruins round about,” {2Ch 34:6} as well as in Judah and Jerusalem; and that Manasseh and Ephraim and “the remnant of Israel” (2Ch 34:9; 2Ch 34:21) contributed to his restoration of the temple. These statements of the Chronicler imply that Josiah exercised authority in the ruined northern kingdom, as well as in the more fortunate south; and so far as this first discourse of Jeremiah was actually addressed to Israel as well as to Judah, those disputed statements find in it an undesigned confirmation. However this may be, as a part of the first collection of the authors prophecies, there is little doubt that the chapter was read by Baruch to the people of Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. {Jer 36:6}

“Go thou and cry in the ears of Jerusalem: Thus hath Iahvah said” (or “thought”: This is the Divine thought concerning thee!) “I have remembered for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals; thy following Me” (as a bride follows her husband to his tent) “in the wilderness, in a land unsown. A dedicated thing” (like the high priest, on whose mitre was graven) “was Israel to Iahvah, His first fruits of increase; all who did eat him were held guilty, ill would come to them, saith Iahvah” (Jer 2:2-3). “I have remembered for thee,” i.e., in thy favour, to thy benefit-as when Nehemiah prays, “Remember in my favour, O my God, for good, all that I have done upon this people,” {Neh 5:19} -“the kindness”-the warm affection of thy youth, “the love of thine espousals,” or the charm of thy bridal state; {Hos 2:15; Hos 11:1} the tender attachment of thine early days, of thy new born national consciousness, when Iahvah had chosen thee as His bride, and called thee to follow Him out of Egypt. It is the figure which we find so elaborately developed in the pages of Hosea. The “bridal state” is the time from the Exodus to the taking of the covenant at Sinai, {Eze 16:8} which was, as it were, the formal instrument of the marriage; and Israels young love is explained as consisting in turning her back upon “the flesh pots of Egypt,” {Eze 16:3} at the call of Iahvah, and following her Divine Lord into the barren steppes. This forsaking of all worldly comfort for the hard life of the desert was proof of the sincerity of Israels early love. [The evidently original words “in the wilderness, a land unsown,” are omitted by the LXX, which renders: “I remembered the mercy of thy youth, and the love of thy nuptials, (consummation), so that thou followedst the Holy One of Israel, saith Iahvah.”] Iahvahs “remembrance” of this devotion, that is to say, the return He made for it, is described in the next verse. Israel became not “holiness,” but a holy or hallowed thing; a dedicated object, belonging wholly and solely to Iahvah, a thing which it was sacrilege to touch; Iahvahs “firstfruits of increase.” This last phrase is to be explained by reference to the well known law of the firstfruits, {Exo 23:19; Deu 18:4, Deu 26:10} according to which the first specimens of all agricultural produce were given to God. Israel, like the firstlings of cattle and the firstfruits of corn and wine and oil, was consecrated to Iahvah; and therefore none might eat of him without offending. “To eat” or devour is a term naturally used of vexing and destroying a nation (Jer 10:25; Jer 1:7; Deu 7:16, “And thou shalt eat up all the peoples, which Jehovah thy God is about to give thee”; Isa 1:7; Psa 14:4, “Who eat up My people as they eat bread”). The literal translation is, “All his eaters become guilty (or are treated as guilty, punished); evil cometh to them”; and the verbs, being in the imperfect, denote what happened again and again in Israels history; Iahvah suffered no man to do His people wrong with impunity. This, then, is the first count in the indictment against Israel, that Iahvah had not been unmindful of her early devotion, but had recognised it by throwing the shield of sanctity around her, and making her inviolable against all external enemies (Jer 2:1-3). The prophets complaint, as developed in the following section (Jer 2:4-8), is that, in spite of the goodness of Iahvah, Israel has forsaken Him for idols. “Hear ye the word of Iahvah, O house of Jacob, and all the clans of the house of Israel.” All Israel is addressed, and not merely the surviving kingdom of Judah, because the apostasy had been universal. A special reference apparently made in Jer 2:8 to the prophets of Baal, who flourished only in the northern kingdom. We may compare the word of Amos “against the whole clan, ” which Iahvah “brought up from the land of Egypt,” {Amo 3:1} spoken at a time when Ephraim was yet in the heyday of his power.

“Thus hath Iahvah said, What found your fathers in Me, that was unjust, a single act of injustice, Psa 7:4; not to be found in Iahvah, {Deu 32:4} that they went far from Me and followed the Folly and were befooled (or the Delusion and were deluded)” (Jer 2:5). The phrase is used 2Ki 17:15 in the same sense; “the (mere) breath,” “the nothingness” or “vanity,” being a designation of the idols which Israel went after; {cf. also Jer 23:16; Psa 62:11; Job 27:12} much as St. Paul has written that an “idol is nothing in the world,” {1Co 8:4} and that, with all this boasted culture, the nations of classical antiquity “became vain,” or were befooled “in their imaginations,” “and their foolish heart was darkened”. {Rom 1:21} Both the prophet and the apostle refer to that judicial blindness which is a consequence of persistently closing the eyes to truth, and deliberately putting darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter, in compliance with the urgency of the flesh. For ancient Israel, the result of yielding to the seductions of foreign worship was, that “They were stultified in their best endeavours. They became false in thinking and believing, in doing and forbearing, because the fundamental error pervaded the whole life of the nation and of the individual. They supposed that they knew and honoured God, hut they were entirely mistaken; they supposed they were doing His will, and securing their own welfare, while they were doing and securing the exact contrary” (Hitzig). And similar consequences will always flow from attempts to serve two masters; to gratify the lower nature, while not breaking wholly with the higher. Once the soul has accepted a lower standard than the perfect law of truth, it does not stop there. The subtle corruption goes on extending its ravages farther and farther; while the consciousness that anything is wrong becomes fainter and fainter as the deadly mischief increases, until at last the ruined spirit believes itself in perfect health, When it is, in truth, in the last stage of mortal disease. Perversion of the will and the affections leads to the perversion of the intellect. There is a profound meaning in the old saying that, Men make their gods in their own likeness. As a man is, so will God appear to him to be. “With the loving Thou wilt shew Thyself loving; With the perfect, Thou wilt shew Thyself perfect; With the pure, Thou wilt shew Thyself pure; And with the perverse, Thou wilt shew Thyself froward”. {Psa 18:25 sq.} Only hearts pure of all worldly taint see God in His purity. The rest worship some more or less imperfect semblance of Him, according to the varying degrees of their selfishness and sin.

“And they said not, Where is Iahvah, who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that guided us in the wilderness, in a land of wastes and hollows (or desert and defile), in a land of drought and darkness (dreariness), in a land that no man passed through, and where no mortal dwelt” (Jer 2:6). “They said not, Where is Iahvah, who brought us up out of the land of Egypt.” It is the old complaint of the prophets against Israels black ingratitude. So, for instance, Amos {Amo 2:10} had written: “Whereas I-I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and guided you in the wilderness forty years”; and Micah: {Mic 6:3 sq.} “My people, what have I done unto thee, and how have I wearied thee? Answer against Me. For I brought thee up from the land of Egypt, and from a house of bondmen redeemed I thee.” In common gratitude, they were bound to be true to this mighty Saviour; to enquire after Iahvah, to call upon Him only, to do His will, and to seek His grace. {cf. Jer 29:12 sq.} Yet, with characteristic fickleness, they soon forgot the fatherly guidance, which had never deserted them in the period of their nomadic wanderings in the wilds of Arabia Petraea; a land which the prophet poetically describes as “a land of waste and hollows”-alluding probably to the rocky defiles through which they had to pass-and “a land of drought and darkness”; the latter an epithet of the Grave or Hades, {Job 10:21} fittingly applied to that great lone wilderness of the south, which Israel had called “a fearsome,” {Jer 21:1} and “a land of trouble and anguish,” {Jer 30:6} whither, according to the poet of Job, “The caravans go up and are lost”. {Jer 6:18}

“And I brought you into the garden land, to eat its fruits and its choicest things; {Isa 1:19; Gen 45:18; Gen 45:20; Gen 45:23} and ye entered and defiled My land, and My. domain ye made a loathsome thing!” (Jer 2:7). With the wilderness of the wanderings is contrasted the “land of the carmel, ” the land of fruitful orchards and gardens, as in Jer 4:26; Isa 10:18; Isa 16:10; Isa 29:17. This was Canaan, Iahvahs own land, which He had chosen out of all countries to be His special dwelling place and earthly sanctuary; but which Israel no sooner possessed, than they began to pollute this holy land by their sins, like the guilty peoples whom they had displaced, making it thereby an abomination to Iahvah (Lev 18:24 sq., cf. Jer 3:2).

“The priests they said not, Where is Iahvah? and they that handle the law, they knew (i.e., regarded, heeded) Me not; and as for the shepherds (i.e., the king and princes, Jer 2:26), they rebelled against Me, and the prophets, they prophesied by (through) the Baal, and them that help not (i.e., the false gods) they followed” (Jer 2:8). In the form of a climax, this verse justifies the accusation contained in the last, by giving particulars. The three ruling classes are successively indicted. {cf. Jer 2:26, Jer 18:18} The priests, part of whose duty was to “handle the law,” i.e., explain the Torah, to instruct the people in the requirements of Iahvah, by oral tradition and out of the sacred law books, gave no sign of spiritual aspiration (cf. Jer 2:6); like the reprobate sons of Eli, “they knew not” {1Sa 2:12} “Iahvah,” that is to say, paid no heed to Him and His will as revealed in the book of the law; the secular authorities, the king and his counsellors, {“wise men,” Jer 18:18} not only sinned thus negatively, but positively revolted against the King of kings, and resisted His will; while the prophets went further yet in the path of guilt, apostatising altogether from the God of Israel, and seeking inspiration from the Phoenician Baal, and following worthless idols that could give no help. There seems to be a play on the words Baal and Belial, as if Baal meant the same as Belial, “profitless,” “worthless” (cf. 1Sa 2:12 : “Now Elis sons were sons of Belial; they knew not Iahvah.” The phrase “they that help not,” or “cannot help,” suggests the term Belial; which, however, may be derived from “not,” and “supreme,” “God,” and so mean “not-God,” “idol,” rather than “worthlessness,” “unprofitableness,” as it is usually explained). The reference may be to the Baal worship of Samaria, the northern capital, which was organised by Ahab, and his Tyrian queen. {Jer 23:13}

“Therefore”-on account of this amazing ingratitude of your forefathers, -“I will again plead (reason, argue forensically) with you (the present generation in whom their guilt repeats itself) saith Iahvah, and with your sons sons (who will inherit your sins) will I plead.” The nation is conceived as a moral unity, the characteristics of which are exemplified in each successive generation. To all Israel, past, present, and future, Iahvah will vindicate his own righteousness. “For cross” (the sea) “to the coasts of the Citeans” (the people of Citium in Cyprus) “and see; and to Kedar” (the rude tribes of the Syrian desert) “send ye, and mark well, and see whether there hath arisen a case like this. Hath a nation changed gods-albeit they are no gods? Yet My people hath changed his” (true) “glory for that which helpeth not” (or is worthless). “Upheave, ye heavens” (a fine paronomasia), “at this, and shudder (and) be petrified,” “be sore amazed” but Hitzig “be dry” stiff and motionless, {1Ki 13:4} “saith Iahvah; for two evil things hath My people done: Me they have forsaken-a Fountain of living water-to hew them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that cannot” (imperf. potential) “hold water” (Hebrews the waters: generic article) (Jer 2:9-13). In these five verses, the apostasy of Israel from his own God is held up as a fact unique in history-unexampled and inexplicable by comparison with the doings of other nations. Whether you look westward or eastward, across the sea to Cyprus, or beyond Gilead to the barbarous tribes of the Cedrei, {Psa 120:5} nowhere will you find a heathen people that has changed its native worship for another; and if you did find such, it would be no precedent or palliation of Israels behaviour. The heathen in adopting a new worship simply exchanges one superstition for another; the objects of his devotion are “non-gods” (Jer 2:11). The heinousness and the eccentricity of Israels conduct lies in the fact that he has bartered truth for falsehood; he has exchanged “his Glory”-whom Amos {Amo 8:7} calls the Pride (A.V., Excellency) of Jacob-for a useless idol; an object which the prophet elsewhere calls “The Shame” (Jer 3:24, Jer 11:13), because it can only bring shame and confusion upon those whose hopes depend upon it. The wonder of the thing might well be supposed to strike the pure heavens, the silent witnesses of it, with blank astonishment (cf. a similar appeal in Deu 4:26; Deu 31:28; Deu 32:1, where the earth is added). For the evil is not single but twofold. With the rejection of truth goes the adoption of error; and both are evils. Not only has Israel turned his back upon “a fountain of living waters”; he has also “hewn him out cisterns, broken cisterns, that cannot hold water.” The “broken cisterns” are, of course, the idols which Israel made to himself. As a cistern full of cracks and fissures disappoints the wayfarer, who has reckoned on finding water in it; so the idols, having only the semblance and not the reality of life, avail their worshippers nothing (Jer 2:8-11). In Hebrew the waters of a spring are called “living,” {Gen 21:19} because they are more refreshing and, as it were, life giving, than the stagnant waters of pools and tanks fed by the rains. Hence by a natural metaphor, the mouth of a righteous man, or the teaching of the wise, and the fear of the Lord, are called a fountain of Pro 10:11; Pro 13:14; Pro 14:27. “The fountain of life” is with Iahvah; {Psa 36:10} nay, He is Himself the Fountain of living waters; {Jer 17:13} because all life, and all that sustains or quickens life, especially spiritual life, proceeds from Him. Now in Psa 19:8 it is said that “The law of the Lord-or, the teaching of Iahvah-is perfect, reviving (or restoring) the soul”; {cf. Lam 1:11 Rth 4:15} and a comparison of Micah and Isaiahs statement that “Out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” {Isa 2:3 Mic 4:2} with the more figurative language of Joel {Joe 3:18} and Zechariah, {Zec 14:8} who speak of “a fountain going forth from the house of the Lord,” and “living waters going forth from Jerusalem,” suggests the inference that “the living waters,” of which Iahvah is the perennial fountain, are identical with His law as revealed through priests and prophets. It is easy to confirm this suggestion by reference to the river “whose streams make glad the city of God”; {Psa 46:4} to Isaiahs poetic description of the Divine teaching, of which he was himself the exponent, as “the waters of Shiloah that flow softly,” {Isa 8:6} Shiloah being a spring that issues from the temple rock; and to our Lords conversation with the woman of Samaria, in which He characterises His own teaching as “living waters,” {St. Joh 4:10} and as “a well of waters, springing up unto eternal Life” (ibid. Joh 4:14).

“Is Israel a bondman, or a homeborn serf? Why hath he become a prey? Over him did young lions roar; they uttered their voice; and they made his land a waste; his cities, they are burnt up” (or “thrown down”), “so that they are uninhabited. Yea, the sons of Noph and Tahpanes, they did bruise thee on the crown; Is not this what” (the thing that) “thy forsaking Iahvah thy God brought about for thee at the time He was guiding thee in the way?” (Jer 2:14-17), As Iahvahs bride, as a people chosen to be His own, Israel had every reason to expect a bright and glorious career. Why was this expectation falsified by events? But one answer was possible, in view of the immutable righteousness, the eternal faithfulness of God. “The ruin of Israel was Israels own doing.” It is a truth which applies to all nations, and to all individuals capable of moral agency, in all periods and places of their existence. Let no man lay his failure in this world or in the world to come at the door of the Almighty. Let none venture to repeat the thoughtless blasphemy which charges the All-Merciful with sending frail human beings to expiate their offences in an everlasting hell! Let none dare to say or think, God might have made it otherwise, but He would not! Oh, no; it is all a monstrous misconception of the true relations of things. You and I are free to make our choice now, whatever may be the case hereafter. We may choose to obey God, or to disobey; we may seek His will, or our own. The one is the way of life; the other, of death, and nothing can alter the facts; they are part of the laws of the universe. Our destiny is in our own hands, to make or to mar. If we qualify ourselves for nothing better than a hell-if our daily progress leads us farther and farther from God and nearer and nearer to the devil-then hell will be our eternal home. For God is love, and purity, and truth, and glad obedience to righteous laws; and these things, realised and rejoiced in, are heaven. And the man that lives without these as the sovereign aims of his existence-the man whose hearts worship is centred upon something else than God-stands already on the verge of hell, which is “the place of him that knows not (and cares not for) God.” And unless we are prepared to find fault with that natural arrangement whereby like things are aggregated to like, and all physical elements gravitate towards their own kind, I do not see how we can disparage the same law in the spiritual sphere, in virtue of which all spiritual beings are drawn to their own place, the heavenly minded rising to the heights above, and the contrary sort sinking to the depths beneath.

The precise bearing of the question (Jer 2:14), “Is Israel a bondman, or a homeborn slave?” is hardly self-evident. One commentator supposes that the implied answer is an affirmative. Israel is a “servant,” the servant, that is, the worshipper of the true God. Nay, he is more than a mere bondservant; he occupies the favoured position of a slave born in his lords house cf. Abrahams three hundred and eighteen young men, {Gen 14:14} and therefore, according to the custom of antiquity, standing on a different footing from a slave acquired by purchase. The “home” or house is taken to mean the land of Canaan, which the prophet Hosea had designated as Iahvahs “house” (Hos 9:15; Hos 9:3); and the “Israel” intended is supposed to be the existing generation born in the holy land. The double question of the prophet then amounts to this: If Israel be, as is generally admitted, the favourite bondservant of Iahvah, how comes it that his lord has not protected him against the spoiler? But, although this interpretation is not without force, it is rendered doubtful by the order of the words in the Hebrew, where the stress lies on the terms for “bondman” and “homeborn slave”; and by its bold divergence from the sense conveyed by the same form of question in other passages of the prophet, Jer 2:31 infra, where the answer expected is a negative one (cf. also Jer 8:4-5; Jer 14:19; Jer 49:1. The formula is evidently characteristic). The point of the question seems to lie in the fact of the helplessness of persons of servile condition against occasional acts of fraud and oppression, from which neither the purchased nor the homebred slave could at all times be secure. The rights of such persons, however humane the laws affecting their ordinary status, might at times be cynically disregarded both by their masters and by others (see a notable instance, Jer 34:8 sqq.). Moreover, there may be a reference to the fact that slaves were always reckoned in those times as a valuable portion of the booty of conquest; and the meaning may be that Israels lot as a captive is as bad as if he had never known the blessings of freedom, and had simply exchanged one servitude for another by the fortune of war. The allusion is chiefly to the fallen kingdom of Ephraim. We must remember that Jeremiah is reviewing the whole past, from the outset of Iahvahs special dealings with Israel. The national sins of the northern and more powerful branch had issued in utter ruin. The “young lions,” the foreign invaders, had “roared against” Israel properly so called, and made havoc of the whole country (cf. Jer 4:7). The land was dispeopled, and became an actual haunt of lions, {2Ki 17:25} until Esarhaddon colonised it with a motley gathering of foreigners. {Ezr 4:2} Judah too had suffered greatly from the Assyrian invasion in Hezekiahs time, although the last calamity had then been mercifully averted (Sanherib boasts that he stormed and destroyed forty-six strong cities, and carried off 200,000 captives, and an innumerable booty). The implication is that the evil fate of Ephraim threatens to overtake Judah; for the same moral causes are operative, and the same Divine will which worked in the past is working in the present, and will continue to work in the future. The lesson of the past was plain for those who had eyes to read and hearts to understand it. Apart from this prophetic doctrine of a Providence which shapes the destinies of nations, in accordance with their moral deserts, history has no value except for the gratification of mere intellectual curiosity.

“Aye, and the children of Noph and Tahpanhes they bruise(?) used to bruise; are bruising: thee on the crown” (Jer 2:16). This obviously refers to injuries inflicted by Egypt, the two royal cities of Noph or Memphis, and Tahpanhes or Daphnae, being mentioned in place of the country itself. Judah must be the sufferer, as no Egyptian attack on Ephraim is anywhere recorded; while we do read of Shishaks invasion of the southern kingdom in the reign of Rehoboam, both in the 1Ki 14:25, and in Shishaks own inscriptions on the walls of the temple of Amen at Karnak. But the form of the Hebrew verb seems to indicate rather some contemporary trouble; perhaps plundering raids by an Egyptian army, which about this time was besieging the Philistine stronghold of Ashdod (Herod., 2:157). “The Egyptians are bruising (or crushing) thee” seems to be the sense; and so it is given by the Jewish commentator Rashi (diffringunt). Our English marginal rendering “fed on” follows the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew term which is also the case with the Targum and the Syriac versions; but this can hardly be right, unless we suppose that the Egyptians infesting the frontier are scornfully compared to vermin of a sort which, as Herodotus tells us, the Egyptians particularly disliked (but cf. Mic 5:5; Ges., depascunt, “eating down”:)

The A.V. of Jer 2:17 presents a curious mistake, which the Revisers have omitted to correct. The words should run, as I have rendered them, “Is not this”-thy present ill fortune-“the thing that thy forsaking of Iahvah thy God did for thee-at the time when He was guiding thee in the way?” The Hebrew verb does not admit of the rendering in the perf. tense, for it is an impf. nor is it a 2d pers. fem. but a 3d. The LXX has it rightly, but leaves out the next clause which specifies the time. The words, however, are probably original; for they insist, as Jer 2:5 and Jer 2:31 insist, on the groundlessness of Israels apostasy. Iahvah had given no cause for it; He was fulfilling His part of the covenant by “guiding them in the way.” Guidance or leading is ascribed to Iahvah as the true “Shepherd of Israel” (Jer 31:9; Psa 80:1). It denotes not only the spiritual guidance which was given through the priests and prophets; but also that external prosperity, those epochs of established power and peace and plenty, which were precisely the times chosen by infatuated Israel for defection from the Divine Giver of her good things. As the prophet Hosea expresses it, Hos 2:8 sq., ” She knew not that it was I who gave her the corn and the new wine and the oil; and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold, which they made into the Baal. Therefore will I take back My corn in the time of it, and My new wine in its season, and will snatch away My wool and My flax, which were to cover her nakedness.” And {Jer 13:6} the same prophet gives this plain account of his peoples thankless revolt from their God: “When I fed them, they were sated; sated were they, and their heart was lifted up: therefore they forgot Me.” It is the thought so forcibly expressed by the minstrel of the Book of the Law {Deu 32:15} first published in the early days of Jeremiah: “And Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked; Thou waxedst fat, and gross and fleshy! And he forsook the God that made him, And made light of his protecting Rock.” And, lastly, the Chronicler has pointed the same moral of human fickleness and frailty in the case of an individual, Uzziah or Azariah, the powerful king of Judah, whose prosperity seduced him into presumption and profanity: {2Ch 26:16} “When he grew strong, his heart rose high, until he dealt corruptly, and was unfaithful to Iahvah his God.” I need not enlarge on the perils of prosperity; they are known by bitter experience to every Christian man. Not without good reason do we pray to be delivered from evil “In all time of our wealth”; nor was that poet least conversant with human nature who wrote that “Sweet are the uses of adversity.”

“And now”-a common formula in drawing an inference and concluding an argument-“what hast thou to do with the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Shihor” (the Black River, the Nile); “and what hast thou to do with the way to Assyria, to drink the waters of the River?” (par excellence, i.e., the Euphrates). “Thy wickedness correcteth thee, and thy revolts it is that chastise thee. Know then, and see that evil and bitter is thy forsaking Iahvah thy God, and thine having no dread of Me, saith the Lord Iahvah Sabaoth” (Jer 2:18-19). And now-as the cause of all thy misfortunes lies in thyself-what is the use of seeking a cure for them abroad? Egypt will prove as powerless to help thee now, as Assyria proved in the days of Ahaz (Jer 2:36 sq.). The Jewish people, anticipating the views of certain modern historians, made a wrong diagnosis of their own evil case. They traced all that they had suffered, and were yet to suffer, to the ill will of the two great powers of their time; and supposed that their only salvation lay in conciliating the one or the other. And as Isaiah found it necessary to cry woe on the rebellious children, “that walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at My mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!,” {Isa 30:1 sq.} so now, after so much experience of the futility and positive harmfulness of these unequal alliances, Jeremiah has to lift his voice against the same national folly.

The “young lions” of Jer 2:15 must denote the Assyrians, as Egypt is expressly named in Jer 2:16. The figure is very appropriate, for not only was the lion a favourite subject of Assyrian sculpture; not only do the Assyrian kings boast of their prowess as lion hunters, while they even tamed these fierce creatures, and trained them to the chase; but the great strength and predatory habits of the king of beasts made him a fitting symbol of that great empire whose irresistible power was founded upon and sustained by wrong and robbery. This reference makes it clear that the prophet is contemplating the past; for Assyria was at this time already tottering to its fall, and the Israel of his day, i.e., the surviving kingdom of Judah, had no longer any temptation to court the countenance of that decaying if not already ruined empire. The sin of Israel is an old one; both it and its consequences belong to the past (Jer 2:20 compared with Jer 2:14); and the national attempts to find a remedy must be referred to the same period. Jer 2:36 makes it evident that the prophets contemporaries concerned themselves only about an Egyptian alliance.

It is an interesting detail that for “the waters of Shihor,” the LXX gives “waters of Gihon,” which it will be remembered is the name of one of the four rivers of Paradise, and which appears to have been the old Hebrew name of the Nile (Sir 24:27; Jos., “Ant.,” 1:1, 3). Shihor may be an explanatory substitute. For the rest, it is plain that the two rivers symbolise the two empires; {cf. Isa 8:7; Jer 46:7} and the expression “to drink the waters” of them must imply the receiving and, as it were, absorption of whatever advantage might be supposed to accrue from friendly relations with their respective countries. At the same time, a contrast seems to be intended between these earthly waters, which could only disappoint those who sought refreshment in them, and that “fountain of living waters” (Jer 2:13) which Israel had forsaken. The nation sought in Egypt its deliverance from self-caused evil, much as Saul had sought guidance from witches when he knew himself deserted by the God whom by disobedience he had driven away. In seeking thus to escape the consequences of sin by cementing alliances with heathen powers, Israel added sin to sin. Hence (in Jer 2:19) the prophet reiterates with increased emphasis what he has already suggested by a question (Jer 2:17): “Thy wickedness correcteth thee, and thy revolts it is that chastise thee. Know then, and see that evil and bitter is thy forsaking of Iahweh thy God, and thine having no dread of Me!” Learn from these its bitter fruits that the thing itself is bad Job 21:33, quoted by Hitzig, is not a real parallel; nor can the sentence, as it stands, be rendered, (“Und dass die Scheu vor mir nicht an-dich kam”); and renounce that which its consequences declare to be an evil course, instead of aggravating the evil of it by a new act of unfaithfulness.

“For long ago didst thou break thy yoke, didst thou burst thy bonds, and saidst, I will not serve: for upon every high hill, and under each evergreen tree thou wert crouching in fornication” (Jer 2:20-24). Such seems to be the best way of taking a verse which is far from clear as it stands in the Masoretic text. The prophet labours to bring home to his hearers a sense of the reality of the national sin; and he affirms once more (Jer 2:5, Jer 2:7) that Israels apostasy originated long ago, in the early period of its history, and implies that the taint thus contracted is a fact which can neither be denied nor obliterated The punctuators of the Hebrew text, having pointed the first two verbs as in the 1st pers. instead of the 2d feminine, were obliged, further, to suggest the reading “I will not transgress,” for the original phrase “I will not serve”; a variant which is found in the Targum, and many MSS. and editions. “Serving” and “bearing the yoke” are equivalent expressions; {Jer 27:11-12} so that, if the first two verbs were really in the 1st pers., the sentence ought to be continued with, “And I said, Thou shalt not serve.” But the purport of this verse is to justify the assertion of the last, as is evident from the introductory particle “for,” The Syriac supports; and the LXX and Vulg. have the two leading verbs in the 2d pers. {Jer 4:19} The meaning is that Israel, like a stubborn ox, has broken the yoke imposed on him by Iahvah; a statement which is repeated in Jer 5:5 : “But these have altogether broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds.” {cf. Jer 2:31, infra; Hos 4:16 Act 26:14}

“Yet I-I planted thee with” (or, “as”) “noble vines, all of them genuine shoots; and how hast thou turned Me thyself into the wild offshoots of a foreign vine?” (Jer 2:21). The thought seems to be borrowed from Isaiahs Song of the Beloveds Vineyard. {Isa 5:1 sqq.} The nation is addressed as a person, endowed with a continuity of moral existence from the earliest period. “The days of the life of a man may be numbered; but the days of Israel are innumerable” (Sir 37:25). It was with the true seed of Abraham, the real Israel, that Iahvah had entered into covenant; {Exo 18:19; Rom 9:7} and this genuine offspring of the patriarch had its representatives in every succeeding generation, even in the worst of times. {1Ki 19:18} But the prophets argument seems to imply that the good plants had reverted to a wild state, and that the entire nation had become hopelessly degenerate; which was not far from the actual condition of things at the close of his career. The culmination of Israels degeneracy, however, was seen in the rejection of Him to whom “gave all the prophets witness.” The Passion of Christ sounded a deeper depth of sacred sorrow than the passion of any of His forerunners. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee!”

“Then on My head a crown of thorns I wear;

For these are all the grapes Sion doth bear,

Though I My vine planted and watered there:

Was ever grief like Mine?”

“For if thou wash with natron, and take thee much soap, spotted (crimsoned; Targ. Isa 1:18 : or written, recorded) is thy guilt before Me, saith My Lord Iahvah.” Comparison with Isa 1:18, “Though thy sins be as scarlet though they be red like crimson,” suggests that the former rendering of the doubtful word is correct; and this idea is plainly better suited to the context than a reference to the Books of Heaven, and the Recording Angel; for the object of washing is to get rid of spots and stains.

“How canst thou say, I have not defiled myself; after the Baals I have not gone: See thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done, O swift she-camel, running hither and thither” (literally, intertwining or crossing her ways) (Jer 2:23). The prophet anticipates a possible attempt at self-justification; just as in Jer 2:35 he complains of Israels self-righteousness. Both here and there he is dealing with his own contemporaries in Judah; whereas the idolatry described in Jer 2:20 sqq. is chiefly that of the ruined kingdom of Ephraim. {Jer 3:24; 2Ki 17:10} It appears that the worship of Baal proper only existed in Judah for a brief period in the reign of Ahaziahs usurping queen Athaliah, side by side with the worship of Iahvah; {2Ch 23:17} while on the high places and at the local sanctuaries the God of Israel was honoured. {2Ki 18:22} So far as the prophets complaints refer to old times, Judah could certainly boast of a relatively higher purity than the northern kingdom; and the manifold heathenism of Manassehs reign had been abolished a whole year before this address was delivered. {2Ch 34:3 sqq.} “The valley” spoken of as the scene of Judahs misdoings is that of Ben-Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where, as the prophet elsewhere relates, {Jer 7:31, 2Ki 23:10} the people sacrificed children by fire to the God Molech, whom he expressly designates as a Baal, {Jer 19:5; Jer 32:35} using the term in its wider significance, which includes all the aspects of the Canaanite sun god. And because Judah betook herself now to Iahvah, and now to Molech, varying, as it were, her capricious course from right to left and from left to right, and halting evermore between two opinions, {1Ki 18:21} the prophet calls her “a swift young she-camel,” (swift, that is, for evil) intertwining, or crossing her ways.” The hot zeal with which the people wantonly plunged into a sensual idolatry is aptly set forth in the figure of the next verse. A “wild ass, used to the wilderness, {Job 24:5} in the craving of her soul she snuffeth up {Jer 14:6} the wind” (not “lasst sie kaum Athem genug finden, indem sie denselben vorweg vergeudet,” as Hitzig; but, as a wild beast scenting prey, cf. Jer 14:6, or food afar off, she scents companions at a distance); “her greedy lust, who can turn it back? None that seek her need weary themselves; in her month they find her.” While passion rages, animal instinct is too strong to be diverted from its purpose; it is idle to argue with blind appetite; it goes straight to its mark, like an arrow from a bow. Only when it has had its way, and the reaction of nature follows, does the influence of reason become possible. Such was Israels passion for the false gods. They had no need to seek her; {Hos 2:7; Eze 16:34} in the hour of her infatuation she fell an easy victim to their passive allurements. (The “month” is the season when the sexual instinct is strong.) Warnings fell on deaf ears. “Keep back thy foot from bareness, and thy throat from thirst!” This cry of the prophets availed nothing: “Thou saidst, It is vain! (sc. that thou urgest me.) No, for I love the strangers and after them will I go!” The meaning of the admonition is not very clear. Some (e.g., Rosenmuller) have understood a reference to the shameless doings and the insatiable cravings of lust. Others (as Gesenius) explain the words thus: “Do not pursue thy lovers in such hot haste as to wear thy feet bare in the wild race!” Others, again, take the prohibition literally, and connect the barefootedness and the thirst with the orgies of Baal worship (Hitz.), in which the priests leaped or rather limped with bare feet (what proof?) on the blazing altar, as an act of religious mortification, shrieking the while till their throats were parched and dry {Psa 69:4} in frenzied appeal to their lifeless god. {cf. Exo 3:5; 2Sa 15:30; 1Ki 18:26} In this case the command is, Cease this self-torturing and bootless worship! But the former sense seems to agree better with the context.

“Like the shame of a thief, when he is detected, so are the house of Israel ashamed they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets”; in that they say (are ever saying) to the wood, {Jer 3:9 in Hebrews masc.} Thou art my father! {Jer 3:4} and to the stone (in Hebrews fem.), Thou didst bring me forth! For they {Jer 32:33} have turned towards Me the back and not the face; but in the time of their trouble they say (begin to say), O rise and save us! But where are thy gods that thou madest for thyself? Let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble; for numerous as thy cities are thy gods become, O Judah!” (Jer 2:26-28). “The Shame” is the well known title of opprobrium which the prophets apply to Baal. Even in the histories, which largely depend on prophetic sources, we find such substitutions as Ishbosheth for Eshbaal, the “Man of Shame” for “Baals Man.” Accordingly, the point of Jer 2:26 sqq. is, that as Israel has served the Shame, the idol gods, instead of Iahvah, shame has been and will be her reward: in the hour of bitter need, when she implores help from the One true God, she is put to shame by being referred back to her senseless idols. The “Israel” intended is the entire nation, as in Jer 2:3, and not merely the fallen kingdom of Ephraim. In Jer 2:28 the prophet specially addresses Judah, the surviving representative of the whole people. In the book of Judges {Jdg 10:10-14} the same idea of the attitude of Iahvah towards His faithless people finds historical illustration. Oppressed by the Ammonites they “cried unto the Lord, saying, We have sinned against Thee, in that we have both forsaken our own God, and have served the Baals”; but Iahvah, after reminding them of past deliverances followed by fresh apostasies, replies: “Go, and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress!” Here also we hear the echoes of a prophetic voice. The object of such ironical utterances was by no means to deride the self-caused miseries in which Israel was involved; but, as is evident from the sequel of the narrative in Judges, to deepen penitence and contrition, by making the people realise the full flagrancy of their sin, and the suicidal folly of their desertions of the God whom, in times of national distress, they recognised the only possible Saviour. In the same way and with the same end in view, the prophetic psalmist of Deu 32:1-52 represents the God of Israel as asking (Jer 2:37) “Where are their gods: the Rock in which they sought refuge? That used to eat the flesh of their sacrifices, that drank the wine of their libation? Let them arise and help you; let them be over you a shelter!” The purpose is to bring home to them a conviction of the utter vanity of idol worship; for the poet continues: “See now that I even I am He (the One God) and there is no god beside Me (with Me, sharing My sole attributes); Tis I that kill and save alive; I have crushed, and I heal.” The folly of Israel is made conspicuous, first by the expression “Saying to the wood, Thou art my father, and to the stone, Thou didst bring me forth”; and secondly, by the statement, “Numerous as thy cities are thy gods become, O Judah!” In the former we have a most interesting glimpse of the point of view of the heathen worshipper of the seventh century B.C., from which it appears that by a god he meant the original, i.e., the real author of his own existence. Much has been written in recent years to prove that mans elementary notions of deity are of an altogether lower kind than those which find expression in the worship of a Father in heaven; but when we see that such an idea could subsist even in connection with the most impure nature worships, as in Canaan, and when we observe that it was a familiar conception in the religion of Egypt several thousand years previously, we may well doubt whether this idea of an Unseen Father of our race is not as old as humanity itself.

The sarcastic reference to the number of Judahs idols may remind us of what is recorded of classic Athens, in whose streets it was said to be easier to find a god than a man. The irony of the prophets remark depends on the consideration that there is, or ought to be, safety in numbers. The impotency of the false gods could hardly be put in a stronger light in words as few as the prophet has used. In Jer 11:13 he repeats the statement in an amplified form: “For numerous as thy cities have thy gods become, O Judah; and numerous as the streets of Jerusalem have ye made altars for The Shame, altars for sacrificing to the Baal.” From this passage, apparently, the LXX derived the words which it adds here: “And according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem did they sacrifice to the (image of) Baal.”

“Why contend ye with Me? All of you have rebelled against Me, saith Iahvah. In vain have I smitten your sons”; correction they (i.e., the people; but LXX may be correct), received not! your own sword hath eaten up your prophets, like a destroying lion. Generation that ye are! See the word of Iahvah! Is it a wilderness that I have been to Israel, or a land of deepest gloom? Why have My people said, We are free; we will come no more unto Thee? Doth a virgin forget her ornaments, a bride her bands (or garlands, Rashi)? yet My people hath forgotten Me days Without number (Jer 2:29-32). The question why contend or dispute ye or, as the LXX has it, talk ye towards or about Me implies that the people murmured at the reproaches and menaces of the prophet (Jer 2:26 sqq.). He answers them by denying their right to complain. Their rebellion has been universal; no chastisement has reformed them; Iahvah has done nothing that can be alleged in excuse of their unfaithfulness; their sin is, therefore, a portentous anomaly, for which it is impossible to find a parallel in ordinary human conduct. In vain had “their sons,” the young men of military age, fallen in battle; {Amo 4:10} the nation had stubbornly refused to see in such disasters a sign of Iahvahs displeasure; a token of Divine chastisement; or rather, while recognising the wrath of heaven, they had obstinately persisted in believing in false explanations of its motive, and refused to admit that the purpose of it was their religious and moral amendment. And not only had the nation refused warning, and despised instruction, and defeated the purposes of the Divine discipline. They had slain their spiritual monitors, the prophets, with the sword; the prophets who had founded upon the national disasters their rebukes of national sin, and their earnest calls to penitence and reform. {1Ki 19:10; Neh 9:26; Mat 23:37} And so when at last the long deferred judgment arrived, it found a political system ready to go to pieces through the feebleness and corruption of the ruling classes; a religious system, of which the spirit had long since evaporated, and which simply survived in the interests of a venal priesthood, and its intimate allies, who made a trade of prophecy; and a kingdom and people ripe for destruction.

At the thought of this crowning outrage, the prophet cannot restrain his indignation. “Generation that ye are!” he exclaims, “behold the word of the Lord. Is it a wilderness that I have been to Israel, or a land of deepest gloom?” Have I been a thankless, barren soil, returning nothing for your culture? The question is more pointed in Hebrew than in English; for the same term means both to till the ground, and to serve and worship God. We have thus an emphatic repetition of the remonstrance with which the address opens: Iahvah has not been unmindful of Israels service; Israel has been persistently ungrateful for Iahvahs gracious love. The cry “We are free!” implies that they had broken away from a painful yoke and a burdensome service (cf. Jer 2:20); the yoke being that of the Moral Law, and the service that perfect freedom which consists in subjection to Divine Reason. Thus sin always triumphs in casting away mans noblest prerogative; in trampling under foot that loyalty to the higher ideal which is the bridal adornment and the peculiar glory of the soul.

“Why hurriest thou to seek thy love?” (Lit. “why dost thou make good thy way?” somewhat as we say, “to make good way with a thing”) (Jer 2:33). The key to the meaning here is supplied by Jer 2:36 : “Why art thou in such haste to change thy way? In (Of) Egypt also shalt thou be disappointed, as thou wert in Assyria.” The “way” is that which leads to Egypt; and the “love” is that apostasy from Iahvah which invariably accompanies an alliance with foreign peoples (Jer 2:18). If you go to Assyria, you “drink the waters of the Euphrates,” i.e., you are exposed to all the malign influences of the heathen land. Elsewhere, also, {Jer 4:30} Jeremiah speaks of the foreign peoples, whose connection Israel so anxiously courted, as her “lovers”; and the metaphor is a common one in the prophets.

The words which follow are obscure. “Therefore the evil things also hast thou taught thy ways.” What “evil things”? Elsewhere the term denotes “misfortunes, calamities.”; {Lam 3:38} and so probably here (cf. Jer 3:5). The sense seems to be: Thou hast done evil, and in so doing hast taught Evil to dog thy steps! The term evil obviously suggests the two meanings of sin and the punishment of sin; as we say, “Be sure your sin will find you out!” Jer 2:34 explains what was the special sin that followed and clung to Israel: “Also in thy skirts (the borders of thy garments) are they (the evil things) found (viz.), the life blood of innocent helpless ones; not that thou didst find them house breaking, (and so hadst excuse for slaying them); {Exo 22:2} but for all these (warnings or, because of all these apostasies and dallyings with the heathen, which they denounced) (cf. Jer 3:7), thou slewest them.” The murder of the prophets (Jer 2:30) was the unatoned guilt which clung to the skirts of Israel.

“And thou saidst, Certainly I am absolved! Surely His wrath is turned away from me! Behold I will reason with thee, because thou sayest, I sinned not!” (Jer 35:1). This is what the people said when they murdered the prophets. They, and doubtess their false guides, regarded the national disasters as so much atonement for their sins. They believed that Iahvahs wrath had exhausted itself in the infliction of what they had already endured, and that they were now absolved from their offences. The prophets looked at the matter differently. To them, national disasters were warnings of worse to follow, unless the people would take them in that sense, and turn from their evil ways. The people preferred to think that their account with Iahvah had been balanced and settled by their misfortunes in war (Jer 2:30). Hence they slew those who never wearied of affirming the contrary, and threatening further woe, as false prophets. {Deu 18:20} The saying, “I sinned not!” refers to these cruel acts; they declared themselves guiltless in the matter of slaying the prophets, as if their blood was on their own heads. The only practical issue of the national troubles was that instead of reforming, they sought to enter into fresh alliances with the heathen, thus, from the point of view of the prophets, adding sin to sin. “Why art thou in such haste to change thy way? (i.e., thy course of action, thy foreign policy). Through Egypt also shalt thou be shamed, as thou hast been shamed through Assyria. Out of this affair also (or, from him, as the country is perhaps personified as a lover of Judah;) shalt thou go forth with thine hands upon thine head (in token of distress, 2Sa 13:19 : Tamar); for Iahvah hath rejected the objects of thy trust, so that thou canst not be successful regarding them” (Jer 2:36-37). The Egyptian alliance, like the former one with Assyria, was destined to bring nothing but shame and confusion to the Jewish people. The prophet urges past experience of similar undertakings, in the hope of deterring the politicians of the day from their foolish enterprise. But all that they had learnt from the failure and loss entailed by their intrigues with one foreign power was, that it was expedient to try another. So they made haste to “change their way,” to alter the direction of their policy from Assyria to Egypt. King Hezekiah had renounced his vassalage to Assyria, in reliance, as it would seem, on the support of Taharka, king of Egypt and Ethiopia; {2Ki 18:7; cf. Isa 30:1-5} and now again the nation was coquetting with the same power. As has been stated, an Egyptian force lay at this time on the confines of Judah, and the prophet may be referring to friendly advances of the Jewish princes towards its leaders.

In the Hebrew, chapter 3 opens with the word “saying”. No real parallel to this can be found elsewhere, and the Sept. and Syriac omit the term. Whether we follow these ancient authorities, and do the same, or whether we prefer to suppose that the prophet originally wrote, as usually, “And the Word of Iahvah came unto me, saying,” will not make much difference. One thing is clear; the division of the chapters is in this instance erroneous, for the short section, Jer 3:1-5, obviously belongs to and completes the argument of chapter 2. The statement of Jer 2:37, that Israel will not prosper in the negotiations with Egypt, is justified in Jer 3:1 by the consideration that prosperity is an outcome of the Divine favour, which Israel has forfeited. The rejection of Israels “confidences” implies the rejection of the people themselves. {Jer 7:29} “If a man divorce his wife and she go away from him, (de chez lui), and become another mans, doth he (her former husband) return unto her again? Would not that land be utterly polluted?” It is the case contemplated in the Book of the Law, {Deu 24:1-4} the supposition being that the second husband may divorce the woman, or that the bond between them may be dissolved by his death. In either contingency, the law forbade reunion with the former husband, as “abomination before Iahvah”; and Davids treatment of his ten wives, who had been publicly wedded by his rebel son Absalom, proves the antiquity of the usage in this respect. {2Sa 20:3} The relation of Israel to Iahvah is the relation to her former husband of the divorced wife who has married another. If anything it is worse. “And thou, thou hast played the harlot with many paramours; and shalt thou return unto Me? saith Iahvah.” The very idea of it is rejected with indignation. The author of the law will not so flagrantly break the law. (With the Hebrews form of the question, cf. the Latin use of the infin. “Mene incepto desist, re victam?”) The details of the unfaithfulness of Israel-the proofs that she belongs to others and not to Iahvah-are glaringly obvious; contradiction is impossible. “Lift up thine eyes upon the bare fells, and see!” cries the prophet; “where hast thou not been forced? By the roadsides thou satest for them like a Bedawi in the wilderness, and thou pollutedst the land with thy whoredom and with thrine evil.” On every hilltop the evidence of Judahs sinful dalliance with idols was visible; in her eagerness to consort with the false gods, the objects of her infatuation, she was like a courtesan looking out for paramours by the wayside, {Gen 38:14} or an Arab lying in wait for the unwary traveller in the desert. There may be a reference to the artificial bamoth, or “high places” erected at the top of the streets, on which the wretched women, consecrated to the shameful rites of the Canaanite goddess Ashtoreth, were wont to sit plying their trade of temptation. {2Ki 23:8; Eze 16:25} We must never forget that, repulsive and farfetched as these comparisons of an apostate people to a sinful woman may seem to us, the ideas and customs of the time made them perfectly apposite. The worship of the gods of Canaan involved the practice of the foulest impurities; and by her revolt from Iahvah, her lord and husband, according to the common Semitic conception of the relation between a people and their god, Israel became a harlot in fact as well as in figure. The land was polluted with her “whoredoms,” i.e., her worship of the false gods, and her practice of their vile rites; and with her “evil,” as instanced above {Jer 2:30; Jer 2:35} in the murder of those who protested against these things (Num 35:33; Psa 106:38. As a punishment for these grave offences, “the showers were withholden, and the spring rains fell not”; but the merciful purpose of this Divine chastisement was not fulfilled; the people were not stirred to penitence, but rather hardened in their sins: “but thou hadst a harlots forehead; thou refusedst to be made ashamed!” And now the day of grace is past, and repentance comes too late. “Hast thou not but now called unto Me, My Father! Friend of my youth wert Thou? Will He retain His wrath forever? or keep it without end?” (Jer 3:3, Jer 3:5). The reference appears to be to the external reforms accomplished by the young king Josiah in his twelfth year-the year previous to the utterance of this prophecy; when, as we read in 2Ch 34:3, “He began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the carven images, and the molten images. To all appearances was a return of the nation to its old allegiance; the return of the rebellious child to its father, of the erring wife to the husband of her youth. By those two sacred names which in her inexcusable fickleness and ingratitude she had lavished upon stocks and stones, Israel now seemed to be invoking the relenting compassion of her alienated God. {Jer 2:27; Jer 2:2} But apart from the doubt attaching to the reality of reformations to order, carried out in obedience to a royal decree apart from the quest on whether outward changes so easily and rapidly accomplished, in accordance with the will of an absolute monarch, were accompanied by any tokens of a genuine national repentance; the sin of Israel had gone too far, and been persisted in too long, for its terrible consequences to be averted. “Behold,”-it is the closing sentence of the address; a sentence fraught with despair and the certainty of coming rum; -“Behold, thou hast planned and accomplished the evil; {Jer 2:33} and thou hast prevailed! The approaches of the people are met by the assurance that their own plans and doings, rather than Iahvahs wrath, are the direct cause of past and prospective adversity; ill doing is the mother of ill fortune. Israel inferred from her troubles that God was angry with her; and she is informed by His prophet that, had she been bent on bringing those troubles about, she could not have chosen any other line of conduct than that which she had actually pursued. The term “evils” again suggests both the false and impure worships, and their calamitous moral consequences. Against the will of Iahvah, His people “had wrought for its own ruin,” and had prevailed.

And now let us take a farewell look at the discourse in its entirety. Beginning at the beginning, the dawn of his peoples life as a nation, the young prophet declares that in her early days, in the old times of simple piety and the uncorrupted life of the desert, Israel had been true to her God; and her devotion to her Divine spouse had been rewarded by guidance and protection. “Israel was a thing consecrated to Iahvah; whoever eat of it was held guilty, and evil came upon them.” {Jer 2:1-3} This happy state of mutual love and trust between the Lord and His people began to change with the great change in outward circumstances involved in their conquest of Canaan and settling among the aboriginal inhabitants as the ruling race. With the lands and cities of the conquered, the conquerors soon learned to adopt also their customs of worship, and the licentious merriment of their sacrifices and festivals. Gradually they lost all sense of any radical distinction between the God of Israel and the local deities at whose ancient sanctuaries they now worshipped Him. Soon they forgot their debt to Iahvah; His gracious and long-continued guidance in the Arabian steppes, and the loving care which had established them in the goodly land of orchards and vineyards and cornfields. The priests ceased to care about ascertaining and declaring His will; the princes openly broke His laws; and the popular prophets spoke in the name of the popular Baals (Jer 3:4-8). There was something peculiarly strange and startling in this general desertion of the national God and Deliverer; it was unparalleled among the surrounding heathen races. They were faithful to gods that were no gods; Israel actually exchanged her Glory, the living source of all her strength and well-being, for a useless, helpless idol. Her behaviour was as crazy as if she had preferred a cistern, all cracks and fissures, that could not possibly hold water, to a never failing fountain of sweet spring water (Jer 3:9-13). The consequences were only too plain to such as had eyes to see. Israel, the servant, the favoured slave of Iahvah, was robbed and spoiled. The “lions,” the fierce and rapacious warriors of Assyria, had ravaged his land; and ruined his cities; while Egypt was proving but a treacherous friend, pilfering and plundering on the borders of Judah. It was all Israels own doing; forsaking his God, he had forfeited the Divine protection. It was his own apostasy, his own frequent and flagrant revolts which were punishing him thus. Vain, therefore, utterly vain were his endeavours to find deliverance from trouble in an alliance with the great heathen powers of South or North (Jer 3:14-19). Rebellion was no new feature in the national history. No; for of old the people had broken the yoke of Iahvah, and burst the bonds of His ordinances, and said, I will not serve! and on every high hill, and under every evergreen tree, Israel had bowed down to the Baalim of Canaan, in spiritual adultery from her Divine Lord and Husband. The change was a portent; the noble vine shoot had degenerated into a worthless wilding (Jer 3:20-21). The sin of Israel was inveterate and ingrained: nothing could wash out the stain of it. Denial of her guilt was futile; the dreadful rites in the valley of Hinnom witnessed against her. Her passion for the foreign worships was as insatiable and headstrong as the fierce lust of the camel or the wild ass. To protests and warnings her sole reply was:-“It is in vain! I love the strangers, and them will I follow!” The outcome of all this wilful apostasy was the shame of defeat and disaster, the humiliation of disappointment, when the helplessness of the stocks and stones, which had supplanted her Heavenly Father, was demonstrated by the course of events. Then she bethought her of the God she had so lightly forsaken, only to hear in His silence a bitterly ironical reference to the multitude of her helpers, the gods of her own creation. The national reverses failed of the effect intended in the counsels of Providence. Her sons had fallen in battle; but instead of repenting of her evil ways, she slew the faithful prophets who warned her of the consequences of her misdeeds (Jer 3:20-25). It was the crowning sin; the cup of her iniquity was full to overflowing. Indignant at the memory of it, the prophet once more insists that the national crimes are what has put misfortune on the track of the nation; and chiefly, this heinous one of killing the messengers of God like housebreakers caught in the act; and then aggravating their guilt by self-justification, and by resorting to Egypt for that help which they despaired of obtaining from an outraged God. All such negotiations, past or present, were doomed to failure beforehand; the Divine sentence had gone forth, and it was idle to contend against it (Jer 2:31-37). Idle also it was to indulge in hopes of the restoration of Divine favour. Just as it was not open to a discarded wife to return to her husband after living with another; so might not Israel be received back into her former position of the Bride of Heaven, after she had “played the harlot with many lovers.” Doubtless of late she had given tokens of remembering her forgotten Lord, calling upon the Father who had been the Guide of her youth, and deprecating the continuance of His wrath. But the time was long since past when it was possible to avert the evil consequences Of her misdoings. She had, as it were, steadily purposed and wrought out her own evils; both her sins and her sufferings past and to come: the iron sequence could not be broken; the ruin she had courted lay before her in the near future: she had “prevailed.” All efforts such as she was now making to stave it off were like a deathbed repentance; in the nature of things, they could not annihilate the past, nor undo what had been done, nor substitute the fruit of holiness for the fruit of sin, the reward of faithfulness and purity for the wages of worldliness, sensuality, and forgetfulness of God.

Thus the discourse starts with impeachment, and ends with irreversible doom. Its tone is comminatory throughout; nowhere do we hear, as in other prophecies, the promise of pardon in return for penitence. Such preaching was necessary, if the nation was to be brought to a due sense of its evil; and the reformation of the eighteenth of Josiah, which was undoubtedly accompanied by a considerable amount of genuine repentance among the governing classes, was in all likelihood furthered by this and similar prophetic orations.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary