Bible Commentaries
Jeremiah 1

Verses 1-19

CHAPTER I

THE CALL AND CONSECRATION

IN the foregoing pages we have considered the principal events in the life of the prophet Jeremiah, by way of introduction to the more detailed study of his writings. Preparation of this kind seemed to be necessary, if we were to enter upon that study with something more than the vaguest perception of the real personality of the prophet. On the other hand, I hope we shall not fail to find our mental image of the man, and our conception of the times in which he lived, and of the conditions under which he laboured as a servant of God, corrected and perfected by that closer examination of his works to which I now invite you. And so we shall be better equipped for the attainment of that which must be the ultimate object of all such studies; the deepening and strengthening of the life of faith in ourselves, by which alone we can hope to follow in the steps of the saints of old, and like them to realise the great end of our being, the service of the All-Perfect.

I shall consider the various discourses in what appears to be their natural order, so far as possible, taking those chapters together which appear to be connected in occasion and subject. Chapter 1 evidently stands apart, as a self-complete and independent whole. It consists of a chronological superscription (Jeremiah 1:1-3), assigning the temporal limits of the prophet’s activity; and secondly, of an inaugural discourse, which sets before us his first call, and the general scope of the mission which he was chosen to fulfil. This discourse, again, in like manner falls into two sections, of which the former (Jeremiah 1:4-10) relates how the prophet was appointed and qualified by Iahvah to be a spokesman for Him; while the latter (Jeremiah 11:1-19), under the form of two visions, expresses the assurance that Iahvah will accomplish His word, and pictures the mode of fulfilment, closing with a renewed summons to enter upon the work, and with a promise, of effectual support against all opposition.

It is plain that we have before us the author’s introduction to the whole book; and if we would gain an adequate conception of the meaning of the prophet’s activity both for his own time and for ours, we must weigh well the force of these prefatory words. The career of a true prophet, or spokesman for God, undoubtedly implies a special call or vocation to the office. In this preface to the summarised account of his life’s work, Jeremiah represents that call as a single and definite event in his life’s history. Must we take this in its literal sense? We are not astonished by such a statement as "the word of the Lord came unto me"; it may be understood in more senses than one, and perhaps we are unconsciously prone to understand it in what is called a natural sense. Perhaps we think of a result of pious reflection pondering the moral state of the nation and the needs of the time perhaps of that inward voice which is nothing strange to any soul that has attained to the rudiments of spiritual development. But when we read such an assertion as that of Jeremiah 1:9, "Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth," we cannot but pause and ask what it was that the writer meant to convey by words so strange and startling. Thoughtful readers cannot avoid the question whether such statements are consonant with what we otherwise know of the dealings of God with man; whether an outward and visible act of the kind spoken of conforms with that whole conception of the Divine Being, which is, so far as it reflects reality, the outcome of His own contact with our human spirits. The obvious answer is that such corporeal actions are incompatible with all our experience and all our reasoned conceptions of the Divine Essence, which fills all things and controls all things, precisely because it is not limited by a bodily organism, because its actions are not dependent upon such imperfect and restricted media as hands and feet. If, then, we are bound to a literal sense, we can only understand that the prophet saw a vision, in which a Divine hand seemed to touch his lips, and a Divine voice to sound in his ears. But are we bound to a literal sense? It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not say that Iahvah Himself appeared to him. In this respect, he stands in conspicuous contrast with his predecessor Isaiah, who writes, {Isaiah 6:1} "In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up"; and with his successor Ezekiel, who affirms in his opening verse {Ezekiel 1:1} that on a certain definite occasion "the heavens opened," and he saw "visions of God." Nor does Jeremiah use that striking phrase of the younger prophet’s, "The hand of Iahvah was upon me," or "was strong upon me." But when he says, "Iahvah put forth His hand and touched my mouth," he is evidently thinking of the seraph that touched Isaiah’s mouth with the live coal from the heavenly altar. {Isaiah 6:7} The words are identical, and might be regarded as a quotation. It is true that, supposing Jeremiah to be relating the experience of a trance-like condition or ecstasy, we need not assume tiny conscious imitation of his predecessor. The sights and sounds which affect a man in such a condition may be partly repetitions of former experience, whether one’s own or that of others; and in part wholly new and strange. In a dream one might imagine things happening to oneself, which one had heard or read of in connection with others. And Jeremiah’s writings generally prove his intimate acquaintance with those of Isaiah and the older prophets. But as a trance or ecstasy is itself an involuntary state, so the thoughts and feelings of the subject of it must be independent of the individual will, and as it were imposed from without. Is then the prophet describing the experience of such an abnormal state-a state like that of St. Peter in his momentous vision on the housetop at Joppa, or like that of St. Paul when he was "caught up to the third heaven," and saw many wonderful things which he durst not reveal? The question has been answered in the negative on two principal grounds. It is said that the vision of Jeremiah 1:11-12, derives its significance not from the visible thing itself, but from the name of it, which is, of course, not an object of sight at all; and consequently, the so called vision is really "a well-devised and ingenious product of cool reflection." But is this so? We may translate the original passage thus: "And there fell a word of Iahvah unto me, saying, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, A rod of a wake tree" (i.e., an almond) "is what I see. And Iahvah said unto me, Thou hast well seen; for wakeful am I over My word, to do it." Doubtless there is here one of those plays on words which are so well known a feature of the prophetic style; but to admit this is by no means tantamount to an admission that the vision derives its force and meaning from the "invisible name" rather than from the visible thing. Surely it is plain that the significance of the vision depends on the fact which the name implies; a fact which would be at once suggested by the sight of the tree. It is the well known characteristic of the almond tree that it wakes, as it were, from the long sleep of winter before all other trees, and displays its beautiful garland of blossom, while its companions remain leafless and apparently lifeless. This quality of early wakefulness is expressed by the Hebrew name of the almond tree; for shaqued means waking or wakeful. If this tree, in virtue of its remarkable peculiarity, was a proverb of watching and waking, the sight of it, or of a branch of it, in a prophetic vision would be sufficient to suggest that idea, independently of the name. The allusion to the name, therefore, is only a literary device for expressing with inimitable force and neatness the significance of the visible symbol of the "rod of the almond tree," as it was intuitively apprehended by the prophet in his vision.

Another and more radical ground is discovered in the substance of the Divine communication. It is said that the anticipatory statement of the contents and purpose of the subsequent prophesyings of the seer (Jeremiah 1:10), the announcement beforehand of his fortunes (Jeremiah 1:8, Jeremiah 1:18, Jeremiah 1:19); and the warning addressed to the prophet personally (Jeremiah 1:17), are only conceivable as results of a process of abstraction from real experience, as prophecies conformed to the event (ex eventu). "The call of the prophet," says the writer whose arguments we are examining," was the moment when, battling down the doubts and scruples of the natural man (Jeremiah 1:7-8), and full of holy courage, he took the resolution (Jeremiah 1:17) to proclaim God’s word. Certainly he was animated by the hope of Divine assistance (Jeremiah 1:18), the promise of which he heard inwardly in the heart. More than this cannot be affirmed. But in this chapter (Jeremiah 1:17-18), the measure and direction of the Divine help are already clear to the writer; he is aware that opposition awaits him (Jeremiah 1:19); he knows the content of his prophecies (Jeremiah 1:10). Such knowledge was only possible for him in the middle or at the end of his career; and therefore the composition of this opening chapter must be referred to such a later period. As, however, the final catastrophe, after which his language would have taken a wholly different complexion, is still hidden from him here; and as the only edition of his prophecies prepared by himself, that we know of, belongs to the fourth year of Jehoiakim; {Jeremiah 36:1-2} the section is best referred to that very time, when the posture of affairs promised well for the fulfilment of the threatenings of many years (cf. Jeremiah 25:9 with Jeremiah 1:15, Jeremiah 1:10; Jeremiah 25:13 with Jeremiah 1:12-17; Jeremiah 25:6 with Jeremiah 1:16. And Jeremiah 1:18 is virtually repeated, Jeremiah 15:20, which belongs to the same period)."

The first part of this is an obvious inference from the narrative itself. The prophet’s own statement makes it abundantly clear that his conviction of a call was accompanied by doubts and fears, which were only silenced by that faith which moves mountains. That lofty confidence in the purpose and strength of the Unseen, which has enabled weak and trembling humanity to endure martyrdom, might well be sufficient to nerve a young man to undertake the task of preaching unpopular truths, even at the risk of frequent persecution and occasional peril. But surely we need not suppose that, when Jeremiah started on his prophetic career, he was as one who takes a leap in the dark. Surely it is not necessary to suppose him profoundly ignorant of the subject matter of prophecy in general, of the kind of success he might look for, of his own shrinking timidity and desponding temperament, of "the measure and direction of the Divine help." Had the son of Hilkiah been the first of the prophets of Israel instead of one of the latest; had there been no prophets before him; we might recognise some force in this criticism. As the facts lie, however, we can hardly avoid an obvious answer. With the experience of many notable predecessors before his eyes; with the message of a Hosea, an Amos, a Micah, an Isaiah, graven upon his heart; with his minute knowledge of their history, their struggles and successes, the fierce antagonisms they roused, the cruel persecutions they were called upon to face in the discharge of their Divine commission; with his profound sense that nothing but the good help of their God had enabled them to endure the strain of a lifelong battle; it is not in the least wonderful that Jeremiah should have foreseen the like experience for himself. The wonder would have been, if, with such speaking examples before him, he had not anticipated "the measure and direction of the Divine help"; if he had been ignorant "that opposition awaited him"; if he had not already possessed a general knowledge of the "contents" of his own as of all prophecies. For there is a substantial unity underlying all the manifold outpourings of the prophetic spirit. Indeed, it would seem that it is to the diversity of personal gifts, to differences of training and temperament, to the rich variety of character and circumstance, rather than to any essential contrasts in the substance and purport of prophecy itself, that the absence of monotony, the impress of individuality and originality is due, which characterises the Utterances of the principal prophets.

Apart from the unsatisfactory nature of the reasons alleged, it is very probable that this opening chapter was penned by Jeremiah as an introduction to the first collection of his prophecies, which dates from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that is, circ. B.C. 606. In that case, it must not be forgotten that the prophet is relating events which, as he tells us himself, {Jeremiah 25:3} had taken place three and twenty years ago; and as his description is probably drawn from memory, something may be allowed for unconscious transformation of facts in the light of after experience. Still, the peculiar events that attended so marked a crisis in his life as his first consciousness of a Divine call must, in any case, have constituted, cannot but have left a deep and abiding impress upon the prophet’s memory; and there really seems to be no good reason for refusing to believe that that initial experience took the form of a twofold vision seen under conditions of trance or ecstasy. At the same time, bearing in mind the Oriental passion for metaphor and imagery, we are not perhaps debarred from seeing in the whole chapter a figurative description, or rather an attempt to describe through the medium of figurative language, that which must always ultimately transcend description-the communion of the Divine with the human spirit. Real, most real of real facts, as that communion was and is, it can never be directly communicated in words; it can only be hinted and suggested through the medium of symbolic and metaphorical phraseology. Language itself, being more than half material, breaks down in the attempt to express things wholly spiritual.

I shall not stop to discuss the importance of the general superscription or heading of the book, which is given in the first three years. But before passing on, I will ask you to notice that, whereas the Hebrew text opens with the phrase "Dibre Yirmeyahu" "The words of Jeremiah," the oldest translation we have, viz., the Septuagint, reads: "The word of God which came to Jeremiah" toneto ejpian. It is possible, therefore, that the old Greek translator had a Hebrew text different from that which has come down to us, and opening with the same formula which we find at the beginning of the older prophets Hosea, Joel, and Micah. In fact, Amos is the only prophet, besides Jeremiah, whose book begins with the phrase in question; and although it is more appropriate there than here, owing to the continuation "And he said," it looks suspicious even there, when we compare Isaiah 1:1, and observe how much more suitable the term "vision" would be. It is likely that the LXX has preserved the original reading of Jeremiah, and that some editor of the Hebrew text altered it because of the apparent tautology with the opening of Jeremiah 1:2: "To whom the word of the Lord came" in the "days of Josiah."

Such changes were freely made by the scribes in the days before the settlement of the O.T. canon; changes which may occasion much perplexity to those, if any there be, who hold by the unintelligent and obsolete theory of verbal and even literal inspiration, but none at all to such as recognise a Divine hand in the facts of history, and are content to believe that in holy books, as in holy men, there is a Divine treasure in earthen vessels. The textual difference in question may serve to call our attention to the peculiar way in which the prophets identified their work with the Divine will, and their words with the Divine thoughts; so that the words of an Amos or a Jeremiah were in all good faith held and believed to be self-attesting utterances of the Unseen God. The conviction which wrought in them was, in fact, identical with that which in after times moved St. Paul to affirm the high calling and inalienable dignity of the Christian ministry in those impressive words, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

Jeremiah 1:5-10, which relate how the prophet became aware that he was in future to receive revelations from above, constitute in themselves an important revelation. Under Divine influence he becomes aware of a special mission. "Ere I began to form" (mould, fashion, as the potter moulds the clay) "thee in the belly, I knew thee; and ere thou begannest to come forth from the womb, I had dedicated thee," not ‘regarded’ thee as Isaiah 8:13; nor perhaps "declared thee holy," as Ges.; but "hallowed thee," i.e., dedicated thee to God (Judges 17:3; 1 Kings 9:3; especially Leviticus 27:14; of money and houses. The pi of "consecrating" priests, Exodus 28:41; altar, Exodus 29:36, temple, mountain, etc.); perhaps also, "consecrated" thee for the discharge of a sacred office. Even soldiers are called "consecrated," {Isaiah 13:3} as ministers of the Lord of Hosts, and probably as having been formally devoted to His service at the outset of a campaign by special solemnities of lustration and sacrifice; while guests bidden to a sacrificial feast had to undergo a preliminary form of "consecration," {Zephaniah 1:7} to fit them for communion with Deity.

With the certainty of his own Divine calling, it became clear to the prophet that the choice was not an arbitrary caprice; it was the execution of a Divine purpose, conceived long, long before its realisation in time and space. The God whose foreknowledge and will direct the whole course of human history-whose control of events and direction of human energies is most signally evident in precisely those instances where men and nations are most regardless of Him, and imagine the vain thought that they are independent of Him {Isaiah 22:11; Isaiah 37:26} -this sovereign Being, in the development of whose eternal purposes he himself, and every son of man was necessarily a factor, had from the first "known him,"-known the individual character and capacities which would constitute his fitness for the special work of his life; -and "sanctified" him; devoted and consecrated him to the doing of it when the time of his earthly manifestation should arrive. Like others who have played a notable part in the affairs of men, Jeremiah saw with clearest vision that he was himself the embodiment in flesh and blood of a Divine idea; he knew himself to be a deliberately planned and chosen instrument of the Divine activity. It was this seeing himself as God saw him which constituted his difference from his fellows, who only knew their individual appetites, pleasures, and interests, and were blinded, by their absorption in these, to the perception of any higher reality. It was the coming to this knowledge of "himself," of the meaning and purpose of HIS individual unity of powers and aspirations in the great universe of being, of his true relation to God and to man, which constituted the first revelation to Jeremiah, and which was the secret of his personal greatness.

This knowledge, however, might have come to him in vain. Moments of illumination are not always accompanied by noble resolves and corresponding actions. It does not follow that, because a man sees his calling, he will at once renounce all, and pursue it. Jeremiah would not have been human, had he not hesitated a while, when, after the inward light, came the voice, "A spokesman," or Divine interpreter, "to the nations appoint I thee." To have passing flashes of spiritual insight and heavenly inspiration is one thing; to undertake now, in the actual present, the course of conduct which they unquestionably indicate and involve, is quite another. And so, when the hour of spiritual illumination has passed, the darkness may and often does become deeper than before.

"And I said, Alas! O Lord Iahvah, behold I know not how to speak; for I am but a youth." The words express that reluctance to begin which a sense of unpreparedness, and misgivings about the unknown future, naturally inspire. To take the first step demands decision and confidence; but confidence and decision do not come of contemplating oneself and one’s own unfitness or unpreparedness, but of steadfastly fixing our regards upon God, who will qualify us for all that He requires us to do. Jeremiah does not refuse to obey His call; the very words "My Lord Iahvah"-‘Adonai, Master, or my Master-imply a recognition of the Divine right to his service; he merely alleges a natural objection. The cry, "Who is sufficient for these things?" rises to his lips, when the light and the glory are obscured for a moment, and the reaction and despondency natural to human weakness ensue. "And Iahvah said unto me, Say not, I am but a youth; for unto all that I send thee unto, thou shalt go, and all that I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of them; for with thee am I to rescue thee, is the utterance of Iahvah." "Unto all that I send thee unto"; for he was to be no local prophet; his messages were to be addressed to the surrounding peoples as well as to Judah; his outlook as a seer was to comprise the entire political horizon (Jeremiah 1:10, Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:15, Jeremiah 46:1-28 sqq.). Like Exodus 4:10, Jeremiah objects that he is no practised speaker; and this on account of youthful inexperience. The answer is that his speaking will depend not so much upon himself as upon God: "All that I command thee, thou shalt speak." The allegation of his youth also covers a feeling of timidity, which would naturally be excited at the thought of encountering kings and princes and priests, as well as the common people, in the discharge of such a commission. This implication is met by the Divine assurance: "Unto all"-of whatever rank-"that I send thee unto, thou shalt go"; and by the encouraging promise of Divine protection against all opposing powers: "Be not afraid of them; for with thee am I to rescue thee."

"And Iahvah put forth His hand and touched my mouth: and Iahvah said unto me, Behold I have put My words in thy mouth!" This word of the Lord, says Hitzig, is represented as a corporeal substance; in accordance with the Oriental mode of thought and speech, which invests everything with bodily form. He refers to a passage in Samuel {2 Samuel 17:5} where Absalom says, "Call now Hushai the Archite, and let us hear that which is in his mouth also"; as if what the old counsellor had to say were something solid in more senses than one. But we need not press the literal force of the language. A prophet who could write: {Jeremiah 5:14} "Behold I am about to make my words in thy mouth fire and this people logs of wood; and it shall devour them"; or again, "Thy {Jeremiah 15:16} words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word became unto me a joy and my heart’s delight," may also have written, "Behold I have put My words in thy mouth!" without thereby becoming amenable to a charge of confusing fact with figure, metaphor with reality. Nor can I think the prophet means to say that, although, as a matter of fact, the Divine word already dwelt in him, it was now "put in his mouth," in the sense that he was henceforth to utter it. Stripped of the symbolism of vision, the verse simply asserts that the spiritual change which came over Jeremiah at the turning point in his career was due to the immediate operation of God; and that the chief external consequence of this inward change was that powerful preaching of Divine truth by which he was henceforth known. The great Prophet of the Exile twice uses the phrase, "I have set My words in thy mouth" {Isaiah 51:16; Isaiah 59:21} with much the same meaning as that intended by Jeremiah, but without the preceding metaphor about the Divine hand.

"See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to overturn; to rebuild and to replant." Such, following the Hebrew punctuation, are the terms of the prophet’s commission; and they are well worth consideration, as they set forth with all the force of prophetic idiom his own conception of the nature of that commission. First, there is the implied assertion of his own official dignity: the prophet is made a paqid (Genesis 41:34, "officers" set by Pharaoh over Egypt; 2 Kings 25:19 a military prefect) a prefect or superintendent of the nations of the world. It is the Hebrew term corresponding to the of the New Testament and the Christian Church. {Judges 9:28; Nehemiah 11:9} And secondly, his powers are of the widest scope; he is invested with authority over the destinies of all peoples. If it be asked in what sense it could be truly said that the ruin and renascence of nations were subject to the supervision of the prophets, the answer is obvious. The word they were authorised to declare was the word of God. But God’s word is not something whose efficacy is exhausted in the human utterance of it. God’s word is an irreversible command, fulfilling itself with all the necessity of a law of nature. The thought is well expressed by a later prophet: "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and spring; and yieldeth seed to the sower and bread to the eater: so shall My word become, that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but shall surely do that which I have willed, and shall carry through that for which I sent it." {or "shall prosper him whom I have sent," Isaiah 55:10-11} All that happens is merely the self-accomplishment of this Divine word, which is only the human aspect of the Divine will. If, therefore, the absolute dependence of the prophets upon God for their knowledge of this word be left out of account, they appear as causes, when they are in truth but instruments, as agents when they are only mouthpieces. And so Ezekiel writes, "when I came to destroy the city," {Ezekiel 43:3} meaning when I announced the Divine decree of its destruction. The truth upon which this peculiar mode of statement rests-the truth that the will of God must be and always is done in the world that God has made and is making-is a rock upon which the faith of His messengers may always repose. What strength, what staying power may the Christian preacher find in dwelling upon this almost visible fact of the self-fulfilling will and word of God, though all around him he hear that will questioned, and that word disowned and denied! He knows-it is his supreme comfort to know-that, while his own efforts may be thwarted, that will is invincible; that though he may fail in the conflict, that word will go on conquering and to conquer, until it shall have subdued all things unto itself.