Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Jeremiah 3:1 - 3:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Jeremiah 3-6)
The discourse falls into two main divisions and a conclusion. It may be arranged as follows:—
The Call of Return, ùׁåּá
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.
Threatening of Punishment on Account of their Neglect to Return.
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.
First Division ( Jer_3:1 to Jer_4:4)
The Call to Return, ùׁåּá
1. Basis:—Notwithstanding Deu_24:1-4, a return is possible.
Jer_3:1-5
And she go from him and become another man’s,
Will he return to her again?
Would not such a land be desecrated?
But thou hast whored it with many paramours,
Yet return to me, saith Jehovah.
2 Raise thine eyes to the hills and see;
Where hast thou not been lain with?
By the roads thou satest for them like an Arab in the desert,
And desecratedst the land by thy whoredom and wickedness.
3 And the showers were withheld,
And there came no latter rain:
But thou hadst the brow of a harlot,
And wouldst not be ashamed.
4 Hast thou not henceforth cried to me, my Father!
Thou, the companion of my youth!
5 Will he then everlastingly Mark , 5
And always bear a grudge?
Behold, thus didst thou speak,
And didst the evil and didst prevail.
Jer_3:1. … therefore: If a man dismiss his wife … yet return to me, saith Jehovah. The various explanations of ìֵàîֹø 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., îָàַí , Jer_2:37, by Kimchi, Abarbanel, Luther, Bugenhagen, Œcolampadius, Vatable, Tremelli, Muenster, Starke, Maurer and Hitzig. It is opposed to this connection, (a) that the contents of this verse are as heterogeneous with the previous verse as they are homogeneous with the following, as already shown; (b) that ìàîø is separated from îàñ 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 ìֵàîֹø , supplying àָֽîְøåּ , éֵùׁ ìִé , åַéּàîֶø éØ , éֵàָîֵø ; 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 ìֵàîֹø 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 ìֵàîø in such a sense that it need not depend on the foregoing. Calvin translates indeed dicendo, but would take this in the sense of par manière de dire or of posito casu. Venema modifies this interpretation, rendering “if it is said,’ and regarding it as the antecedent to which “saith Jehovah” at the close of the verse, corresponds:—“If it is said, Will a man return? etc—yet saith Jehovah, thou hast been lewd, yet return to Me.” But leaving out of account that ìàîø would then be superfluous, this absolute use of it is quite undemonstrable. 5. J. D. Michaelis, Ewald and Graf acknowledge that this isolated ìֵàîø is a grammatical anomaly, and therefore declare the text to be corrupt. They assume that either before ìàîø a formula like åַéְäִ ãְּáַø éØ àֵìַé has dropped out, or that the date in Jer_3:6, after which ìàîø 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 ìְ 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.]— äï 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 çַðֵó in an intransitive sense (comp. èָîֵà Lev_18:25) as in Isa_24:5; Psa_106:38 = profanari, to be desecrated. The LXX. reads ïὐ ìéáí v Þóåôáé ἡ ãõíἡ ἐêåßíç ; probably in connection with the previous translation ìὴ ἀíçêÜìØåé ðñὸò áὐôüí ; which change without doubt was intended to render this sentence accordant with the subsequent, application (return to me). The Syrohexapla translation however follows the Hebrew, and Grabe in his edition reads ἡ ãῆ . So also Spohn. Both are certainly wrong.— æָðָä with accus. of the person is found also in Eze_16:28. Most of the ancients (with the exception of the LXX. ἀíÝêáìðåò , Ar. et revertereris?Theodor. ἐðáíῄåéò . Victor. Presb., ðῶò ἐðéóôñÝöåéò ðñüò ìå ); render åùׁåֹá àìé as imperative; the moderns (Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Neumann, Graf) as interrogative. I decidedly regard the first as correct. As I have shown above it is the fundamental idea of the whole discourse that Israel is to return to his Lord. The adherents of the more recent interpretation also find themselves compelled, to avoid contradiction, to take the question not as a negation but as expressing wonder, which is not logically admissible; for why should the Lord wonder concerning that which, according to what follows, is His definite wish? The vau is therefore to be taken as adversative—“although in accordance with legal regulations, I ought, not to receive you, yet I say, Return to me.” The appeal to the passage in the law belongs to the domain rather of prophetic rhetoric than of morals; for the command refers to a physical relation, which does exist between Jehovah and His people. If however we interpret this relation spiritually, we prove too much, for every sin is spiritual adultery. When it was remarked above that this strophe forms the introductory basis of the discourse, it was meant that in this strophe, (a) an apparent hindrance, (b) a false presumption is removed which might stand in the way of a true return. The apparent hindrance is the legal regulation which is removed by an authoritative decree (Jer_3:1-3 a). The false presumption is that pseudo-conversion, which took place under Josiah, and which consisted in this, that the people sought to deceive themselves and others with fine words, which their deeds proved to be lies (Jer_3:3 b–5).
Jer_3:2. Raise thine eyes … and wickedness. These words furnish the actual proof of “thou hast played the harlot,” etc., Jer_3:1.—Hills. Comp. “high mountain,” Isa_13:2. Mons culmine planus, silva non contectus.
Jer_3:3. And the showers were withheld … wouldest not be ashamed. The first hemistich refutes the objection that Israel committed this wickedness unreproved, comp. Jer_2:30. The divine displeasure was rendered palpable by the withholding of the necessary rain (Jer_5:25; coll. Jer_4:18; Jer_2:19), but Israel refused to be brought by this chastisement to perceive, confess and repent of his sin. With the boldness of a harlot who not only does not confess that she has done wickedly, but does it besides as though she had a claim to the recognition of her services,—with such boldness does Israel speak in a confident and affectionate tone to the Lord, and even ventures on a gentle reproach for undeserved severity. While Jer_3:2 expresses a subordinate thought which merely defines more particularly a point in Jer_3:1, and to which Jer_3:3 a is attached as a corollary, Jer_3:4-5 express the second main thought of the strophe, to which Jer_3:3, b serves as a transition.
Jer_3:4. Hast thou not henceforth cried to me … the companion of my youth?—Henceforth appears to refer to the time when the people recognized the divine anger in the withholding of the rain, for then they at once became, at least in words, friendly and officious. But it is not equivalent to îֵàָæ , from times of old. We are thus led to conjecture that the three facts, withholding of rain, hypocritical conversion of the people, and this prophecy, were contemporaneous. This is also confirmed by a comparison of the dates in Jer_1:2 and 2Ch_34:3. According to the latter passage Josiah began in the twelfth year of his reign “to purge Judah and Jerusalem,” while according to Jer_1:2, our prophet commenced his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah. Now, since according to Jer_3:6, the present discourse belongs at any rate to the time of Josiah, and from its position and contents, probably to the beginning of Jeremiah’s prophetic labors, the prophet doubtless, as Chr. B. Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Hitzig and Graf, have also perceived, describes in Jer_3:4-5 the conduct of the people in the time of Josiah’s reformation, to which there is also a very distinct allusion in Jer_3:10. The prophet, therefore, says henceforth, because really even at the time when he proclaimed this divine message, such voices were still heard from the midst of the people. We need not, therefore, render it in the sense of haud ita pridem, nor shall cry, in the future. On companion of my youth, comp. Pro_2:17.
Jer_3:5. Will he then everlastingly mark? … prevail. In these words of the first hemistich is a slight reproach. It is as though Israel’s misfortune was due to the pertinacious anger of Jehovah.—The sense of the second half of the verse is this:—the acts of the people are in contradiction to their words, that the latter were not honestly meant, but were false and deceptive. Observe the antithesis of saidst and didst. Comp. a similar want of uprightness on the part of the people, Jer_2:35.— åַúּåָּáֽì 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 éָëֹì (to be grown, to be able, to set through) seems to require. But leaving out of account that òֹùׂä and éëì 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.
2. “Quodlibet igitur studendum unicuique est, ut evitetur peccatum sicut fornicatio, quia per peccatum quodlibet quædam cum aliqua creaturarum admittitur fornicatio, per quam membra Christi fiunt membra iniquitatis, duoque fiunt in carne una.” Ghislerus.
3. “How great is the goodness of God, when the sinner wilfully thrusts Him away from him, yet God receives him again into His favor when he truly repents! Eze_18:21-22.” Starke.
4. “Revertere ad me et mundaberis, reparaberis, si confundaris tibi et refundaris mihi,” Augustin. contra Faustum, I. 15, i. f.
5. “The feeling of need to call God Father and beseech Him to save, is not an infallible sign of true penitence, Isa_26:16.” Starke.
Footnotes:
Jer_3:2.—[Literally “bare heights” as Hitzig renders. Blayney incorrectly translates “open plains.”—S. R. A.]
Jer_3:2.— ìֹà ùֻׁâַìְúְּ Per verecundiam the Masoretes always put for this the corresponding form from ùָׁëַá Deu_28:30; Isa_13:16; Zec_14:2. [“A few MSS. and the Soncin. Edition also exhibit ùֻׁëַáְúְּ . ”—Henderson].
Jer_3:2.— æְðåּúֵéִêְ a plural formation like çֲðִéúִéí , which occurs besides only in Num_14:33, analogous to úַּæְðåּúִéí , 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.
Jer_3:4.—On the form ÷ָøָàúִé and ãָáָøְúִé , comp. rem. on Jer_2:20.
Jer_3:5.—To éִðְèֹø and éִùְׁîֹø suppl. àַôåֹ . Comp. Jer_3:12; Psa_103:9.
Jer_3:5.—On the form åúַּåּëìָ (for åַúּåּëְìִé .) Comp. Ewald, § 191 b. [Noyes translates this line, “but doest evil with all thy might,” but comp. Exeg. rem.—S. R. A.]
Jer_3:6-10
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; yet her treacherous sister 9Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness [correctly: cry] of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, 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].
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 ìàîø 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.— åúæðé . 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 úִּùְֽׁ÷ֹèִé (Jer_47:7) as an Aramaism (comp. Ewald, § 191, c, and Anm.) or according to the analogy of úֶּîְçִé (Jer_18:23) as a Îìä֞ 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 åָàֹîַø in the sense of “I thought,” and úָּùׁåּá 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 úùׁåá is like úåëì in Jer_3:5—And Faithless, her sister Judah. To take áָּâåֹãָä as subst. abstr. corresponding to îְùåּáָä = faithlessness, would form a fine parallelism; but we should then expect áְּâåּãָä . The form ÷ָèåì with firm a ( áָּðåã even or áִּååãִä 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 åַúֵּøִà is unnecessary, åַúִּøְàֶä does not indeed occur elsewhere, but åַðִּøֵàְä does (1Sa_17:42; 2Ki_5:21; Job_42:16; Eze_18:14, Keri. 28); and åַðִּøְàְä (1Sa_10:14) leaving out of account the analogous forms of other verbs, ex. gr. åַúּֽòֲùְׂä , 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 áִּé depends on the other, whether the following åָàֵøֶà is genuine and original.
Jer_3:8, (And I saw) … played the harlot also. The construction: “I saw, that I, because she played the harlot, had dismissed Israel, and I gave her a bill of divorce, and Judah feared not,” is not so devoid of meaning, as Graf supposes, if we change the paratactic mode of expression into the syntactic. The main object of saw is feared not. All that lies between has the force of a parenthetical clause of adversative signification: “And I saw, that, although I had dismissed Israel, and given her a bill of divorce, yet Judah feared not.” Comp. Naegelsb.Gr., § 111, 1, Anm. But at all events the connection of verses 7 and 8 is interrupted in a very awkward way by And I saw. Verse 7 concludes in this way, that Judah had seen how Israel had not returned at the call of Jehovah, and then Jer_3:8 designates as the object of the divine seeing what, according to the conclusion of the whole course of thought, Jer_3:8 b, 9, 10, must be the object seen by Judah. For the prophet draws a parallel between the behaviour of Israel and of Judah. Israel, first apostate, is called to repent, but returns not and is rejected. Judah sees this and—also does not return. It is evidently in this connection very essential that Judah should have perceived not only the impenitence of Israel, but also the punishment he thus incurred The very sight of this destructive judgment should have brought Judah to sincere repentance Judah’s seeing the impenitence. but not the judgment, the latter being ascribed to the Lord, introduces an inappropriate element into the connection, although we cannot say that an incorrect idea would be thus originated. If however we omit the words, and I saw. we have a perfectly clear and satisfactory connection The critical authorities indeed give no safe support to its rejection. Only Jerome omits the word, but whether on MS. evidence, may be questioned. He is followed by Luther in his translation, and Gulcher. Symb. Hag., Cl. 1 Fasc. 1. The LXX. Chaldee and Arabic versions certainly found it in their copies of the original But the Syriac appears to have read éúøà , the same word twice, and this Ewald regards as the correct reading.—If åàøà 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 åàøà or åúøà .—For all the causes. øֹּì before àֹãåú and àùׁø after it, are found here only. Elsewhere àֹãåú 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) øֹּì expresses the multitude of the adulteries (hence Graf suitably translates “alldieweilen” = for all the causes). àùׁø is rendered necessary to the connection of àֹãåֹú 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. ÷ì is elsewhere always written plene. On account of this unusual defective manner of writing the ancient translations seem to have derived the word from ÷ìì ; for the Vulgate translates “facilitate fornicationis suæ contaminavit terram; LXX. êáὶ ἐãÝíåôï åἰò ïὐäὲí ἡ ðïñíåßá áýôçò . 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 ÷ì 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 åַúַּֽçֲðֵó with Ewald, nor to strike out àֶú 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, çָðֵó 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. àַì éֵøַò àֶúÎäַãָּáָø (2Sa_11:25; coll. 1Sa_8:6 : See Naegelsb.Gr., § 69, Anm. 1; § 100, 2.) Certainly úֶּçֱðַó äָàָøֶõ 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.
2. “Blessed is he who is rendered wise by the losses of others.” Cramer. Comp. Jer_18:5-8; Zec_1:3.
3. Ghislerus remarks that the present passage has been frequently interpreted allegorically. Thus the Abbot Joachim de Flore (ob. 1202, Commentary on Jeremiah, printed at Venice, 1525, and Cologne, 1577), interprets it of the Greek and Roman church (comp. Herzog’s Real-Enc., VI. S., 713). Nicolaus de Lyra interpreted it of the rich monastic orders, and the mendicant friars; Cardinal Hugo (de St. Caro, one of the inquisitors of the Abbot Joachim, ob. 1263), of the “illiterati et sæculares pravi,” and of the “improbi religiosorum et clericorum et literatorum.”
4. Origen also treats of this passage (Jer_3:6-10) in his fourth homily on Jeremiah (in Jerome it is the fourteenth). He understands by Israel, the whole Jewish people, and by Judah, the Gentile church which, in spite of the judgments inflicted on Israel before their eyes, had in the course of time fallen into many sins and errors.
5. Ephrem Syrus emphasizes the encouragement contained in Jer_3:7 (“Return to me”), when he says (Tom. 1. In threnis de div. retributione, according to Ghisler.), “O miseranda anima quousque torpescis et de salute animum despondes? Quam veniam in die judicii assequeris, quum salvator per prophetam exclamet dicens: ad me revertere!”
6. On Jer_3:10. Though the reform of Josiah was only a pseudo-revival, it furnishes us with the means of judging how deep a genuine revival must go. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee (Mat_5:29; Mat_18:8-9; Mar_9:43-48).
2. The difference between false and true repentance. (1) False repentance; (a) its ground—servile fear; (b) its effect—external reform. (2) True repentance; (a) its ground—love to God; (b) its effect—honest fruits of sanctification.
Footnotes:
[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.]
Jer_3:6.— îְùֻׁáָä 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.
Jer_3:8.— ëְּãéúְúֶéäָ . The plural here only, comp. Deu_24:1; Deu_24:3; Isa_50:1.
Jer_3:8.— áֹּâֵãָä is related to áָּâåֹãָä as ùׁåֹáָá (Jer_3:14; Jer_3:22) to îְùֻׁáָä . On the form comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 47, 1; Ewald, § 188, b.
Jer_3:9.— åְäָéָä here as in 1Sa_13:22; 1Sa_25:20, and elsewhere, stands for åַéְäִé . Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 88, 7, Anm.
Jer_3:9.— åַúֶּçֱðַó àֶúÎäָàֶøֶõ , a frequent paratactic construction. Comp. åּôִּéַìâְùׁåֹ åַúֵìֶã , Gen_22:24. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 87, 7; § 111, 1 b.
a. How and whom God will call
Jer_3:11-17
Has justified her soul before Faithless Judah.
12 Go and cry these words to the north, and say,
Return Apostasy Israel, saith Jehovah.
I will not lower my face against you,
For I am merciful, saith Jehovah,
I do not bear a grudge for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thy sin,
That thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God,
And hast run hither and thither to the strangers under every green tree,
And ye have not heeded my voice, saith Jehovah.
14 Return, apostate children, saith Jehovah,
For I am your husband and take you one from a city,
And two from a tribe and bring you towards Zion.
15 And give you pastors after my heart,
And they shall pasture you with understanding and judgment.
16 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall multiply,
And spread in the land in those days, saith Jehovah,
It will no more be said, Ark of the covenant of Jehovah!
And it will no more come to mind,
Nor will they remember it or esteem it;
Also they will not make it again.
17 At that time Jerusalem will be called Jehovah’s throne,
And all the nations shall gather to it,
To the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem,
And will no more follow the perverseness of their evil heart.
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, êáôáêñßíåéí , 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 ὑðüäñá ἱäþí .—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.— åúôּæøé , comp. Jer_2:23; Jer_2:25; Jer_2:36 ( úֵּæְìִé ) [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. ðáñáîçëïὺí , 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., áָּòַì (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 ìְ (1Ch_4:22). But the construction with áְּ 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 áָּòַì 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 ëִּé in the sense of although. It is also grammatically incorrect to take áָּòַìְúִּé in the sense of the future, as some do, following the example of the LXX. ( êáôáêõñéåýóù ὑìῶí ). Rather does the Lord ground His promise of blessing on the fact that He is Israel’s husband, and has never ceased and never will cease to be so. Comp. the remarks on Jer_2:1-3.—One from a city, etc.Eichhorn, Ewald, Graf understand this: “and even if so few fulfil the condition of true return,” (named in Jer_3:13). But to the ear it would then be definitely stated that only a few would return. We should then also expect the antithesis of áֵéú àָáåֹú , îַèֶּä or ùֵׁáֶè . The expressions city and tribe (comp. Gen_10:5; Gen_12:3; Psa_22:28; Psa_96:7), intimate rather that the prophet has the cities and tribes of the heathen in view. He would evidently indicate the great scattering of Israel, cast out among the heathen, and would say that great as this scattering was, if ex. gr., there were only one Jew in a city, or only two in a whole nation; yet these members of the holy family, almost vanishing amid the mass of the heathen should not be forgotten. Thus also Kimchi and Rosenmueller. [Noyes and Henderson.]
Jer_3:15. And give you pastors … understanding and judgment. The promise that Israel shall be gathered out of his dispersion (Jer_3:14) contains an allusion to the final period, and this point is now brought out more clearly. Pastors after God’s heart can be those only, who are no longer as hitherto (comp. Hos_8:4), governed inwardly or outwardly by the spirit of the world, but who allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit of God alone, and are therefore fit instruments for the realization of God’s kingdom upon earth. There is here an unmistakable allusion to David, the man after God’s own heart (1Sa_13:14; Act_13:22), and at the same time the representative of the idea of God’s kingdom in its earthly realization (2 Samuel 7), as well as to Solomon, who next after David, prayed for and received wisdom and judgment from God (2Ch_1:10-11). The explanation of the older commentators, who understand by the pastors, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, or the Apostles and their successors, may have this much of truth in it that the return under Zerubbabel or the Christian Church may be numbered among the beginnings of the fulfillment of this promise. At any rate we must understand spiritual as well as worldly pastors ( ðïéìÝíåò ëáῶí ). 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 ( ôְøåּ åּøְáåּ , Gen_1:28; Gen_9:1), of which we are reminded by the sound of the words here ( úøáå åôøéúí ), 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 ðְàֻí éְäåָֹä , these words belong, at any rate in meaning to it will no more be said. They correspond to ëּé 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 òָùָׂä , occurs in this meaning without an object-accusative only at a very late period (2Ki_17:32), and it is not credible that the prophet should designate this important idea by an expression so easily misunderstood. The Chaldee, Raschi, Grotius and others render “and it shall no more take place,” but they differ among themselves in reference to what shall no more take place. They thus resort to arbitrary supplementations (the taking of the ark into battle 1Sa_4:11; ea quæ nunc in bello fieri solent; the previously stated). The only natural subject is ark.—Jehovah’s throne. The period when the ark is lacking, described in Jer_3:16, does not represent a retrograde but a progressive interval. What the ark has hitherto been to Jerusalem (Exo_25:18-22; Num_7:89; Psa_80:2; Psa_99:1) Jerusalem is now to be in relation to the nations. All Jerusalem is now to be the throne of the Lord. The prophet’s glance penetrates to the remotest distance, without distinguishing the progressive stages into which the final period itself is divided. While thus this prophecy on one hand reminds us of Micah 4 (coll. Isa_2:2 sqq.; Zec_8:20; Jer_31:6. Comp. Casp.Micah der Morasth. S. 453), on the other hand it reminds us of Revelation 21—The declaration of this passage that Jerusalem itself will be the throne of God is covered by the declaration of the Apocalypse that the New Jerusalem will be the tabernacle of God with men (Jer_21:3) as the earth was in the beginning (Genesis 3), and as the glory of Melchisedek consists in his being the representative of that original relation to God. Comp. the article in Herzog, Real-Enc. on Melchisedek, IX., S. 303. Comp. also Eze_48:35; Joel 4:17. The correspondence of the Jerusalem of this passage with the New Jerusalem is further intimated by what is said in “Rev_21:22-23, that the latter will have no temple, neither sun nor moon, but all these the Lord Himself will be to it. The analogy of this declaration with that in Jeremiah concerning the absence of the ark is strikingly evident. Comp. Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weiss. S. 154 and 194.—This analogy is finally confirmed by the declaration that all the heathen will assemble in the name of God at Jerusalem, for a similar declaration is made in Revelation, on the basis of many prophetic passages (Isaiah 60; Isa_66:18 sqq.; Zec_14:16; Zep_3:9-10; comp. Rom_9:24-26; Rom_10:18-20) of the New Jerusalem in Rev_21:24; Rev_21:26.—To the name. The expression is supported by the passages Exo_20:21; Deu_12:5; Deu_12:11 : coll. 1Ki_8:16 sqq.; 2Ch_6:5 sqq., where even the first earthly sanctuary is designated as the residence of the name of Jehovah. As the preposition àֵì designates the direction in space, so ìְ before ùֵׁí 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 ìְùֵׁ&iac