Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Jeremiah 22:1 - 22:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jer_22:1
Go down. Not literally, for the royal palace was probably the highest building in the city (comp. Jer_22:6); but because of the spiritual eminence of the temple (comp. Jer_26:10, "They came up from the king's house unto the house of the Lord").
Jer_22:2
And thy people. The Septuagint reads, "And thy house and thy people;" thus the passage will agree with Jer_21:11, Jer_21:12.
Jer_22:4
Parallel passage, Jer_17:25.
Jer_22:5
I swear by myself. "Because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself" (Heb_6:13). A synonymous expression is, "As I live, saith Jehovah" (Jer_22:24).
Jer_22:6
Unto the king's house of Judah; rather, concerning the house of the King of Judah; i.e. the royal palace, which, on account of its height and its being constructed so largely out of cedar-weed (comp. Jer_22:14, Jer_22:23), is called "Gilead, and the summit of Lebanon," just as Solomon's palace was called "the house of the forest of Lebanon" (1Ki_7:2). Of Gilead in general, Canon Tristram writes, "No one can fairly judge of Israel's heritage who has not seen the luxuriant exuberance of Gilead, as well as the bard rocks of Judaea." And again, "Lovely knolls and dells open out at every turn, gently rising to the wooded plateau above. Then we rise to higher ground and ride through noble forests of oak. Then for a mile or two through luxuriant green corn, or perhaps through a rich forest of scattered olive trees, left untended and uncared for, with perhaps patches of corn in the open glades". The cedars of Lebanon, however diminished, still bear witness to the ancient fame of this splendid mountain district. A wilderness, and cities which are not inhabited. The comparison has a terrible significance when read in the light of De Vogue's and Freshfield's discoveries. For Gilead itself is full of ruined cities of massive stone architecture. "It is no uncommon thing," says Mr. F.A. Eaton, "to see these houses in a complete state of preservation, built of huge blocks of black basalt, with slabs of the same for the roof, twelve feet long, a foot and a half wide, and half a foot thick, and entrance doors also of basalt … great solid stones of the same material being used as lintels at the top and bottom". Cities which are not inhabited; not, indeed, the cities of Gilead of the time of Jeremiah, but constructed of materials which may reasonably be presumed to have been chiseled in a far more remote antiquity. (The date of the cities in their present state is subsequent to the Christian era.)
Jer_22:7
I will prepare; literally, I will consecrate; the Babylonians being instruments of the Divine vengeance (see on Jer_6:4).
Jer_22:10-12
There is a fate worse than that of the dead Josiah. Weep not, in comparison, for him, but weep sore for him that goeth away (or rather, that is gone away). The king referred to is probably Jehoahaz, who, though two years younger than Jehoiakim, was preferred to him by the people on the death of Josiah. The counsel to "weep sore" for this royal exile was carried out, as Mr. Samuel Cox observes (and we have, perhaps, a specimen of the popular elegies upon him in Eze_19:1-4): "A young lion of royal strain, caught untimely, and chained and carried away captive,—this was how the people of Israel conceived of Shallum". The conjecture is incapable of proof; and Ezekiel, we know, was fond of imaginative elegies. But probably enough he was in harmony with popular feeling on this occasion. The identification of Shallum with Jehoahaz is confirmed by 1Ch_3:15 (Shallum, the youngest son of Josiah); the name appears to have been changed on his accession to the throne, just as Eliakim was changed to Jehoiakim (2Ch_36:4). There is, therefore, no occasion to suppose an ironical allusion to the short reign of Jehoahaz, which might be compared to that of the Israelitish king Shallum (somewhat as Jezebel addresses Jehu as "O Zimri, murderer of his lord," 2Ki_9:31). This view has the support of F. Junius, of Graf, and Rowland Williams; but why should not the Chronicler, though writing in the Persian period, have drawn here, as well as elsewhere in the genealogies, from ancient traditional sources? There is nothing in 1Ch_3:11 to suggest an allusion to the fate of the earlier Shallum.
Jer_22:13
Shallum, or Jehoahaz, in his short reign of three months, had no opportunity of distinguishing himself for good or for evil It was otherwise with Jehoiakim, whose eleven years were marked by the worst characteristics of idolatry and despotism. He "had, besides, a passion for building splendid and costly houses; and as he esteemed his own position secure under the protection of a superior power, he did not scruple severely to oppress his helpless subjects, and wring from them as much money as possible" (Ewald, 'History of Israel,' 4.252; see 2Ki_23:33-35). The building mania, to which Oriental sovereigns have always been prone, had seized upon Jehoiakim. The architecture of the original palace no longer, perhaps, suited the higher degree of civilization; the space was as confined as that of a Saxon mansion would have appeared to a Norman. That buildeth his house by unrighteousness; i.e; as the second half-verse explains, by not paying the workmen (comp. Hab_2:12).
Jer_22:14
A wide house; literally, a house of extensions. Large chambers. The Hebrew specifies "upper chambers "—the principal rooms in ancient houses. Cutteth him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar; rather … his windows, roofing it with cedar. "Cutteth out" is, literally, rendeth; it is the word used in Jer_4:30 of the apparent enlargement of the eyes by putting powdered antimony upon the eyelids. Windows are, as it were, the eyes of a building (Graf compares Ecc_12:3). Beams of cedar wood were used for the roof of the palace, as being the most costly and durable (comp. Isa_9:10). And painted—rather, and painting it—with vermilion; a taste derived from the Egyptians rather than the Babylonians, who seem to have had a difficulty in procuring red.
Jer_22:15
Shalt thou reign—rather, dost thou reign; i.e. dost thou prove thy royal qualities)—because thou closest thyself in cedar? The second part of the clause must at any rate be. altered. Some render, "because thou viest (with thy forefathers) in cedar" (i.e. in building cedar palaces). Hitzig would strike out "in cedar," as having intruded from the preceding line (such a phenomenon meets us occasionally in the received Hebrew text), but this does not help us to a 'connected translation of the passage. Graf's rendering is grammatical, and not against usage; it is, "Dost thou reign because thou art eager about cedar-wood?" and yet the impression left on the mind is that there is some error in the text. The Septuagint finds a reference to one of Jehoiakim's predecessors, "because thou viest with Ahaz" (so the Vatican Codex), or, " … with Ahab". The latter king is celebrated in the Old Testament on account of his buildings, especially his ivory palace (2Ki_22:1-20 :39). The former was at any rate addicted to the imitation of foreign ways (2Ki_16:11; 2Ki_20:11). Did not thy father eat and drink? There was no call upon Jehoiakim to live the life of a Nazarite. "Eating and drinking," i.e. enjoying the good things within his reach, was perfectly admissible (Ecc_2:24); indeed, the Old Testament view of life is remarkable for its healthy naturalness. There was, however, one peremptory condition, itself as much in accordance with nature as with the Law of God, that the rights of other men should be studiously regarded. Josiah "ate and drank," but he also "did judgment and justice," and so "it was well with him."
Jer_22:17
But thou, O Jehoiakim, art the opposite of thy father. For (not, But) thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness. "Covetousness" includes the ideas of injustice and violence (comp. Jer_6:13; Jer_8:10); hence the second half of the verse emphasizes the cruel tyranny which marked the internal policy of Jehoiakim.
Jer_22:18
Josiah had been bitterly missed and universally lamented (2Ch_35:25); and so, only perhaps with less heartiness in most cases, Jehoiakim's other predecessors (Jer_34:5). The Babylonian kings, too, received the honors of public mourning, e.g. even the last of his race, who surrendered to Cyrus, according to the British Museum inscription translated by Mr. Pinches. Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! The Septuagint omits the latter part of this phrase, apparently because it seemed inappropriate to the death of Jehoiakim; but the parallelism requires a two-membered clause. According to Movers, the funeral procession is to be conceived of as formed of two parts, condoling with each other on having to share the same fate. Or perhaps mythology may supply a reason; it is possible that the formulae of public mourning were derived from the ceremonies of the Adonia; Adonis was an androgynous deity (Lenormant, 'Lettres assyriologiques,' 2.209), and might be lamented by his devotees as at once "brother" and "sister.". Ezekiel (Eze_8:13) testifies to the worship of Tammuz, or Adonis, and the highest compliment a king could receive might be to be lamented in the same terms as the sun-god. Jeremiah does not approve this; he merely describes the popular custom. The recognition of the deeply rooted heathenism of the Jews before the Exile involves no disparagement to Old Testament religion; rather it increases the cogency of the argument for its supernatural origin. For how great was the contrast between Jeremiah and his semi-heathen countrymen! And yet Jeremiah's religion is the seed of the faith which overcame the world. Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! Lord is in the Hebrew adon (comp. Adonis and see above). His glory is against the parallelism; we should expect "lady" or "queen."
Jer_22:19
Jehoiakim's miserable death, without even the honor of burial. The prediction is repeated in Jer_36:30, where the statement is made in plain language. At first sight it appears to conflict with 2Ki_24:6, "So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead;" but it is only appearance, and when we remember that the complete formula for describing the natural death of a king of Judah is, "slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David" (1Ki_14:31; 1Ki_15:24; 1Ki_22:50; 2Ki_8:24; 2Ki_15:7, 2Ki_15:38; 2Ki_16:20), and that the phrase, "slept with his fathers," is used of Ahab, who fell on the field of battle (1Ki_22:40), we are naturally led to the conjecture that Jehoiakim did not die a natural death, but fell in battle in some sally made by the besieged. Buried with the burial of an ass; i.e. cast out unburied. Beyond the gates; rather, far from the gates.
Jer_22:20
A new strophe begins here, relative to Jehoiachin, the son and successor of Jehoiakim. Go up to Lebanon, and cry. The people of Judah is addressed, personified as a woman (comp. Jer_7:29). The penetrating character of the long-toned cry of an Arab has been mentioned by Dr. Thomson. In Isa_40:9 a similar command is given to Zion; but in what different circumstances! From the passages; rather, from Abarim. The range of Abarim—Nebo, from which Hoses surveyed the land of Israel, belonged to it (Deu_32:49)—completes the circle of mountain stations; Lebanon was in the north, Bashan in the northeast, Abarim in the southeast. All thy lovers; viz. the nations whom self-interest had combined against Nebuchadrezzar, and between whom and Judah negotiations had from time to time been entered into (Jer_2:36; Jer_27:3). "Lovers" (comp. Jer_4:30; Jer_30:1-24; Eze_16:33, Eze_16:37).
Jer_22:21
From thy youth; i.e. from the time that thou didst become a nation (comp. Jer_2:2; Hos_2:15). It is tile Exodus which is referred to.
Jer_22:22
Shall eat up all thy pastors. The verb is that connected with the participle rendered "pastors;" strictly, therefore, shall pasture upon all thy pastors. The wind referred to is doubtless the parching east wind, the symbol of calamity, which is actually called a "sharp" wind in Jer_4:11.
Jer_22:23
O inhabitant—rather, O inhabitress—of Lebanon. It is the people of Jerusalem which is meant; the "Lebanon" are the palaces of cedar-wood which together are called" the house of the King of Judah" (Jer_22:6). How gracious shalt thou be; rather, How wilt thou sigh!
Jer_22:24
Coniah. A shorter form of Jeconiah (1Ch_3:1), found again in Jer_37:1. Perhaps this was the name this king bore prior to his accession, after which it was certainly Jehoiachin; Jeremiah has already spoken of one king by his earlier name in verse 11. The Divine speaker solemnly announces that though, as the representative of Israel's invisible King, Coniah were—or rather, be—the signet upon his right hand (a most valued jewel), yet would—or rather, will—he pluck him thence; i.e. depose him from his high dignity. The same figure is used in Hag_2:23, "I will take thee, O Zerubbabel, and make thee as a signet;" and Eze_28:12, where there is a well-attested reading, "Thou (O King of Type) art a deftly made signet-ring." (For the fulfillment of the prediction in this verse, see 2Ki_24:12, 2Ki_24:15; Jer_24:1; Jer_29:2.)
Jer_22:26
Cast thee out. The Hebrew is stronger—"hurl thee" (comp. Isa_22:17, Hebrew). And thy mother; i.e. the queen-mother Nehushta (comp. Jer_29:2; 2Ki_24:8). She seems to have been particularly influential (see introduction to Jer_13:1-27.)
Jer_22:28
Is this man Coniah, etc.? The prophet's human feelings are stirred; he cannot withhold his sympathy from the sad fate of his king. What! he exclaims; is it possible that this Coniah is treated as a piece of ill-wrought pottery ware (comp. Jer_18:4), and "hurled" into a strange land? He and his seed. These words have caused some difficulty, owing to the youth, of Jehoiachin. According to 2Ki_24:8 he was only eighteen when he was carried captive, while 2Ch_36:9 makes him still younger, only eight (Josiah's age on his accession). Hitzig thinks the latter number is to be preferred; his chief reasons are the prominence given to the queen-mother, and the fact that the length of Jehoiachin's reign is given with more precise accuracy in 2 Chronicles than in 2 Kings. It is true that the king's wives are mentioned in 2Ki_24:15. But that he had wives may, according to Hitzig, have been inferred by the late compiler of Kings from the passage before us; or the "wives" may have been those of Jehoiachin's predecessor. Graf's conjecture is, perhaps, the safest view of the case, whether we accept the number eighteen or the number eight; it is that the "seed" spoken of as born to Jehoiachin in his captivity, and is reckoned to him by anticipation. It should be mentioned, however, that the Septuagint omits "he and his seed" altogether.
Jer_22:29
O earth, earth, earth. The repetition is for solemnity's sake (comp. Jer_7:4).
Jer_22:30
Write ye this man childless; i.e. enter him in the register of the citizens (comp. Isa_4:3) as one who has no heirs. He may have children, but none of them shall succeed to his place in the community. This is all that the passage means; there is no discrepancy with history: how should there be, when Jeremiah himself has mentioned the posterity of Jehoiachin? Yet the Septuagint thought it necessary to avoid the appearance of such a discrepancy by rendering, not "childless," but "one proscribed" ( ἐκκήρυκτον ).
I. THE HIGHEST RANK SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT FROM THE MOST FAITHFUL PREACHING. The Hebrew prophets were remarkable for their clear and bold utterances before kings—often at the peril of their lives (e.g. Amo_7:10-13). Christ expects his servants to be equally faithful and fearless (Act_9:15). When court preachers descend to become court flatterers they are doing their utmost to ruin their patrons. Kings may not often need to be addressed in the style of John Knox, in his sermons before Mary Queen of Scots; but they certainly should not be treated only to the drawing-room delicacies of Atterbury. The fastidiousness which makes strong words about unpleasant subjects seem in "bad form" in fashionable congregations is really a sign of sacrificing truth and right to mean pleasantness. Kings are men, and have human failings and sins. Rank confers power for evil as well as for good. The privileges and talents of a high position involve such great responsibilities, that the neglect or abuse of them is a crime of first magnitude in the sight of God. To ignore these truths is to act cruelly to the persons whom the preacher deceives by his smooth words.
II. THE CHARACTER OF THE COURT IS OF GREAT INTEREST TO THE NATION. As men, the king and his courtiers have a fight to be dealt faithfully with by the preacher. But as persons in authority, their influence makes their condition of importance to all. The people are largely responsible for the condition of the court, since popular applause and popular censure always carry great weight there. Thus Jeremiah associates the people with the king in the address which is intended chiefly for the king. Even under a constitutional government such as that of our own country, the court has immense influence especially in social circles, and it is of vital interest to us all that this influence should be pure and true and righteous.
III. THE PROSPERITY OF A COUNTRY LARGELY DEPENDS UPON THE MORAL CHARACTER OF ITS GOVERNMENT. This great truth is one of the chief lessons to be derived from the Bible accounts of the history of Israel. We commonly rely too much on physical resources, wealth, commerce, military power, etc.; on political resources, legislative schemes, diplomatic complications, etc. We in England have yet to learn how much of our prosperity depends on honesty in trade, fairness in dealing with foreign nations and a high tone of political morality. To judge by some of our newspapers, it would seem that religion has no business with politics; that a county is glorified when her leaders stoop to underhand work that would disgrace the name of the most unscrupulous lawyer. The doom of Israel should warn us against this political atheism. Three duties are specially to be noted in the discourse of Jeremiah.
1. To execute judgment and righteousness; not only to pronounce just verdicts, but to carry out an active policy of justice.
2. To deliver the oppressed; non-intervention may be cowardly and selfish when the weak claim our help.
3. Not to oppress the weak; this applies to nationalities as well as to individuals, and is a warning for our conduct with dependencies, and the native races with which we come in contact in the colonies. For righteousness in these respects the promised reward is, not a mere deliverance from approaching calamities, but glory, fiches, triumph.
Jer_22:8, Jer_22:9
I. THE QUESTION. (Verse 8.) It is put by the heathen nations. These people who cannot understand the religion of Jerusalem can see clearly enough her ruin. The world has eyes for the shame of the Church in her overthrow, though none for her highest glory, that of the beauty of holiness. The question is asked by many nations. The spectacle is open to all, and so startling that many are arrested by it. How true is this even in the case of individual men! If a Christian falls into sin and shame the scandal rings through the world.
1. This question bears witness to the horrible doom of sin. The ruins are so extensive and so completely wrecked, that all who pass by are fascinated and appalled by the sight of them. If strangers are so struck, how must the children of the city feel? Well may they hang their harps on the willows, and sit them down in despair by the waters of Babylon. Yet the temporal ruin of a city is slight compared with the spiritual ruin of a soul.
2. The question bears witness to the surprise that this calamity excited.
(1) It was in contrast to former prosperity. We are too ready to see in prosperity the promise of its continuance. But no delusion can be greater.
(2) It was in opposition to the boasts of the Jews. They had regarded their city as sacred and invulnerable. So the French under the empire were taught to consider Paris. And this serf-confidence carries weight with others; for the world is indolent and thoughtless enough to take people very much at their own estimate of themselves. Nevertheless it is vain.
(3) It was in spite of the supposed protection of God. The Jews were the elect nation. Hence the expectation of their immunity; but a vain expectation. No Divine favoritism will save us from the consequences of our sins.
3. The question suggests no possibility of kelp from the nations. They may pity, but they can do nothing. The stare of the crowd only aggravates the calamity. Well may such a prospect strike grief into the people interested.
II. THE ANSWER. (Verse 9.)
1. The cause of this calamity may be known. Even the heathen nations may know it. Providence is not so mysterious as we suppose. No study is more lofty or more useful than the study of the moral philosophy of history. Treated only on secular grounds, it may be perplexing and unsatisfactory. But regarded in the light of the principles of the Bible, it may be fruitful in sound results.
2. The cause is moral. The hosts of Nebuchadrezzar conquered Jerusalem. Swarms of northern races and Asiatic hordes swept away the power of imperial Rome. Paris fell before the guns and discipline of the German army. Yet in each of these cases moral corruption was behind the physical cause of ruin, sapping the strength of the doomed city and provoking the onslaught of its foes.
3. The special cause was unfaithfulness to God:
(1) forsaking God—for God never withdraws his protection from his people till they have abandoned their fidelity to him;
(2) breaking the covenant—for this had two sides, and God's promised grace is conditioned by the conduct of his people; and
(3) positive idolatry—for the unfaithful servant of God never rests with the abandonment of his God. He must serve some master. Such moral and religious corruption justifies punishment and requires chastisement. We may believe that a right understanding of the guilt and necessities of men will ultimately convince us of the righteousness and wisdom of God's sterner dealings, which at first naturally excite our wonder and dismay.
Jer_22:10
1. The dead are taken from the evil to come. This is the idea of Jeremiah. If death was a calamity, the fate of the living at the overthrow of Jerusalem would have been a worse one. If an evil, death is still the less of two evils. Even if we only think of the dead as leaving the sunlight of this upper world and passing to the dim land of shades, still they go to the place "where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest." In less calamitous times we should feel that, as God knows all, he may have taken our loved ones to save them from some fearful evil which he, though he alone, saw in their path.
2. The dead are removed according to the wall of God. David wept for his child while it lived; after it was dead he dried his tears, for then he knew God's will and resigned himself to it (2Sa_12:22, 2Sa_12:23). This resignation is more than a sensible recognition of the inevitable; it is a calm and trustful acquiescence in the will of God as righteously supreme—for if the Lord gave, may he not take away?—wise, and good.
3. The dead have fallen into the hands of God. In what better hands can they be? How much better to fall into the hands of God than into the hands of man! We dare not dogmatize concerning the deep mysteries of futurity. But one thing we know—"The mercy of the Lord endureth forever." He is just, he may seem stern; the impenitent must suffer punishment, which can be nothing else but fearful, though fair. Yet may not this be the very best thing for them, even during their sufferings? For it is better for us to suffer for sin than to sin without suffering. And who knows what ultimate designs God may have?
4. The dead in Christ never need our tears. We may weep for our own loss, but this is their gain. Weep that the battle is over and victory won? Weep that the pilgrimage is finished and the pilgrim safe at home? Weep that the toil and sorrow, the temptation and sin, of this world are left behind, and the joys of heaven inherited? that the night has ended, the shadows flown away? that the light of the celestial city is beaming on the weary wanderer? Such tears are tears of unbelief.
II. WHY WEEP FOR THE LIVING? This may be required by special causes. Life is his children m this "a blessing. God gives many joys to his children in this world. The continuance of life is a privilege carrying with it the extension of advantages for faithful service. The brave and loyal servant of God will not selfishly crave a premature release from the duties of his life. Still there is a pathos about all life. "Our sincerest laughter with some pain is fraught." Special circumstances may make it fitting to weep for the living. There are calamities that are worse than death. Such seem to have been realized in the horrors of the sieges of Jerusalem. It is worse to live in sin than to die. The lost and ruined life claims our pity far more than that which is cut off by an early death. What curse could be greater than that of the "Wandering Jew?" Matthew Henry says, "Dying saints may be justly envied, while living sinners are justly pitied. And so dismal perhaps the prospects of the times may be, that tears even for a Josiah, even for a Jesus, must be restrained, that they may be reserved for ourselves and our children (Luk_23:28).' Why should not this situation justify suicide? Because
(1) we are not the masters of our own lives;
(2) no man can tell what may follow the gloomiest prospects in the boundless possibilities of life, even in this world;
(3) the man who lays violent hands on himself in rash, cowardly, and willful rebellion against God, may expect a worse condition in the future life than that of the man who is called away by Providence, and possibly far worse than any he is attempting to escape.
Jer_22:13
I. THE WICKEDNESS OF THE DISHONEST BUILDERS.
1. It is seen in bad work. Attempts are made to palm off wretched work with external decorations. There is a double crime here—lying and stealing; the work pretends to be what it is not, and undue payment is wrung out of the purchaser. Is not this commercial immorality to be witnessed in many branches of trade? In how many instances is it impossible to draw the line between the trader and the swindler? We find people accepting it as a maxim that every advantage should be taken of the ignorance, weakness, and trustfulness of others. It is forgotten that work should be done well for its own sake and in justice to others. Remember, God judges us more by the character of our work in the week than by the appearance of our worship on Sunday.
2. This wickedness is seen in the treatment of workmen. Those who live in rapidly growing neighborhoods know how common it is for poor tradesmen to be ruined by the speculative builders to whom they have supplied materials, and for the artisans to have the utmost difficulty in obtaining their wages. This is especially bad, because it is the oppression of the poor and the abuse of confidence. We have no right so to speculate as to risk the property of other people. The cruelties of slavery which accompanied the gigantic building operations of antiquity (e.g. in the building of the Pyramids) may be equaled in wickedness by the crime of those who steal the work of the poor to increase the chance of their own aggrandizement.
II. THE RUIN OF THE DISHONEST BUILDERS. "Woe unto him," etc.! Undue anxiety to get rich overreaches itself and ends in bankruptcy. Dishonesty in trade is poison to successful business in the ultimate issue, for it cuts at the root of the mainspring of all business—trust. The abuse of confidence must finally destroy confidence. No doubt commercial depression is largely due to this cause. If the abuse were general, there could be no commerce in the form that this must assume if it is to be carried on largely with the complicated civilization of modern life. We may be assured, too, that God will not overlook this wickedness. Success may be attained at first. The rich man may have built his palace and may be enjoying its luxuries. The commercial man may have brought his dishonest transactions to a successful termination. Yet the fraud and the cruelty are noted in heaven; and if there is a Judge above, the palace of the great will be no citadel to protect the guilty man from the thunders of Divine judgment.
Jer_22:21
1. There are important words which need to be spoken to us at such a time. We can never have all the wants of our souls supplied by the richest abundance of material good things, and we need heavenly words for our soul's sustenance then as much as in the conscious helplessness of trouble. We have special duties belonging to the time of prosperity. Prosperity brings talents, opens up opportunities for enlarged service, calls for renewed devotion of love and gratitude. There are also peculiar dangers attending prosperity, and it is well that we should hear a Divine voice warn us against them, and heed a Divine counsel which will direct us how to conquer them.
2. There are means by which God speaks to us in prosperity. He is ever speaking to us, even when we do not hear his voice—by the Bible we should be reading, by the ordinances of the Church and the institution of preaching, by the course of providence, by the life of nature, by the still small voice of conscience. But there are special voices of prosperity. Prosperity speaks to us of the goodness of God exercised towards us in spite of our ill-desert and in a degree beyond all reckoning.
II. THERE IS DANGER LEST WE SHOULD DISREGARD THE VOICE OF GOD IN PROSPERITY. God does not thrust his messages upon unwilling ears. We may refuse to hear. Yet he speaks so that we may always hear, so that if we do not heed his voice it must be because we will not hearken to it.
1. Prosperity may disincline us to do this because it seems to satisfy us without God. Really satisfy us it cannot. But temporarily it acts as an opiate, and when we do not feel the need of God we are tempted selfishly to disregard his voice.
2. Then prosperity is distracting. Sorrow is lonely and silent, and leaves us in the dark night to listen to heaven? voices and gaze on the wonders of the world above. The garish day of prosperity, with its noisy and dazzling distractions, withdraws our attention from such things.
3. Further, prosperity begets pride. It leads us to think much of self, to yield to self-will, and to rebel against the requirement to act as God's servants and stoop beneath the yoke of his will. Hence it inclines us to a rebellious disregard for his voice.
4. If men have been hardened against God from their youth, it is not likely that they will heed his voice in the time of prosperity. The longer we neglect this voice the more deaf do we become to it. It is terrible to think of the folly and wickedness of persistent disregard to God's truth while he is patient and long-suffering and persevering in seeking access to our hearts: Some great shock seems to be required to disturb this habit of hardened indifference. An earthquake of adversity may be required to break up such fallow ground. If trouble comes with this end it is a great blessing. The adversity of the Captivity was such a blessing to the Jews; it led them to regard the voice that was unheeded in their prosperity. So our sorrows are often blessings if they make us to hear the voice of our Father in heaven.
I. GOD'S CHILDREN ARE OFTEN CALLED UPON TO WITNESS TO HIM IN DIFFICULT PLACES. In king's courts; in society; in unbelieving homes; in the office, workshop, etc.
II. THEIR WITNESS IS OFTEN IN SHEER CONTRADICTION TO THE ACTIONS AND HABITS THAT PREVAIL THERE. The sin of Judah was flagrant and open, affecting the most elementary laws of righteousness, The Law of Moses guarded the widow and the orphan. The Law of God, in its righteousness, purity, and love, is still strange to the world's life, and is constantly violated in it. But the duty of witnessing is only rendered the more imperative.
III. THEY ARE SUSTAINED BY:
1. The consciousness of inner rectitude and duty.
2. The witness of conscience in the transgressors.
3. The presence and promises of him who sends them.—M.
Jer_22:5, Jer_22:7, Jer_22:13, Jer_22:14
I. THE UNION OF EXTRAVAGANT DESIRES AND DISHONEST, UNLAWFUL METHODS. Easy for Jehoiakim to "go in" for a splendid palace, as he is not in the habit of paying his employee. Are there not many in modern life who act on the same principle? The desire for self-advancement and aggrandizement overtops every other consideration.
1. Unlawful methods of securing these are employed. Speculation; getting on in business in order to get out of it; adulteration; insufficient wages; prices that do not admit of honest manufacture; clap-trap advertisements, etc.
2. Imagining that others exist for the sake of one's self. This reverses the golden rule and the spirit of Christ's life.
II. ITS FUNDAMENTAL SIN. This is selfishness—self-glorification, neglect of God and of human claims. The great principles of the Divine kingdom are contradicted;—justice, mercy, brotherly sympathy, etc.
III. ITS RESULTS.
1. The ruin of the building; i.e. the life-project—the unhallowed aim.
2. The ruin of the builder—for time, perhaps for eternity.—M.
Jer_22:8, Jer_22:9
1. As a measure justice. The position attained by Jerusalem was due not so much to its site as to its being the center of a theocracy. The foundation of its prosperity was a spiritual one. It was God's elective favor which had lifted it up above the cities of the earth. Presuming upon this, the first laws of righteousness had been violated and the whole conditions of the covenant relation ignored. This assumption of the inalienability of Divine blessings is at the root of every great apostasy. It is doubly unrighteous.
(1) As a robbing of God.
(2) As a misuse of a falsely acquired advantage and reputation.
The robbery of such things is of infinitely greater heinousness in so far as they transcend in their value merely earthly treasures, and differ from them in the terms of their acquisition. It is free grace and unrequited love that are trampled on, and the punishment must therefore be the more exemplary.
2. As a necessary precaution. Pretensions so great are apt to mislead others. People who say, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we," may be taken at their own estimation if no marked change takes place in their external condition. God, therefore, uses his judgment in its external signs as an index of his reprobation. Other nations than Israel have illustrated this principle in their decline and fall. The great peoples of Christendom are on their trial. There is nothing more hateful in the sight of God than a people that has outlived its religion and yet retains the profession of it. Although the chief penalties of unfaithfulness in spiritual things must be inward, external evidences will not be wanting of what has taken place. How colossal the ruin of a power that has once been Christian, and has been exalted through Divine grace for the fulfillment of pledges, which have never been redeemed (Mat_23:37; Mat_11:23)!
II. THE JUDGMENT OF GOD WILL BE ENDORSED BY THE VERDICT OF THE WORLD. Even the ruins of Jerusalem would be a thing to gaze at. Its desolation would be unlike any other. The epitaph of a forfeited spiritual supremacy would seem to be graven on the very stones. There is ever something unmistakable and peculiar in the condition of those who are rejected by God. Their misery is not as other misery, their ruin not as other ruin.
1. The spectacle will be self-explanatory. Not that every sin and failing of God's people would be written in earthly chronicles, but the causes of their decay would be broadly apparent. So is it with the Church from which God removes his candlestick, and the soul in whom the light has become darkness.
2. It will be morally impressive. Even in its misery the people of God will instruct the nations; and the Church of Christ will be a spectacle to angels and to men in its failures as in its successes.—M.
Jer_22:10-12
I. DEATH IS NOT THE GREATEST CALAMITY THAT CAN BEFALL MEN. Shallum living, but in shameful exile, was really more to be pitied in himself and to he deplored for the sake of his country, than Josiah dead. The latter was-free from the degradations to which his descendants were exposed, and saved the pain of seeing his country rendered tributary; he had also children to occupy his place. But Shallum experienced all his nation's shame, as it were, vicariously, and was helpless to rescue it from the foreign yoke under which the intrigues of his brother had brought it. The hopes of Israel had in a special but easily understood way centered upon Shallum, in whom it trusted to see the restoration of ancient glory. All these are cut off by a decree more than human. He became, therefore, the type:
1. Of forfeited possibilities of usefulness.
2. Of national ignominy.
3. Of an irremovable curse.
The apostate professor of religion, the impenitent sinner, etc; are worse than dead. It were better for the offender of the little ones that he had never been born (cf. Heb_10:26; 2Pe_2:20, 2Pe_2:21).
II. THE COMPASSION OF MEN SHOULD BE CALLED FORTH FOR THE MISERY OF THOSE WHOSE WRONG-DOING THEY HAVE SHARED.
1. Because of its vicarious character.
2. Because of the Divine displeasure which it represents. This extends to themselves, even although they are not personally punished. Shallum, in this respect, is a type of him who was "made sin for us."
3. In order to practical measures being taken for its relief. There are many in our own day who, like Shallum, are the victims of national crimes and social sins. It is for those who have escaped the penalty to seek, by practical measures and the earnest presentation of the gospel, to redeem them to a happier life. The outcast and the fallen will be the brightest gems in the crown of the Church which gives itself to their redemption.—M.
Jer_22:15, Jer_22:16
I. SHAM ROYALTY. "Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar?" With such persons the romp of circumstance is everything. Autocratic imperiousness is mistaken for empire. The whole superstructure is unsafe because the foundation is false. The ground is undermined. In proportion as men lose the reality of power they grasp at its shadow.
II. TRUE ROYALTY. Essentially a spiritual thing.
1. In what it consists. In moral authority and real influence over men. This is never impaired by mere loss of external circumstance. The true king does not require his crown.
2. How it is secured. By
(1) dependence on God,
(2) simplicity of personal wants,
(3) singleness of patriotic purpose,
(4) sympathy with the ruled.
"It was well with him." This repetition is intended to impress. "Then it was well with him"—an emphasis of time that was to be noted. Josiah himself had gone away from this ideal life and God cast him off.—M.
I. FOR WHAT GOD PLEADS. "That they should execute righteousness and judgment." It is the King Jehoiakim who is addressed specially, a monarch one of the worst who filled the throne of David. "He remained fixed in the recollections of his countrymen as the last example of those cruel, selfish, luxurious princes, the natural products of Oriental monarchies, the disgrace of the monarchy of David." For the estimate formed of him, cf. Jer_22:13, etc. To him, therefore, God thus appeals. Now, this appeal is one God is ever making. Righteousness is his supreme solicitude (cf. homily on Jer_7:1-34, on "Relation of religion and righteousness"). False or corrupted religions are ever characterized by indifference to righteousness. So long as outward adhesion to the creeds and customs they enjoin is given, a wide margin is allowed for the indulgence of the natural and evil propensities of humanity. But a constant characteristic of the religion taught us in God's Word is its demand for righteousness. The gospel is no less stringent than the Law, yea, is more and justly more so, as it has brought to our aid a Divine force by which the demands of righteousness may be more readily met. It does not make void the Law. So far from that, it establishes the Law. If we understand by "belief" that which a man "lives by," which some say is the etymology of the word, and at any rate its meaning, then the scornful lines of the sceptic may be admitted to be true—
"For creeds and sects let senseless bigots fight;
His can't be wrong whose life is in the right."
For if those principles of conduct, those governing motives of a man's life, lead him to right, then, though encrusted with what amount of error and superstition soever they may be, they nevertheless, because hearing such fruit, cannot be wrong at the root. And, on the other hand, however orthodox and scriptural the professed creed, if it do not tend to right conduct then that fact proves that the professed belief is not the real one, but one far other. "Be ye holy as I am holy," is ever God's demand. Note—
II. HOW HE PLEADS. See what forcible arguments he employs.
1. The mighty attraction of hope. Thus he would draw men off from sin. If those to whom he appeals would but hearken, he would work what would be virtually a miracle for them. He would stay the progress of ruin and decay which were now threatening the state; he would turn back the tide of events which was now rushing on in such vast volume and force to overwhelm the throne and people, and he would re-establish the ancient monarchy of David in all its pristine glory (cf. Jer_22:4). To do this now that matters had gone so far would be as great a moral miracle as the cleaving of the waters of the Red Sea, and the Jordan, and the destruction of Sennacherib's army, were physical ones. But God would do that if but the wicked king would turn from his wickedness and execute righteousness and judgment.
2. The mighty compulsion of fear. Thus he would "drive them off" from their present evil ways. See the terrible threatenings of Jer_22:5, etc. What a picture the prophet draws of calamity and of shame, which would be theirs if they did "not hear these words!" And to prevent the force of this threat being diminished, he distinctly warns them that his affection for them and the joy he ever had in them will not hold him back from doing what he said. They had been as Gilead and as Lebanon for beauty, fertility, majesty—his choice possession, his precious heritage; nevertheless his wrath would go forth against them if they refused his words. And this appeal to the King of Judah is like the Divine appeal addressed to sinful men now. What promises to draw men to himself, what threatenings to drive them from their sins, the Bible is filled with! So intent is the Divine mind upon righteousness. In face of this earnestness of God in this matter, what fools they must be who make a "mock at sin"!
III. WHY HE THUS PLEADS. Because of:
1. His love of righteousness. It is the element in which God lives and moves and has his being. He cannot live in an atmosphere of unrighteousness. It is hateful to him. Righteous men feel thus; how much more, therefore, the righteous God!
2. His love of men. How would a father feel towards any one who was ever causing distress and ruin to his children? How he would detest such a person! And, on the other hand, how would he desire that which ever furthers his children's good! Thus God must, out of love for us his children, hate that which ever hurts and harms us, and desire that for Us which ever ministers to our good.
3. His love for the sinner. God separates between the sinner and the sin, and whilst his love yearns over the sinner, his wrath burns against the sin. All his dealings with us are designed to effect a severance between the two. Death is the last and most effective separater; its keen sickle cuts the last bond that binds God's children to the dominion of sin. "He that is dead hath ceased from sin." Blessed be God that it is so! His providence, his Word, conscience, the strivings of his Spirit, are all designed to the same end, and our Lord was called Jesus because he should" save his people from their sins."
IV. WITH WHAT RESULT HE PLEADS. In this case it was of no use (cf. 2Ch_36:16, etc.). And—alas that it should be so—it is often the same. When sin has got a certain hold on the will, no considerations will stay its course. No promises, no threats. How solemn a fact this I How it calls us to resist the beginnings of sin, to dread lest it should become such a habit of the soul as that God should say, "He is joined to his idols: let him alone!" But what is the result of God's pleading on ourselves? That is the question. God grant we may be able to answer it as he would desire!—C.
Jer_22:10
I. WE DO WEEP FOR THE DEAD. Not, however, in the same hopeless way in which the dead were mourned ere Christ brought life and immortality to light by the gospel. Still, though in a very real sense Christ has abolished death, we yet weep for the dead.
1. For the beloved dead. We can hardly comprehend how, if they be conscious, they can be happy without those they have loved here on earth. We know how much her children were to the fond mother of whom they have been bereaved, how she delighted in them and they in her, and hence we cannot see how she can be happy and blessed apart from them. And the fearful vacancy which the removal of the beloved dead causes in the circle of those who mourn them, the constant and dreary sense of irreparable loss,—all this is sufficient to make us weep for the dead.
2. And for the holy dead, as we think of the influence they exerted, the power for good they were to the family, the Church, the neighborhood.
3. And for all who die we mourn. For life itself is a blessing: "All that a man hath will he give for his life." If, therefore, they have been cut off in the prime of their existence, their "sun gone down while it was yet day," we grieve over the possibilities of honor, happiness, and usefulness which are thus lost to them. And if they have been unbelieving and godless, we weep yet more. So far as we can see, the door of heaven is shut on them ere ever they have sought entrance there. It is a fearful thing for a man to die unforgiven, impenitent, and unbelieving. But it is not of such that mention is made in this verse. How can the thoughtful soul do aught but weep for them? But—
II. WE SHOULD AT TIMES WEEP MORE FOR THE LIVING. Great blessing as life is generally, there are times when death is less a reason for tears than life is. It is so when life is a prolonged sorrow, or shame, or suffering, or, especially, sin. Our Lord himself bade the women of Jerusalem weep not for him, but, etc. (Luk_23:28). He thus declared that death—even such as his was to be—was preferable to life such as theirs would soon be. And death is a relief in cases not a few. Has not many a mother, heart-broken by the wild, wicked ways of a godless son, felt often that had he been taken from her when a little child, that sorrow had been less than his life now causes her? And our Lord said of Judas, "It had been better for that man if he had never been born." If sore sorrow can make life to be more pitiable than death—and it can—how much more grievous sin? Such a one is making the worst of both worlds. What is our life?
III. BUTT IS NOT DEATH, FOR THE GODLY, ALWAYS PREFERABLE TO LIFE? Is it not always the living who are to be pitied? St. Paul says, "To depart and be with Christ … is far better." And the author of Eccclesiastes declares, "Better is the day of one's death than the day of one's birth." And without doubt the condition of the blessed dead is better than any earthly lot whatsoever. An old divine represents one such as saying to those who mourned him, "Weep not for me. For," he says, "consider the evils I am freed from. I had a sickly, crazy body, especially toward my latter end; wearisome days and nights were appointed me. What would I have given many times for an hour's rest? But now all this is at an end. I shall be no more sick, no more pained; my head shall now ache no more. And are you sorry for this? I had my share also of worldly losses and crosses in my worldly affairs. I had one house burned over my head, and almost all that was in it, in a few minutes, and have had other cares and troubles besides; but now farewell all such cares. And are you sorry for this? You know that as long as I was able I was laborious in my particular calling. I never ate the bread of idleness, but of honest diligence; but now all that toil is over. I am got to bed, where I rest from my labors—from all my labors of that kind—never to return to them again. And will you grieve for this? A great deal of pains I have taken in travelling and attending upon holy ordinances, on Sabbath days and on weekdays, sometimes above and beyond my strength; but I am now where I have communion with God at the spring-head, without the conduit-pipes of ordinances. And will you grieve for this? You all of you have, and I doubt not some of you feel, a body of death. I am sure I did; and many a time it made me cry out, 'O wretched man that I am!' You know what I mean—the corrupt nature in the carnal mind, the sin that dwells in us, a proneness to evil, a backwardness to good; but death has eased me of that burden. When the health went out of the body that indwelling sin went out of the soul. There was an end of the leprosy that was in the walls. What all the praying and hearing, the Sabbaths and sacraments, the care and watchfulness, of forty years would not do, death has done at one blow. Weep not for me, then. I had daily grief in my heart for my own sins, for the sins of others, and for' the afflictions of my friends, and for the troubles of the Church of God; but now all tears, even those of godly sorrow, are wiped away from mine eyes. Therefore let none be in yours upon my account. And, lastly, the bitterness of death is past with me. I have shot the gulf; that last enemy, that son of Anak, is vanquished, and I am triumphing. 'O Death, where is thy sting?' And, therefore, weep not for me. But this is not all. If you consider the happiness I am entered into, that fair palace in which death was but a dark entry, you would not weep for me, but rejoice rather. Would you know where I am? I am at home in my Father's house, in the mansion prepared for me there. I am where I would be, where I have long and often desired to be; no longer on a stormy sea, but in a safe and quiet harbor. Would you know how it is with me? I am made perfect in holiness. Would you know what I am doing? I see God. I see him as he is; not as through a glass darkly, but face to face. I am in the sweet enjoyment of my blessed Redeemer, whom my soul loved and for whose sake. I was willing