Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Jeremiah 2:1 - 2:37
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Passages relating to the Theocracy, Chaps. 2–44
(with an appendix, Jeremiah 45)
______
FIRST SUBDIVISION
The Collection of Discourses, with Appendices, Jeremiah 2-35
1. The First Discourse
Jeremiah 2
After the introduction (Jer_2:1-3), the ever-recurring theme of complaint and threatening is treated in four tableaux or acts, the particular contents of which may be designated as follows:
1. Israel’s infidelity in the light of the fidelity of Jehovah and the heathen (Jer_2:4-13).
2. Israel’s punishment and its cause (Jer_2:14-19).
3. The lust of idolatry: deeply rooted, outwardly insolent, faise at last (Jer_2:20-28).
4. Whose is the guilt? (Jer_2:29-37).
Jer_2:1-3
2. Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying,
Thus saith Jehovah; I remember of thee,
The kindness of thy youth,
The love of thine espousals,
When thou wentest after me in the desert,
In a land that was not sown.
3. Israel is a sanctuary unto Jehovah,
The first-fruits of his produce:
All who devour him incur guilt;
Calamity will come upon them, saith Jehovah.
Jer_2:1-2. And the word … not sown.—It is probable that in the opening words of Jer_2:2 Jeremiah received the command to leave Anathoth and go to Jerusalem as the scene of his prophetic labors. For here only is the audience, to which he was to address himself, designated thus briefly by the word “Jerusalem.” Everywhere else the address reads differently. Comp. Jer_17:19; Jer_19:3; Jer_25:13.—I remember of thee. The expression occurs in malam partem Psa_79:8; Psa_137:7; Neh_6:14; Neh_13:29 : in bonam partem Psa_98:3; Psa_106:45; Psa_132:1; Neh_5:19; Neh_13:22; Neh_13:31. In any case of thee contains an emphasis which should not be overlooked in the exposition—The kindness of thy youth. The commentators dispute whether the kindness and love of God toward the people or that of the people toward God is meant. In behalf of the former view it is urged, (1) that in the following context the people is described as rebellious from the first, and (2) that with this the historical representation of the Pentateuch and other declarations of Old Testament passages accord. (Comp. especially Hos_11:1; Ezekiel 16.) To the first argument it may be objected that these verses form the introduction not to the second chapter only, but to the whole book, and although the greater part of this consists of threatenings, or rather because it does so, the prophet places the assurance of God’s unchangeable fidelity in the foreground. Though Israel may have always sinned, yet originally he was united to God in love, and this fundamental relation is eternal and inviolable. Comp. Romans 11. It cannot then be disputed that the infidelity of Israel was of an early date (comp. from of old, Jer_2:20) going back to the pilgrimage through the desert (the golden calf and even prior to this, the murmuring of the people, Exo_15:24; Exo_16:2; Exo_17:2), but it must nevertheless be maintained that the acceptance by Israel of the privileges offered by the Lord, when He sent Moses, and the people trustingly followed him into the Red Sea and the wilderness, is to be regarded as the binding of an inviolable and perpetual covenant. Compare the short and significant, “and the people believed,” Exo_4:31, with Gen_15:6, “and he believed in Jehovah”; Rom_4:3; Gal_3:6. To this also point many prophetic declarations, ex. gr.Hos_11:1 : “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” The period in the youth of Israel at which the Lord loved the people was that in which He brought them out of Egypt. For immediately afterwards (Jer_2:2), it is said of them that they sacrificed to Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. But then, in that important moment, when the Lord delivered Israel from the encircling power of Egypt, displaying His might so grandly, He concluded a covenant of love with Israel; they must therefore then have not only been found worthy of love, but have reciprocated His love. How sweet and precious Israel’s love then was to Him is expressed by Hosea in the splendid image of the early figs, which the pilgrim finds in the desert, Hos_9:10. So, says the Lord, He found Israel in the wilderness, but alas! He has to add, “they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto their shame.” The objections are then unfounded which have been raised to the rendering of verses 2 and 3 in the sense of Israel’s love for God, and other arguments speak positively in its favor, viz. (1) æָëַøְúִּé ìָêְ . This dative has everywhere the sense of a reckoning to one’s account in a good or bad sense. (See the passages cited above.) But since this is not possible here in a bad sense, for the kindness and love of the past are remembered only as good, it can be meant only in a good sense. If, now, Israel has a balance with Jehovah in an active sense, he (Israel) must have done something,—performed some service. It might be said that this service is in allowing himself to be loved, but this is himself to love. We are thus brought again to this point, that Israel in that opening period of his existence turned to the Lord with such love that, though of momentary duration, it sufficed to found an everlasting covenant and imperishable remembrance of its glory. We may also take çֶñֶã in the sense of “the kindness of a maiden towards her master,” being justified in doing so by passages like Hos_6:4; Hos_6:6. Indeed, in view of Isa_40:6, it might not appear unsuitable to recognize in çֶñֶã the element of loveableness, gracefulness, which in itself is connected with the idea of love and grace, and etymologically in gratia, ÷Üñéò , grace; (2) the words ìֶëְúֵּêְ àַçֲøַé favor this interpretation, since they represent Israel, a pilgrim through the desert, walking in the foot-prints of the Lord. Some indeed would understand these words as denoting, not the obedient following of the people, but the gracious precedence of the divine Leader. This interpretation, however, is arbitrary. The text expresses only the idea of following, or pushing after; we are not justified in exchanging this idea for another. (3). The third verse is manifestly in favor of Israel. When it is said (Graf, S. 23), “It should be so, but how it became entirely otherwise is shown in what follows,” we reply, it has not become otherwise; but on this point we shall say more presently.
Jer_2:3. Israel … come upon them.—Though in the words remember of thee it is implied that the kindness and love of the espousals are now only an object of remembrance, a lost joy, yet the third verse declares what a permanent relation was the result of that transient one, an indelible character having been impressed upon the people by that sometime connection with their Lord. They thus became a sanctuary of Jehovah, separate from the profanum vulgus of the nations. This thought is further expressed by a beautiful image: Israel is related to the Gentiles as the first fruits sanctified unto the Lord are to the multitude of common wild fruits, and as profane lips were forbidden to eat the former (Exo_23:19; Num_15:20, sq.; Jer_18:12; Deu_26:1; comp. Lev_22:16-26), so will guilt be upon those who touch the sacred first-fruits in the field of humanity. In accord with this image are Jer_10:25; Jer_50:7; Psa_14:4; Psa_79:7.—All who devour, etc. The instruments of discipline though chosen by the Lord Himself, by the manner in which they execute their commission, bring guilt upon themselves and call for the vengeance of Jehovah, as is especially set forth in reference to Babylon. Hab_1:11; Jer_50:11; Jer 15:23, 28; Jer_51:5 (N. B.), Jer_51:8; Jer_51:11; Jer_51:24.
2. Every important historical appearance has its paradise or golden age. It is thus with humanity in general, with Israel, with the Christian Church (Act_2:41 to Act_4:37), with the Reformation, so also with single churches (Gal_4:14), and with individual Christians. This period of first, nuptial love does not, however, usually continue long, comp. Rev_2:4.
3. As Israel is called the firstling among the nations, so Christians are called the firstlings of His creatures, being regenerated by the word of truth (Jam_1:18, comp Wiesinger in loc., Rev_14:5), in whom first that life-principle is active which is to renew heaven and earth. (Isa_65:17; Isa_66:22; Rev_21:1; 2Pe_3:13). And since Israel as the firstling of the nations is called the sanctuary of God, so Christians by virtue of that principle, implanted in them by word and sacrament, of true, divine, eternal life, without regard to their subjective constitution are ἅãéïé , ἡãéáóìÝíïé (1Co_1:2; Act_20:32, etc.), the community of the saints, in antithesis to the home communis, i.e. natural, earthly, profane humanity. Thus as the firstling Israel cannot be devoured by its enemies, so likewise with the Church (community of the saints), Mat_16:18; Luk_21:17; Mat_28:20; Rev_12:5, etc.
4. Zinzendorf: “Jeremiah a preacher of Righteousness,” (S. 148). “Behold this maiden who is here described! Listen to her leaders, Moses and Aaron! Consider the rods with which she has been beaten and that unbelief and disobedience swept all but two away in the desert, and compare that with the words, ‘I remember still that we were together in the wilderness,’ quasi re bene gesta; and with the others which we heard before from Moses: ‘Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by Jehovah,’ (Deu_33:29). The cause is to be found in this, ‘Thou followedst me.’ ”
5. Idem (S. 150): “In the application to the people it is useful and well to show them that they also were once a maiden who ‘followed’ partly in the beginnings of the Gospel (see Act_4:4), partly in the beginnings of the Reformation. There is an important trace of this in the letter of Luther to the Elector Johann Friedrich. So it then appeared. Likewise in the earlier ages of the Church, even so late as last century, since certainly in the sermons of an Arndt, a Joh. Gerhard, a Selnecker, a Martin Heger, a Scriver, a Spener, a Schade, the people still made quite another figure, and had not only another form, but certainly also a different feeling.”
Footnotes:
Jer_2:3.—For úְּáåּàָúֹä (Comp. Naegelsb. Gram. S. 93, Anm.) some Codd. read úּáåּàָúåֹ . It would be natural to pronounce the consonants úְּáåּàָúָäּ which has been also done by J. D. Michaelis who refers the word to àֶøֶõ ìֹà æְøåּòָä Jer_2:2, but the reference of the suffix to Jehovah is demanded by the connection.
Jer_2:4-13
And all the families of the house of Israel!
5 Thus saith Jehovah, What injustice have your fathers found in me,
That they went far from me,
And followed vacuity arid became vacuous?
6 They said not: Where is Jehovah?
Who brought us up from the land of Egypt,
Who led us through the wilderness,
A land of deserts and pits,
A land of drought and the shadow of death,
A land which no man traversed,
And where no man dwelt?
7 And I brought you into the garden-[literally, Carmel-] land
To eat its fruit and its goodliness;
But ye came and defiled my land,
And made my heritage an abomination.
8 The priests said not, Where is Jehovah?
And those that handle the law knew me not;
The shepherds also rebelled against me,
And the prophets prophesied by Baal,
And followed those that cannot profit.
9 Wherefore I will reckon with you, saith Jehovah,
And with your children’s children will I reckon.
10 For pass over to the isles [or countries] of Chittim, and see,
And send to Kedar, and well consider,
And see if there has been anything like this.
11 Has a people changed gods, which yet are no gods?
But my people has changed its glory for that which cannot profit.
12 Be ye astonished, O ye heavens! at this,
Be ye horrified, utterly amazed [lit., shudder and be withered away], saith Jehovah.
13 For my people have committed two evils:
Me they have forsaken, the fountain of living waters,
To hew out for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns that hold no water.
Jer_2:4. Hear ye … house of Israel. Although the reformation of Josiah extended over the rest of the kingdom of Israel (2Ki_23:15-20; 2Ch_34:33), and although some from the tribes of Israel were present at divine service in Jerusalem (2Ch_35:18), the expression used here is too comprehensive to designate these only; it includes the whole nation. Comp. Isa_46:3; Jer_31:1.—Jeremiah addresses himself not only to those who are actually present, but to an ideal audience: to the whole people of Israel of all times and places, to all those whose common fathers had incurred the guilt reproved in the following verses, and bequeathed it to their descendants. Comp. the address to a still greater circle of ideal hearers, Deu_32:1; Isa_1:2; Mic_1:2; Mic_6:1-2.
Jer_2:5. Thus saith … vacuous. Observe the gradation: your fathers, you (Jer_2:7; Jer_2:9), your children’s children; an historical survey which proceeds from the conduct of the fathers in the past and present, to the fate of the children in the future. The prophet by beginning with “the fathers,” shows that Israel’s ingratitude and disobedience was of ancient date. Moreover, these fathers were not those of any definite period, and therefore not as Kimchi supposes, those who have lived since the entrance into the promised land. Could those who had accompanied the journey through the desert indeed speak thus?—The expression “What iniquity have your fathers found in me?” is an exhibition of the condescending love of God, who speaks just as though He were under obligation to Israel, and they had a right to call Him to account. Comp. Mic_6:3; Isa_5:3. Theodoret: ïὐ ãὰñ ὡò êñéôὴò êñßíåé , ἀëë ’ ὡò ὑðåýèõíïò ἀðïëïãßáí ðñïóöÝñåé , êáὶ ἐëåã÷èῆáé âïýëåôáé åἵôé ðñÜîáé äÝïí ïὔê ἔðñáîå .—Followed vacuity and became vacuous. äֶáֶì are the idols (Jer_10:15; Jer_14:22; Deu_32:21, etc.). He who devotes himself to that which is nothing and vanity, becomes himself vain. LXX. ἐìáôáéþèçóáí , of which there seems to be a reminiscence in Rom_1:21. The words are found reproduced verbatim in 2Ki_17:15.
Jer_2:6. They said not … no man dwelt.—Comp. Jer_2:8. To ask “where is Jehovah?” is to ask after him, to seek Him. To ask after him implies that He is forgotten or lightly esteemed. A land of deserts òֲøָáָä , comp. Jer_50:12; Jer_51:43. ùׁåּçä , comp. Jer_18:20; Pro_22:16; Pro_23:27. They are pits or holes in which man and beast sink. Comp. Rosenmueller, ad loc.—Shadow of death. Psa_23:4; Job_3:5; Job_28:3; Isa_9:1; Amo_5:8. [For a similar description of the Arabian desert, see Robinson, Bibl. Res., II., 502.—S. R. A.]
Jer_2:7. And I brought you … an abomination.— åָàָáִéà resumes the address of Jehovah from Jer_2:5. On the subject-matter compare Deuteronomy 8. If ëַּøְîֶì stood here in a merely appellative signification, the article would be either superfluous or insufficient. We should expect either merely áøîì (or fruitful land, or ëַּøְîֶì äַæåֹú (in this fruitful land) for Palestine cannot be called the fruitful land êáô ’ ἐîï÷Þí , since there are many others more fruitful. To ascribe a demonstrative signification to the article is not allowable, since it has this only in formulas like äַôַּòַí äַéּåֹí . I believe, therefore, that the Prophet here intended Carmel for a proper name, with a hint, however, at the appellative meaning. So the Vulgate: in terram Carmeli. Carmel, in this reference, is contrasted with the desert, as a mountain with the plain, as a fertile cultivated land of forests, vineyards, gardens, and fields, with the desert sand, as a place of springs with the land of drought. Comp. Jerome on Jer_4:26.—And its goodliness. This addition is not superfluous. The Vau is here the climactic and indeed, Gen_4:4—But ye came. After that has been enumerated which the Lord did for the people, we are told what the people did against their Lord. Herein a comparison is instituted between the conduct of Jehovah and the conduct of the people.
Jer_2:8. The priests said not … that cannot profit. That which in Jer_2:6 was laid as a reproach upon all, is now declared specially of the priests. It was their especial duty to seek and inquire after the Lord, comp. ãָּøַùׁ é× , Jer_10:21; Psa_9:11; Psa_34:5, ùָׁàַì é , Jdg_1:1; 28:5; 1Sa_22:13; Jos_9:14.—Who handle the law, not those who decide legal cases, but those who handle the book of the law. We see that the handling is intended in this external sense from the contrast, knew me not. Comp. Jer_18:18; Eze_7:26; Mal_2:7.—The shepherds ought to keep the flock well together and lead it, and how can they do this when they are themselves in rebellion against the chief shepherd? Comp. Jer_10:21; Jer_12:10; Jer_23:1; Jer_50:6.—By Baal (Jer_23:13) or through Baal, that is, through the influence and inspiration of Baal. It is opposed to “in the name of Jehovah” Jer_11:21; Jer_14:15; Jer_26:9; Jer_26:20. Remark the antithesis: They would be prophets, and yet are the organs of falsehood, they would be leaders, yet themselves go astray. The imperfect éåֹòìåּ is used of a permanent quality. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 87 d. There appears, moreover, in this expression, to be an allusion to áְּìִéַּòַì (comp. especially áַּì éåֹòִìåּ Isa_44:9), perhaps also to ìֹà àֱìֹäִéí , comp. also 1Sa_12:21.
Jer_2:9. Wherefore … will I reckon.—The comparison of Israel’s conduct in the past and present, with that of Jehovah, results so much to the disadvantage of the former, that in the future, remote as well as proximate, only øִéá litigatio is to be expected. Jehovah will now prosecute His claims. Isa_3:13; Isa_57:16; coll. Psa_103:9.
Jer_2:10. For pass over … anything like this. Jer_2:9 divides the two halves of the strophe, belonging to both, as the statement of the result. It is affixed to the first half by means of ìָëֵï , and prefixed to the second by ëִּé . Comp. Amo_5:10-12.—Chittim. The word ëִּúִּéí or ëִּúִּéִּéí occurs eight times in the Old Testament: Gen_10:4 (1Ch_1:7), Num_24:24; Isa_23:1; Isa_23:12; Jer_2:10; Eze_27:6; Deu_11:30. Comp. 1Ma_1:1; 1Ma_8:5. It is acknowledged that it denotes primarily the inhabitants of the “islands of the Eastern Mediterranean” (Knobel on Gen_10:4). The name seems to have been given by way of preference to the island of Cyprus, the ancient capital of which was Citium, (Herzog, Real-Enc., III. S. 215). We have, therefore, translated àֵéִּé “islands” in preference to “coasts.” It is evident that Chittim, in a wider sense, denoted Greece, and even the North-western coasts of the Mediterranean in general, since according to Dan_11:30, Antiochus Epiphanes was attacked by ships from Chittim, according to 1Ma_1:1, Alexander the Great, and according to Jer_8:5, Perseus came from Chittim [pronounced Kittim]. The Chittæans are here the representatives of the West, Kedar of the East. For Kedar, according to Gen_25:13, is a son of Ishmael; Jer_49:28, Kedar is reckoned with the men of the East, áְּðֵé ÷ֶãֶí . They are a pastoral people inhabiting the Arabian desert (Isa_21:13-17; Isa_42:11; Isa_60:7; Eze_27:21; Psa_120:5; Son_1:5). The Rabbins designate the Arabians generally by Kedar. ìְֹùׁåֹï ÷ֵãָø is the Arabic language. Comp. Knobel on Gen_25:13. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. et Rabb. p. 1976.—If, äֵï in the conditional sense as ex. gr.Exo_4:1; Exo_8:22; Isa_54:15; Jer_3:1. Hence it may also be used as an interrogative particle, like àִí (comp. si in French). It never occurs in this sense, however, except in this passage. The passages, Job_12:14; Job_23:8, which Fuerst adduces, may be otherwise explained.
Jer_2:11. Has a people … cannot profit.—But my people has changed, comp. Amo_8:7.—Which cannot profit. The idols are meant, comp. rem. on Jer_2:8,—Jer_16:19; Hab_2:18.—This is the second comparison unfavorable to Israel which is instituted in this strophe. The heathen nations who have good reason to change their gods do not, but Israel, whose preeminence over all other nations is founded in their possession of the true God, exchanges Him for vain idols.
Jer_2:12. Be ye astonished … saith Jehovah. The greatness of the crime can be estimated by none so well as be over-arching heavens, which can behold and compare all that takes place. Comp. Deu_32:1; Isa_1:2. çָøֵá , to be dry, stiff, is found here only in the sense of to be amazed. The imperative with o, corresponds to the intransitive signification: transitive úִøְáåּ , Jer_50:27.
Jer_2:13. For my people … water. The two evils are a negative and a positive. The Lord, the fountain of living waters, who offered Himself to them, they have forsaken, and leaky cisterns they have dug, comp. Jer_17:13. In the physical sense the phrase is used in Gen_26:19; “a well of springing water.”—Fountain of living water; Psa_36:10; Pro_10:11; Pro_13:14; Pro_16:22. Ὕäùñ æῶí , Joh_4:10; Joh_7:37 sqq.—The repetition of áֹּàøåֹú , cisterns, reminds us of Gen_14:10. Leaky wells are cisterns dug in the ground, which, having cracks in them will not retain the collected rain-water. ìàֹ éָëִéìåּ reminds us in sense and sound of ìֹàֹ éåֹòִéìåּ , ver 8.
2. Only the true is the real. Falsehood is mere appearance, and all that is based on falsehood, is only an apparent life. It disappears in the fire of judgment, Psa_62:11; Psa_115:9; Psa_132:18.
3. When God tells us, lam doing this for thee, what art thou doing for me? we cannot answer Him one for a thousand. Every sin is at the same time the basest ingratitude towards the greatest benefactor and the most disgraceful rebellion against the truest, most gracious and wisest Lord.
4. Since priests, pastors, and prophets, who have been regularly inducted into office may be deceivers, it is necessary to try the spirits according to the criterion given in 1Jn_4:1 sqq.
5. As we read here that the heathen adhere more faithfully to their false gods than Israel to the true God, so is it generally confirmed by experience that men, as a rule, pursue a bad cause with more zeal, devotion and wisdom, than a good one. Comp. the case of the unrighteous steward; Luk_16:1-8; 1Ki_18:27-28; Jer_4:22.
6. “His people, the nation on which He has bestowed the true religion, have the fountain, they can obtain water without difficulty, as much as they want, but they choose in preference, means difficult, new, insufficient, deceptive, rejected on trial and even in daily experience, rather than be willing to do as they should. Hence come the works of supererogation, the many ceremonies, vows, ecclesiastical regulations, which unquestionably are twice as difficult as to follow the Saviour, and have no promise for this life or for the life to come. … The sin is twofold; (1) they do not obey the Lord. (2) They will labor tooth and nail, if only they may not obey Him.” Zinzendorf, ut sup., S. 162.
2. On Jer_2:12. [“These strongest terms in the language show how intensely amazed all the holy in heaven are at the monstrous folly of human sinning. That when men might have the infinite God for their Friend, they choose to have Him their enemy; that when they might have Him their exhaustless portion of unmeasured and eternal good, they spurn Him away and set themselves to the fruitless task of making some ruinous substitute: this is beyond measure amazing! Verily, sin is a mockery of human reason! It defies all the counsels of prudence and good sense, and glories only in its own shame and madness:” Cowles.—S. R. A].
3. On Jer_2:13. All hunger and thirst is a desire for nourishment by those elements which are necessary to life. This brings us to the question:
What can quench the thirst of the soul?
1. It cannot be quenched by drawing from the broken cisterns of earthly good.
2. It can be quenched only by drawing from the fountain of life, from which the soul originally sprang, even from God.
4. On Jer_2:13. “Our double sin. It consists in this, that we (1) have forsaken the Lord, the living fountain, and (2) have dug for ourselves cisterns which hold no water.” Genzken, Epistelpredigten, 1853.—“How is it that the Lord has to say, they have forsaken me, the living spring? It arises from this, that the hewn cisterns please us better. The creature attracts us so powerfully, all that is below has such an influence on the wavering heart, that it is drawn away from the living spring, and finds the cistern-water of this world more to its taste than the living water, the living God and His word.” Hochstetter. “Twelve Parables from the prophet Jer.,” 1865, S. 6, sq. [“This may be applied to every sinner: qui relicto fonte fodit sibi cisternas rimosas; and to heretics: qui purum doctrinæ fontem in Scripturis et Ecclesia Dei deserunt et fodiunt sibi cisternas cœnosas falsorum dogmatum (S. Irenæus, III. 40; S. Cyprian, Ep. 40; a. Lapide). Comp. Sir_21:13-14, and Bp. Sanderson, I. 361.” Wordsworth. Comp. Thomson, The Land and the Book, I. 443.—S. R. A.]
5. Those who have forsaken the true God, the Creator of all, and serve false gods, are worthy that all creatures should refuse them service. Deu_28:23. Starke.
Footnotes:
Jer_2:5.— îֵòָìַé [from upon=from near). Comp. Gen_32:12; Exo_35:22; Jer_3:18; Amo_3:15. The Hebrew loves to consider that as cumulation, which we represent as association.
Jer_2:11.—The form äֵéîִéø seems to require the root éָîַø , which occurs besides only in Hithpael, Isa_61:6. Since the form äֵîִéø follows directly afterwards, the present form may have originated in a mere oversight, as Olshausen supposes (§ 39 f.; 255 e. i.)
Jer_2:14-19
Why then is he become a spoil?
15 The young lions roar over him,
They raise their voice,
And they made his land desolate:
His cities were burned up without an inhabitant.
16 Even the children of Noph and Tahpanhes
Will depasture the crown of thy head.
17 Did not thy forsaking of Jehovah, thy God, procure thee this,
At the time when he was leading thee in the way?
18 And now what hast thou to do in the way to Egypt,
To drink the water of the Black river [Nile]?
And what hast thou to do in the way to Assyria,
To drink the water of the river [Euphrates]?
19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee,
And thine apostasies shall punish thee,
That thou mayest know and see how evil and bitter it is,
That thou hast forsaken Jehovah thy God,
And that the fear of me is not in thee,
Saith the Lord Jehovah of Hosts.
Jer_2:14. Was Israel a slave? … become a spoil? Who is the interrogator? God, the people, the prophet, or some other? Not the people; for this condition of misery is still future, perceived only prophetically, therefore still hidden from the people. It would then also read òָøַé àַøְöִé . God also is not the questioner, for He it is who is asked, and who answers, (Jer_2:17-18). A third person at a distance cannot be the interrogator, since the subject of inquiry being still future is not known by him. The prophet only can be the questioner. He perceives prophetically the future calamitous condition of his people, and he implores from God a disclosure concerning it.—As to the import of the question, it cannot possibly be regarded as requiring an affirmative answer, as Hitzig supposes, explaining the meaning: “for is not Israel the servant of God or son of the house?” For, 1. We must then read äֲìֹà ; 2. We must then have òֶáֶã éäåä , or òַáְãִּé ; 3. éְìִéã áַּéִú never signifies the son of the house, but always the house-born slave in opposition to one who is bought. Gen_14:14; Gen_17:12-13; Gen_17:23; Gen_17:27; Lev_22:11.—The question must then be one requiring a negative answer; Israel is not a purchased slave but one born in the house. But how then could he be left like a mere thing for a spoil to the enemy? How far this has taken place is shown in the following verse.
Jer_2:15. The young lions roar … without an inhabitant. This is the condition of Israel which the prophet sees with prophetic glance, and from which it seems to proceed that Israel has ceased to be God’s son (comp. Exo_4:22; Deu_26:18; Deu_32:9 sqq.). òָìָéå Graf renders =against him, because the lion only growls ( äâä Isa_31:4) over prey that is slain. Strange! As though the lion could not roar for joy and from a desire for more, etc. Comp. Amo_3:4. The connection requires the sense of “over,” since Israel appears to have already become a prey; his land is wasted, his cities destroyed. On this account the inquiry is made, whether then he is a slave and no longer Jehovah’s first-born son. The imperfect éִùְׁàֲâåּ denotes that the fact is not yet an objective reality but still pertains to the subjective conception of the prophet. What further follows is nevertheless represented as present or past. Comp. Naeglsb., Gr. § 84, h.
Jer_2:16. Even the children of Noph … thy head.— ðֹó (Isa_19:13; Jer_44:1; Jer_46:14; Jer_46:19; Eze_30:13; Eze_30:16) or îֹó (only in Hos_9:6 : both forms are explained by the Egyptian Mon-nufi, see Arnold in HerzogReal-Enc. Art. Memphis), is the Hebrew name for Memphis, the ancient capital of lower Egypt. Tahpanhes ( ÄÜöíáé Ðåëïýóéáé , Herod. II 30. ÔÜöíáò not ÔÜöíáé , LXX. Jer_43:8-9; Jer_44:1), was a fortified border city to the east. In these two cities especially, the Jews who fled to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah, appear to have settled (Jer_43:7; Jer_44:1; Jer_46:14).—Depasture the crown, etc. Triple explanation: 1. The LXX and translations dependent upon it appear to have read éֵãְòåּêְ or éְãָòåּêְ . For they translate ἔãíùóÜí óå êáὶ êáôÝðáéîÜí óå (the latter probably êáôὰ óýíåóéí ). The Vulgate also has constupraverunt te usque ad verticem. 2. Most expositors up to the time of the Reformation follow the Peschito version in translating affligent, contundent, conterent. They derive the word from øָòַò confregit. 3. The only grammatically admissible derivation from øָòָä pascere, depascere is found first (according to Seb. Schmidt) in Luther (but not in his translation). He is followed by most of the modern commentators. But it is decidedly wrong to take the imperfect here in the past sense, as Graf does. If a definite, past fact, viz., the incursion of Shishak (1Ki_14:25 sq.) were alluded to, we should have the perfect here. For there is no occasion to render this act of depasturing as taking place in the past (comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 87, 3). We are rather led by the mention of Noph and Tahpanhes to the conclusion that something in the future, resulting from the residence of the Jews in the places named (Jer_43:7; Jer_44:1) is alluded to. We read in Jer_42:15-22, that Jeremiah predicted complete destruction to the Jews who were proposing to flee from the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar into Egypt. Particularly in Jer_44:12 he insists that the last remnant of the fugitives in Egypt would be destroyed (Jer_2:14, “none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Judah to sojourn there, shall escape or remain”). To this I refer the depasturing of the crown. The last and only covering, the natural covering of the hair, shall be taken from Judah, he shall be made entirely bald, that is, he shall be entirely swept away: “and they shall all be consumed,” Jer_44:12, [“The hair of the head being held in high estimation among the Hebrews, baldness was regarded as ignominious and humbling.” Henderson.—S. R. A.] In the meantime I confess that the definite mention by name of these places is remarkable. The prophet has hitherto mentioned no names. As was shown above on 1:44 sqq., he does not yet know what nation is appointed for the accomplishment of the divine judgment on Judah. Why, when he is ignorant of the northern enemy, should he know so exactly the southern, who in comparison with the former is of almost no importance? Although I cannot agree with Ewald that Jer_2:14-17 did not originally belong here, since if we divide correctly, there is no break in the connection, yet Jer_2:16 may possibly be an addition which the prophet himself made when writing out his book the second time (Jer_36:32), after the destruction of Jerusalem, in Palestine or in Egypt. (Comp. Comm. on Jer_1:3 and Jer_2:36, and the Introduction to chapter 2). [“I render it, ‘The children of Noph and Tahpanhes have pastured down the crown of thy head.’—Memphis and Daphne, distinguished cities of Egypt, are here put for Egypt herself. Jehoiakim made league with Egypt, but was subjected to severe and shameful taxation. Such a process of shaving, taxation and consequent disgrace our passage forcibly describes.” Cowles.—S. R. A.]
Jer_2:17. Did not thy … leading thee in the way? The fate of the people described in Jer_2:14-16, so directly contradictory to the filial relation, is explained by their revolt from Jehovah. Comp. Jer_4:18.—This, is without doubt the object, forsaking, the subject. As here the leader is put for the leading, so elsewhere the proclaimer for the message (Isa_41:27), the destroyer for the destruction (Exo_12:13), the shooter for the shot (Gen_21:16), the retractor for the retraction (Gen_38:29). Comp. Naeglsb. Gr., § 50, 2; 61, 2 b, and below, Jer_2:25 îִéָּçֵó and the remarks thereon.—The expression leading thee points back to led thee, Jer_2:6. It is not then God’s leading in general which is meant, but His leading through the desert, the rather, as the following verse shows that their forsaking of Him was not confined to the time of their pilgrimage. [“Most of the moderns take æֹàú to be the nominative to the verb and in opposition to òָæְáֵêְ and render: ‘Is it not this that hath procured it to thee,—thy forsaking,’ etc.; but the common rendering seems more appropriate, as it includes both the agent and the act, charging directly on the former the guilt contracted by the latter.—By the way is meant the right way, the way of the Lord; and the leading of the Jews therein denotes the whole of the moral training which they enjoyed under the Mosaic dispensation. In spite of every motive to the contrary, they forsook Jehovah as the object of their fear and confidence.” Henderson.—S. R. A.]
Jer_2:18. And now what hast thou to do in the way to Egypt … to drink the water of the river? åְòַúָּä is in antithesis to áְּòֵú îåֹìִּéëֵêְ Jer_2:17. The latter points to the ancient time, the former to the present. The way to Egypt according to the analogy of Amo_8:14, is not the Egyptian idol-worship. We see this from the statement of its object,—to drink the water of Shihor. The sense is, what will the way to Egypt (or Assyria) avail thee, which thou takest in order to drink the water of the Nile, &c.: that is, to draw from this source power and re-invigoration, i. e. to procure help in Egypt (or Assyria)? Here the question arises, whether the facts experienced by the prophet were the occasion of this mode of expression. Josiah so far from seeking to obtain help from the Egyptians lost his life in contending against them (2Ki_23:29; 2Ch_35:20). He did not undertake this contest as an ally of Assyria, for his object undoubtedly was to prevent these powers from encountering each other. Comp. the Article “Josia” in Herzog, Real-Enc.—Subsequently, indeed (Jer_37:5; comp. 2Ki_24:20, and Jeremiah 43), we find Jeremiah’s contemporaries laying claim to aid from Egypt, but at the same time the northern empire, by which we must understand Assyria, was the enemy which menaced them. Hence it appears that Jeremiah does not here, as in Jer_2:16 and probably also in Jer_2:3, allude to definite facts of recent date, but that he has in view only in general the propensity repeatedly manifested in the later history of Israel since Phul to seek help from the two heathen empires between which it was placed, instead of from Jehovah. In this period Egypt and Assyria are, as it were, two poles, which are always mentioned together in a stereotyped form in the most various connections. (Hos_11:11; Isa_7:23; Isa_10:24; Isa_19:23 sqq.; Isa_27:13; Isa_52:4; Ezekiel 31.) Particularly the seeking aid from Egypt and Assyria is a reproach made both by the older prophets (Hos_7:11, “They call to Egypt, they go to Assyria,” Jer_12:2, comp. Jer_11:5) by his contemporaries (Eze_16:26 sqq; Jer_23:2) and by Jeremiah himself elsewhere (Lam_5:6). There is therefore no reason here for the inquiry whether by Assyria Jeremiah meant Babylon, for he has really, at least in the first intention, the true Assyria in mind.— ùּׁçåֹø here as in Isa_23:3 is the Nile. The name signifies “the black, black-water” (Leyrer, Art. Sichor in HerzogR.-Enc.); hence, also, among the Greeks and Romans the name ÌÝëáò , Melo, from the black mud of the Nile (Comp. Servius on Virg. Georg. IV. 288 sqq. Æn. I. 745, IV. 246). ðָäָø the Euphrates, as in Gen_31:21; Exo_23:31; Num_22:5, &c.
Jer_2:19. Thine own wickedness shall correct thee … Jehovah of hosts. There is here a reference to Jer_2:17-18. The wickedness described in these verses will correct Israel, that is, will produce the effects portrayed in Jer_2:14-16, and this correction will lead Israel to shameful but yet wholesome knowledge.—Apostasies ( îְùׁåּáָä ) is a word used especially by Jeremiah. Except in this book it occurs in only three passages (Pro_1:32; Hos_11:7; Hos_14:5), the plural only in Jer_3:22; Jer_5:6; Jer_14:7. With this the train of thought in this strophe seems to conclude. It begins with astonishment at the desolate condition of the people (Jer_2:14 to Jer_2:16), then explains why it must be so (Jer_2:17-18), and finally designates salutary knowledge as the intended effect of this severe discipline (Jer_2:19). The full form, “Saith the Lord,” &c., seems to denote the close of a section. The following strophe, though an independent tableau, is closely connected with the preceding, opening a deeper insight into the source of the apostasy described in Jer_2:17-19.
Footnotes:
Jer_2:15.—The Keri ðִöְּúåּ is an unnecessary correction by the Masoretes, who here as in Jer_22:6, regarded the plural as necessary with òָøָéå . But the singular may be used, in accordance with the capacity of the 3d Per. Fem. Sing., to involve an ideal plural. Naegelsb. Gr., § 105, 4, 6. Ewald, § 317, a. Whether ðִöְּúָä is derived from öָú (comp. Ewald, § 140, a. Fuerst, s. v. öåּú ) éָöַú to kindle (Olshausen regards it as a derivative from a root ëּå֮ , Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr., S. 591), or ðָöָä to destroy (Jer_4:7; Jer_9:11; Isa_37:26; 2Ki_19:25) is undecided.
Jer_2:15.— îִáְּìִé éùֵּׁá . îִï is not to be taken as causal but local=away from without. Comp. Jer_4:7; Jer_9:9-11. There are two negatives: without no inhabitant. Gesen., § 152, 2.
Jer_2:16.—The reading úַּçְôְּðֵí for úַּçֲôַðְçֵí (vide Jer_43:7-9; Jer_44:1; Jer_46:14, úַּçִôַּðְçֵí ; Eze_30:18 úְּçַôְðְçֵí ) is probably no more than an ancient clerical error.
Jer_2:17.—The Infinitive, in accordance with its abstract signification, is regarded as feminine, and therefore has the predicate in the fem. (comp. 1Sa_18:23) as for the same reason it frequently assumes a fem. termination, ex. gr. ùִׂðְàָä , âֶùֶׁú , etc. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 22, Anm. 3.
Jer_2:17.— áְּòֵú îåֹìéëֵêְ , we should expect äåֹìִéëֵêְ . The participle is used in a somewhat unusual manner, as concretum pro abstracto.
Jer_2:18.—The construction is not the same as in the formula îַä ìִé åָìָêְ , for this means: What have I and thou in common? The construction here, without the Vau, expresses only having to do with, having reference to. Comp. Psa_50:16; Hos_14:9.
Jer_2:19.— åãòé åøàé . The intended consequences are represented as a command. Comp. Psa_128:5; Gen_20:7; Gen_41:2; Rth_1:9; Ewald, § 347, a. Naegelsb. Gr., § 90, 2.
Jer_2:19.— åְìֹà ôַçְãָúִé àֵìַéִïְ is to be regarded as one conception, and as the subject, co-ordinate with òָæְáֵêְ to the predicate øַò åָîַø . Comp. Jer_5:7; Isa_10:15; Isa_31:8. This passage moreover has this specialty, that besides the negation, the preposition with the suffix also pertains to the one conception.
Jer_2:19.— ôַּçְãָּúִé might be taken in an objective sense like îֹøֵàֲáֶí , Gen_9:2 (comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 164, 4)=timor mei. àֵì would then have to be taken as a fortified ìְ as it in fact occurs, ex. gr., after verbs like ðָú