Bible Commentaries
Jeremiah 2

Verses 1-37

CHAPTER II

THE TRUST IN THE SHADOW OF EGYPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For these are all the grapes Sion doth bear,

Though I My vine planted and watered there:

Was ever grief like Mine?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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