_________________________________________________________________

   Title: Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 3
   Creator(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564)
   (Alternative)
   (Translator)
   Rights: Public Domain
   LC Call no: BS491
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     _________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES

   ON THE

   BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH

   AND

   THE LAMENTATIONS


   BY JOHN CALVIN



   TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN, AND EDITED

   BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN,

   VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE



   VOLUME THIRD



   CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY
   GRAND RAPIDS, MI

   [1]http://www.ccel.org
     _________________________________________________________________

   TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

   volume third

   The derangement as to the order of the chapters first occurs in this Volume.
   It is commonly thought that chapters 21, 24, and 27, were delivered in the
   time of Zedekiah; while chapters 20, 22, 23, 25, and 26, contain Prophecies
   delivered in the previous reign of Jehoiakim. The early Versions and the
   Targum retain the same order with the Hebrew, only there are derangements of
   another kind both in the Septuagint and the Arabic, which commence at verse
   14 of chapter 25, and continue to the end of chapter 51: It hence appears
   that the disorder had taken place early, before the Versions were made.

   There are a few particulars to which the Editor wishes to draw the attention
   of Literary Readers, some of which have been already noticed in the Notes
   appended to previous Volumes, though not perhaps so fully specified as to
   attract attention; and there is one subject which belongs especially to this
   Volume.

   The first thing is in reference to a Hebrew idiom; and that with regard to
   the pronoun relative אשר, who, which, whom. There is a peculiarity as to the
   use of this which has been overlooked, as far as the writer knows, by
   Grammarians. It precedes in Hebrew, as in other languages, the verb by which
   it is governed; but when it is not governed in a transitive sense, a
   personal pronoun follows the verb with a preposition prefixed to it, as, for
   instance, in Jeremiah 1:2,

   “To whom the word of the Lord came;”

   which is literally, “Whom the word of the Lord came to him.” “To him” and
   “whom” are the same. It is an idiom, and the same exists in Welsh, which in
   many of its peculiarities corresponds exactly with the Hebrew. This passage,
   and others of a similar kind, are literally the same in that language, “Yr
   hwn y daeth gair yr Arglwydd atto;” and the last word, “atto,” the
   preposition being prefixed to the pronoun, and made, as it were, one word,
   corresponds exactly with the Hebrew.

   We have, in Jeremiah 7:10, these words —

   “Which (God’s house) is called by my Name,” literally, “which my Name is
   called on it;”

   which means, “on which my Name is called.” The following are similar
   examples: —

   “Unto whom they offer incense” literally, “whom they offer incense to
   them,”
   (Jeremiah 11:12;)

   “Against whom I have pronounced;” literally, “whom I have pronounced against
   them,” (Jeremiah 18:8;)

   “Upon whose roofs they have burned incense;” literally, “which they have
   burned incense on their roofs,” (Jeremiah 19:13.)

   In all these instances the Welsh is literally the Hebrew. The last example
   is rather remarkable, but the Welsh is exactly the same, “y rhai yr
   arogldarthasant ar eu pennau.” The verb, also, is similar, derived from the
   noun which means incense, “they have incensed;” but the verb in English is
   not so used. There is hardly a noun or a verb in Hebrew which the Welsh
   cannot literally express — a peculiarity which neither Latin nor Greek
   possesses, and perhaps no modern language. See also Genesis 44:5, 10, 16;
   48:15; Deuteronomy 11:24; Deuteronomy 12:2; Isaiah 31:4; Jeremiah 14:15;
   Jeremiah 17:19; Amos 9:12; Jonah 4:10, 11. [1]

   But it must be especially observed, as the point will be hereafter referred
   to, that when the relative pronoun is governed by the verb in a transitive
   sense, without a preposition, there is then no personal pronoun added after
   the verb, either affixed to it or separately. This seems to be an invariable
   rule, —

   “The land that I have given for an inheritance; אשר הנחלתי” (Jeremiah 3:18.)

   “In the land that I gave; אשר נתתי” (Jeremiah 7:7.)

   “My law which I set before them; אשר נתתי לפניהם”
   (Jeremiah 9:13.)

   See also Psalm 78:69; 86: 9; 105:5; Jeremiah 7:23; 9:16; 11:10; 13:4; 15:4;
   16:13; Ezekiel 18:27; Daniel 9:10.

   The Second point is connected with the style of the Hebrew prophets.

   1. The order in which they arrange their ideas. — They frequently mention,
   first, the effect, then the cause — first, the last act, then the previous
   act or acts — first, the deed or action, then the motive or what led to the
   deed — first, the later event, then the former — first, what is most evident
   and visible, then what is less ostensible and hidden. In all these
   instances, the order is the reverse of what is commonly found in other
   writers.

   “My people is foolish,” the effect; “they have not known me,” the cause.
   (Jeremiah 4:22.) “Before me continually is grief,” the effect; “and
   wounds,” the cause. (Jeremiah 6:7.) “I sent them not,” the last act;
   “neither have I commanded them,” the preceding; “neither spake to them,” the
   first. (Jeremiah 14:14.) “With an outstretched hand and a strong arm,” the
   deed or action; “even in anger and in fury, and in great wrath,” what led to
   the deed. (Jeremiah 21:5.) “The truth to Jacob,” the later event; “and the
   mercy to Abraham,” the former event. (Micah 7:20.) “Hast thou utterly
   rejected Judah?” the visible act; “hath thy soul loathed Zion?” the hidden
   reason. (Jeremiah 14:19.)

   Similar instances are found in the New Testament. What is palpable and
   evident is stated first, then what leads to it, or the source from which it
   comes; as when St. Paul mentions “rioting” first, and then “drunkenness,”
   which leads to it; and “strife” first, and then “envying,” from which it
   proceeds. (Romans 13:13.) In a like manner he puts “joy,” the higher and the
   most manifest feeling, before “peace,” which is the source of it. (Romans
   15:13) In Ephesians 6:23, the Apostle mentions “peace, love, and faith;” the
   right order is reversed — the most evident thing is first referred to. There
   are many passages which can be satisfactorily explained on no other
   principle.

   2. The order in which subjects are often treated. — When two things are
   referred to, the last mentioned is first spoken of, and then the first. This
   is what is very commonly done. Pollution and going after Baalim are laid to
   the charge of Israel in Jeremiah 2:23. To prove the last it is added,

   “See thy way in the valley;”

   and to bring connection as to the first, God says,

   “Know what thou hast done.”

   In Jeremiah 4:28, we have these words,

   “I have spoken it, I have purposed it.”

   The next sentence applies to the last,

   “and I will not repent,”

   and the following to what he had spoken,

   “Neither will I turn back from it.”

   Neighbor and brother are mentioned in Jeremiah 9:4; the order is reversed in
   the latter clause of the verse. Pashur and the people of Judah are addressed
   in Jeremiah 20:4; the doom of Judah is described in the following verse, and
   in the sixth the doom of Pashur. God speaks of

   “The way of life and of the way of death,”

   in Jeremiah 21:8; in the next verse, such as would meet with death are first
   referred to, and then those to whom life would be granted. In Deuteronomy
   27:11-26, and Deuteronomy 28:1-6, “blessing” and “curse” are mentioned, and
   then the “curse” is first described, and afterwards the “blessing.” This
   mode of treating subjects is indeed so common that it would be useless to
   multiply examples; and there are not a few instances of the same kind in the
   New Testament. [2]

   The Third subject is the construction of a passage in this Volume, in
   connection with another, which will be included in the next. — The two
   passages are Jeremiah 23:6, and 33:16. The doctrine involved is important;
   but our business is to ascertain the real meaning according to the current
   diction of the language. These passages are not rendered alike in our
   Version, nor in the same sense; and yet it is evident from the context that
   the meaning of both passages must be the same, though the words are in some
   measure different. However we may differ from Blayney, he yet seems to have
   been at least so far right, as he renders them both in the same sense. His
   versions are the following: —

   “And this is the Name by which Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness.”
   (Jeremiah 23:6.)

   “And this is he whom Jehovah shall call, Our Righteousness.”
   (Jeremiah 23:16.)

   In a Note on the last verse, it is said, “This is the strict grammatical
   translation of the words of the text.” There is no doubt but that it may be
   so rendered; and here is an instance of what has been already observed as to
   the relative אשר. It has often after the verb a personal pronoun with a
   preposition prefixed: and as the verb קרא, whenever it means to name, has
   the preposition ל after it, so it has here. The relative and the pronoun in
   this case always refer to the same thing or person. Since this is the idiom
   of the language, it becomes evident that לה in this verse, is a masculine
   according to Chaldee dialect, as Blayney regards it, or a misprint for לו
   according to three MSS.; for אשר, with which it is connected, has, זה,
   “this” for its antecedent; and “this” is clearly the “king” mentioned in the
   previous verse.

   The matter then is so far clear as to construction of this part of the
   verse; but whether “Jehovah” is the nominative to the verb is another
   question; and this we shall presently consider.

   The words in the other passage, Jeremiah 23:6, are somewhat different. The
   word “Name” is in it; but it has no personal pronoun with a ל prefixed,
   which is ever the case when קרא means to name, and when the word “name” is
   omitted. See Genesis 21:31; Genesis 35:18; 1 Samuel 23:28; 1 Chronicles
   11:7; Jeremiah 30:17. But when “name” is connected with the verb in this
   sense, the preposition ל is not found. See Genesis 11:9; 29:35; 1 Chronicles
   4:9. This accounts for the absence of the pronoun with a ל prefixed coming
   after the verb in this passage, which is found in the other in which the
   word “name” is omitted. The אשר then here refers to the “name,” and stands
   as it were in its place; and the literal rendering, if we adopt Blayney’s
   arrangement of the words, would be as follows, —

   And this is His Name, which Jehovah shall call it,
   Our Righteousness.

   Now there is a grammatical objection to this rendering; for אשר, as before
   mentioned, when governed by a verb in the objective case, is never followed
   by a personal pronoun after the verb, either postfixed or separately. But
   here the ו in יקראו is made a pronoun, wholly contrary to the usage of the
   language in such a case as the present. The other passage may admit of
   Blayney’s construction; but his version here is, as I conceive,
   inadmissible, being ungrammatical; the verb is in the plural number and not
   in the singular, with an affixed pronoun, therefore Jehovah cannot be its
   nominative case.

   It may then be asked, how is the passage to be translated? Let the reader
   bear in mind, that when the word “Name — שם,” is connected with קרא, there
   is no preposition used; and as אשר here has “Name” as its antecedent, it is
   not necessary to have a pronoun with a prefixed ל after the verb; but this
   is necessary in the other passage, for the word “name” is not given. Here we
   see a perfect consistency in the two passages, though differently worded.
   Then the true version of this passage I conceive to be the following, —

   “And this is His Name, which they shall call,
   Jehovah our Righteousness.”

   But in our language it might be rendered, “by which they shall call him” The
   pronoun “they” refers to Judah and Israel, at the beginning of the verse. As
   then “Jehovah” cannot be here the nominative case to “call,” there is no
   grammatical necessity to make it so in the other passage, though there is
   nothing contrary to the usage of the language in such a construction. The
   other passage may be rendered literally thus, —

   “And this is He, whom it shall be called on Him,
   Jehovah our Righteousness.”

   The words in the idiom of our language may be thus correctly expressed, “who
   shall be called.” But however awkward and even unintelligible the literal
   rendering may be in English, yet it is in Welsh both expressive and elegant.
   The phrase is word for word the same, and thoroughly idiomatic, —

   “Ac eve yw’r hwn y gelwir arno, Jehova ein cyviawnder.” [3]

   We shall now refer to the early versions and the Targum.

   In the Septuagint, the passage in Jeremiah 23:6, is rendered substantially
   according to what is done by Blayney; he indeed defends himself by appealing
   to that version. As to the passage in Jeremiah 33:16, it is wanting in the
   Septuagint; as supplied in the Complutensian Edition, it is evidently a
   version of the Vulgate, as is the case in other instances; and as given by
   Theodoret, it is as follows, —

   “This is He who shall be called (ho klēthēsetai)
   The Lord our Righteousness.”

   The Vulgate version is the same in both places, —

   “And this is the Name which they shall call him,
   Our righteous Lord.”

   The Syriac version is the same in both places, —

   “And this is the Name by which they shall call Him,
   The Lord our Righteousness.”

   The Arabic version is the same with the preceding, only “righteousness” is
   not translated; it is “The Lord Josedek.” It is wanting like the Septuagint
   as to the second passage.

   The paraphrase of the Targum is substantially the same as to both places,
   —

   “And this is the Name by which they shall call Him, Done shall be
   righteousness for us from the presence of the Lord in his days.”

   It appears then from all the Early Versions, except the Septuagint as to the
   first passage, and from the Targum, that “Jehovah” is not connected with the
   verb to call, but with “righteousness;” and this, as we have seen, comports
   with what the usage of the language requires. There can therefore be no
   reasonable doubt as to the real meaning of these two passages.

   As to the peculiar idioms of the Hebrew language, the Septuagint version of
   Jeremiah and of the minor prophets, is by no means so satisfactory as the
   Vulgate and the Syriac versions. This is what the Editor can testify after a
   minute examination.

   J.O.
   Thrussington, September, 1852
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] There is another peculiarity as to אשר which may be mentioned, that is,
   when connected with a noun and rendered “whose,” in the genitive case in our
   language. “Whose land the rivers have spoiled;” literally, “whom the rivers
   have spoiled her land.” (Isaiah 18:2.) “Whose merchants are princes;”
   literally, “who-her merchants are princes.” (Isaiah 23:8.) Here, again, the
   Welsh is exactly the Hebrew, and in the first of these verses, the very
   order of the words is the same, — “Yr hon yr yspeiliodd yr avonydd ei
   thir.” “Whose mouth speaketh vanity;” literally, “who — their mouth speaketh
   vanity.” (Psalm 144:8.) The Welsh is literally the same, — “Y rhai y llevara
   en genan wagedd;” the “who” is in apposition with “their,” both being in
   Hebrew the same in every case. See also Deuteronomy 8:9; Psalm 95:4, 5;
   Psalm 144:15; Psalm 146:5 The following are similar instances: — “Whose seed
   was in itself;” literally, which — its seed was in itself. (Genesis 1:12.)
   “In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; literally, which — in it
   is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;” (Genesis 1:29.) “Wherein is the
   breath of life;” literally, “which — in it is the breath of life.” (Genesis
   6:17.) “Of beasts that are not clean;” literally, “of the beast which — not
   it was clean.” (Genesis 7:8.) “That hath statutes;” literally, “which to it
   are statutes.” (Deuteronomy 4:8.) See Deuteronomy 19:1; Ruth 3:2.

   [2] A few passages shall be referred to, and they shall be arranged in lines
   that the order may be more clearly seen, — But ye are washed, but ye are
   sanctified, But ye are justified, In the name of the Lord Jesus, And by the
   Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11.) He mentions sanctification first,
   and then justification; the next line refers to justification, and the last
   to sanctification. That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
   And shalt believe in thine heart, etc., etc.; For with the heart man
   believeth unto righteousness, And with the mouth confession is made, etc.
   (Romans 10:9, 10.) Confession and faith, and then faith and confession. This
   inversion seems to shew their inseparable connection, as in the former case
   as to sanctification and justification; and it is to be observed that in
   both instances the right order is given last; but the case is different in
   the following example: — And he gave some apostles, And some prophets, and
   some evangelists, And some pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the
   saints, For the work of the ministry, For the edifying (or building) of the
   body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11, 12.) The work of building the Church, which
   included especially the laying of the foundation, belonged to the Apostles;
   the ministerial work generally was performed by those called prophets and
   evangelists, who were the assistants of the Apostles; but the perfecting
   work, that of furthering the continual progress of the saints in a religious
   life, was carried on by stationary pastors and teachers. See similar
   instances in Matthew 7:6, and 1 Corinthians 1:24, 25.

   [3] As to אשר, I may here state the result of a minute examination as to the
   Book of Psalm. It is found there as a relative, and as an adverb, about a
   hundred and seven times; about forty times as a nominative to verbs; nearly
   thirty times as an adverb or conjunction, for, because, that, whom, how,
   whose, etc.; in a few instances, in construction with nouns to which are
   affixed pronouns in the same case, as exemplified in a previous note; in
   twenty-six instances governed by verbs in the objective case, without any
   pronouns affixed to the verbs; and five times, according to our version,
   accompanied by pronouns when thus circumstanced. But in these five instances
   our version seems to me to be incorrect, the construction being inconsistent
   with what appears to be the common usage of the language. The passages are
   the following, Psalm 1:5; Psalm 8:3; Psalm 88:5; Psalm 94:12; and 107:2;
   אשר should be when in the first, how in the second, where in the third, when
   in the fourth, and that in the fifth, or how. as it is sometimes rendered in
   our version. In the first twelve chapters of Deuteronomy, there are at least
   a hundred instances of אשר being governed in a transitive sense; and in no
   case it has a corresponding pronoun after the verb, but there are several
   instances of this, when governed by an intransitive verb — such as the
   following, “A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness,”
   literally, “A land which without scarceness thou shalt in it eat bread.”
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Seventy-Fifth

   CHAPTER 20
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:1-2

   1. Now Pashur the son of Immer the priest, who was also chief governor in
   the house of the LORD, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things.

   1. Et audivit Phassur filius Immer sacerdos et ipse praefeetus erat (dux) in
   Templo (in aede) Jehovae, Jeremiam vaticinantem (prophetantem) hos sermones:

   2. Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that
   were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD.

   2. Et percussit Phassur Jeremiam Prophetam, et posuit eum in cippum (vel, in
   carcerem; sed mihi magis placet nomen carceris) qui erat in porta Benjamin
   superiore, quae spectabat ad aedem Jehovae.


   Jeremiah relates here what sort of reward he had received for his prophecy,
   — that he had been smitten and cast into prison, not by the king or by his
   courtiers, but by a priest who had the care of the Temple. It was a grievous
   and bitter trial when God’s servant found that he was thus cruelly treated
   by one of the sacred order, who was of the same tribe, and his colleague;
   for the priests who were then in office had not been without right
   appointed, for God had chosen them. As, then, their authority was founded on
   the Law and on God’s inviolable decree, Jeremiah might well have been much
   terrified; for this thought might have occurred to him, — “What can be the
   purpose of God? for he has set priests of the tribe of Levi over his Temple
   and over his whole people. Why, then, does he not rule them by his Spirit?
   Why does he not render them fit for their office?

   Why does he suffer his Temple, and the sacred office which he so highly
   commends to us in his Law, to be thus profaned? or why, at least, does he
   not stretch forth his hand to defend me, who am also a priest, and sincerely
   engaged in my calling?” For we know that God commands in his Law, as a proof
   that the priests had supreme power, that whosoever disobeyed them should be
   put to death.

   (Deuteronomy 17:12.) “Since, then, it was God’s will to endue the priests
   with so much authority and power, why therefore did he not guide them by his
   grace, that they might faithfully execute the office committed to them?”

   Nor was Jeremiah alone moved and shaken by this trial, but all who then
   truly worshipped God. Small, indeed, was the number of the godly; but there
   was surely no one who was not astonished at such a spectacle as this.

   Pashur was not the chief priest, though he was of the first order of
   priests; and it is probable that Immer, his father, was the high priest, and
   that he was his vicar, acting in his stead as the ruler of the Temple. [4]
   However this may have been, he was no doubt superior, not only to the
   Levites, but also to the other priests of his order. Now this person, being
   of the same order and family, rose up against Jeremiah, and not only
   condemned in words a fellow-priest, but treated him outrageously, for he
   smote the Prophet. This was unworthy of his station, and contrary to the
   rights of sacred fellowship; for if the cause of Jeremiah was bad, yet a
   priest ought to have pursued a milder course; he might have cast him into
   prison, that if found guilty, he might afterwards be condemned. But to smite
   him was not the act of a priest, but of a tyrant, of a ruffian, or of a
   furious man.

   We may hence learn in what a disorder things were at that time; for in a
   well-ordered community the judge does not leap from his tribunal in order to
   strike a man, though he might deserve a hundred deaths, as regard ought to
   be had to what is lawful. Now, if a judge, whom God has armed with the
   sword, ought not thus to give vent to his wrath and without discretion use
   the sword, it is surely a thing wholly inconsistent with the office of a
   priest. Then the state of things must have been then in very great disorder,
   when a priest thus disgraced himself. And from his precipitant rage we may
   also gather that good men were then very few. He had been chosen to preside
   over the Temple; he must then have excelled others not only as to his
   station, but also in public esteem and in the possession of some kind of
   virtues. But we see how he was led away by the evil spirit.

   These things we ought carefully to consider, for it happens sometimes that
   great commotions arise in the Church of God, and those who ought to be
   moderators are often carried away by a blind and, as it were, a furious
   zeal. We may then stumble, and our faith may wholly fail us, except such an
   example as this affords us aid, which shews clearly that the faithful were
   formerly tried and had their faith exercised by similar contests. It is not
   then uselessly said that Pashur smote Jeremiah Had he struck one of the
   common people, it would have been more endurable, though in that case it
   would have been an act wholly unworthy of his office; but when he treated
   insolently the servant of God, and one who had for a long time discharged
   the prophetic office, it was far less excusable. This circumstance, then,
   ought to be noticed by us, that the priest dared to strike the Prophet of
   God.

   It then follows that Jeremiah was cast by him into prison But we must notice
   this, that he had heard the words of Jeremiah before he became infuriated
   against him. He ought, doubtless, to have been moved by such a prophecy; but
   he became mad and so audacious as to smite God’s Prophet. It hence appears
   how great is the stupidity of those who have once become so hardened as to
   despise God; for even the worst of men are terrified when God’s judgment is
   announced. But Pashur heard Jeremiah proclaiming the evil that was near at
   hand; and yet the denunciation had no other effect on him but to render him
   worse. As, then, he thus violently assailed God’s Prophet, after having
   heard his words, it is evident that he was blinded by a rage wholly
   diabolical. We also see that the despisers of God blend light with darkness,
   for Pashur covered his impiety with a cloak, and hence cast Jeremiah into
   prison; for in this way he shewed that he wished to know the state of the
   case, as he brought him out of prison the following day. Thus the ungodly
   ever try to make coverings for their impiety; but they never succeed. The
   hypocrisy of Pashur was very gross when he cast Jeremiah into prison, in
   order that he might afterwards call him to defend his cause, for he had
   already smitten him. This great insolence, then, took away every pretense
   for justice. It was therefore extremely frivolous for Pashur to have
   recourse afterwards to some form of trial for deciding the case.

   The word מהפכת, mephicat, is rendered by some, fetter; and by others,
   stocks; and they think it to be a piece of wood, with one hole to confine
   the neck, and another the feet. But I know not whether this is suitable
   here, for Jeremiah says that it was in the higher gate of Benjamin. This
   certainly could not be properly said of fetters, or of chains, or of stocks.
   It then follows that it was a prison. [5] He mentions the gate of Benjamin,
   as it belonged to that tribe; for we know that a part of Jerusalem was
   inhabited by the Benjamites. They had two gates, and this was the higher
   gate towards the east. He says that it was opposite the house of Jehovah;
   for besides the court there were many small courts, as it is well known,
   around the Temple. It follows: —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [4] The account which Blayney gives is the most probable: that he was the
   first of his order. There were twenty-four courses of priests, as appointed
   by David, 1 Chronicles 24; and the head of each course was for the time the
   ruler or governor of the Temple. These heads of the courses were no doubt
   the “chief priests” mentioned in the New Testament, for in fact there was
   only one chief priest. They were also called the “captains” of the Temple.
   “The chief overseer in the house of Jehovah” is the most suitable rendering.
   The whole verse might be rendered as follows, — “When Pashur, the son of
   Immer, the priest, while he was the chief overseer in the house of Jehovah,
   heard Jeremiah prophesying these words, then Pashur smote Jeremiah,” etc. So
   the Syriac, and so does Blayney connect the first with the second verse. The
   family of “Immer” formed the sixteenth course. See 1 Chronicles 24:14. “The
   priest” refers to Pashur, and not to “Immer;” and it is so rendered by the
   Sept., Vulg., and the Arab., though not by the Syr. Immer was the name of
   the family. — Ed.

   [5] The versions differ — “dungeon” is the Sept.; “stocks-nervum” is the
   Vulg.; and “circle,” or “circuit,” is the Syr.; but the Targ. has
   “prison.” The word occurs in two other places, in 1 Chronicles 29:26, and in
   2 Chronicles 16:10, and is rendered “prison.” Venema renders it “the
   torturing prison,” taking the verb from which the word comes in a bad sense,
   as signifying to distort, and hence to torture. Symmachus favors this view,
   for he renders it “a place of torment — zasanistērion,” and “a rack —
   strezlōtērion.” The form of the expression is in favor of this idea, “and
   set him in the stocks,” or on the rack. And so in Jeremiah 29:26, the
   rendering ought to be — “that thou shouldest set him on the stocks (or rack)
   and in prison” Of what kind was this instrument of torture it is not known.
   Prisons had especially three names — “the house of roundness (הסהר);” “the
   house of confinement (הכלא);” and “the house of the rack, or stocks,
   (המהפכת).” See Genesis 39:20; 1 Kings 22:27; and 2 Chronicles 16:10. But
   “the house” is not here torture itself. Had the prison been intended, the
   word “house,” as in 2 Chronicles 16:10, would have been placed before it. It
   is at the same time probable that the prison was the place where the rack or
   the stocks were. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:3

   3. And it came to pass on the morrow, that Pashur brought forth Jeremiah out
   of the stocks. Then said Jeremiah unto him, The LORD hath not called thy
   name Pashur, but Magormissabib.

   3. Et accidit postridie (die crastino) ut educeret Phassur Jeremiam e
   carcere; et dixit ei Jeremias, Non Phassur vocavit Jehova nomen tuum, sed
   potius terrorem undique.


   No doubt Pashur called other priests to examine the case. It was, indeed, a
   specious pretense, for he seemed as though he did not wish to condemn the
   holy Prophet hastily, or without hearing his defense. But Jeremiah only says
   briefly that he was brought out of prison: we at the same time gather that
   he was not dismissed, for he was summoned before Pashur to give a reason for
   his prophecy.

   But here the Prophet shews that he was not cast down or disheartened, though
   he had been most contemptuously treated; he bore patiently the buffetings
   and stripes he had received, and also his incarceration. We know that such
   outrages are so bitter to ingenuous minds, that they can hardly sustain
   them. But Jeremiah teaches us, by his own example, that our constancy and
   firmness ought not to be weakened though the whole world loaded or almost
   overwhelmed us with reproaches. We ought, then, to understand that courage
   of mind ought not to fail or be weakened in God’s servants, however wickedly
   and contumeliously they may be treated by the world. For Jeremiah, when he
   came out of prison, spoke more boldly than before; nor was he beyond the
   reach of danger. Courage increases when one obtains the victory, and he can
   then safely and securely insult his enemies; but Jeremiah was yet a captive,
   though he had been brought out of prison, and he might have been afterwards
   cast there again and treated more cruelly than before. But neither the wrong
   he had received, nor the fear of new contumely, deterred him from denouncing
   God’s judgment on the ungodly priest. Such magnanimity becomes all God’s
   servants, so that they ought not to feel shame, nor grow soft, nor be
   disheartened, when the world treats them with indignity and reproach; nor
   ought they to fear any dangers, but advance courageously in the discharge of
   their office.

   It must in the second place be noticed, — that God’s Prophet here closes his
   eyes to the splendor of the priestly office, which otherwise might have
   hindered him to denounce God’s judgment,. And this ought to be carefully
   observed; for we know the ungodly he hid under masks, as the case is in the
   present day with the Pope and all his filthy clergy: for what do they allege
   but the name of Catholic Church and perpetual priesthood and apostolical
   dignity? Doubtless, Pashur was of the priestly order; but what the Papacy
   is, the Scripture neither mentions nor teaches, except that it condemns it
   as altogether filthy and abominable. And the Levitical priesthood, as I have
   said, was founded on God’s Law; and yet Jeremiah, guided by the command of
   God, hesitated not severely to reprove the priest and to treat him as he
   deserved. It is, therefore, then only that we tightly and faithfully
   discharge the prophetic office, when we shew no respect of persons, and
   disregard those external masks by which the ungodly deceive the simple, and
   are haughty towards God while they falsely pretend his name. [6]

   Now he says, Jehovah has called thy name not Pashur, but terror on every
   side Some render the words, “Because there will be terror to thee on every
   side;” but incorrectly, for in the next verse a reason is given which
   explains what the Prophet means. Jeremiah no doubt had a regard to the
   meaning of the word Pashur, otherwise it would have been unmeaning and even
   foolish to say, “Thy name shall be called not Pashur, but terror on every
   side.” Interpreters have expounded the word Pashur as meaning an increasing
   prince, or one who extends power, deriving it from פשה, peshe, to increase,
   and transitively, to extend; and they add to it the word שר, sher, which
   means a prince; and so they render it, a prince extending power, or a prince
   who increases. But as there is some doubt as to the points, I know not
   whether this etymology can be maintained. I am more inclined to derive the
   word from פשח, peshech, to cut or break. It is indeed but once found in this
   sense in Scripture, but often in the Chaldee language. However this may be,
   it is taken in this sense once by Jeremiah in the third Chapter of
   Lamentations. [7] And hence by a metaphor it means to open; and א, aleph,
   may be deemed quiescent in the second word, so that it means one who breaks
   or opens the light. The words which follow — “terror on every side” — induce
   and compel me to give this interpretation. He does not say that he would be
   a terror on every side; but that terrors surrounded him, מסביב, mesabib, so
   that there was no escape. As then the name of Pashur was honorable,
   signifying to open light, he mentions this, (it is indeed a metaphor, by
   which breaking means opening:) as then he had this name, which means to
   bring forth light, Jeremiah says, “Thou shalt be called a terror on every
   side;” that is, a terror that so surrounds all that no escape is possible.
   [8] We see that the contrast is most suitable between the opening of light
   and that terror which spread on every side, so that there is no opening and
   no escape; and the explanation follows:
     _________________________________________________________________

   [6] I would render the verse thus: — 3. And it happened on the morrow that
   Pashur brought out Jeremiah from the stocks; and Jeremiah said to him, — Not
   Pashur does Jehovah call thy name, But, Terror on every side. I take קרא to
   be a participle, and not a verb in the past tense. — Ed

   [7] The word is not spelt with ה, but with ח; it is “Pashchur.” Therefore,
   the former derivation cannot be admitted. Venema derives it from פוש, to be
   proud, or ferocious, and חור, which means “white,” or splendid; then the
   meaning is, “splendid prince.” Gataker seems to prefer the opinion of those
   who derive the word from פש, diffusion, and חור, paleness, because he
   diffused, or spread fear, which produces paleness to all around. Instead of
   this, a terror, the cause of paleness, would be to him and to all his
   friends, as stated in the following verse. — Ed

   [8] The Vulg. alone gives this meaning to the phrase; the Sept. has
   “metoikon — emigrant,” and the Syr. “stranger and wanderer.” And then in the
   fourth verse both these versions give a correspondent meaning. “I will
   deliver thee into emigration (or captivity) with all thy friends.” That this
   word, rendered “terror,” may be derived from גור, which means to sojourn, to
   peregrinate, is undeniable; as a participle noun from Hiphil, it may mean a
   sojourner, or an emigrant. The word in this sense is found often in the
   plural number. See Genesis 47:9; Exodus 6:4. But the phrase, as found here,
   occurs four times in this book, where it can have no other meaning than
   “terror (or fear) on every side,” Jeremiah 6:25; Jeremiah 20:10; Jeremiah
   46:5; Jeremiah 49:29; and it occurs once elsewhere, in Psalm 31:13; where
   also its meaning is evident from the context. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:4

   4. For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself,
   and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies,
   and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of
   the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall
   slay them with the sword.

   4. Quia sic dicit Jehova, Ecce ego pono to in terrorem tibi et omnibus
   amicis tuis; et cadent per gladium hostium tuorum, oculi tui videntes, (id
   est, oculis tuis videntibus,) et totum Jehudah tradam in manum regis
   Babylonis, et transferet eos (vel, traducet) Babylonem, et percutiet eos
   gladio.

   Here Jeremiah explains more at large why he said that Pashur would be terror
   on every side, even because he and his friends would be in fear; for he
   would find himself overwhelmed by God’s vengeance, and would become a
   spectacle to all others. In short, Jeremiah means, that such would be God’s
   vengeance as would fill Pashur and all others with fear; for Pashur himself
   would be constrained to acknowledge God’s hand without being able to escape,
   and all others would also perceive the same. He then became a spectacle to
   himself and to others, because he could not, however hardened he might have
   been, do otherwise than feel God’s vengeance; and this became also apparent
   to all others.

   Behold, he says, I will make thee a terror to thyself and to all thy
   friends; and fall shall they by the sword of their enemies, thine eyes
   seeing it; and all Judah will I deliver into the hand, etc. He repeats what
   he had said; for Pashur wished to be deemed the patron of the whole land,
   and especially of the city Jerusalem. As, then, he had undertaken the cause
   of the people, as though he was the patron and defender of them all,
   Jeremiah says, that all the Jews would be taken captives, and not only so,
   but that something more grievous was nigh at hand, for when the king of
   Babylon led them into exile, he would also smite them with the sword, not
   indeed all; but we know that he severely punished the king, his children,
   and the chief men, so that the lower orders on account of their obscurity
   alone escaped; and those of this class who did escape, because they were not
   noble nor renowned, were indebted to their own humble condition. It follows,
   —
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:5

   5. Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the
   labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures
   of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which
   shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.

   5. Et ponam totam fortitudinem urbis hujus, et omnem laborem ejus, et omnem
   pretiousum ejus, (vel, omnem gloriam,) et omnes thesauros regum Jehudah
   ponam in manum inimicorum ipsorum, et spoliabunt ipsos et tollent eos et
   abducent eos Babylonem.


   He goes on with the same subject, but amplifies what he had said in order to
   confirm it. At the same time there is no doubt but that Pashur was more
   exasperated when he heard these grievous threatenings; but it was right thus
   to inflame more and more the fury of all the ungodly. Though, then, they may
   a hundred times raise a clamor, we must not desist from freely and boldly
   declaring the truth. This is the reason why the Prophet now more fully
   describes the future calamity of the city.

   I will give up, he says, the whole strength of this city, etc. This word
   “strength” is sometimes taken metaphorically for riches or wealth. Then the
   whole strength, or substance, of this city and all its labor will I give up,
   etc. This second clause is still more grievous, for what had been acquired
   with great labor was to be given to plunder; for when any one becomes rich
   without labor, that is, when riches come to one by inheritance, without any
   trouble or toil, he is not so distressed when he happens to be deprived of
   his wealth; but he who has through a whole life of labor obtained what he
   expects would be for the support of life, this person grieves much more and
   becomes really distressed with anguish, when enemies come and deprive and
   plunder him of all he possesses. There is therefore no doubt but that
   “labor” is here mentioned, as in other parts of Scripture, in order to
   amplify the evil. He then adds, all its precious things and all the
   treasures of the kings of Judah will I deliver into the hand of their
   enemies; who will carry away, not only riches, labor, and treasures, but
   also the men themselves, and bring them to Babylon [9] The rest to-morrow.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [9] What Calvin and our version render “strength” is rendered the same by
   the Sept., ischun, — by the Vulg., “substance,” — by the Syr., “citadels,”
   — and by the Targ., riches. The primary meaning of the word is to be strong,
   or firm; and then what is strongly, or firmly secured — store, or treasure,
   here, and the two things which follow are explanatory of this store, — the
   labor, or the fruit of labor, — their garments; and precious things, — their
   gold, silver, and precious stones and furniture: — 5. And I will give the
   whole store of this city, Even all the fruit of its labor, And every
   precious thing in it, — Yea, all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I
   give, Into the hand of their enemies: And they shall plunder them and take
   them, And bring them into Babylon. All the versions refer “them” in the two
   last lines to the people, but the Targum to the things mentioned in the
   preceding lines; but the former view is the right one. To render the last
   verb to “carry,” as in our version, is not correct; for it means to cause to
   come, and hence to bring; and this clearly supports the versions. The
   exposition of Blayney is, that by “strength’” is meant the military, by
   “labor” the workmen, and by “the precious” the respectable part of society.
   Then he ought to have gone on and said, that by “the treasures” were meant
   the kings of Judah! But all this is fancy, and wholly inconsistent with the
   tenor of the passage. They were to “plunder” them; and if their stores were
   not referred to, how could this be said of what their enemies would do? And
   then, according to this view, the treasures of the kings were to become a
   spoil, and not the stores of the city. To spoil the people of their property
   was one of the most common threatenings of the Prophets. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that we may not by our perverseness increasingly
   provoke thy wrath, but that whenever thou threatenest us, we may immediately
   fear and tremble at thy word, and also obey thee in the true spirit of
   meekness, and so dread thy threatenings as to anticipate thy judgment by
   true repentance, and thus strive to glorify thy name, that thou mayest
   become our strength and glory, and that we may be able not only before the
   world, but before thee and thy angels, really to glory, that we are that
   peculiar people whom thou hast favored with thy adoption, that thou mayest
   to the end carry on in us the work of thy grace, through Jesus Christ our
   Lord. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Seventy-Six
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:6

   6. And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into
   captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die, and
   shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast
   prophesied lies.

   6. Et tu Phashur et omnes habitatores domus tuae (hoc est omnes domestici
   tui) venietis captivitatem; tu venies Babylonem, et illic morieris, et illic
   sepeheris, et omnes amici tui, quibus vaticinatus es in mendacio.


   Now Jeremiah declares that Pashur himself would be a proof, that he had
   truly foretold the destruction of the city and the desolation of the whole
   land. He had indeed before exposed his vanity; but he now brings the man
   himself before the public; for it was necessary to exhibit a remarkable
   instance, that all might know that God’s judgment ought to have been
   dreaded.

   Though that impostor flattered the people, yet Jeremiah says, that he and
   all his domestics would be led into captivity; that is, that the whole
   family would be as it were a spectacle, so that all the Jews might see that
   Pashur would be brought to nothing. “Let all the Jews then know,” he seems
   to have said, “that he is a false prophet.”

   But what follows might have raised a question; for Jeremiah declares as a
   punishment, that Pashur dying in Babylon would be buried there; but he had
   said before, “I will give their carcasses for meat to the birds of heaven
   and to the beasts of the earth;” and now it is not consistent in the Prophet
   to represent that as a punishment which is reckoned as one of God’s favors.
   In answer to this, let it be especially noticed, that God does not always
   punish the ungodly alike, or in the same way. He would have some to be cast
   away unburied, as they were unworthy of that common lot of humanity; but he
   would have others buried, but for a different, purpose; for there is weight
   in the particle there, for Babylon is put in contrast with the holy land.
   Whosoever were buried in the land of Canaan, had even in their death a
   pledge of the eternal inheritance; for as it is well known, God wished them
   while they lived so to enjoy the land, that they might look forward to
   heaven. Hence burial in the land of Canaan was as it were a visible mark or
   symbol of God’s adoption, as though all the children of Abraham were
   gathered into his bosom until they arose into a blessed and immortal life.
   Hence Pashur, by being buried in Babylon, became an outcast from God’s
   Church; for it was in a manner a repudiation, as though God would thus
   openly put on him a mark of infamy.

   If it be objected and said, that the same thing happened to Daniel, and to
   some of the best servants of God, and that Jeremiah himself was buried in
   Egypt, which was far worse; the answer we give is this, — that temporal
   punishments which happen to the elect and God’s children for their good do
   in a manner change their nature as to them; though, indeed, it must be held,
   that all punishments are evidences of the wrath and curse of God. Whatever
   evils then happen to us in this life ought to be regarded as the fruits of
   sin, as though God thereby shewed himself openly to be displeased with us.
   This is one thing. Then, when poverty, famine, diseases, and exile, and even
   death itself, are viewed in themselves, we must always say that they are the
   curses of God, that is, when they are regarded, as I have said, in their own
   nature. But God consecrates these punishments as to his own children, so
   they turn to their benefit, and thereby cease to be curses. Whenever then
   God declares, “Thou shalt be unburied,” it is no wonder that this dishonor
   should be deemed an evidence of his wrath and a proof of his curse. And
   farther, whenever he formerly said thus, “Thou shalt be buried out of the
   holy land,” it was also an evidence of his curse, that is, with regard to
   the reprobate. At the same time God turned to good whatever might otherwise
   be a curse to his elect; and hence Paul says, that all things turn out for
   good and benefit to the faithful, who love God. (Romans 8:28.)

   Now, then, we understand why the Prophet says, that Pashur would be buried
   in Babylon; nor is there a doubt but that there was more disgrace in that
   burial, than if his body was cast out and devoured by wild beasts; for God
   intended to render him conspicuous, that all might for a long time turn
   their eyes to him, according to what is said in Psalm 59:12,

   “Slay them not, O God, for thy people may forget them.”

   God then intended that the life and death of Pashur should be a memorial, in
   order that the minds of the people might be more impressed. At the same
   time, were the word burial taken in a wider sense, there would be nothing
   wrong, as though it was said, “There shall his carcass lie until it becomes
   putrified.”

   Then Jeremiah adds, Thou and thy friends to whom thou hast prophesied
   falsely [10] This passage teaches us that a just reward is rendered to the
   ungodly who wish to be deceived, when they sustain a twofold judgment from
   God. Behold, then, what all the wicked who seek flatterers that promise them
   wonderful things, gain for themselves! they thus earn for themselves a
   heavier vengeance. The more they strive to put afar off God’s judgment, the
   more, no doubt, they increase and inflame it. This is the reason why the
   Prophet denounces a special judgment on the friends of Pashur, to whom he
   had prophesied; they had wilfully laid hold on those false promises by which
   he had flattered them, so that they boldly despised God. Since, then, they
   wished of their own accord to be thus deceived, it was right that these
   deceptions through which they slandered the prophetic threatenings, and
   which they usually set up as a shield against them, should bring on them a
   heavier punishment. It then follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [10] This verse ought to be thus arranged, — 6. And thou, Pashur, and all
   who dwell in thine house, Go shall ye into captivity: Yea, to Babylon shalt
   thou go, And there shalt thou die, and there be buried — Thou and all thy
   friends, To whom thou hast prophesied falsely. There is here an instance of
   the free and unmodified manner in which statements are often made in
   Scripture. It is said in Jeremiah 20:4, that “his friends” would fall by the
   sword; but here, that they would be carried into Babylon, die, and be buried
   there. The hearers of Jeremiah, no doubt, understood him, though a captious
   hearer could have made out a contradiction against him. But the meaning is,
   that many of them would be slain by the sword, and that many of them, or
   most of such as remained, would be led into captivity. A great number were
   to be slain, and a great number would be taken captives. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:7

   7. O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than
   I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

   7. Decepisti me, Jehova, et deceptus sum; vim intulisti mihi, itfuisti
   superior; fui in ludibrium toto die, (vel, quotidie, hoc est, assidue;)
   omnes subsannant me.


   Some think that these words were not spoken through the prophetic Spirit,
   but that Jeremiah had uttered them inconsiderately through the influence of
   a hasty impulse; as even the most eminent are sometimes carried away by a
   hasty temper. They then suppose the Prophet, being overcome by a temptation
   of this kind, made this complaint, to God, “What! Lord, I have followed thee
   as a leader; but thou hast promised to me what I do not find: I seem, then,
   to myself to be deceived.” Others give even a harsher explanation, — that
   the Prophet had been deceived, according to what is said elsewhere,

   “I the Lord have deceived that Prophet.” (Ezekiel 14:9.)

   But there is no doubt but that his language is ironical, when he says that
   he was deceived He assumes the character of his enemies, who boasted that he
   presumptuously prophesied of the calamity and ruin of the city, as no such
   thing would take place. The Prophet here declares that God was the author of
   his doctrine, and that nothing could be alleged against him which would not
   be against God himself; as though he had said that the Jews contended in
   vain, under the notion that they contended with a mortal man; for they
   openly carried on war with God, and like the giants furiously assailed
   heaven itself. He then says that he was deceived, not that he thought so;
   for he was fully satisfied as to himself; nor had he only the Spirit of God
   as a witness to his calling, but also possessed in his heart a firm
   conviction of the truth he delivered. But as I have already said, he relates
   the words of those who, by opposing his teaching, denied that he was God’s
   servant, and gave him no credit as though he was only an impostor.

   But this mode of speaking is much more striking than if he had said in plain
   terms, “Lord, I am not deceived, for I have only obeyed thy command, and
   have received from thee whatever I have made public; nor have I
   presumptuously obtruded myself, nor adulterated the truth of which thou hast
   made me the herald: I have, then, faithfully discharged my office.” If the
   Prophet had thus spoken, there would have been much less force in his words
   than by exposing in the manner he does here the blasphemies of those who
   dared to accuse God, and make him guilty by arraigning his servant as a
   false prophet.

   We now, then, understand why he spoke ironically, and freely expostulated
   with God, because he had been deceived by him; it was that the Jews might
   know that they vomited forth reproaches, not against a mortal man, but
   against God himself, who would become the avenger of so great an insult.

   Were any one to ask whether it became the Prophet to make God thus his
   associate, the answer would be this, — that his cause was so connected with
   God’s cause, that the union was inseparable; for Jeremiah speaks not here as
   a private individual, much less as one of the common people; but as he knew
   that his calling was approved by God, he hesitated not to connect God with
   himself, so that the reproach might belong to both. God, indeed, could not
   be separated from his own truth; for nothing would be left to him, were he
   regarded as apart from his word. Hence a mere fiction is every idea which
   men form of God in their minds, when they neglect that mirror in which he
   has made himself known, Nay more, we ought to know that whatever power,
   majesty, and glory there is in God, so shines forth in his word, that he
   does not appear as God, except his word remains safe and uncorrupted. As,
   then, the Prophet had been furnished with a sure commission, it is no wonder
   that he so boldly derides his enemies and says, that God was a deceiver, if
   he had been deceived. To the same purpose is what Paul says,

   “If an angel come down from heaven and teach you another Gospel, let him be
   accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

   Certainly Paul was inferior to the angels, and we know that he was not so
   presumptuous as to draw down angels from heaven, and to make them
   subservient to himself; no, by no means; but he did not regard what they
   might be; but as he had the truth of the Gospel, of which he was the herald,
   sealed in his heart, he hesitated not to raise that word above all angels.
   So now Jeremiah says, that God was a deceiver, if he was deceived: how so?
   because God would deny himself, if he destroyed the truth of his word.

   We now, then, perceive that the Prophet did not exceed what was right, when
   he dared to elevate himself, so as to become in a manner the associate of
   God, that is, as to the truth of which God was the author and he the
   minister.

   But from this passage a useful doctrine may be gathered. All who go forth to
   teach ought to be so sure of their calling, as not to hesitate to appeal to
   God’s tribunal whenever any dispute happens. It is indeed true, that even
   the best servants of God may in some things be mistaken, or be doubtful in
   their judgment; but as to their calling and doctrine there ought to be that
   certainty which Jeremiah exhibits to us here by his own example.

   He afterwards adds, Thou hast constrained me By saying that he had been
   deceived, he meant this, — “O God, if I am an impostor, thou hast made me
   so; if I have deceived, thou hast led me; for I have derived from thee all
   that I have; it hence follows, that thou art in fault, and less excusable
   than I am, if there be anything wrong in me.” Afterwards, as I have said, he
   enlarges on this, — that God constrained him; for he had not coveted the
   prophetic office, but being constrained, undertook it; for he could not have
   rejected or cast off the burden laid on him. He then expresses two things,
   — that he had brought no fancies of his own, nor invented anything of what
   he had said, but had been the instrument of God’s Spirit, and delivered what
   he had received as from hand to hand: this is one thing. And then he adds,
   — that had he his free choice, he would not have undertaken the prophetic
   office; for he had been drawn as it were by constraint to obey God in this
   respect. We now then perceive the meaning of Jeremiah.

   Were any to ask, whether it could be deemed commendable in the Prophet thus
   constrainedly to undertake his office; to this the plain answer is, — that a
   general rule is not here laid down, as though it were necessary for all to
   be thus unwillingly drawn. But though Jeremiah might not have been faultless
   in this respect., yet he might have justly testified this before men. And we
   have seen at the beginning, that when God appointed him a teacher to his
   Church, he refused as far as he could the honor,

   “Ah! Lord,” he said, “I know not how to speak.”
   (Jeremiah 1:6)

   Though then he was constrained by God’s authority, and as it were, led by
   force, and though he may have shewed in this respect that he was not free
   from fault or weakness; yet he might have rightly pleaded this against his
   enemies.

   He then says, that he was a scorn continually, and was derided by all The
   Prophet no doubt tried here to find out whether any portion of the people
   was still reclaimable; for to hear that God was charged with falsehood, that
   the Prophet’s office was rendered void by the wilfulness and audacity of
   men, was much calculated to rouse their minds. When, therefore, they heard
   this, they must surely have been terrified, if they had a particle of true
   religion or of right knowledge. Hence the Prophet wished to make the trial,
   whether there were any remaining who were capable of being reclaimed. But
   his object also was to shew, that their wickedness was inexpiable, if they
   continued wickedly and proudly to oppose his doctrine. [11]

   And we ought carefully to notice this; for this passage has not only been
   written, that we may be instructed in the fear of God; but the Holy Spirit
   continually proclaims against all despisers, and openly accuses them, that
   they offer to God the atrocious insult of charging him with falsehood and
   deception. Let us then know that a dreadful judgment is here denounced on
   all those profane men who despise God’s word and treat it with derision; for
   the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Jeremiah openly proclaims, as I have said,
   before God’s tribunal, that God is made by them a liar. It afterwards
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [11] I find none agreeing with Calvin in his view of this verse; nor many
   with our version in rendering the first verb “deceived.” So is the
   Septuagint, but the Vulgate, Syriac, and Targum have “enticed.” In other
   parts it is rendered in our version “enticed,” “allured,” and “persuaded.”
   Blayney has “allured,” but Gataker and Lowth prefer “persuaded;” and this
   wholly comports with the view the Prophet gives of his calling in the first
   chapter, to which he evidently refers, and also with what follows in this
   verse. He was unwilling to undertake the office, but he was induced to do so
   by what God said to him. There was nothing like deception in the case; for
   God had previously told him of the difficulties he would have to encounter.
   And then he adds, that he was “constrained,” which I consider to be the
   meaning of the next verb. He had been persuaded by reasons and promises, and
   constrained by authority. I would render the verse thus, — 7. Thou didst
   persuade me, O Jehovah, and I was persuaded; Thou didst constrain me, and
   didst prevail: I am become a derision every day; The whole of it are jeering
   me. The “it” refers to the city where he was, and of which he speaks at the
   end of the last chapter; for this chapter is but a continuation of the
   narrative. What he relates there of the fate of the city drew the attention
   and excited the rage of Pashur. After having spoken of what Pashur did,
   Jeremiah gives utterance here to his complaints. Blayney renders the last
   line thus, and is approved by Horsley, — Ridicule hath spent its whole force
   upon me. All the versions and the Targum regard כלה, not as a verb, but as
   signifying “all,” or every one; and the proposed rendering is too refined.
   — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:8-9

   8. For since I spake, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil; because the
   word of the LORD was made a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily.

   8. Quia ex quo locuutus sum, vociferor violentiam et vastationem clamo; quia
   fuit sermo Jehovae mihi in opprobrium et in contumeliam toto die (vel,
   quotidie, assiduè, ut dictum est.)

   9. Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his
   name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones,
   and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.

   9. Et dixi (itaque dixi, copula enim illativam valet) non recordabor et non
   loquar amplius in nomine ejus; et fuit in corde meo quasi ignis ardens,
   clausus in ossibus meis, et fatigatus sum ferendo et non potui.


   The Prophet says here that he found no fruit from his labors, but on the
   contrary, he saw that all his efforts and endeavors had an opposite effect;
   for they exasperated all the Jews, inflamed their rage, and drove them into
   a greater licentiousness in sinning. Hence he says, that he purposed to give
   up the office assigned to him, but that by a secret impulse he was
   constrained to persevere, and that thus he was not at liberty to desist from
   the course which he had begun.

   But the verse is variously explained; From the time I spoke, I cried
   violence aloud and proclaimed devastation Thus some take the words, as
   though Jeremiah said, that since he began to teach he uttered complaints;
   for he saw that he was violently assailed and was exposed to all kinds of
   wrongs: but this view appears to me too frigid. Others come nearer to the
   truth who consider him as saying, that he had not ceased to cry against
   outrages and plunders, when he saw that all kinds of wickedness prevailed
   among the people; as though he had said, “I could not mildly and peaceably
   teach them, for their disposition and temper prevented me, but their
   wickedness compelled me to treat them with severity, as all God’s servants
   ought wisely to consider what the state of the Church requires.” If indeed
   we should in tranquil times cry aloud, it would be mad affectation; and this
   is what is done by many, who without thought and without any reason always
   make a great cry; but when we see Satan reigning, we ought not then to
   withhold nor to act as in a truce; but as it is an open war it is necessary
   to cry aloud. They who take this view, then, understand that Jeremiah cried
   aloud, because he saw that the people were refractory, and also saw that
   things were so bad that they could not be restored to a right state without
   the greatest sharpness and vehemence.

   But I rather think that the Prophet had another kind of trial, — that he
   brought down a greater vengeance of God by his cries, as though he had said,
   “To what purpose should I furnish God with weapons by my preaching? since I
   do nothing but increase his wrath, which will at length fulminate and
   consume the whole land together with the people.” He then says, that he
   cried violence and devastation aloud, for impiety itself is a sort of
   hostile violence by which God is provoked. The meaning is, that the Prophet
   saw no other fruit to his labor, but that men were rendered more insolent,
   and from being thieves became robbers, and from being disdainful became
   ruffians, so that they increasingly kindled God’s wrath, and more fully
   abandoned themselves. This was indeed a most severe and dangerous trial; it
   is therefore no wonder that the Prophet says, that it came to his mind to
   turn aside from his office as a teacher.

   Now this passage is especially worthy of being observed; for not only
   teachers are influenced by this feeling, but all the godly without
   exception. For when we see that men are, as it were, made worse through
   God’s word, we begin to doubt whether it be expedient to bury every
   remembrance of God and to extinguish his word, rather than to increase the
   licentiousness of men, they being already inclined enough to commit sin. We
   indeed see at this day that the doctrine of the Gospel does not restore all
   to obedience; but many give themselves a more unbridled license, as though
   the yoke of discipline was wholly removed. There was some fear under the
   Papacy, there was some sort of obedience and subjection; and now the liberty
   of the Gospel, what is it to many but brute license, so that they sin with
   impunity and blend heaven and earth together. There are also others who, on
   observing so many controversies, do, under that pretext, throw aside every
   concern for religion, and every attention to it. There are some fanatics who
   allow themselves to doubt and even to deny the existence of God. As then we
   see that the effect of the truth is not such as might be wished, those who
   are otherwise firm must needs be shaken or made to totter. Therefore, this
   passage ought the more to be noticed; for Jeremiah confesses that he was
   sore troubled when he saw that the word of God was a derision, and hence he
   wished to withdraw from the course of his calling. Let us know that whenever
   such a thing comes into our minds we ought manfully to resist it; and,
   therefore, the two things here mentioned ought to be connected, for when he
   said, I will no more mention him, nor speak in his name, he added, but the
   word of God was like a burning fire

   We hence see how God restrained his servant, lest he should fall headlong,
   or succumb under his temptation; for he would have been suddenly drawn in as
   it were into a deep gulf, had he not been preserved by God. Therefore,
   whenever temptations of this kind present themselves to us, let us pray God
   to restrain and to support us; or if we have already fallen, let us pray him
   to raise us up and to strengthen us by his Spirit.

   But the way is shewn by which God aided his servant: The word of God became
   as a burning fire in his heart; and it was also closed up in his bones, so
   that he was led by an ardent zeal, and could not be himself without going
   onward in the course of his office. He concludes by saying, that he was
   wearied, or could hardly bear himself, with forbearing; as though he had
   said, that it was not in his power either to abstain from teaching or to do
   what God commanded; for a burning ardor forced him to go on; and yet he had
   no doubt in his view those despisers with whom he had to do. It is the same
   then as though he had said, that he had found out what it was to have the
   whole world against him, but that God prevailed. Now this was said, because
   profane men take occasion to be secure and indifferent, when they imagine
   that Prophets and teachers are unfeeling men, — “O, what do we care for
   fanatics, who do not possess common feelings? and it is no wonder, since
   they are stupid and insensible, that they are thus angry and violent,
   disregard all others, and feel nothing that is human.” As, then, they
   imagine that men are sticks, when they speak of God’s servants as being
   without discretion, the Prophet seems to say, “Surely ye are deceived, for I
   am not so much an iron, but that I am influenced by strong and many
   feelings; nay, I have learnt and I know how great is my weakness, nor do I
   dissemble but that I am subject to fear, to sorrow, and to other passions;
   but God has prevailed There is then no reason for you to think that I speak
   so boldly, because I feel nothing human; but I have done so after a hard
   struggle, after all those things came into my mind, which are calculated to
   weaken the courage of my heart; yet God stretched forth his hand to me, and
   not only so, but I was constrained, lest I should arrogate anything to
   myself, or boast of my heroic courage. I did not prevail, he says, but when
   I submitted myself to God and desired to give up my calling, I was
   constrained, and God dealt powerfully with me, for his word became as a
   burning fire in my heart, so that at length, through the strong influence of
   the Spirit, I was constrained to proceed in the discharge of my office.”

   Therefore I said, I will mention him no more, nor speak in his name; not
   that the Prophet wished himself or others to forget God, but because he
   thought that he lost all his labor, and that he in vain made a stir, since
   he cried aloud without any benefit, and not only so, but he more and more
   exasperated the wicked; as an ulcer, the more it is pressed, the more putrid
   matter it emits; so the impiety of the people was more and more discovered,
   when the Prophet reproved sins which were before hid. [12]

   Let us now then learn by the example of the Prophet, that whenever Satan or
   our flesh raises an objection and says, that we ought to desist from
   preaching celestial truth because it produces not its proper and legitimate
   fruits, it is nevertheless a good odor before God, though fatal to the
   ungodly. Though then the truth of the Gospel proves the savor of death to
   many, yet our labor is not on that account of no value before God; for we
   know that we offer to God an acceptable sacrifice; and though our labor be
   useless as to men, it is yet fruitful as to the glory of God; and while we
   are the odor of death unto death to those who perish, yet to God, even in
   this respect, our labor is acceptable. (2 Corinthians 2:16)

   Let us also beware lest we withdraw ourselves from God; but even when many
   things happen to impede our course, let us overcome them by the power of the
   Spirit. At the same time let us fear, lest through our sloth we bury our
   ardor of which the Prophet speaks. We see what happened to Jonah; he had so
   far fallen as to forsake entirely his office, by extinguishing, as much as
   he could, the judgment of God; and when he became a fugitive, he thought
   himself beyond danger, as though he was removed from God’s presence. (Jonah
   1:3.) God indeed saw him, but yet his word was not in him as a burning fire.
   As then so great a man through his own sloth extinguished, as far as he
   could, the light of the Holy Spirit, how much more ought we to fear, lest
   the same thing should happen to us? Let us then rouse the sparks of this
   fervor, until it inflame us, so that we may faithfully devote ourselves
   altogether to the service of God; and if at any time we become slothful, let
   us stimulate ourselves, and may the power of the Holy Spirit be so revived,
   that we may to the end pursue the course of our office and never stand
   still, but assail even the whole world, knowing that God commands us and
   requires from us what others disapprove and condemn.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [12] The beginning of the eighth verse seems to be connected with the end of
   the seventh. Such appears to be the Syriac version. Then the remaining part
   of the eighth will coalesce with the ninth. This gives a consistency to the
   whole passage. I am become a derision every day; The whole of it are jeering
   me, 8. Whenever I speak, cry against violence, Or, proclaim a devastation.
   Because the word of Jehovah was to me A reproach and a scoff every day, 9.
   Therefore I said, “I will not mention it, Nor will I speak any more in his
   name;” But it became in my heart Like a burning fire, confined in my bones;
   And I was wearied with restraining and I could not. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as at this day a greater and viler impiety breaks
   forth than at any age, and thy sacred truth is treated with derision by many
   of Satan’s drudges, — O grant, that we may nevertheless constantly persevere
   in it, nor hesitate to oppose the fury of all the ungodly, and relying on
   the power of thy Spirit, contend with them until that truth, which thou
   didst once proclaim by thy Prophets, and at length by thine only-begotten
   Son, and which was sealed by his blood, may attain its full authority, that
   as it proves to many the savor of eternal death, so it may also be a pledge
   to us of eternal salvation, until we shall be gathered into thy kingdom at
   the coming of the same thy Son Jesus Christ. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Seventy-Seventh
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:10

   10. For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they,
   and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying,
   Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we
   shall take our revenge on him.

   10. Quia audivi contumeliam multorum, terrorem undique, Nuntiate et
   nuntiabimus: omnis vir (id est, omnes homines, homo pacis, ad verbum, אנוש
   omnes homines) pacis meae (id est, familiares mei, qui debuerant colere
   mecum amicitiam), observant latus meum (vel, claudicationem, metaphorice et
   melius,) si forte erret, et praevaleamus ei, et sumamus ultionem nostram ex
   eo.


   Jeremiah proceeds with the same subject, and before God accuses his enemies,
   — that they disgracefully contended with him, though he deserved no such
   treatment, for he had endeavored to secure as far as he could their safety.
   He then says, that he had heard the slander of many, or as it may be
   rendered, of the great; but the former rendering is more suitable, for it
   immediately follows, that there was terror on every side, as though all with
   one consent assailed him. He then says, that he was surrounded with terror
   on every side, because he saw that the whole mass was opposed and hostile to
   him, and that he stood alone. He says, also, that his enemies laid in wait
   for him, and sought occasions to destroy him.

   Report ye, and we will report to him Here he assumes their person and
   relates what they consulted to do. He, no doubt, introduces here the chief
   men and the priests as the speakers, who were contriving means to form an
   accusation against the holy man; for we know what is commonly done in
   conspiracies of this kind; worthless men run here and there and hunt for
   every little thing; then they bring their report, and from this the
   accusation is formed. As, then, it did not comport with the dignity of the
   chief men and of the priests, to run here and there and to inquire of such
   as they might meet with what Jeremiah had said, they sat still and sent
   others, and said, “Go and report to us, and we shall then report to the
   king.” For the word “king” must be here understood, as the pronoun is put
   without an antecedent; come then and report, and we will report to him We
   now perceive what Jeremiah complained of, even that he had not only many
   enemies who calumniated him, but that he had also those who wished
   insidiously to entrap him.

   And he adds what was still worse, — that he was thus unjustly treated, not
   only by strangers or those who were openly his enemies, but by his own
   friends or relations; for the Hebrews called domestics and those connected
   by relationship, men of peace;

   “the man of my peace, in whom I trusted,”

   is an expression used in Psalm 41:9; but it is a phrase which often occurs.
   In short, Jeremiah means, that he was not only in a manner overwhelmed by a
   vast number of enemies, but that he was also without any friends, for they
   treacherously betrayed him. He says that they watched his side, or halting.
   Some render it “breaking;” but halting or debility is the most suitable; and
   the metaphor is most appropriate; it is taken from the side, and they who
   halt or through weakness totter, incline now on this side, then on that
   side. So Jeremiah says, that they watched him; if by chance he go astray, he
   again speaks in their name, “Let us then watch whether he will halt or go
   astray from the road; and then we shall prevail against him.”

   We may, in short, gather from these words, that this holy servant of God was
   not only harassed openly by professed enemies, but that he was also
   insidiously watched, and perfidiously, too, by men who pretended to be his
   friends, while yet they were his worst enemies. If, then, deceitful men at
   this time assail us by secret means, and others oppose us openly, let us
   know that nothing new has happened to us; for in these two ways God tried
   Jeremiah. We also see that it was a common thing with the ungodly to lay
   hold on some pretext for calumny; for as soon as the Prophets opened their
   mouth, they could have said nothing but what was immediately misrepresented;
   and hence Micah complained that he was assailed by a similar artifice, for
   when the spoke with severity, they all cried out that he raised a tumult
   among the people, and sought nothing but new things, so that by disturbing
   the state of the city and kingdom, he would bring all things to ruin. (Micah
   2:6.) If, then, God suffers us to be tried by such intrigues, let us bear
   such indignity with resigned and calm minds; for no Prophet has been exempt
   from this kind of trouble and annoyance.

   They said further, Let us take our revenge on him, as though, indeed, they
   had a cause for revenge! for what had Jeremiah done? In what had he offended
   them? Though, then, they had suffered no wrong, they yet would take revenge!
   But it is no wonder that the ungodly and the despisers of God spoke thus;
   for we know that they thought themselves grievously injured whenever their
   wounds were touched; for they considered reproofs, however just and
   necessary, to be reproaches. Hence then it was, that their rage kindled in
   them a desire for revenge, though yet no wrong had been done to them. [13]
   He afterwards adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [13] There is not much agreement in the early versions on this verse, nor in
   the Targum; and modern expounders somewhat differ, though the general
   meaning is obvious, and is given very lucidly by Calvin. I shall give what I
   consider to be the most literal rendering, — Truly I have heard the babbling
   of many, — “Terror on every side, publish ye, We also shall publish it:” All
   the men who are at peace with me, Watch for my halting, — “He may perhaps be
   enticed; Then we shall prevail over him, And shall take on him our
   revenge.” Both Grotins and Blayney render כי, “truly,” or verily, and
   consider this verse connected with the following. There is evidently in the
   second line an allusion to the name given to Pashur: the multitude, by the
   way of ridicule, repeated the name. Cocceius and Blayney render the line
   according to this meaning. “All the men,” etc., literally, “Every man of my
   peace,” that is, who is at peace with him; they were those who seemed to be
   his friends, though really his enemies, and plotting for his downfall, and
   that by trying to entice him out of his course. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:11

   11. But the LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my
   persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly
   ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never
   be forgotten.

   11. Atqui Jehova mecum tanquam gigas fortis (aut, terribilis;) propterea
   persecutores mei ruent, et non praevalebunt; pudefient valde, quia non
   prudenter agunt, (vel, non prospere succedet illis;) opprobrium seculi (id
   est, perpetuum, subaudiendum est, quod) non oblivioni tradetur.


   Here the Prophet sets up God’s aid against all the plottings formed against
   him. However, then, might perfidious friends on one hand try privately to
   entrap him, and open enemies might on the other hand publicly oppose him, he
   yet doubted not but that God would be a sufficient protection to him. And we
   ought to act exactly in the same manner, whenever Satan rouses the wicked
   against us to oppose us either by secret artifices or by open cruelty; God
   alone must be, as they say, our brazen wall. But we must first know that he
   stands on our side; for the power of God can avail nothing to animate us,
   except we be firmly persuaded of this truth, that he is on our side. And how
   this confidence can be obtained, we shall presently see.

   He says, that his persecutors would fall, so that they would not prevail,
   but be ashamed We see how many persecuted the holy man, and also with what
   arms they were furnished; for they possessed great power, and were also
   endued with guiles and intrigues. But the Prophet was satisfied with the
   help of God alone, and boldly concluded, that they would fall; for it could
   not be but that God would prove victorious. Whenever, then, we fight with
   the world and the devil and his slaves, this ought in the first place to
   come to our minds, that God stands on our side to defend our cause and to
   protect our safety. This being settled, we may then boldly defy both the
   artifices and the violence of all enemies; for it cannot be but that God
   will scatter, lay prostrate, overwhelm, and reduce to nothing all those who
   fight against him.

   He further says that their reproach would be perpetual, and would never come
   to oblivion We have seen already that the Prophet was loaded with many
   reproaches; but whenever God suffers his servants to be exposed to the
   curses of the wicked, he in due time aids them; and therefore we ought fully
   to expect that he will shortly dissipate, as mists, such calumnies. As then
   God, according to what is said in Psalm 37:6, brings forth the innocency of
   the godly like the dawn, which in a moment appears while the earth seems
   buried in darkness, so the Prophet now says that on the other hand the
   reproach with which God will cover all the wicked will be perpetual. [14] It
   now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [14] Except in the first line, the Sept. and the Vulg. differ from the text
   as well as from one another; both are exceedingly confused. Few expounders
   have kept the proper tenses of the verbs. The Prophet states not only what
   would happen to his enemies, but also what had already in part happened to
   them, — 11. But Jehovah is with me as a terrible warrior; Therefore my
   persecutors shall stumble, And shall not prevail: They have become
   exceedingly ashamed, Because they have not succeeded; A perpetual shame! It
   shall not be forgotten. The last two lines are according to what Horsley
   suggests. “A terrible warrior” is rendered by the Sept., “a strong
   combatant, machētēs ischuōn;” by the Vulg., “a brave warrior, bellato
   fortis, by the Syr., “the strongest giant;” and by the Arab., “the strongest
   help.” — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:12

   12. But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and
   the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I opened my
   cause.

   12. Et (vel, tu autem) Jehova exercituum, probans justum, videns renes et
   cor, videbo ultionem tuam ex ipsis, quia tibi patefeci litem meam (vel, jus
   meam, causam meam.)


   The Prophet shews here briefly how he dared to allege God’s name and help
   against his enemies; for hypocrites often boast that God is their helper,
   but they falsely pretend his name. The proof, then, by which the Prophet
   shews that he did not falsely or presumptuously pretend what he had stated,
   — that God was to him like a strong giant, who could easily lay prostrate
   all the wicked, ought to be well weighed; and it was this — that he dared to
   make God the witness and judge of his integrity. Hence if we desire to have
   God’s name to plead for the purpose of repelling all those artifices which
   are contrived against us by the devil, we must learn to offer ourselves to
   be tried by him, so that he may really examine our thoughts and feelings.

   Now, in the first place, let us bear in mind what the Prophet teaches, —
   that nothing is hid from God; for hypocrites will not hesitate to go so far
   as to offer themselves to be tried by God; but they do not yet duly consider
   what is said here, that nothing is hid from him. There are many recesses in
   the heart of man, and we know that all things there have many wrappings and
   coverings; but God in the meantime is a heart-discerner, (kardiognōstēs,)
   who proves the heart and reins. Under the word reins, the Hebrews include
   all the hidden thoughts and feelings. We must then remember this as the
   first thing, that the Prophet acknowledges that there can be no disguise as
   to God, and that men gain nothing by acting fallaciously, for he penetrates
   into the inmost thoughts and discerns between the thoughts and the feelings.

   He adds that the righteous are tried by God. There is to be understood here
   a contrast, because men’s judgment is commonly superficial; for when there
   is an appearance of integrity, there is an immediate acquittal, though the
   heart may be deceitful and full of all perfidy. The Prophet then means, that
   when we come to God’s tribunal no one is there acquitted but he who brings a
   pure heart and real integrity. He then rises to a higher confidence, and
   says, that he should see the vengeance of God.

   We now see whence the Prophet derived his confidence, even because he had
   thoroughly examined himself, and that before God; he had not appealed to
   earthly witnesses only, nor had he, as it were, ascended a public theater to
   solicit the favor of the people; but he knew that he was approved by God,
   because he was sincere and honest.

   And then he justly adds, at the same time, that he had made known his cause
   or his complaint to God. There is to be understood here again a contrast;
   for they who are carried away by the popular breath do not acquiesce in
   God’s judgment. Ambition, like a violent wind, always carries men along so
   that they cannot stop themselves; hence it is that neither the testimony of
   conscience nor the judgment of God has much weight with them. But the
   Prophet says, that he had made known his cause to God.

   If any one objects and says, that hypocrites do the same, to this I answer,
   that though some imitation may appear in them, there is nothing real or
   genuine; for though they may boast that God is their witness, and that he
   approves of their cause, it is only what they speak vainly before men; for
   there is not one of them who deals thus privately with God. As long, then,
   as they are given to ostentation, they do not make known their cause to God,
   however they may appeal to him, refer to his tribunal, and declare that they
   have no other end in view but to promote his glory. They, then, who
   boastingly sound forth these things before the world for their own
   advantage, do not yet make known their cause to God, but by frivolous and
   vain boasting pretend his name.

   What, then, is it to make known our cause to God? It is to do this when no
   one is witness, and when God alone appears before us. When we dare in our
   prayers to address God thus, — “O Lord, thou knowest my integrity, thou
   knowest that there is nothing hid which I do now lay before thee,” then it
   is that we truly make known our cause to God; for in this case there is no
   regard had for men, but we are satisfied with the judgment of God alone.
   This was the case with the Prophet when he said, that he had made known his
   cause to God; and it must have been so, for we have seen that all ranks of
   men were opposed to him. As then he was under the necessity of fleeing to
   the only true God, he justly says, that he had referred his cause to him.

   By saying that he should see the vengeance of God, he alludes to that
   wished-for revenge before mentioned, for his enemies had said, “Let us take
   our revenge on him.” The Prophet says, “I shall see thy vengeance, O
   Lord.” By saying that he should see it, he speaks as though he had his hands
   tied; for thus the faithful, of their own accord, restrain themselves,
   because they know that they are forbidden by God’s command to revenge
   themselves on their enemies. As, then, there is a difference between doing
   and seeing, the Prophet here makes a distinction between himself and the
   audaciously wicked; for he would not himself take vengeance according to the
   violence of his wrath, but that he should only see it; and then he calls it
   the vengeance of God, for men rob God of his right whenever they revenge
   themselves according to their own will. Paul says,

   “Give place to wrath.” (Romans 12:19)

   While exhorting the faithful to forbearance, he uses this reason, that
   otherwise no place is given to God’s judgment; for whenever we take revenge,
   we anticipate God, as though every one of us ascended God’s tribunal, and
   arrogated to ourselves his office. We now, then, perceive what this mode of
   speaking means. [15]

   But we must at the same time notice, that God’s vengeance is not to be
   imprecated, except on the reprobate and irreclaimable. For the Prophet no
   doubt pitied his enemies, and wished, if they were reclaimable, that God
   would be propitious and merciful to them, according to what we have before
   seen. What, then, the revenge intimates of which he speaks is, that he knew
   by the prophetic spirit that they were wholly irreclaimable; and as his mind
   was under the influence of right zeal, he could imprecate on them the
   vengeance of God. If any one now, after the example of the Prophet, should
   wish all his enemies destroyed, and would have God armed against them, he
   would act very presumptuously, for it does not belong to us to determine
   before the time who the reprobate and the irreclaimable are; until this be
   found out by us, we ought to pray for all without exception, and every one
   ought also to consider by what zeal he is influenced, lest we should be
   under the power of turbulent feelings, as is commonly the case, and lest
   also our zeal be hasty and inconsiderate. In short, except it be certain to
   us that our zeal is guided by the spirit of uprightness and wisdom, we
   should never pray for vengeance on our enemies. He afterwards adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [15] There is but little difference between this verse and the 20th of the
   11th chapter (Jeremiah 11:20); the variety is in the first two lines. While
   here we have — But Jehovah of hosts, who art the trier of the righteous,
   The seer of the reins and of the heart; we have as follows in Jeremiah
   11:20, — But Jehovah of hosts, who art a righteous judge,
   The trier of the reins and of the heart. As in the former instance, the
   Versions render what follows as an imprecation, — “May I see,” etc., while
   the Targum does as Calvin, “I shall see,” etc.; and this better comports
   with the passage. The Prophet first mentions God as a righteous judge, and
   then he concludes that he should see God’s vengeance on his enemies, because
   he had devolved his cause on him, or revealed it to him. He had referred his
   cause to a righteous judge, and hence he felt assured that vengeance would
   overtake his enemies. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:13

   13. Sing unto the LORD, praise ye the LORD: for he hath delivered the soul
   of the poor from the hand of evildoers.

   13. Canite Jehovae, celebrate Jehovam, quia eripuit animam miseri (vel,
   afflicti) e manu scleratorum.


   Here the Prophet breaks out into an open expression of joy, and not only
   gives thanks himself to God, that he had been freed from the intrigues and
   violence of the wicked, but he also summons others, and encourages them to
   sing praises to God; as though he had said, that his deliverance was such a
   favor, that not only he should be thankful to God for it, but that all
   should join to celebrate it, according to what is said by Paul in 2
   Corinthians 1:11, that thanks might be given by many to God. The Prophet no
   doubt had experienced God’s help, yea, that help which he had before so
   highly extolled. As, then, he had really found that God was victorious, and
   that his safety had been defended against all the ungodly by God’s
   invincible power, he in full confidence expressed his thanks, and wished all
   God’s servants to join with him. [16]

   Whenever, then, we are reduced into straits, and seem to be, as it were,
   rejected by God himself, let us still wait patiently until he may be pleased
   to free us from the hand of the wicked; without misery and distress
   preceding, we should never sufficiently acknowledge the power of God in
   preserving us. Thus Jeremiah confesses that he was for a time miserable and
   oppressed, but that he was at length delivered, even when the ungodly and
   wicked thought themselves victorious. Now follows an outcry, which seems to
   be of a very different character, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [16] The “poor” here does not mean him who is in low circumstances, but him
   who is helpless or defenseless; and this is the meaning of the word often in
   other parts, especially in the Psalm. The word “soul,” too, here and in
   other places, means life, — Sing ye to Jehovah, praise Jehovah, For he hath
   rescued the life of the helpless From the hand of malignants. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:14-16

   14. Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother
   bare me be blessed.

   14. Maledietus dies, quo natus sum (in eo, sed abundat;) dies quo peperit me
   mater mea, non sit benedictus:

   15. Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, A man child
   is born unto thee; making him very glad.

   15. Maledictus vir, qui nuntiavit patri meo, dicendo, Natus est tibi filius
   masculus; quoniam (vel, quando) laetificavit eum (hoc est, cum vellet
   exhilarare patrem meum.)

   16. And let that man be as the cities which the LORD overthrew, and repented
   not: and let him hear the cry in the morning, and the shouting at noontide;

   16. Et sit vir ille quasi urbes quas perdidit Jehova, et non poenituit, et
   audiat clamorem mane, et tumultum tempore meridiano, (hoc est, in meridie
   ipsa.)


   It seems, as I have said, that the Prophet was inconsistent with himself;
   from joy and thanksgiving he immediately passed into curses and execrations;
   what could have been less appropriate? If we say that he was tried by a new
   temptation, yet this seems by no means satisfactory, though it is in this
   way that interpreters commonly untie the knot. But it seems to me a levity
   unworthy of the holy man to pass suddenly from thanksgiving to God into
   imprecations, as though he had forgotten himself. I, therefore, doubt not
   but that the Prophet here relates how grievously he had been harassed by his
   own thoughts. The whole of this passage, then, is connected with
   thanksgiving, for he amplifies the deliverance which he has just mentioned,
   that is, that he had been brought back, as it were, from the lower regions.
   Thus he recites, in the latter passage, what had before happened to him, as
   though he had said, “When I now declare that I have been rescued by God from
   the hand of the wicked, I cannot sufficiently express the greatness of that
   favor, until I make it more clearly known to all the godly how great and how
   dreadful agonies I suffered, so that I cursed my birth-day, and abhorred
   everything that ought to have stimulated me to give praise to God.”

   In short, the Prophet teaches us here that he was not only opposed by
   enemies, but also distressed inwardly in his mind, so that he was carried
   away contrary to reason and judgment, by turbulent emotions which even led
   him to give utterance to vile blasphemies. For what is here said cannot be
   extenuated; but the Prophet most grievously sinned when he became thus
   calumnious towards God; for a man must be in a state of despair when he
   curses the day in which he was born. Men are, indeed, wont to celebrate
   their birth-day; and it was a custom which formerly prevailed, to
   acknowledge yearly that they owed it to God’s invaluable goodness that they
   were brought forth into vital light. As then it is a reason for
   thanksgiving, it is evident that when we turn to a curse what ought to rouse
   us to praise God, we are no longer in a right mind, nor possessed of reason,
   but that we are seized as it were with a sacrilegious madness; and yet into
   this state had the Prophet fallen. [17]

   We may then here learn with what care ought every one of us to watch
   himself, lest we be carried away by a violent feeling, so as to become
   intemperate and unruly.

   At the same time I allow, and it is what we ought carefully to notice, that
   the origin of his zeal was right. For though the Prophet indirectly blamed
   God, we ought yet to consider the source of his complaint; he did not curse
   his birth-day because he was afflicted with diseases, or because he could
   not endure poverty and want, or because he suffered some private evils; no,
   nothing of this kind was the case with the Prophet; but the reason was,
   because he saw that all his labor was lost, which he spent for the purpose
   of securing the wellbeing of the people; and further, because he found the
   truth of God loaded with calumnies and reproaches. When, therefore, he saw
   the ungodly thus insolently resisting him, and that all religion was treated
   with ridicule, he felt deeply moved. Hence it was that the holy man was
   touched with so much anguish. And we hence clearly see, that. the source of
   his zeal was right.

   But we are here reminded how much vigilance we ought to exercise over
   ourselves; for in most instances, when we become weary of life, and desire
   death, and hate the world, with the light and all the blessings of God, how
   is it that we are thus influenced, except that disdain reigns within us, or
   that we cannot with resignation bear reproaches, or that poverty is too
   grievous to us, or that some troubles press on us too heavily? It is not
   that we are influenced by a zeal for God. Since, then, the Prophet, who had
   no regard to himself nor had any private reason either of gain or of loss,
   became yet. thus exasperated and so very vehement, nay, seized with so
   violent a feeling, we ought surely to exercise the more care to restrain our
   feelings; and though many things may daily happen to us, which may produce
   weariness, or overwhelm us with so much disdain as to render all things
   hateful to us, we ought yet to contend against such feelings; and if we
   cannot, at the first effort, repress and subdue them, we ought, at least,
   according to the example of the Prophet, to learn to correct them by
   degrees, until God cheers and comforts us, so that we may rejoice and sing a
   song of thanksgiving.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [17] The greatest difficulty in this passage is the connection. That
   Jeremiah should have cursed his birthday is what can be accounted for, as in
   the case of Job. Nature, even in the best of men, sometimes utters its own
   voice. But how he came to do this immediately after having thanked God for
   his deliverance, seems singular. The explanation of Calvin, that he relates
   what had passed in his mind, while he was confined by Pashur, is plausible,
   and has been adopted by Grotius, Gataker, Cocceius, and Henry. Grotius
   considered, “I had said,” to be understood at the beginning of the
   fourteenth verse. Adam Clarke thought that the words have been transposed,
   and that the five last verses ought to come in between the eighth and the
   ninth verse: and he says what is true, that there are many transpositions in
   this book. Houbigant, approved by Horsley, thought the right place for these
   verses is between the sixth and the seventh verse. But these transpositions
   are not satisfactory. Venema’s notion is, that Jeremiah does not speak in
   his own name, but in the name of Pashur. Having described in the previous
   verse his own ease, the protection he found from God, he describes in these
   verses the wretchedness and misery of his persecutor, and introduces him as
   cursing his birth-day, etc. But this is very far-fetched and fanciful. Scott
   acknowledges the transition to be very extraordinary, but yet thinks that
   the Prophet describes what had passed through his own mind, and says that
   the experience of good men proves that such sudden changes occur. “An
   experimental acquaintance with our hearts,” he says, “and the variations of
   our passions, under sharp trials, as encouraging or discouraging thoughts
   occur to our minds, will best enable us to understand it.” This is probably
   the right view of the subject. The Prophet, indeed, acknowledged God’s
   kindness in saving his life, and invited others to join him in praising him:
   yet when he considered his circumstances, he gave way to his own natural
   feelings. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as virulent tongues now surround us, and the devil
   has many mercenaries, who have nothing else in view but to prevent by
   clamors whatever is rightly derived from thee, and has proceeded from thy
   mouth, — O grant, that we may firmly oppose such intrigues, and also stand
   with resolute minds against all their violent artifices, and proceed in the
   course of thy holy calling, until we shall at length surely know that they
   who trust in thee, and faithfully devote themselves to thy service, are
   never left without thy help; and that, having at last finished our warfare,
   we may be gathered into that blessed rest which has been obtained for us by
   the blood of thine only-begotten Son. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Seventy-Eight

   We said yesterday that the Prophet’s confused state of mind is described in
   this passage; for he would have no doubt himself confessed, that he was
   carried away by an intemperate feeling, so as not to be himself; for it is
   to cast reproach on God when any one curses his own birth-day. And he goes
   farther than this, for he adds, Cursed be the man who declared to my father,
   that a male child was born Here he not only fights against God, but is also
   ungrateful towards men; for what but thanks did he deserve who first told
   his father that he had a son born to him? It was then an ingratitude in no
   way excusable And hence we also learn that the Prophet had no control over
   his feelings, but was wholly led away by a blind impulse, which made him to
   utter very inconsiderate words; for in this sentence there is no piety nor
   humanity; but as I have said, the Prophet was ungrateful to men as well as
   to God; and his hyperbolical language also more fully expresses how
   intemperate his feelings were, who declared to my father that a male child
   was born He seems here, as though he avowedly despised God’s favor, for we
   know that males are preferred to females. But the Prophet mentions here the
   word male, as though he wished to complain of what he ought to have been
   thankful for.

   And he adds, Who with joy made him joyful We see, as it is commonly said,
   how he mingles heaven and earth; for had it been in his power, when this
   frenzy possessed his mind, he would have certainly disturbed all the
   elements. But more grievous and more inordinate is what follows, Let that
   man be like the cities which God destroyed without repentance Why did he
   imprecate on an innocent man the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? and then
   he speaks not of temporal punishment, but devotes the man to endless
   perdition, for that is the import of the words, and he repented not; as
   though he had said, “May God be angry with him, without shewing any mercy,
   but manifest himself as wholly implacable, as he dealt with Sodom, which he
   at once destroyed without leaving it any hope.” Had he spoken of an
   inveterate enemy, he ought to have kept within those bounds prescribed to
   all God’s children; but he had nothing against the man who brought the news
   to his father. We hence see how he was led away as it were by an insane
   impulse. But let us hence learn to restrain, in due time, our feelings,
   which will pass over all bounds if we indulge them; for they will break out
   then as it were into fury, as the case was with the Prophet.

   He also adds, Let him hear a cry in the morning, and a tumult at noon-tide
   Here he devotes an innocent man to perpetual inquietude. And mention is made
   of the dawn, for we know that terrors occur during darkness in the night. If
   anything happens in the day-time, we inquire what it is, and we are not so
   frightened; but when there is any noise in the night, fear takes full
   possession of us. There is then something monstrous in what the Prophet
   expresses here. Hence, also, we more fully learn how very hot was his
   indignation, that he thus wished perpetual torments to an innocent man. In
   the morning, he says, let him hear a cry, and at noon a tumult Had he said,
   “Let him hear a cry perpetually,” it would not have been so grievous. It now
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 20:17-18

   17. Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been
   my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.

   17. Quare non occidisti me ab utero? et fuisset (hoc est, ut esset) mihi
   mater mea sepulchrum meum? et in utero ejus conceptus saeculi (id est,
   perpetuus, vel, uterus ejus fuisset in conceptu perpetuo; et hoec posterior
   expositio videtur reelins quadrare, ac si diceret, Fuisset uterus, matris
   meoe sterilis, ita ut non conciperet nisi post soeculum, id est, nunquam.)

   18. Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my
   days should be consumed with shame?

   18. Quare ex utero egressus sum ad videndum molestiam et dolorem, ut
   consumantur in opprobrio dies mei?


   After having denounced his imprecations on his birth-day, and on the
   messenger who had wished to convey joy to his father, Jeremiah now
   expostulates with God. It hence appears how great was his madness; for thus
   must we speak. But if Jeremiah spared not God, how should he spare a mortal
   man? There is then no doubt but that he raged furiously against God, for his
   expostulation is that of a man wholly desperate; he asks, why he was not
   slain from the womb, as though he did not regard it as a kindness that he
   came alive into light. But this life, though exposed to many sorrows, ought
   yet to be counted as an evidence of God’s inestimable favor. As the Prophet,
   then, not only despised this goodness of God, but contended with God
   himself, because he had been created a man and brought into light, how great
   was his ingratitude!

   He then adds, My mother might have been my grave; [18] that is, “This light
   and life I value not; why then did I not die in my mother’s womb? and why
   did she conceive me?” Then he says, Why came I forth from the womb that I
   might see trouble and sorrow, and that my days. might be consumed in,
   reproach? Here he gives a reason why he was wearied of life; but he could
   not have been cleared on this account, nor ought he to be so at this day;
   for what just cause can we have to contend with God? Jeremiah was created to
   sorrow and trouble: this is the condition of all; why, then, should God be
   blamed? his days were spent in reproach: there was nothing new in his case;
   for many who have received an honorable testimony from God had suffered many
   wrongs and reproaches. Why, then, did he not look to them as examples, that
   he might bear with patience and resignation what had happened to other holy
   men? but he seemed as though he wished to appear as it were in public, that
   he might proclaim his disgrace, not only to his own age, but to every age to
   the end of the world.

   At the same time we must remember the object he had in view; for the
   Prophet, as we have said, was not seized with this intemperate spirit after
   he had given thanks to God, and exulted as a conqueror, but before; and in
   order to amplify the grace of God in delivering him as it were from hell
   itself, into which he had plunged himself, he mentioned what had passed
   through his mind. The drift of the whole description seems to be this, — “I
   was lost, and my mind could conceive nothing but what was bitter, and with a
   full mouth I vomited forth poison and blasphemies against God.” What the
   Prophet then had here in view, was to render more conspicuous the kindness
   of God in bringing him to light from so deep an abyss.

   A similar mode of speaking is found in the third chapter of Job. But Job had
   not the reason which, as we have said, Jeremiah had; for Jeremiah was not
   influenced by any private grief when carried away by all insane impulse to
   speak against God. Whence, then, was his great grief? even because he saw he
   was despised by the people, and that the whole of religion was esteemed by
   them as nothing: in short, he saw that the state of things was quite
   hopeless. He was, then, inflamed with zeal for God’s glory; and he also was
   extremely grieved at the irreclaimable wickedness of the people; but Job had
   only a respect to his own sufferings. There was, therefore, a great
   difference between Job and Jeremiah; and yet we know that both were endowed,
   as it were, with angelic virtue, for Job is named as one of three just men,
   who seemed to have been elevated above all mankind; and Jeremiah, if a
   comparison be made, was in this instance more excusable than Job; and yet we
   see that they were both inflamed with so unreasonable a grief, that they
   spared neither God nor man.

   Let us then learn to check our feelings, that they may not break out thus
   unreasonably. Let us at the same time know that God’s servants, though they
   may excel in firmness, are yet not wholly divested of their corruptions. And
   should it happen at any time to us to feel such emotions within us, let not
   such a temptation discourage us; but as far as we can and as God gives us
   grace, let us strive to resist it, until the firmness of our faith at length
   gains the ascendency, as we see was the case with Jeremiah. For when
   overwhelmed with such a confusion of mind as to lie down as it were dead in
   hell itself, he was yet restored, as we have seen, to such a soundness of
   mind, that he afterwards courageously executed his own office, and also
   gloried, according to what we observed yesterday, in the help of God. Let us
   proceed, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [18] Our version seems right in rendering the ו in this sentence or; and so
   it ought to be rendered in the previous verse, otherwise there is an
   inconsistency in representing a man destroyed, and hearing an outcry, etc.
   The two verses may be thus rendered, — 16. And let that man be like the
   cities Which Jehovah overturned and repented not; Or a hearer of an outcry
   in the morning And of tumult at noon-tide. 17. Why not slay me did he from
   the womb? Or become to me did my mother my grave, And her womb a perpetual
   conception? The last words are, literally, “a conception of perpetuity,” —
   the Vulg. has, “an eternal conception,” — the Syr., “a perpetual
   conception.” Then the next verse is as follows, — 18. For what purpose has
   this been? From the womb I came forth To see labor and sorrow, And spent in
   shame are my days. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 21
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:1-4

   1. The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, when king Zedekiah sent
   unto him Pashur the son of Melchiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the
   priest, saying,

   1. Sermo qui datus fuit Jeremiae (factus fuit ad Jeremiam) a Jehova, cum
   misisset ad eum rex Zedekias Phassur filium Malchiah et Zephaniam filiam
   Maassiah sacerdotem (vel, sacerdotis) dicendo,

   2. Enquire, I pray thee, of the LORD for us; for Nebuchadrezzar king of
   Babylon maketh war against us; if so be that the LORD will deal with us
   according to all his wondrous works, that he may go up from us.

   2. Interroga (inquire) nunc pro nobis (aut, consule pro nobis) Jehovam; quia
   Nebuchadnezer rex Babylonis praeliatur contra nos, si faciat Jehova nobiscum
   secundum omnia mirabilia sua, et ascendat a notis.

   3. Then said Jeremiah unto them, Thus shall ye say to Zedekiah:

   3. Et dixit Jeremias illis, Sic dicetis Zedekiae,

   4. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Behold, I will turn back the weapons
   of war that are in your hands, wherewith ye fight against the king of
   Babylon, and against the Chaldeans, which besiege you without the walls, and
   I will assemble them into the midst of this city.

   4. Sic dicit Jehovah Deus Israel, Ecce ego reduco (alii vertunt, convertam;
   quidam minus apte, congregabo; bene vertetur, contraham, vel, prohibebo)
   onmia vasa (id est, instrumenta) bellica (belli) quae sunt in manibus
   vestris, quibus yes praeliamini (in ipsis, sed abundat) adversus regem
   Babylonis et Chaldaeos, qui obsident vos ab extra murum (hoc est, foris
   extra murum,) et colligam ipsos in medium urbis hujus.


   Jeremiah relates how he received the king’s messengers, who sought from him
   an answer, whether he could bring any comfort in a state of things so
   perplexed and almost hopeless, he then says, that two had been sent to him;
   one was Pashur, not the priest mentioned in the last chapter, for he was the
   son of Immer but this was the son of Melchiah; and the other was Zephaniah
   the priest, the son of Maaseiah. But he shews that the king and his
   counsellors were disappointed of their hope, for they expected a favor-able
   answer, as though God would be propitious to Jerusalem; but the Prophet
   answered as he was commanded by God, that it was all over with the city, the
   kingdom, and the whole nation.

   We shall also see from other passages that Zedekiah was not one of the
   worst; though he did not really fear God and was led away by false counsels,
   there was yet in him some regard for religion, so that he did not avowedly
   despise God as Epicureans do. Many such are found even at this day in the
   world, who think it enough to cherish a half-buried fear of God, and to
   retain some little regard for religion; but it is very fading, and
   disappears on even the least occasion. So it was with Zedekiah; he was as it
   were neutral, for he neither seriously worshipped God nor yet despised him.

   Hence it was, that he sent messengers to Jeremiah. He knew that while God
   was displeased with them no safety could be hoped for; but he did not
   understand the way of appeasing God, nor had he any real desire to be
   reconciled to him; as the case is with hypocrites, who, though they wish God
   to be kind to them, yet when God’s mercy is offered to them, either openly
   reject it, or are unwilling to embrace it, because they cannot bear to
   surrender themselves to God. Such was the state of mind in which Zedekiah
   was; and hence it was, that he asked the Prophet to consult God. But we must
   also observe that this was an honorable message; and it hence more fully
   appears that Zedekiah was not one of those furious tyrants, who like the
   giants seek to fight with God. For by sending two messengers to the Prophet,
   and employing him as an advocate to seek some favor from God, he proved that
   religion was not wholly suppressed and extinguished in him.

   And hence also it may be seen how bold and courageous was the Prophet; for
   he was not softened by the honor paid to him, but gave such answer as was
   calculated to exasperate the king, and to drive him into great rage. But we
   ought especially to notice, that they did not flatter the Prophet so as to
   induce him to give a false answer, but wished God to be consulted. It hence
   appears that they were convinced of Jeremiah’s integrity, that he would say
   nothing rashly or from himself, but would be a faithful interpreter and
   herald of heavenly oracles. And yet we see, and shall hereafter see in
   several passages, that the king was very incensed against God’s Prophet. But
   hypocrites, though they are forced to reverence God, are yet carried here
   and there, and maintain no consistency, especially when they perceive that
   God is against them; for they are not turned by threatenings. They cannot,
   therefore, but make tumult, and strive like refractory horses to shake off
   their rider. Such an instance we find in Zedekiah; for he acknowledged
   Jeremiah as God’s faithful servant; for he did not say, “Tell a lie for us,
   or in our favor but, inquire of God for us.

   He then adds, If Jehovah will deal with us according to all his wondrous
   works [19] We again see that Zedekiah had some sense of religion; but it was
   very evanescent; for he was not influenced by any real impression, being
   like hypocrites who wish, as it has been said, to have peace with God,
   provided it be on their own terms. But as they are unwilling wholly to
   surrender themselves to God, they take a circuituous course, and seek to
   allure God to themselves, at least they come not to him except through
   various windings, and not in a direct way. Hence Zedekiah refers here to
   God’s miraculous works which had been wrought in behalf of the Israelites in
   all ages; as though he had said, “God has hitherto dealt; in a wonderful
   manner with his chosen people, and whenever he brought help to our fathers,
   he manifested wonderful proofs of his power; will he not deal with us at
   this day in the same manner?” He assumes the principle, that God’s covenant
   remained inviolable; and this was quite true, but the application was false;
   for Zedekiah and the whole people ought to have kept faith with God. For if
   they wished God to be propitious to them, why did they not in return worship
   and serve him as their God? But as they were covenant-breakers, how
   foolishly and vainly did they allege God’s covenant, which they themselves
   had rendered void? But it is usual with hypocrites to apply to themselves
   every favor which God shews to his own children; for they falsely assume the
   name as a covering, and say, that they are members of the Church because God
   had adopted them. This was the reason why Zedekiah asked whether God would
   do according to his wonderful works, as though he had said, “Surely God is
   ever like himself, and we are his people; and as he has so often delivered
   his Church, and in such various ways, his power has always been wonderfully
   displayed; why, then, will he not deal with us in the same manner?”

   He at last, adds, that he may ascend from us, [20] that is, that the King
   Nebuchadnezzar may raise the siege and leave us free.

   Now follows the answer of Jeremiah, say ye to Zedekiah, etc.; he did not go
   to the king himself, but by way of contempt delivered the message to be
   borne by the messengers. The Prophet no doubt did this designedly, and
   through the impulse of the Holy Spirit. He did not, indeed, proudly despise
   his king; but it was necessary for him by his magnanimity to cast down the
   pride of the king, so that he might know that he had to do with the living
   God, whom he had very insolently treated. Say ye to Zedekiah, Thus saith
   Jehovah, the God of Israel, etc. He adds the words, the God of Israel, that
   Zedekiah might know that the wonderful works, in reliance on which he still
   thought that their condition was safe, did not belong to him and the people;
   as though the Prophet had said, “Though God did not help thee and thy
   people, he would not yet be inconsistent with himself, or depart from his
   covenant; but he would remain ever the God of Israel, though he destroyed
   thee and all thy people.”

   He says, Behold I, etc.; it was said before, Nebuchadnezzar is come to make
   war with us: now he says, “I am God;” as though he had said, “Nebuchadnezzar
   may be conquered, he may change his counsel, he may leave you through
   weariness; but know ye that Nebuchadnezzar fights under my authority.”
   Behold, he says, I prohibit (for so ought מסכ to be rendered) all the
   warlike instruments which are in your hands, and with which ye fight against
   the king of Babylon and against the Chaldeans; as though he had said,
   “However furnished ye may be with weapons and forces, and whatever may be
   necessary to defend the city, I forbid the use of these weapons, that is, I
   will cause that they will avail you nothing.” Some, as I have said, render
   the word, “I will turn them against you.” But the meaning seems more
   suitable to the etymology of the word, when we say, that the weapons which
   the Jews had would avail them nothing, because God would prevent them from
   producing any effect. [21]

   He afterwards adds, the Chaldeans, who fight without the wall against you He
   described their state at that time, for the city was besieged by the
   Chaldeans; there was a wall between them, and the Jews thought that they
   could repel the attacks of their enemies. But God says, “the Chaldeans are
   this day shut out by the wall, but I will gather them, he says, into the
   middle of this city; that is, I will make a breach, so that the wall may not
   be a hinderance to prevent, the Chaldeans from occupying the very bosom of
   the city.” It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [19] The “if” may better be rendered “it may be,” אולי; it is so rendered by
   the Vulg., Syr., and the Targ. — Ed

   [20] The Syr. Renders the verb “ascend” as a Hiphil; and more consistently
   with the passage, “and drive him away from us.” With the exception of the
   Arab., the Versions and the Targ. Render the first verb in the verse, not
   “inquire,” but “ask,” or “pray the Lord for us.” Then the verse would be as
   follows: — 2. Pray now for us to Jehovah; for Nebuchadrezzar, the king of
   Babylon, is warring against us: it may be that Jehovah will deal with us
   according to all his wondrous works, and make him to depart from us. The
   verb דרש, transitively as here, means to seek: see Psalm 34:5. And to seek
   the favor of Jehovah, or to pray to him, seems most consistent with the
   latter part of the verse. Blayney’s rendering is, “Intreat, we pray thee,
   Jehovah for us;” and this is the meaning taken by Venema and Gataker. — Ed

   [21] The verb סכ means to turn, to turn aside, to turn round, to change; it
   seems to mean here to turn to a contrary purpose, to turn from the right
   use, to divert, to revert, or to reverse, “Behold, I will reverse the
   instruments of war which are in your hands; metastrephō — I change,” that
   is, to what is opposite, is the Sept.; Blayney reads, “Behold, I will turn
   aside,” etc. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:5

   5. And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a
   strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath.

   5. Et praeliabor ego contra vos in manu extenta et brachio robusto, et in
   ira et furore et excandescentia magna.


   He proceeds with the subject; and though he afterwards is more diffuse, he
   yet confirms here what we have just seen, — even that God was the leader of
   the war, and that the Chaldeans were, as it were, his hired soldiers, whom
   he guided by his own hand, and to whom he would give the signal to fight.

   I, myself he says, will fight against you He put this in opposition to the
   wonderful works which Zedekiah had mentioned. God, indeed, had formerly been
   in a wonderful way present with his Church, not only once, but a thousand
   times; but he says now, “whatever power I have, it shall be exercised now
   against you; expect, therefore, no aid from me, but know that I am armed,
   and shall wholly destroy you.” He adds, with an extended hand and a strong
   arm; as though he had said, “your fathers found wonderful works done for
   their safety; but you shall by experience learn how great is my power to
   destroy you.” In short, he means that all God’s power would be a cause of
   terror to the Jews, and that therefore they could not escape, as there is
   nothing more dreadful than to have God’s hand opposed to us. To the same
   purpose is what follows, in wrath, and in fury, and in great indignation
   [22] God intimates in these words that he would be implacable, and that
   hence Zedekiah was mistaken when he thought that the end of their evils was
   nigh at hand.

   He might indeed have said briefly, “I will fight with an extended hand and
   with wrath;” but he mentioned wrath three times in various words. Hence what
   I have said appears evident, that Zedekiah was deprived of every hope, lest
   he should deceive himself, as though he would somehow propitiate God, who
   had already given up the city to final destruction. But we shall see that
   the Prophet had not ceased from the discharge of his office, and that he had
   allowed some room for repentance. But he made expressly this answer, for the
   king could not have been otherwise awakened. We shall see how he explained
   himself; but this beginning was as it were a thunderclap to lay prostrate
   the pride of the king and of the people. They had become first torpid in
   their evils, and then such was their contumacy that they sought to subject
   God to themselves. As then their stupidity and their obstinacy were so
   great, the Prophet could not, with any hope of success, have exhorted them
   to repent and offered them the mercy of God; it was therefore necessary for
   them to be so smitten as to perceive that they were wholly lost, and that
   God was so angry with them that they could not be saved by any human means.
   But we must defer the rest till to-morrow.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [22] There seems to be a gradation in these terms, — “in wrath, and in hot
   displeasure, and in great foaming indignation.” The first word means simply
   wrath or anger; the second, heated wrath; and the third, foaming wrath, and
   “great” is added to it. None of the Versions, except the Arab., presents
   this climax; the Sept. and Syr. have only two, “anger and great wrath;” the
   Vulg., “fury, indignation, and great wrath;” and the Arab., “wrath,
   indignation, and the greatest fury.” The Targ. has the same with the Vulg.
   These terms refer evidently to the provocations which had been given by the
   Jews. Their conduct had been such as to excite wrath, and heated wrath, and
   even great foaming wrath. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as we cease not to provoke thy wrath, and are also
   so slow to repent, — O grant, that we may at least so profit under thy
   threatenings and the manifestations of thy judgment, that we may give up
   ourselves wholly to thee, and hope, also for thy favor which has been for a
   time hidden from us, until with resigned minds we shall be able confidently
   to call on thee, and so prove our constancy, that thy name may be glorified
   in us, so that we may also be glorified in thee through Jesus Christ our
   Lord. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Seventy-Ninth
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:6-7

   6. And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they
   shall die of a great pestilence.

   6. Et percutiam habitatores urbis hujus, tam hominem quam bestliam; peste
   magna morientur.

   7. And afterward, saith the LORD, I will deliver Zedekiah king of Judah, and
   his servants, and the people, and such as are left in this city from the
   pestilence, from the sword, and from the famine, into the hand of
   Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of their enemies, and into
   the hand of those that seek their life: and he shall smite them with the
   edge of the sword; he shall not spare them, neither have pity, nor have
   mercy.

   7 Et post sic (postea) dicit Jehova, Tradam Zedekiam, regem Jehudah, et
   servos ejus, et populum, et qui residui erunt in urbe hae a peste, a gladio,
   et a fame, in manum Nebuehadrezer, regis Babylonis, et in manum inimieorum
   ipsorum, et in manum quaerentium animam ipsorum; et percuitet eos ore
   gladii; non parcet illis, neque ignoscet, neque miserabitur.


   Jeremiah goes on with the same discourse, even that God had resolved to
   destroy Jerusalem and the people, at least for a time. But he points out
   here what he intended to do, even that he would consume them by pestilence
   and famine, as long as they continued in the city; as though he had said,
   “Though these Chaldeans may not immediately take the city by means of a
   siege, yet its destruction shall be worse, for famine shall rage within and
   consume them.” We now perceive the design of the Prophet.

   But we must keep in mind what I reminded you of yesterday, — that God
   assumes to himself what might have been ascribed to the Chaldeans, for he
   makes himself the author of all these calamities; I will smite, he says, the
   inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; by a great pestilence shall
   they die This was the first kind of punishment; before the enemy rushed into
   the city the pestilence had consumed many of the people. Now there is a
   circumstance mentioned which shews how dreadful would be their state, for
   not only men would perish, but even brute animals. It was no wonder that
   God’s vengeance extended to horses, and oxen, and asses; for we know that
   all these were created for the use of man. Hence when God manifested his
   wrath as to these animals, His object was to fill men with greater terrors;
   for they thus saw oxen and asses, though innocent, involved in the same
   punishment with themselves. For how can we suppose that horses and asses
   deserved to perish by diseases, or through want of daily food? But God sets
   forth such a spectacle as this, that he may more effectually touch men; for
   they thus see that the whole world is exposed to a curse through their sins.
   They are indeed constrained to know how great their sinfulness is; for on
   this account it is that the earth becomes dry and barren, that the elements
   above and below perform not their offices, so that the sterility of the
   ground deprives animals of their food, and the infection of the air kills
   them. But on this subject we have spoken elsewhere.

   He then adds, And afterwards, that is, when the pestilence had in a great
   measure consumed them; I will give, or deliver, he says, Zedekiah the king
   of Judah, and his servants, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzer He intimates
   that though they might suffer with courage their wants, it, would be of no
   avail to them. It often happens that a siege is raised, when the obstinacy
   of the besieged is so great, that they overcome famine and thirst, and
   struggle against extreme want; for they who besiege them are led to think
   that they contend with furious wild beasts, and so depart from them. But God
   declares here that the event would be different as to the Jews, for after
   having been nearly consumed, they would still be delivered up into the power
   of their enemies. Thus he shows that, their endurance would be useless. It
   is indeed, a most deplorable thing, that when we have endured many grievous
   and distressing evils, the enemy should at length gain the ascendency, and
   possess over us the power of life and death. But God shows here that such a
   calamity awaited the Jews; I will deliver, he says, Zedekiah the king of
   Judah, etc. He doubtless intended to show how foolish their confidence was,
   when they thought that they were safe under the shadow of their king: “The
   king himself,” he says, “shall not exempt himself from danger; what then
   will it avail you to have a king?” And the king is expressly mentioned, that
   the Jews might not deceive themselves with the foolish notion, that they had
   a sufficient safeguard in their king.

   He then adds, And his servants, that is, his counsellors or courtiers; for
   servants were those called who were the chief men and ministers of the king,
   “and his ministers.” There was a great deal of pride in these courtiers, and
   they were very hostile to the Prophets; for being blinded by their own
   foolish wisdom, they despised what the Prophets taught and all their
   warnings. For this reason the Prophet says that they would be delivered into
   the hand of the king of Babylon.

   It is further said, And the people The last copulative is to be taken
   exegetically, even, ואת-הנשארים, veat enesharim, “even the residue;” for he
   refers to none but the people, but intimates what the people would be, even
   a small number, a remnant. Then the words are to be thus rendered, “even
   those who shall remain in the city.” But Jerusalem, when this discourse was
   delivered, was in a flourishing state, and had a large number of
   inhabitants, he therefore shews, that after God diminished and reduced the
   people to a small number, there would not yet be an end to their evils, but
   that a worse thing would still happen to them, for their life would be put
   in the power of their enemies; he therefore says, even those who shall
   remain in the city; and he alludes to the last verse, for he had said that
   many would perish through want; nor does he refer only to famine, but, also
   to the sword and to the pestilence, for he says, even those who shall remain
   from the pestilence, and from the sword, and from the famine The famine, as
   it is usual, produced pestilence; and then when their enemies attacked the
   city with their warlike instruments, many must have been killed, as they
   could not repulse their enemies from the walls without a conflict. Then God
   shows that the Jews would have to contend with want, pestilence, and the
   sword, until they were overcome, and the city taken by the Chaldeans.

   It is afterwards added, into the hands of their enemies, into the hand of
   those who seek their life This repetition is not superfluous, for God
   intimates what is more fully and clearly expressed by Isaiah, — that the
   Chaldeans would not be satisfied with plunder, that they would make no
   account of silver and gold, for they would burn with rage, and their object
   would be to shed blood. (Isaiah 13:17.) So the meaning is here, when he
   mentions those who would seek their life; for they would be led by deadly
   hatred, so that their anger and cruelty would not be appeased until they
   destroyed them. Thus he shows that it would be a bloody victory, for the
   Jews would not only be led captives, because their conquerors would not
   think it worth their while to drag them away as worthless slaves, but their
   object would be wholly to destroy them.

   Hence he says, He will smite them There is a change of number, and the
   reference is made to the king, and yet the whole army is included, he will
   smite them with the mouth of the sword, he will not spare, he will not
   forgive, (the words are synonymous,) and will shew no mercy [23] God thus
   transferred his own inexorable wrath to the Chaldeans, who were his
   ministers, as though he had said, “Your enemies will be implacable, they
   will not be turned to mercy; for I have so commanded, and I will rouse them
   to execute my judgment.” Nor can this be deemed strange, because God had
   resolved in his implacable wrath to reduce the people to nothing. For we
   know how great was their perverseness in their sins.

   Since then they had so often rejected the mercy of God, they had in a manner
   closed up the door of pardon. Hence it was that God resolved that the
   Chaldeans should thus rage against them without any feeling of humanity. It
   afterwards follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [23] The Versions and the Targum all differ as to these three verbs, and
   their distinct meaning is not given by any of them. The first is to spare,
   the second is to relent, and the third is to feel compassion or pity. The
   last act, sparing, is mentioned first, then the previous one relenting, and
   in the third place, what occasions relenting, pity, or compassion. The same
   verbs occur together in chapter 13:14, but in a different order, relent,
   spare, pity. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:8-9

   8. And unto this people thou shalt say, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I set
   before you the way of life, and the way of death.

   8. Et ad populum hunc dices, sic dicit Jehova, Ecce ego propono coram vobis
   (coram faciebus vestris) viam vitae (vitarum, ad verbum) et viam mortis:

   9. He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine,
   and by the pestilence: but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans
   that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey.

   9. Qui habitabit in urbe hac morietur gladio et fame et peste; qui autem
   egressus fuerit et habitaverit (vertunt quidam, qui ceciderit; sed dicemus
   de hoc verbo postea) apud Chaldeos, qui obsident vos, vivet et anima illi
   erit in spolium.


   God here declares that he proposed to the people the way of life and the way
   of death, in order that they might surely know that all who remained in the
   city would soon meet with death, and that those who willingly surrendered to
   their enemies would have their life spared. Moses says in another sense that
   he set before them the way of life and the way of death; he spoke of the
   Law, which contains promises of God’s favor, and threatenings to
   transgressors. But the Prophet means here another thing, that is, that there
   was no hope of safety except the Jews submitted their neck to the yoke, and
   surrendered of themselves to their enemies; for if they pertinaciously
   defended themselves, God would be their enemy, for he had led the Chaldeans
   to assail them, and directed their counsels and their forces. He indeed
   confirms what he had said before, but at the same time he more particularly
   describes what was to be, that the Jews might lay aside their perverseness,
   and acknowledge that they could not escape the correction which they
   deserved.

   The import of what is said is, that as the Chaldeans fought under the
   authority of God, they would be victorious; it was then in vain for the Jews
   to resist, as they could not escape, unless they overcame God himself, which
   was impossible. He leaves then but one hope to them, that is, humbly to
   acknowledge God’s just judgment by submitting of themselves to a temporal
   punishment, and by enduring exile with a resigned mind. This then is the
   meaning, and it is not different discourse, but the Prophet confirms what he
   had said before, and at the same time applies God’s threatenings to the
   state of the people, so that they might humble themselves, and not think it
   of any use to resist God in their obstinacy, as they would at length be
   constrained to succumb.

   Thou shalt say to this people, Thus saith Jehovah, Behold I set before you
   the way of life and the way of death. Which was the way of death? Whosoever,
   he says, abides in this city, shall die by the sword, or by famine, or by
   pestilence This was incredible to the Jews, and they were no doubt inflamed
   with rage when they heard that they were to perish in the holy city which
   God protected; for there he had his sanctuary, and there his rest was. But
   the Prophet had already dissipated all these delusions; he could, therefore,
   boldly threaten them, though they still alleged their vain pretences: he had
   shewed reasons enough why they could hope for nothing less than exile from
   God, for they had so many times, and so obstinately, and in such various
   ways provoked him. This, then, he says, is the way of death, it is by
   remaining in the city. And he mentions several kinds of evils, and shews
   that God was armed not only with a hostile sword, but would also employ
   famine and pestilence, so that he would kill some with the sword, consume
   some with famine, and destroy some with pestilence. Hence he shews that they
   would be so assailed on every side, that it would be in vain to attempt to
   escape; for when they shunned the sword, pestilence would meet them; and
   when they were preserved from the pestilence, the famine would consume them.

   He then adds, But he who went out to the Chaldeans, who besieged the city,
   etc., that is, who willingly surrendered himself; for it was a sign of
   obedience when the Jews with a resigned mind received correction; and it was
   also an evidence of repentance, for they thus confessed that they were
   worthy of the heaviest punishment. This is the reason why the Prophet
   represents it as the way of life to go out willingly, and to make a
   surrender of themselves of their own accord to their enemies. And by saying,
   who besiege you, הצרים עליכם, etserim olicam, he wished to anticipate
   objections which any one of the people might have alleged, — “How can I dare
   thus to expose myself? for the Chaldeans besiege us, and it will be all over
   with me as to my life if I go forth as a suppliant to them.” By no means,
   says the Prophet, for though they carry on a deadly war with the city, yet
   every one who of his own accord goes forth to them shall be safe, and shall
   find them ready to shew mercy. God would not have promised this had he not
   the Chaldeans in his own power, so that he could turn their minds as he
   pleased.

   As to the verb נפל, nuphel, it means strictly to fall; but I consider that
   it signifies here to dwell, as in Genesis 25:27, where it is said that
   Ishmael dwelt in the sight of, or over against his brethren. They who render
   it “died” touch neither heaven nor earth. Some read, “his lot fell among his
   brethren;” but this is an unnatural rendering. There is, then, no doubt but
   that the verb means often to lie down, and hence to dwell; and yet I allow
   that the Prophet alludes to subjection; for we must remember what must have
   been their condition when they went over to the Chaldeans; they must have
   been subjected to great reproach. It was then no small humiliation; but yet
   we may properly render the verb to dwell. He, then, who went out to the
   Chaldeans and dwelt with them, [24] that is, who suffered himself to be led
   into exile, or who migrated according to their will from his own country to
   a foreign land — he, he says, shall live, and his life shall be for a prey,
   that is, he shall save his life, as when any one finds a prey and takes it
   as his own by stealth; for prey is to be taken here as an accidental gain.
   Whosoever, then, he says, shall not deem it too grievous a thing to submit
   to the Chaldeans, shall at least save his life.

   In short, God intimates that the wickedness of the people had advanced so
   far, that it was not right to forgive them. What, then, was to be done by
   them? to submit with resignation and humility to a temporal punishment, and
   thus to cease to shut up the door of God’s mercy. He, however, teaches them
   at the same time that no salvation could be hoped for by them until they
   were chastised. And hence we may learn a useful doctrine, and that is, that
   whenever we provoke God’s wrath by our perverseness, we cannot be exempt
   from all punishment; and that we ought not to be impatient, especially when
   he punishes us moderately; and that provided we obtain eternal mercy, we
   ought submissively to bear paternal corrections. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [24] “Shall go to,” is the Sept.; “shall fly to,” the Vulg.; “shall obey,”
   the Targ.; it is omitted in Syr. Blayney is, “surrendereth himself.” The
   verb, followed by על, as here, means to fall away to, or to join. See 2
   Kings 25:11. “But he who goeth out and joins the Chaldeans, who besiege you,
   shall live,” etc. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:10

   10. For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good,
   saith the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and
   he shall burn it with fire.

   10. Quia faciem meam contra urbem hanc in malum, et non in bonum, dicit
   Jehova; in manum regis Babylonis tradetur et exuret eam igni.


   He again confirms what he had said, that it would be the way of death if the
   Jews remained fixed in the city, for this would be to struggle against God;
   for God is said to set his face for evil, since he had fully determined to
   punish that nation. To set the face is the same as to be resolute. Then God
   says that what he had resolved respecting the destruction of Jerusalem could
   not be changed. Now, what must at length be the issue when any one thinks
   that he can, against the will of God, escape death? As they who violently
   stumble against a stone break their legs, and arms, and head, too; so they
   who furiously stumble against God attain for themselves final ruin. [25]

   We hence see why the Prophet added this verse: it was, that the Jews might
   not in their usual manner foster vain hopes; for to hope for any good was to
   contend with God himself. Delivered, he says, shall be this city into the
   hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire He intimates
   that Nebuchadnezzar would not only conquer the people and triumph over a
   taken city, but that the city itself was doomed to destruction. It is,
   indeed, a most grievous thing when a city is wholly demolished: cities are
   often taken, and the conqueror removes the inhabitants here and there, while
   it remains still a habitable place; but God declares here that he would act
   more severely towards the city of Jerusalem, for it was to perish by fire.
   It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [25] The phrase is not, “against this city,” but “upon this city;” and such
   is the rendering of the Sept. and Vulg., though the Syr. has “against.” How
   could his face be set against it, not for good? God is said to set or fix
   his face on the city, and it was for doing it evil, and not for doing it
   good. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:11-12

   11. And touching the house of the king of Judah, say, Hear ye the word of
   the LORD;

   11. Et ad domum (vel, palatium) regis Jehudah, Audite sermonem Jehovae:

   12. O house of David, thus saith the LORD, Execute judgment in the morning,
   and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my
   fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil
   of your doings.

   12. Domus David, sic dicit Jehova, judicate mane judicium (sunt quidemt duo
   verba, sed utrunque significat judicare; sensus antem est, judicare mature,
   et proferre rectum et oequum judicium; postea adjungit speciem unam,)
   liberate spoliatum e manu oppressoris, ne exeat, tamquam ignis, indignatio
   mea, et ardeat, et non sit extinguens, a facie malitiae studiorum ipsorum
   (hoc est, propter malitiam scelerum ipsorum).


   Now the Prophet tells us that he was sent to the king and his counsellors.
   Hitherto he has been addressing the king and the whole people
   indiscriminately; but here a special message is committed to him to be
   delivered at the palace of the king; and he was to say that judgment was
   nigh him and his counsellors. But he is not now threatened as before, for
   there is a condition interposed: he exhorts them to repent, and indirectly
   promises them pardon, for in vain would he have spoken to them of repentance
   had he not given them some hopes of pardon and deliverance. He is not yet
   inconsistent with himself, for though the king was to be driven into exile,
   he might yet obtain some favor, after having submitted to a paternal
   correction. Though, then, the Prophet here exhorts the king and his
   counsellors to repent, he does yet shew that they were not to be wholly free
   from punishment, and yet he promises some mitigation. [26]

   And this passage reminds us that we ought not to rush headlong into despair
   when some great evil is suspended over us, and when God shews that we cannot
   wholly escape punishment. For there is nothing more unreasonable than that
   the fear by which God restores us to himself should be the cause of despair,
   so that we repent not; for though God’s wrath be not wholly removed, yet it
   is a great thing that it is mitigated, which is an alleviation accompanying
   the evil itself.

   In short, the Prophet intimates that God’s wrath might be alleviated, though
   not wholly pacified, provided the king and his counsellors began to act
   rightly and justly. But he mentions the house of David, not for honor’s
   sake, but, on the contrary, by way of reproach; nor does he refer to David,
   as some unmeaningly assert, because he ruled justly and was a most excellent
   and upright king; but the Prophet had regard to God’s covenant. For we know
   that they deceived themselves when they thought that they were to be exempt
   from trouble through a peculiar privilege, because God had chosen that
   family, and promised that the kingdom would be perpetual. Thus hypocrites
   appropriate to their own advantage whatever God has promised; and at the
   same time they boast, though without faith and repentance, that God is bound
   to them. Such, then, was the presumption of the king and his counsellors;
   for they who were David’s descendants doubted not but that they were exempt
   from the common lot of men, and that they were, as they say, sacred beings.
   Hence the Prophet says, in contempt, The house of David! that is, “let these
   vain boastings now cease, for God will not spare you, though you may a
   hundred times boast that you are the descendants of David.” And at the same
   time he upbraids them with having become wholly degenerate, for God had made
   a covenant with David on the condition that he served him faithfully; but
   his posterity were become perfidious and apostates. Therefore the Prophet
   brought before them the name of David, in order that he might the more
   reproach them, because they were become wholly unlike their father, having
   departed from his piety.

   Thus saith Jehovah, he adds, Judge ye judgment There was no doubt a great
   liberty taken by the king and his courtiers in committing plunder, for the
   Prophet would not have here recommended justice to them had they not wholly
   neglected what was just and right. As, then, there was no care to administer
   justice, the Prophet bade them to recognize what was due to God and to his
   people. But it was a most grievous trial to all the godly to see that the
   sacred house, in which the living image of God ought to have shone forth
   brightly, was become a house of spoils, where robbers dwelt, who with
   impunity plundered all around them. When, therefore, the state of things is
   in such a disorder that the very judges, whom God has set over his Church,
   are like robbers, let us know that such a thing happened formerly; nor is
   there a doubt but that God thus took vengeance on the impiety and wickedness
   of the people, for he would have never suffered that house to be so
   contaminated and so filled with so many crimes, had not the people been
   unworthy of a good and faithful king and of upright counsellors. Let us,
   then, know that the Prophet exhorted the king and his counsellors to execute
   justice, because they had forgotten their office, and were become like
   rapacious wolves. [27]

   He specifies one act, Free ye the spoiled from the hand of his oppressor
   Some read, “from the hand of the fraudulent,” as though עשק, oshek, should
   mean to oppress by calumny and malice, or by fraudulent means; but it is to
   be taken otherwise here. Some distinguish between the two words עשק, oshek,
   and גזל, gesal, and say that the first means to retain a deposit or wages,
   or anything that belongs to another, and that the latter signifies to take a
   thing by force, to plunder. But this difference, as it appears, is not
   observed by the Prophet, for he says, “Free ye the plundered or the
   spoiled.” From whose hand? from “the hand of the oppressor.” As, then, these
   two words correspond, I doubt not but that גזל, gesal, means both to take by
   force and to plunder; and that though עשק, oshek, means often fraudulently
   to oppress, yet not always. However this may be, God intimates that neither
   the king nor his counsellors had any care for the poor, so as to repress
   violence, and robbery, and plunder. Then the very judges themselves were the
   associates of robbers, for they allowed them with impunity to rob and
   plunder without affording any aid to helpless men when they were thus
   wickedly harassed. There is, however, no doubt but that God would have them
   to perform their duties towards all, both rich and poor, without exception;
   but as injustice in this particular was especially seen, this is the reason
   why by stating a part for the whole he specified only one thing. [28]

   He then adds, Lest my indignation go forth like fire, and burn, and there be
   none to extinguish it Here the Prophet intimates, that except the king and
   his courtiers repented, it was all over with them. There is then a contrast
   to be understood here between that paternal correction of which he had
   spoken, and the destruction of which the Prophet now speaks. God’s
   indignation had been already kindled, nor could it be immediately
   extinguished; and though they had to suffer, yet the issue would have been
   happy and according to their wishes: but he here declares that there would
   be an irreconcilable war with God, except they labored to return to his
   favor. He adds, On account of the wickedness of their doings There is here a
   change of person, except we read כם, cam, “you;” but this sort of change
   often occurs in Scripture. The Prophet, after having addressed them, says
   now, “on account of the wickedness of their doings,” as though having
   finished his discourse, he spoke of them as being absent, or as though God,
   after having given orders to his Prophet, then added, “I denounce this on
   them, because they have so deserved.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   [26] The verb “thou shalt say,” or “say,” at the beginning of verse 8, is to
   be understood here, “say also to the house,” etc. So the Vulg. connects the
   sentence, and also the Targ. But the Sept., Syr., and the Arab. put the word
   “house” in the vocative case — “O house of the king of Judah, hear the word
   of the Lord.” More consistent with the original is the former construction.
   — Ed.

   [27] The correct rendering is, “The right defend ye in the morning.” The
   common meaning of דון is to defend, to vindicate, to plead for, or contend
   for: it means, also, to rule with authority. It is rendered often in our
   version to judge, while it ought to be to defend. See Genesis 30:6; Psalm
   1:4; Psalm 135:14. “In the morning” may be taken literally or figuratively.
   The morning was the time observed by good judges to decide matters of
   judgment: in corrupt times the judges or princes spent the morning in
   drinking. See Ecclesiastes 10:16. Thus the judges are here required to
   reassume the ancient practice of deciding causes in the morning. See Exodus
   18:13. The phrase, “in the morning,” means also to do a thing, promptly,
   fully, and diligently. The very same words are used in Psalm 101:8, and
   rendered in our version “early,” only the word for morning is in the plural
   number — “in the mornings,” literally. Then, if taken figuratively, the
   phrase means — promptly, carefully, diligently — “Defend carefully the
   right.” The version of Blayney is singular, but inadmissible — “Judge ye,
   searching out right.” There is no instance of the verb דון being used
   intransitively, and “in the morning” is given by all the Versions and the
   Targ. — Ed

   [28] This sentence is as follows, — “And rescue the plundered from the hand
   of the violent,” or him who uses violence. The Vulg. alone has
   “calumniator” for the last word, which is wholly improper; “who wrongs
   him” is the Sept.; “who oppresses him” is the Syr. and Arab. The word means
   to oppress by force or violence. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as we cease not, by new crimes, daily to kindle
   thy wrath, we may not proceed to obstinacy or contempt; and since it is good
   for us to be chastised by thine hand, grant that we may resignedly submit to
   thy scourges, and allow thee to act the part of a Father towards us, in
   restoring us to the right way, and never cease to hope in thee, even when
   thou seemest to be angry with us; but may our hope regard that issue which
   thou promisest, even that evils themselves shall be an aid to our salvation,
   until having gone through all the miseries of the present life, we shall
   come into that blessed rest which thine only-begotten Son has procured for
   us. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eightieth
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 21:13-14

   13. Behold, I am against thee, O inhabitant of the valley, and rock of in
   the plain, saith the LORD; which say, Who shall come down against us? or who
   shall enter into our habitations?

   13. Ecce ego contra to, quae habitas in valle, petra in planitie (vel,
   patrae planitiei, alii vertunt) dicit Jehova; qui dicitis, Quis descendet
   contra nos? et quis ingrediatur habitacula nostra?

   l4. But I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings, saith the
   LORD: and I will kindle a fire in the forest thereof, and it shall devour
   all things round about it.

   14. Et visitabo super vos secundum fructum studiorum vestrorum, dicit
   Jehova; et accendam ignem in sylva ejus, et consumet quiequid est in
   circuitu ejus.


   Though the whole nation was corrupt in the time of the Prophet, yet
   Jerusalem was the head and seat of all evils, especially as there was there
   more licentiousness; and then they thought that the Prophets had no liberty
   there, as though the citizens were, by a peculiar privilege, exempt from all
   reproof; and, lastly, the very situation of the city gave them courage, for
   when they regarded the height of their walls, their towers, and fortresses,
   they thought themselves beyond the reach of danger. Hence was the security
   which the Prophet now condemns; and, therefore, he calls it the inhabitant
   of the valley

   Jerusalem, we know, was situated on small hills: the Mount Sion had two
   tops; and then there were hills contiguous, especially towards Lebanon;
   there was, however, a plain on every side. And then if we except Mount Sion,
   Jerusalem was in a valley; for it was surrounded, we know, by mountains.
   There were mountains around it, as it is said in Psalm 125:2. Now, its very
   situation gave confidence to the citizens, as access to it was difficult.
   They, therefore, thought that enemies could not come into that valley, which
   kept them inclosed, as in a fortified place. This is the reason why the
   Prophet called not the city by its own name, but said that it dwelt in the
   valley; and afterwards he called it a rock in the plain; for ישר, isher, is
   straight, and hence מישור, mishur, means a level ground. The whole region
   was then a continued plain as far as the mountains. Jerusalem itself had
   also, as we have said, its small hills; it was therefore, as it were, a rock
   in a Plain [29]

   We now see for what purpose the Prophet used this circumlocution, even
   because the Jews gloried in the position of their city, as though it was
   impregnable; and also, because the vicinity of the mountains, as well as the
   plain, gave them great advantages. And we know how disposed men are to take
   to a false security when there is apparently no danger; but on the contrary,
   they think of various defences and aids from which they expect to derive
   help. It is, therefore, this false boasting that the Prophet condemns, when
   he calls Jerusalem the inhabitant of the valley, and then says, that it was
   a rock in the plain

   What follows makes this more clear, Who say, Who shall come down against us?
   and, Who shall enter into our habitations? The verb יחת, ichet, some take in
   the sense of tearing, “Who shall make a breach on us?” They derive the word
   from חתת, chetat; but it is rather from נחת, nechat, to descend; for the
   first meaning would be too strained. The Prophet speaks according to the
   opinion of the people, who thought themselves sufficiently fortified against
   all the attacks of their enemies. It may have been, indeed, that they did
   not speak thus openly; but the Prophet had regard to the hidden thoughts of
   their hearts, when he ascribed to them this boasting, — that they dwelt in
   an impregnable place, as the access to it was formidable; for they spoke
   boldly, “Who shall descend to us? [30] who will enter our houses?” as though
   they had their nest in the clouds. They intimated that their state would be
   safe, because their enemies would not dare to come nigh them, or would be
   disgracefully repelled if they dared, as it would be enough for them to
   close their gates.

   But God, on the contrary, says, Behold I will come to thee, or against thee,
   and will visit thee. There is, indeed, a change of number; for he says, I
   will visit you, for he had begun by saying, “Ye who say,” האמרים, eamrim. I
   will visit upon you, he says, the fruit of your doings; that is,

   “I will deal with you according to what you have done, as your works
   deserve.” Merit is to be taken for reward. Then God threatens that he would
   render to the Jews what they merited, because they had not ceased to provoke
   his wrath.

   He adds, lastly, I will kindle a fire in its forest Some take “forest”
   metaphorically for the neighboring towns; but this seems foreign to the
   Prophet’s meaning. I do not, indeed, deny but that there is a metaphor in
   the words; but then the word forest is not to be applied to towns and
   villages, but to the buildings of the city itself, according to a mode of
   speaking elsewhere used by the Prophets. As their houses were built of a
   large quantity of wood, of tall and most choice trees, the Prophet compares
   this mass of wood to a forest. We may, however, give a simpler explanation,
   and I know not whether it be more suitable that the Prophet points out
   Lebanon. He then means by the forest of the city the trees of Lebanon, which
   we know were particularly fine, for their loftiness were everywhere known;
   and we know also that they were very large. As, then, a part of their false
   glory was Mount Lebanon, the Prophet distinctly intimates that it would
   serve as a help to burn the city itself; for when God burned Jerusalem, he
   would take from the vicinity materials for the purpose. [31]

   Now, as we understand the meaning of the Prophet, let us learn how to apply
   this passage. We have said elsewhere that nothing is more hateful to God
   than false confidence; when men, relying on their own resources, promise to
   themselves a happy and a safe condition, they become torpid in their own
   security. Thus it comes, that they despise God, and never flee to him; they
   scorn his judgments, and at length are carried away by a mad impulse to
   every kind of insolence. This is the reason why the Prophets so often and so
   sharply reprove secure men, for they become presumptuous towards God when
   they are touched by no regard for him, and with no fear of him. They then
   not only dishonor God by transferring the hope of their safety to mere means
   or such helps as they foolishly depend on, but they also think that they are
   not under the authority of God. Hence it is, that they promise themselves
   impunity, and thus become wholly hardened in their sins. Now follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [29] Of all explanations of this passage, this is the most satisfactory.
   Mount Sion was surrounded by a valley, and that valley by contiguous
   mountains. The city, therefore, was a valley with a rock or a mountain in
   the midst, called here the rock of the level ground. The sentence may,
   indeed, be thus rendered, “The inhabitant of the valley of the rock of the
   level ground.” “The valley of the rock” means, in this case, the valley
   around the rock or the mountain; then the valley is farther designated as
   the level ground. The Versions vary; that of Sept. is, “who inhabitest the
   valley of Sor, the plain;” the Vulg., “the inhabitress of the solid valley
   and of the plain;” the Syr., “who dwellest in valleys, who hast a large
   plain;” and the Targ., “who dwellest in strength, in fortified cities.” The
   nearest to the original is the Sept. version; which has been followed by
   Venema, who thought that there was a valley called Sor in Jerusalem, which,
   from its situation, was the most secure part of the city: hence the word
   “descend,” in the following sentence. Blayney’s version is, “O thou
   inhabitant of the levelled hollow of a rock.” He considered that Mount Sion
   is meant, the residence of the house of David, and so called, because the
   top was levelled. Then he rendered the following sentence, “Who shall make a
   breach on us?” But the difficulty is to understand “the levelled hollow,”
   and how to make the original to bear such a rendering. Doubtless, the
   version of Calvin or that of Venema, which is not very different, is the
   best. — Ed.

   [30] The Sept. and Arab. are, “Who will alarm us?” the Vulg., “Who will
   smite us?” Syr., “Who can come against us?” and the Targ., “Who will descend
   against us?” The verb חתת, is intransitive, and if it be here in Hiphil, it
   will not admit of the preposition על, which comes here after it. This
   sufficiently proves that it is נחת, to come down, to descend, which requires
   this very preposition. See Psalm 38:2. This being clearly the case, the view
   of Blayney, as to “the levelled hollow of a rock,” must be wrong, for to
   “descend” into Mount Sion, would be no suitable expression. — Ed

   [31] “The Word ‘forest’ is often metaphorically taken for a city in the
   prophetical writings, because its stately buildings, or its principal
   inhabitants, resemble tall cedars standing in their several ranks. See
   Jeremiah 22:7; Isaiah 37:24; Ezekiel 20:46; Zecheriah. 11:1.” — Lowth.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 22
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:1-3

   1. Thus saith the LORD; Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak
   there this word,

   1. Sic dicit Jehova, Descende in domum regis Jehudah, et loquere illic
   ser-monem hunc,

   2. And say, Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, that sittest upon
   the throne of David, thou, and thy servants, and thy people that enter in by
   these gates:

   2. Et dices, Audi sermonem Jehova, rex Jehudah, qui sedes super solium
   Davidis, tu et servi tui, et populus tuus qui ingredimini per portas has:

   3. Thus saith the LORD, Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver
   the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no
   violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed
   innocent blood in this place.

   3. Sic dicit Jehova, Facite judicium et justitiam, et eripite spoliatum e
   manu oppressoris; peregrinum, pupilum, et viduam ne fraudetis (Hieronymus
   hoc verbum ubique vertit, contristari, vel, tristitia afficere; significat
   autem potius inferre violentiam, aut fraudulenter nocere;) ne violentiam
   exerceatis (alii vertunt, רסמחת לא, et sanguinem innocentem ne fundatis in
   loco isto.


   The Prophet is again bidden to reprove the king and his counsellors; but the
   exhortation is at the same time extended to the whole people. It was
   necessary to begin with the head, that the common people might know that it
   was not a matter to be trifled with, as God would not spare, no, not even
   the king himself, and his courtiers; for a greater terror seized the lower
   orders, when they saw the highest laid prostrate. That what is here taught
   might then penetrate more effectually into the hearts of all, the Prophet is
   bid to address the king himself and his courtiers: he is afterwards bidden
   to include also the whole body of the people. And hence it appears, that
   there was some hope of favor yet remaining, provided the king and the whole
   people received the admonitions of the Prophet; provided their repentance
   and conversion were sincere, God was still ready to forgive them.

   We must at the same time observe, as I have already said, that they could
   not escape the calamity that was at hand; but exile would have been much
   milder, and also their return would have been more certain, and they would
   have found in various ways that they had not been rejected by God, though
   for a time chastised. As then we now say, that a hope of pardon was set
   before them, this is not to be so understood as that they could avert the
   destruction of the city; for it had once for all been determined by God to
   drive the people into a temporary exile, and also to put all end for a time
   to their sacrifices; for this dreadful desolation was to be a proof that the
   people had been extremely ungrateful to God, and especially that their
   obstinacy could not be endured in having so long despised the Prophets and
   the commands of God. However the hope of mitigation as to their punishment
   was given them, provided they were touched by a right feeling, so as to
   endeavor to return into favor with God. But as Jeremiah effected nothing by
   so many admonitions, they were rendered more inexcusable.

   We now see the design of what is here said, even that the Jews, having been
   so often proved guilty, might cease to complain that they suffered anything
   undeservedly; for they had been often admonished, yea, almost in numberless
   instances, and God had offered mercy, provided they were reclaimable. I come
   now to the words —

   Thus saith Jehovah, Go down [32] to the house of the king We see that the
   Prophet was endued with so great a courage that the dignity of the king’s
   name did not daunt him, so as to prevent him to perform what was commanded
   him. We have seen elsewhere similar instances; but whenever such cases
   occur, they deserve to be noticed. First, the servants of God ought boldly
   to discharge their office, and not to flatter the great and the rich, nor
   remit anything of their own authority when they meet with dignity and
   greatness. Secondly, let those who seem to be more eminent than others
   learn, that whatever eminence they may possess cannot avail them, but that
   they ought to submit to prophetic instruction. We have before seen that the
   Prophet was sent to reprove and rebuke even the highest, and to shew no
   respect of persons. (Jeremiah 1:10.) So now, here he shews that he had, as
   it were, the whole world under his feet, for in executing his office, he
   reproved the king himself and all his princes.

   But he speaks of the king as sitting on the throne of David; but not, as I
   have already said, for the sake of honor, but for the purpose of enhancing
   his guilt; for he occupied a sacred throne, of which he was wholly unworthy.
   For though God is said to sit in the midst of the gods, because by him kings
   rule, we yet know that the throne of David was more eminent than any other;
   for it was a priestly kingdom and a type of that celestial kingdom which was
   afterwards fully revealed in Christ. As, then, the kings of Judah, the
   descendants of David, were types of Christ, less tolerable was their
   impiety, when, unmindful of their vocation, they had departed from the piety
   of their father David and became wholly degenerated. So the Prophet, by
   mentioning the house of Israel and the house of Jacob, no doubt condemned
   the Jews, because they had become unlike the holy patriarch. We now, then,
   understand the object of the Prophet when he says, “Hear the word of
   Jehovah, thou king of Judah, who sittest on the throne of David.”

   But that his reproof might have its just weight, the Prophet carefully shews
   that he brought nothing but what had been committed to him from above; this
   is the reason why he repeats, thou shalt say, “Thus saith Jehovah, Go down,
   speak, and say.” From the king he comes to the courtiers, and from them to
   the whole people. Thou, he says, and thy servants; by the king’s servants
   the Scripture means, all those ministers who were his counsellors, who were
   appointed to administer justice and who exercised authority. But we must
   notice, that at last he addresses the whole people. We hence see that what
   he taught belonged in common to all, though he began with the king and his
   counsellors, that the common people might not think that they would be
   unpunished if they despised the doctrine to which even kings were to submit.

   He says, first, Do judgment and justice This belonged especially to the king
   and his judges and governors; for private individuals, we know, had no power
   to protect their property; for though every one ought to resist wrongs and
   evil doings, yet this was the special duty of the judges whom God had armed
   with the sword for this purpose. To do judgment, means to render to every
   one according to his right; but when the two words, judgment and justice,
   are connected together, by justice we are to understand equity, so that
   every one has his own right; and by judgment is to be understood the
   execution of due punishment; for it is not enough for the judge to decide
   what is right, except he restrains the wicked when they audaciously resist.
   To do judgment, then, is to defend the weak and the innocent, as it were,
   with an armed hand. [33]

   He then adds, Rescue the spoiled from the hand of the oppressor He repeats
   what we observed in the last chapter; and here under one thing he includes
   the duty of judges, even that they are ever to oppose what is wrong and to
   check the audacity of the wicked, for they can never be induced willingly to
   conduct themselves with moderation and quietness. As, then, they are to be
   restrained by force, he says, “Rescue the spoiled from the hand of the
   oppressor.” Of the word גזול, gesul, we have spoken before; but by this form
   of speaking God intimates that it is not enough for the judge to abstain
   from tyranny and cruelty, and not to stimulate the wicked nor favor them,
   except he also acknowledges that he has been appointed by God for this end
   — to rescue the spoiled from the hand of the oppressor, and not to hesitate
   to face hatred and danger in the discharge of his office.

   The Prophet now adds other things which he had not mentioned in the
   preceding chapter; defraud not, [34] he says, the stranger and the orphan
   and the widow It is what is often said in Scripture, that it is not right to
   defraud any one; for God would exempt all from wrong, and not only
   strangers, orphans, and widows; but as orphans have no knowledge or wisdom,
   they are exposed, as it were, to plunder; and also widows, because they are
   in themselves helpless; and strangers, because they have no friends to
   undertake their cause; hence God, in an especial mannel, requires a regard
   to be had to strangers, orphans, and widows. There is also another reason;
   for when their right is rendered to strangers, orphans, and widows, equity
   no doubt shines forth more conspicuously. When any one brings friends with
   him, and employs them in the defense of his cause, the judge is thereby
   influenced; and he who is a native will have his relations and neighbors to
   support his cause; and he who is rich and possessing power will also
   influence the judge, so that he dares not do anything notoriously wrong; but
   when the stranger, or the orphan, or the widow comes before the judge, he
   can with impunity oppress them all. Hence if he judges rightly, it is no
   doubt a conspicuous proof of his integrity and uprightness. This, then, is
   the reason why God everywhere enumerates these cases when he speaks of right
   and equitable judgments. He further adds, Exercise no violence, nor shed
   innocent blood in this place These things also were matters belonging to the
   judges. But it was a horribly monstrous thing for the throne of David to
   have been so defiled as to have become, as it were, a den of robbers.
   Wherever there is any pretense to justice, there ought to be there some fear
   or shame; but as we have said, that tribunal was in a peculiar manner sacred
   to God. As, then, the king and his counsellors were become like robbers, and
   as they so occupied the throne of David that all impiety prevailed, and they
   hesitated not to plunder on every side, as though they lived in a house of
   plunder; this was, as I have said, a sad and shameful spectacle. [35]

   But we ought the more carefully to notice this passage, that we may learn to
   strengthen ourselves against bad examples, lest the impiety of men should
   overturn our faith; when we see in God’s Church things in such a disorder,
   that those who glory in the name of God are become like robbers, we must
   beware lest we become, on this account, alienated from true religion. We
   must, indeed, detest such monsters, but we must take care lest God’s word,
   through men’s wickedness, should lose its value in our esteem. We ought,
   then, to remember the admonition of Christ, to hear the Scribes and
   Pharisees who sat in Moses’ seat. (Matthew 23:2.) Thus it behoved the Jews
   to venerate that royal throne, on which God had inscribed certain marks of
   his glory. Though they saw that it was polluted by the crimes and evil deeds
   of men, yet they ought to have retained some regard for it on account of
   that expression, “This is my rest for ever.”

   But we yet see that the king was sharply and severely reproved, as he
   deserved. Hence most foolishly does the Pope at the present day seek to
   exempt himself from all reproof, because he occupies the apostolic throne.
   [36] Were we to grant what is claimed, (though that is frivolous and
   childish,) that the Roman throne is apostolic, (which I think has never been
   occupied by Peter,) surely the throne of David was much more venerable than
   the chair of Peter? and yet the descendants of David who succeeded him,
   being types and representatives of Christ, were not on that account, as we
   here see, exempt from reproof.

   It might, however, be asked, why the Prophet said that he was sent to the
   whole people, when his doctrine was addressed only to the king and the
   public judges? for it belonged not to the people or to private individuals.
   But I have said already that it was easy for the common people to gather how
   God’s judgment ought to have been dreaded, for they had heard that
   punishment was denounced even on the house of David, which was yet
   considered sacred. When, therefore, they saw that those were summoned before
   God’s tribunal who were, in a manner, not subject to laws, what were they to
   think but that every one of them ought to have thought of himself, and to
   examine his own life? for they must at length be called to give an account,
   since the king himself and his counsellors had been summoned to do so. It
   now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [32] Or “descend;” it appears that Jeremiah was in the Temple when he had
   this commission. And it would be better to render the first words, “Thus
   said Jehovah,” as it is a narrative of what had taken place. In Jeremiah
   18:1, it is said the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, and then he was
   commanded to go down to the potter’s house; which intimates that he was at
   the time in the Temple, officiating probably in his course as a priest. —
   Ed.

   [33] The verb here is different from that in Jeremiah 21:12, though rendered
   in our version the same — “execute.” It is עשה, to do, to act, but is used
   in a wide sense, like facio in Latin. To do judgment is to judge or condemn,
   that is, the guilty; to do justice is to justify or acquit, that is, the
   innocent. Perhaps the best rendering would be, “Administer judgment and
   justice;” the former to the guilty, and the latter to the innocent.
   Blayney’s version can by no means be approved, “Do right and justice,” as
   the distinctive character of the two acts is not expressed. “Do judgment and
   justice,” are all the Versions and the Targum. — Ed.

   [34] So it is rendered by Blayney; by the Vulg. and Targ., “Make not sad;”
   by the Sept., “Tyrannize not over;” and by the, Syr., “Wrong not.” The verb
   means to press down, to depress, and hence to oppress. With this the next
   verb is connected by ו in many copies, and by all the Versions except the
   Arab., and by the Targum; and it means to do wrong by force or violence,
   outrageously to injure, or to deal unjustly with, to plunder. They were not
   to press them down by denying them their rights, nor violently to take their
   things away from them, or to plunder them. We may render the passage as
   Gataker does, “And the stranger, the orphan, and the widow oppress not,
   wrong not,” or plunder not. A similar passage is in Jeremiah 7:6. The word
   rendered there “oppress” is different, עשק, and more general in its meaning,
   including the two ideas here — oppression by denying them their rights, and
   by plundering them. — Ed

   [35] There is first in this passage a general direction, “Administer ye
   judgment and justice;” and then there is a specification which refers first
   to justice and then to judgment, the order, as is commonly the case, being
   reversed. It was an act of “justice” to rescue the plundered from the hands
   of the plunderer. Then they were forbidden to administer wrong,
   “judgment,” so as to depress and plunder the stranger, the orphan, and the
   widow, and to shed innocent blood. See Psalm 94:6. It shews a bad state of
   society when the wicked and the guilty are not punished; but it is still
   worse when the helpless are oppressed, and the innocent are condemned. — Ed.

   [36] Poor Peter never had any throne, therefore the Pope’s throne cannot be
   apostolic. The Pope’s throne is a heathen throne, both materially and
   spiritually. The seat itself is a chair of some heathen hero or deity, and
   the power claimed to be exercised was never claimed nor possessed by Peter.
   The Pope is quite as much an impostor as Mahomet, only his blasphemy is
   greater and more detestable. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:4-5

   4. For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of
   this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on
   horses, he, and his servants, and his people.

   4. Quid si faciendo feceritis (alii vertunt, quin potius faciendo faciatis)
   ser-monem hunc (hoc est, obediatis sermoni huic,) et ingrediemini per portas
   domus hujus, reges sedentes pro Davide (vel, Davidi) super solium ejus,
   insidentes currui et equis, ipse, rex, et servi ejus et populus ejus.

   5. But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD,
   that this house shall become a desolation.

   5. Quod si non obedieritis sermonibus istis, in me (hoc est, per me) juravi,
   dicit Jehova, quod in solitudinem (aut, vastitatem) erit domus haec.


   The Prophet expresses more clearly what I have already stated, that if the
   Jews from the heart repented, there was yet a place for mercy; for he
   promises them that God would be reconcilable, if they sought to be
   reconciled to him; he allures them to repentance by words of kindness. We
   may, indeed, read כיאם, kiam, as one word, and render it, “But rather;” but
   I follow others who give this version, For if by doing ye will do this word,
   then ye shall enter in, etc.; and thus they turn the copulative into an
   adverb of time, which is often the case. [37] Still the other meaning is not
   unsuitable, when the future verb, תעשו, toshu, is taken in a hortative
   sense; for we know that the future tense in Hebrew is often to be understood
   as an imperative. As to the general meaning, there is not much difference;
   for what the Prophet designed to shew was this, that God would be reconciled
   to the Jews, if they were not wholly disobedient. “Only,” he says, “obey my
   word, and your safety shall be secured.” Not that impunity was to be
   expected, as I have said before, but, as they would have found, their
   reconciliation to God would not have been in vain, for their punishment
   would have been mitigated; in that case their exile would have been rendered
   more endurable, for God would have doubtless made their adversaries kind to
   them; in short, mercy would have been shewn to them in many ways. Moreover,
   the Prophet shews that he called them not in vain to repent; for he sets
   before them God’s favor in mitigating their punishment.

   And he adds, Ye shall enter through the gates of this house, both your kings
   and their counsellors; but the number is afterwards changed, he, that is,
   every king. [38] The Prophet, seems, at the first view, to have retracted
   what he had said respecting exile; but the two things are to be connected
   together, that there was some hope remaining, if the Jews accepted the favor
   of God, and then that the punishment, once decreed, was to be borne by them.
   These two things do not disagree. For God had resolved to drive the Jews
   into exile; but all Judea would not doubtless have been reduced to solitude,
   as that happened through their irreclaimable obstinacy, according to what we
   read at the end of this Book; for they might have otherwise dwelt still in
   their own country. This is one thing; and then their condition after their
   exile would have been better and far more happy. But even at that time, the
   crown was trodden under foot, and all the dignity and power of the family of
   David were nearly abolished.

   When, therefore, the Prophet says, “Enter shall kings in chariots and on
   horses,” and also “the people and he and his counsellors, through the gates
   of this city;” he does not mean that they would so escape as that God would
   not chastise them for their sins, as he had declared, but that there would
   still be some form of a kingdom, and that exile would be short, and also
   that there would be at length a restoration, so that the descendants of
   David would return to their former state, and that the city itself would be
   restored so as to abound in wealth as in all other blessings. Such is the
   promise. The Prophet further adds what would otherwise take place, If they
   will not hear, this place shall become a desolation. But this threatening
   shall be considered tomorrow.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [37] The Vulg., the Syr., and the Targum omit the ו before “enter:” but it
   has often the meaning of then, especially when preceded, as here, by the
   conditional particle if. — Ed

   [38] The verse may be rendered thus, — 4. For if doing ye shall do this
   word, Then come through the gates of this house Shall kings, sitting for
   David on his throne, Who shall ride in a chariot and on horses, He, and his
   servant, and his people. The “sitting” belongs to the kings, but “riding” to
   the king, his servant, and his people. As “he” is in the singular number, so
   “the servant” is, though both are pluralized by the Sept., the Vulg., and
   the Arab., and indeed, the “servant” by the Syr. And the Targ. But the
   Hebrew is as rendered above, as to the word “chariot,” and “servant;” it is
   the idiom of the language. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast been pleased to erect the throne of
   thy Son among us, we may suffer ourselves to be ruled by him, and not
   falsely boast that we are his people, but really prove that we truly and
   from the heart confess him as our King, that he may also so defend us
   through the whole course of life against all the assaults of our enemies,
   that we, ever relying on thine aid, and possessing our souls in patience,
   may at length be translated into that blessed glory and rest, which he has
   purchased for us by his own blood: — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-First

   We explained yesterday the declaration of the Prophet, — that the kingdom
   would again be restored by the Lord, if the king and his servants and the
   whole people repented. He now introduces a commination, — that if they heard
   not, it was all over with the palace and the city. But the word house, or
   palace is often repeated; for though the defenses of the city gave courage
   to the people, yet what made them especially proud was the confidence they
   felt that the kingdom had been promised to be for ever. Hence, they thought,
   that the royal dignity could not possibly fall as long as the sun and moon
   continued in the heavens. (Psalm 89:38.) This false confidence is what the
   Prophet now meets, and he says, If ye will not hear these words, etc. He
   changes the number: he had said before this word, את הדבר הזה, at edeber
   eze; but he now says these words, את הדברים, at edeberim. But the singular
   number includes the whole of his doctrine; yet he now uses the plural
   number, because he had exhorted them to change their life. [39]

   And that they might not think that they were for no good reason terrified,
   he declares that God had sworn by himself We indeed know that when God makes
   an oath, either when he promises anything, or when he denounces punishment
   on sinners, it is done on account of men’s sloth and dullness. For our
   hearts through unbelief will hardly receive a simple truth, unless God
   removes the impediments; and this is the design of making an oath, when God
   does not only speak, but in order to render us more certain of our
   salvation, he confirms his promise by introducing his own name as a pledge.
   The reason is similar as to threatenings; for so great is the false security
   of sinners, that they are deaf until God, as it were, with force penetrates
   into their hearts. Hence he says, that God made an oath by himself; for it
   seemed incredible to the Jews, that the family which had been set apart by
   God from the world, would ever perish. It now follows:
     _________________________________________________________________

   [39] “These words” include the “word” of message contained in the second
   verse, and the “word” of precept in the third verse; and “this word” or
   thing, at the beginning of the fourth verse, is the latter — the word of
   precept. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:6

   6. For thus saith the LORD unto the king’s house of Judah; Thou art Gilead
   unto me, and the head of Lebanon: yet surely I will make thee a wilderness,
   and cities which are not inhabited.

   6. Quoniam dicit Jehova super domum regis Jehudah, Guilead, tu mihi caput
   Libani, si non posuero to desertum, tanquam urbes quae non habitantur.


   He confirms the preceding declaration, and explains more at large what had
   been stated sufficiently clear; for the false boasting of the Jews could
   hardly be restrained, as they still thought that the kingdom in the family
   of David would be permanent and exempt from any danger of a change.

   But interpreters differ as to the meaning of the words. I will not repeat
   their views, nor is it necessary: I will only state what seems to me to be
   the real meaning. All others indeed give a different explanation; but the
   Prophet, I doubt not, means the same thing as we have observed in Jeremiah
   7:12; where he says,

   “Go to Shiloh, and see what is the state of that place, for the ark of the
   covenant had a long time dwelt there.”

   Though, then, they thought that place sacred, yet it was reduced to
   desolation; and thus it must have become a dreadful spectacle to the whole
   people. For the same reason now, as it seems to me, the Prophet compares
   Lebanon to Mount Gilead; for what some say, that Gilead was the chief city
   of the ten tribes, has nothing in it. But we must remember the state of
   things at that time; the kingdom of Israel was wholly demolished when our
   Prophet spoke these words. Judea had indeed been much reduced by many
   calamities; but still some kind of a kingdom remained. Then by Mount Gilead
   the Prophet doubtless meant, by stating a part for the whole, the kingdom of
   Israel, but for a purpose different from that assigned by interpreters, even
   because the whole land of Israel was then laid waste; for all the
   inhabitants had been led into exile, and all the spoils had been removed,
   and nothing had escaped the rapacity and cruelty of their enemies.

   Since, then, the land of Israel had been reduced unto desolation, God says
   now, that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah would not be of greater value
   in his sight than the whole country of the ten tribes had been, which was
   doubtless larger in extent and in wealth. And this meaning may be easily
   gathered from the words of the passage; he does not say, “Thou art like
   Gilead the head of Lebanon;” but, Gilead to me art thou the head of Lebanon
   And he calls Jerusalem Lebanon, because it was, as it were, the queen of
   that land; for by Mount Lebanon he designated whatever was precious in that
   country, for the reason we mentioned yesterday. As to Gilead, I do not
   consider that the Prophet refers especially to the city, but by stating a
   part for the whole, he includes the whole country, and for this reason,
   because Mount Gilead was full of many fruitful trees, and particularly of
   the balsam and the rosin tree, and of many odoriferous herbs and aromatics,
   which at this day are from thence brought to different parts of the world.
   And hence we found it asked in Jeremiah 8:22,

   “Is there no rosin in Gilead?
   is there no medicine found there to heal the Church?”

   Why was mention made then of Mount Gilead? even because there grew the best
   aromatics, and especially the balsam tree, and also many odoriferous trees
   and most precious fruits.

   The meaning then is, “What dost thou think thyself to be? or, for what
   reason dost thou trust so much in thyself? I did not spare Mount Gilead and
   that extensive country which was much superior to thee; what means then this
   foolish presumption, that thou persuadest thyself that all danger is far
   off? Thou shalt be to me as Gilead. Think of my judgment on Mount Gilead,
   and of the dreadful desolation of the land of Israel; the same which you may
   now see there shall happen to thee.” We now perceive in what sense the
   Prophet says, that before God the head of Lebanon, that is, Jerusalem
   itself, which ruled over Lebanon, would become like Gilead [40]

   He then adds, If I make thee not a desert God again makes an oath; for it
   is, we know, an elliptical mode of expression, when the particle אם, am, is
   only used, for an imprecation is to be understood, — “Let me not be thought
   a God;” or, “Let my power be deemed nothing;” or, “Let me not be hereafter
   counted true and faithful.” However this may be, God makes an oath, that the
   city would become a desert, as those cities which are not inhabited Thus the
   whole context appears consistent, — that Jerusalem would be at length like
   the land of Israel, for he would no more spare Lebanon than Mount Gilead. It
   afterwards follows:
     _________________________________________________________________

   [40] That “the top (or head) of Lebanon,” means Jerusalem, or the city of
   David, the residence of the royal family, is evident from the seventh verse,
   “they shall cast down thy choice cedars.” This point being settled, there
   can be hardly a doubt respecting the correctness of Calvin’s view. All the
   Versions give this rendering, “Gilead, thou art to me the head of
   Lebanon;” the meaning of which does not appear. The Targum is a paraphrase
   not more intelligible. It would be better to use the future tense, as that
   is used at the end of the verse, — Gilead shalt thou be to me, O top of
   Lebanon! Surely I will make thee a wilderness, Like cities not inhabited. It
   was to be dealt with by him as Gilead had been, which was now wholly
   depopulated. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:7

   7. And I will prepare destroyers against thee, every one with his weapons:
   and they shall cut down thy choice cedars, and cast them into the fire.

   7. Et praeparabo (vertunt alii, sanctificabo, ut etiam קדש hoc significat,
   praeparabo igitur) adversum to perditores, (aut, vastatores; שחת significat
   perdere, et redigere in nihilum, et corrumpere, unde nomen משחתים, quod hic
   ponitur,) virum et arma ejus (aut, instrumenta bellica, vasa transferunt,)
   et exscindent electionem cedrorum tuarum (hoc est, electissimas quasque
   cedros tuas,) et conjicient in ignem.


   He expresses the manner, for he had only said before, that the ruin of the
   city Jerusalem was nigh at hand; he adds, that destroyers would come and
   those well armed with warlike instruments, who would cut down all the
   choicest cedars and cast them into the fire But he reminds them, that those
   destroyers would not come of themselves or through an impulse of their own,
   but through the secret operation of God; for if the Jews had thought that
   they had to do only with the Chaldeans, there would have been nothing to
   call forth the exercise of a religious principle; but the Prophet distinctly
   declares, that the Chaldeans would be the ministers of God, for they would
   be roused and led by him, according to what is often taught by the Prophets.

   In short, these two things ought to be noticed, — first, that God had in
   readiness many ways by which he could punish the Jews. For the contempt of
   the ungodly arises, because they dream that God is unarmed and has not
   always the execution, as they say, ready at hand. Hence the Prophet shews
   that the Chaldeans would be ready as soon as God hissed for them, or gave
   them a sign. This is one thing. Secondly, it ought to be observed, that he
   reminds them that the Chaldeans would be the scourge of God, that the Jews
   might not think that they contended with mortals, but might know that they
   were summoned to render an account of their life, because they had too long
   been rebellious against God and his Prophets. This is what we must
   understand by the word prepare [41]

   Now as to the choice cedars, the Prophet again alludes to Mount Lebanon and
   to the forest of Jerusalem, which was mentioned yesterday. The word forest
   may, however, be applied to the buildings; for the Jews built their chambers
   for the most part of cedar wood, as it is well known; we may then apply this
   to their splendid and sumptuous houses; but we may also take it without a
   figure and apply it to the trees of Mount Lebanon. But the chief ornament of
   the country were the noble trees on that Mount; hence, by cedars, the
   Prophet no doubt designated whatever was splendid at Jerusalem and in the
   country around it. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [41] The verb is קדש, to sanctify, or rather to separate or to set apart for
   a holy purpose, to consecrate. It is rendered by the Septuagint, “I will
   bring;” by the Vulgate, “I will sanctify;” by the, Syriac, “I will
   prepare:” but by Blayney, “I will commission.” It intimates a setting apart
   or selecting for a holy purpose, such as the execution of the just judgment
   of God. Perhaps the best rendering would be, “I will consecrate for thee.”
   The next words are “destroyers, each man and his instrument,” rendered by
   the Septuagint, “a destroying man and his hatchet;” by the Vulgate, “a
   slaying man and his weapons;” by the Syriac, “wasters, each with a hatchet
   in his hand;” and by the Arabic, “a destroying man with his hatchet.” The
   word כלי, does not mean specifically a weapon of war, but generally an
   instrument of any kind; and “hatchet” is the most suitable term for it here.
   We might then give this version, — 7. And I will consecrate for thee
   destroys, Every man and his hatchet; And they shall cut down thy choisest
   cedars, And shall cast them into the fire. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:8-9

   8. And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to
   his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city?

   8. Et transibunt gentes multae per urbem hanc, et dicent quisque socio suo
   (vir ad socium suum, ad verbum,) cur fecit Jehova in hunc modum urbi huic
   magnae?

   9. Then they shall answer, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the
   LORD their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them.

   9. Et dicent, Quia dereliquierunt foedus Jehovae Dei sui, et sese
   inclinarunt coram diis alienis, et coluerunt eos.


   The Prophet shews in these words how blind the Jews were as to their own
   ruin, in disregarding in so refractory a manner the judgment of God. The
   words no doubt embrace two contrasts; he compares mortal men with God, and
   those many nations with him alone. The Jews could not bear God as their
   judge, and were still refractory and strove by their perverseness to
   overcome him. Then the Prophet says, that as they would not endure to be
   judged by God, judges would come who would pronounce on them a free
   impartial sentence; and who were they to be? the heathens. And then, as the
   Jews would not obey the one true God, the Prophet sets many nations in
   contrast with the one true God.

   We hence see the full import of these words, Pass shall many nations through
   this city; [42] that is, God has hitherto adorned this city with many
   privileges, so that it became like a miracle to foreigners, for so
   conspicuous was the dignity of this city, that it attracted the notice of
   all, and its fame was known far and wide. Now, he says, this city shall be
   deprived of all its ornaments, when God shall depart from it. Pass, then, he
   says, shall man. nations through this city, and they will inquire, every one
   of his friend, Why hath Jehovah done thus to this city? Jeremiah, no doubt,
   indirectly condemns, not only the sloth, but also the insensibility which
   had so demented the Jews, that they never duly reflected on God’s judgment,
   nor were ever touched by the curses of the Law. He then shews that there
   would be more understanding and wisdom in the Gentiles, for on seeing
   Jerusalem overthrown and wholly demolished, they would know that this had
   not happened by chance, but was an evidence of vengeance from heaven. We
   thus see that he upbraided the Jews with their own stupidity, as they did
   not consider the judgment of God; but he ascribed to the nations wisdom and
   the spirit of inquiry; for they would ask, “Why has Jehovah done thus to
   this city?”

   “The nations,” he says, “will understand what ye do not comprehend, even
   that this city will exhibit an example of dreadful vengeance, and this will
   be the subject of their inquiry; but while God now of his own free will
   foretell this to you, ye close your ears; surely there would be no need of
   much inquiry in a matter so clear, were you not deaf and blind, and indeed
   obstinate, for God of his own accord warns you beforehand. What, then, can
   this be, that God forewarns you and ye refuse to hear him, except that the
   devil bewitches you?”

   And he says, this great city; for its ruin was more remarkable on account of
   its greatness. When a small town is destroyed, hardly any account is made of
   the event; but when a city falls, which was everywhere celebrated for its
   largeness, and also for the extraordinary benefits conferred on it by God,
   it excites the wonder of all, as though it had fallen from the clouds.

   He afterwards adds, that there would be not only a spirit of inquiry among
   the nations, but that every one would become spontaneously a judge of the
   whole people: they shall answer, he says, because they have forsaken the
   covenant of Jehovah their God Now, when Jeremiah declares that all the
   nations would become the judges of the people, he no doubt intended to
   condemn the false confidence in which they proudly indulged. At the same
   time, he says, “they have forsaken the covenant of Jehovah their God,” in
   order that he might take away the plea of ignorance. For they had not only
   deprived the eternal God of his own right and authority, but they had become
   doubly wicked, because God had made himself familiarly known to them. As,
   then, true religion had been fully revealed to them in the Law, hence their
   perverseness and wicked and base ingratitude appeared, for they had rejected
   God thus made known to them, and they bowed down before foreign gods and
   served them. I only touch here on these points, for they have been elsewhere
   explained. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [42] So the Versions, “through,” and not, “by,” as in our version; it is
   “nigh” in the Targ. The preposition is על, upon, over, most commonly. It may
   mean the passing over the city when in ruins. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:10

   10. Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that
   goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.

   10. Ne fleatis (vel, ne lugeatis) super mortuum, et ne condoleatis ei; flete
   flendo super eum qui migrat, qui non revertetur amplius, et videbit (hoc
   est, ut videt) terram nativitatis suae.


   They explain this verse of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, but I consider it rather
   a general declaration, for the Prophet wished briefly to shew how miserable
   would be the condition of the people, as it would be better and more
   desirable at once to die than to protract life in continual languor. Of the
   kings he wilt afterwards speak, but reason compels us to extend these words
   to the whole people.

   When a people flee away, being not able to resist their enemies, they may
   look for a restoration. In that case all dread death more than exile and all
   other calamities which are endured in this life, for they who remain alive
   may somehow emerge from their ills and troubles, or at least they may have
   them alleviated; but death cuts off all hopes. But the Prophet says here
   that death would be better than exile; and why? Because it would have been
   better at once to die than to protract a life of misery, weariness, and
   reproach, and at last to be destroyed. By saying, then, Weep ye not for the
   dead, nor bewail him, [43] it is the same as though he had said, “If the
   destruction of this city be lamented, much more ought they to be lamented
   who shall remain alive than those who shall die, for death will be as it
   were a rest, it will be a harbor to end all evils; but life will be nothing
   else than a continual succession of miseries.” We hence conclude that this
   ought not to be confined to the two kings, but viewed as declared generally
   of the whole people. [44]

   It follows, For he shall return no more, that he may see the land of his
   nativity He shews that exile would be a sort of infection that would
   gradually consume the miserable Jews. Thus death would have been far better
   for them than to be in this manner long tormented and to have no relaxation.
   He then takes away the hope of a return, that he might shew that their exile
   would be as it were a dying languor, corroding them as a worm, so that to
   die a hundred times would have been more desirable than to remain in such a
   hard and miserable bondage. It now follows:
     _________________________________________________________________

   [43] Literally, “nor nod for him.” They were not to shake the head for him
   in sign of sorrow. There was a shaking of the head in scorn or derision as
   well as in condolence or sympathy. See Jeremiah 18:16. — Ed.

   [44] The Versions and the Targum seem to favor this view of Calvin, as they
   render the participle, “going away,” in the present tense, as in our
   version. The verse, then, is as follows, — Weep ye not for the dead, nor
   bewail him; Weep, weep for him who goeth away; For he will not return any
   more, And see the land of his nativity. The repetition of the verb “weep” is
   emphatical. Our version, “weep sore,” is the Arab. The Sept. and the Targ.
   take it as an instance of what often occurs in Hebrew, a participle joined
   to a verb to enhance its force; but it is not so here, the two verbs are in
   the imperative mood. But it may be that there is here, as many think, a
   direct allusion to Josiah, who was dead, and was much lamented, and to
   Shallum, who was taken captive and carried into Egypt, where he died. In
   that case we ought to render the second line thus, — Weep, weep for him who
   has gone away. The Hebrew participle may often be rendered in the past
   tense; and so it is rendered here by Gataker, Venema, and Blayney. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:11-12

   11. For thus saith the LORD touching Shallum the son of Josiah king of
   Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father, which went forth out of
   this place; He shall not return thither any more:

   11. Quia sic dicit Jehova ad Sallum (vel, super Sallum) filium Josliae,
   regis Jehudah, qui regnat pro Josia patre suo, quando (רשא, est quidem
   relativum, sed non dubito quin, sumatur hic pro adverbio temporis; et ideo
   obscuerant sensum interpretes, dum vertunt, qui egressus est, et coguntur
   deinde mutare sensum verbi; sed hoc optime fluit et soepe occipitur pro
   quando) egressus fuerit ex hoc loco, non revertetur amplius:

   12. But he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, and
   shall see this land no more.

   12. Quoniam in loco ad quem transtulerint ipsum, illic morietur, et terram
   hanc non videbit amplius.


   What he had before said generally he now applies distinctly and especially
   to the person of the king, that the people in general might know that they
   could not escape that punishment from which even the king would not be
   exempt. They, no doubt, when they heard that such a hard and bitter lot
   would happen to a king, regarded it as a thing incredible; but Jeremiah
   intended to shew in his person that what we have just seen was nigh them
   all, that is, that it would be better for them at once to die than to pine
   away for a long time.

   We must at the same time notice, that what these two verses contain
   respecting the king is not said as though it applied to him alone, but
   rather that every one might apply it to himself what the Prophet said of the
   king alone.

   As to the word Shallum, it is thought that Jehoiakim was so called, who had
   also the name of Jeconiah, and who had of his own accord given up the
   kingdom and died in exile. But as he is called the son of Josiah, a doubt
   has arisen. But if we duly consider what sacred history relates, the
   probable conjecture is, that he was not his son but his grandson, for the
   chosen successor of his father was Jehoiakim, called also Eliakim. Yet
   Matthew calls him the son of Josiah, and that he was born to him together
   with his brethren. (Matthew 1:11.) But we know that it was a common thing
   with the Hebrews to call descendants sons, especially when the family of
   David was spoken of; that the order of succession might be preserved, those
   who next followed their predecessors were called sons. Thus, according to
   this custom, Elialdm might have been deemed his son, who was really his
   brother. As, then, he was the successor of Josiah, he is called his son.
   [45]

   There is yet no doubt but that God shews here that a pious king would not be
   a patronizer either to his own son, or to his grandson, or to others; for
   hypocrites are wont to form a defense for themselves from the holiness of
   their fathers. And as king Josiah had faithfully served God, his sons
   thought that God was in a manner bound to themselves, as though all this had
   not proceeded from the mere bounty of God, that Josiah had been so sincerely
   religious. But hypocrites, as I have just said, seek ever to render God
   bound to them. Hence the Prophet checks this false confidence, and declares
   that though Josiah was approved of God, yet his memory would not be of such
   an account as to shield his posterity from punishment. God, indeed, promises
   in his Law to be merciful to the thousandth generation, even to them who
   love him, (Exodus 20:6) but the ungodly very absurdly lay hold on this, as
   though they held God bound to them; for they thus imagine that they can
   deprive him of his power, and judgment, and authority over the world. The
   meaning then is, that Shallum in vain promised safety to himself because he
   had descended from the holy king Josiah, who had been a patron of eminent
   piety, for this could not be the means of lessening his punishment, inasmuch
   as he had degenerated from his father, whom he ought to have imitated,
   knowing that he was approved by God. And this also was the reason for the
   repetition, for he not only calls him the son of Josiah, but also adds, that
   he reigned instead of his father Josiah. Though, then, he succeeded so pious
   a king, he yet became degenerated and departed from the example of his
   father.

   When he shall have gone forth from this place, he shall not return here any
   more [46] As, then, the king was precluded from returning, what would become
   of the common people and the dregs of society? Could their condition be
   better? How then could the Jews dare flatter themselves when they perceived
   so dreadful an evidence of God’s wrath in the king himself, on whom depended
   their safety? A confirmation follows, For he shall die in the place to which
   they shall have led him away He intimates that he was to be by force carried
   away; he doubtless did not surrender himself until he saw that he was under
   the necessity of yielding. Then the Prophet in effect says that he would be
   a miserable exile, driven into banishment against his own will. It is then
   added, that he would see no more the land of his nativity, so that his lot
   would be nothing better than that of any one of the common people. It
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [45] Most commentators agree that Shallum was another name for Jehoahaz, who
   succeeded his father Josiah. See 2 Kings 23:30; and 2 Chronicles 36:1. He
   reigned only three months, and was succeeded by his elder brother Jehoiakim.
   Compare 2 Chronicles 36:2, with Jeremiah 22:5. The only difficulty arises
   from 1 Chronicles 3:15, where we have the sons of Josiah arranged in this
   order, — Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. Johanan no doubt died
   young, and he could not be Jehoahaz, for he is said to be the first-born;
   and Jehoahaz, as it appears from 2 Chronicles 36:2 and 5, was younger than
   Jehoiakim, and older by many years than Zedekiah. The only solution of the
   difficulty seems to be that there is, as Blayney, Horsley, and others
   thought, a typographical mistake in 1 Chronicles 3:15, that Shallum ought to
   be before Zedekiah, instead of being after him. His two brothers had two
   names as well as Shallum. There is a mistake of the same kind (that of
   transcribers at an early period, as there are no different readings) in 2
   Chronicles 36:9, where Jehoiachin is said to have been eight years old when
   he began to reign, instead of eighteen, as we find it stated in 2 Kings
   24:8. And this age alone comports with the language of Jeremiah in this
   chapter, for he would not have denounced such a judgment on a child eight
   years of age. As to Matthew 1:11, the true reading no doubt is, “And Josiah
   begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah,” etc., as found in some
   copies, though not of great authority. Some, with Calvin, think Shallum to
   be Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not Shallum the son of
   Josiah. The objection to this is, that the Prophet here proceeds from
   Shallum to Jehoiakim, and then to his son Jeconiah. And from what he says of
   Jehoiakim, it appears that he delivered this prophecy in his reign, except
   we think, as some do, that the Prophet relates here in the reign of Zedekiah
   what he had previously prophesied. But the probability is, as Blayney and
   others think, that this prophecy was delivered in the reign of Jehoiakim.
   — Ed.

   [46] There is no doubt but אשר is sometimes an adverb of time, when; but all
   the Versions and the Targum render it here who, “who has gone forth,” etc.
   Shallum, whoever he was, had no doubt been led captive, as it is said in the
   next verse; for the verb, which Calvin renders in the second future, is in
   the past tense, and is so rendered by all the Versions. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:13

   13. Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his
   chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and
   giveth him not for his work;

   13. Ileus qui aedificat domum suam in non justitia, (hoc est, injuste,) et
   coenacula sua in non judicio (hoc est, sine rectitudine et aequitate;)
   proximum suum servire facit gratis, et opus ejus non reddit ei (vel, quod
   ille operatus fuerit non reddit ei; (vel, quod ille operatus fuerit non
   reddit ei; quidam enim volunt esse verbum, alii nomen, sed idem manebit
   sensus).


   The Prophet begins here to shew that it could not be otherwise but that the
   king’s palace as well as Jerusalem must be destroyed, for their wickedness
   had arrived to the highest pitch; but he now, as it will appear presently,
   reprehends the father of Jeconiah.

   He then says that the city was full of robberies, and especially the palace
   of the king. Yet I do not think that the Prophet speaks only of the king,
   but also of the courtiers and chief men. We must also bear in mind what I
   said yesterday, that the common people were not absolved while the king was
   condemned. But as dignity and honor among the people belonged both to the
   king and the princes, the Prophet exposes them publicly, that, it might be
   made evident how deplorable the state of things was throughout the whole
   community. We must at the same time add, that the chief among them were
   first summoned to judgment, not only because every one had privately
   offended, but because they had by their bad examples corrupted the whole
   body of the people; and also, because they had taken more liberty, as they
   feared nothing. We indeed know that the rich exercise tyranny, because they
   deem themselves exempt from all laws. This, then, is the reason why the
   Prophet here denounces, in a special manner, a curse on the king and the
   chief men.

   He says, that they built unjustly; his words are, with no justice and with
   no judgment, by which he designates cruelty, frauds, and robberies; he, in
   short, includes under these words all kinds of iniquity. The way in which
   these things were done is stated; they wronged their neighbors, by demanding
   and extorting labors without rewarding them. Here, indeed, the Prophet only
   refers to one kind of injustice; but it may hence be easily concluded, how
   unjustly and wickedly they ruled who were then in authority; for they
   employed their neighbors, as though they were slaves, in building houses and
   palaces, for they denied them their wages. But nothing can be more cruel
   than to deprive the poor of the fruit of their labor, who from their labor
   derive their daily support. It is, indeed, commanded in the Law, that the
   wages of the laborer should not sleep with us, (Leviticus 19:13) for that
   would be the same as to kill him. [47] There is also another indignity; when
   a robber kills a man, his object is the spoil; but he who extorts labor from
   a poor man, and sucks, so to speak, his blood, afterwards sends him away
   naked and needy; this is more atrocious than by violence to kill him. We now
   perceive the meaning of the Prophet. But as he continues the same subject, I
   shall defer any further remarks till to-morrow.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [47] This verse is not correctly rendered by Calvin nor by any of the early
   versions. The two last clauses are made by them all in a great measure
   tantological, while they are perfectly distinct in their meaning. I render
   the verse thus, — Wo to him who builds his house by means of injustice, And
   his chambers by means of wrong judgment: Of his neighbor he makes a slave
   for no reason, And for his work he gives nothing to him. The verb עבר when
   followed by ב, means to enslave, or to make a slave. See Jeremiah 25:14. We
   hence see the force of the word, חנס gratuitously, for no reason, because
   the Jews might under certain circumstances be reduced to a state of slavery;
   but Jehoiakim did this when there was no cause. This was the “wrong
   judgment” And then he gave them no support, nothing for their work; this was
   the “injustice.” He reduced them to slavery, and did not maintain them. The
   real import of the passage is completely lost in the loose rendering of the
   Versions; but the Targ. rightly expresses the meaning of the third line, “To
   slavery he reduces for no cause his neighbor.” — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that since thou continuest both by chastising us, and
   by kindly alluring us to thyself, to deal with us in such a way as to find
   out whether we are healable, — O grant, that we may not he hardened either
   against thy threatenings or thy promises, but follow in a teachable spirit
   what thou shewest is pleasing to thee, and make progress in holy living, and
   become daily more watchful and diligent, until we shall at length reach the
   goal which is set before us, and receive the reward of our faith in thy
   celestial kingdom, which has been obtained for us by the blood of thine
   only-begotten Son. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Second

   In the last Lecture we began to explain the reproof given by the Prophet to
   King Jehoiakim for his cruelty and oppression; for in building his splendid
   palaces, he constrained the people to labor for nothing. This was the crime
   which the Prophet pointed out when he said, He! he builds unjustly, and his
   chambers by iniquity; literally, “not in judgement.”

   As Jehoiakim might have objected and said, that this was lawful for him, for
   kings think that the whole world has been created for their sake, the
   Prophet called his attention to the common rights of men, for all the
   Israelites were his relations; as though he had said, “Though thou excellest
   in dignity, yet thou art one of the race of Abraham, and taken from the
   midst of thy brethren; there is, therefore, no reason for thee to take so
   much liberty as though they were to be thy vassals.” We hence see the design
   of the Prophet, when he condemned the cruelty of King Jehoiakim, who in
   building magnificent palaces treated the people arbitrarily and unjustly,
   and extorted more labor than what was right. It now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:14

   14. That saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth
   him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion.

   14. Qui dicit, AEdificabo mihi domum amplam (mensuram, ad verbum, subaudiunt
   quidam Interpretes, magnarum; sed illud frigidum est, simpliciter enim domus
   mensurarum tantundem valet ac domus spatiosa,) et coenacula dilatationum (ad
   verbum, vel, respirationum, aut perflationum, nam הור significat tam
   respirare quam dilatare; unde deducitur הור quod significat spiritum et
   ventum,) et perforat sibi fenestras, et tecta (vel, cooperta) est domus
   cedro et uncta minio.


   Some render the last words, “and painted with red;” but vermilion is a kind
   of red. They, indeed, mention three kinds of red, — deep red, brownish, and
   the third mixed with various colors; but vermilion is a brighter color. As
   to the main point there is no difficulty; the Prophet reproves the ambition
   and pride of King Jehoiakim, that he was not content with the moderation of
   his fathers, but indulged in extravagant display, and built for himself a
   palace as it were in the clouds, as though he did not wish to have a
   dwelling on the earth. Splendor in houses cannot in itself be condemned;
   but, as it can hardly be, nay, as it seldom happens, but that such
   insatiable ambition proceeds from pride, hence the Prophets vehemently
   denounced sumptuous houses; and they pronounced a curse on such displays,
   because they had a regard to the motive and the end. Such was the design of
   the Prophet in this passage.

   He therefore thus introduces King Jehoiakim, who says, I will build for
   myself a large house and chambers of respirations That he said this proved
   the foolish ambition with which Jehoiakim had been inebriated, so that he
   regarded as nothing whatever was splendid before in Jerusalem. There were
   palaces, we know, very sumptuous there; and we also know that the king of
   Judah lived in great splendor. For though the palaces of Solomon were not
   then standing in their original grandeur, yet what remained was abundantly
   sufficient to satisfy a man who was not filled with pride. It hence appears
   that a fondness for excess prevailed in Jehoiakim, for he despised the royal
   palace, and whatever remained after the death of Solomon. For God, we know,
   had blessed with prosperity Hezekiah, and Josiah, and other kings; but they
   had continued within proper bounds. Since, then, such haughtiness had crept
   into the heart of Jehoiakim, it is evident, that he was filled with vain
   pride, nay, was drunk with folly. This was the reason why the Prophet
   severely reproved him for saying, “I will build for myself a large house and
   chambers of respirations,” or of perflations. [48]

   He then adds, and he perforates for himself windows [49] It was a proof of
   luxury, when men began to indulge in superfluities. In old times the windows
   were small; for use only was regarded by frugal men; but afterwards a sort
   of madness possessed the minds of many, so that they sought to be suspended
   as it were in the air. And hence they began to have wider windows. The thing
   in itself, as I have said, is not what God condemns; but we must ever
   remember, as I have reminded you, that men never go to excesses in external
   things, except when their hearts are infected with pride, so that they do
   not regard what is useful, what is becoming, but are carried away by
   fondness for excess.

   It is then added, and it is covered with cedar, that is, the house is
   covered with cedar boards. For in my judgment the Prophet means here the
   wainscotting, when he says that the house was covered with cedar; as though
   he had said, that King Jehoiakim esteemed the squared and polished stones as
   nothing, unless a covering was added of cedar boards to ornament the walls.
   [50] And for the same purpose was the painting with vermilion; for justly
   might paintings be deemed excessive superfluities. As, then, it was a part
   of luxury to adorn the walls with various paintings, as though men wished to
   change the simple nature of things, the Prophet here is indignant against
   King Jehoiakim. Nor is it to be doubted, but that God had regard also to the
   circumstances of the times; for God had already warned him and all the Jews
   respecting their future calamities. This, then, was in a manner to treat
   with mockery the threatenings of God. And we know how intolerable was this
   regarded by him; for he thus declares by Isaiah,

   “Live do I, never shall this iniquity be blotted out,” 
   (Isaiah 22:14)

   for when he had exhorted them to put on sackcloth and ashes, they said, “Let
   us eat and drink, tomorrow we shall die.” Similar, then, was the
   perverseness of King Jehoiakim; for he ought to have seen the coming
   calamity which was set as it were before his eyes; but he, like one
   infatuated, increased the royal splendor, so that the wealth of David and of
   Solomon appeared as nothing compared with what he had expended. It now
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [48] The word is מרוחים, rendered “fanned — rhipista,” by the Sept., and
   “spacious” by the other Versions and the Targ. The rendering may be
   “chambers of ventilations,” meaning “airy chambers.” Parkhurst considers it
   a Huphal participle, and renders it “airy.” But Blayney objects to this, as
   it is in a different gender from “chambers;” but it may be viewed as in
   construction; for in Hebrew two nouns are often used for a noun and a
   participle, or an adjective. — Ed

   [49] The Vulg., the Syr., and Targ., read, “And he opens for himself
   windows.” The verb is קרע, to rend, to divide, and also to distend, to
   enlarge, to dilate. See Jeremiah 4:30. The line may be rendered, — And he
   makes large his windows. — Ed.

   [50] Calvin is quite right in applying the latter part to the house
   generally, and not to the chambers, as it is done by the Sept. and the
   Arab.; and guided by them, Houbigant proposed emendations of the Text. The
   arrangement of the verse is according to the common practice of the
   Prophets, — 14. Who says, “I will build me a spacious house, And airy upper
   apartments:” And he makes large his windows; And covered it is with cedar,
   And painted with vermilion. There are two things mentioned, — house and
   apartments. Of the latter he speaks first, as it is usually the case, that
   he made large windows in them; and then he speaks of the house in general,
   that it was covered (not ceiled) with cedar, as the Temple was, (1 Kings
   6:15,) and painted with vermilion. Here we see an instance how emendations
   have been proposed through ignorance as to the Hebrew style. The Syriac
   version makes the sense more distinct, though it be not literal, and is as
   follows, — Who says, “I will build me large houses, And spacious
   chambers:” For these he opens windows; Those he covers with cedars, And
   adorns with paintings. “Vermilion,” ששר, rendered, “miltō — ochre,” or
   ruddle, by the Sept.; “sinopide — a red stone,” by the Vulg. and Targ.
   Parkhurst quotes Pliny, who says that miltos was found in silver mines, and
   was a sort of reddish sand, and used as a paint. Something of this kind was
   what is here mentioned, though it is not known now specifically what it was,
   nor is it of much consequence. It occurs only here, and in Ezekiel 23:14.
   — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:15

   15. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? Did not thy
   father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with
   him?

   15. An regnabis, quia tu permisces se in cedro? (hoc est, quia to involvis
   cedro? pater tuus annon comedit et bibit et fecit (hoc est, cum faceret)
   judicium et justitiam? Tunc bene fuit ei.


   The Prophet here derides the foolish confidence of King Jehoiakim, because
   he set up empty things against his enemies instead of strong defences. Kings
   are wont to indulge themselves when there is quietness and security; that
   is, when they fear nothing; when no danger appears, they then give way to
   their own gratifications; and this is commonly the case with all; for we see
   that kings especially indulge in excesses, when there is no war, when no one
   gives them trouble, and no one threatens them; but Jehoiakim, had he the
   least particle of wisdom, might have known that he had many dangers to
   dread. Now, when he applied all his thoughts to the painting of his walls,
   and to the splendor of his palace, to its wainscotting and other trifles,
   must he not have been insane, and not of a sound mind?

   It is this madness that Jeremiah now condemns when he says, Shalt thou
   reign, because thou surroundest thyself with cedar board? [51] that is, “Can
   this confirm thy kingdom to thee? or, shalt thou be more happy on this
   account, because thou art surrounded by cedars?” The meaning of the Prophet
   may be more fully learnt from the remaining part of the verse; for it
   immediately follows, Thy father, did he not eat and drink when he did
   judgment and justice?

   Some so understand the passage, as though the Prophet meant to obviate an
   objection; for Jehoiakim might have referred to the example of his father
   Josiah, who had not been a sordid man, but had displayed some royal dignity
   and grandeur through the whole course of his life. Some interpreters, then,
   think that the Prophet answers here what Jehoiakim might, have objected:
   “What! did not my father also make a royal display?” Thus they explain the
   words, as though the Prophet made at first a concession, but that by adding
   a correction, he shewed that the excuse of Jehoiakim was frivolous: “I allow
   that thy father was royally adorned, but he executed judgment and justice;
   why dost thou not imitate thy father in his virtues? God forgave what was
   superfluous or excessive, for through his great indulgence he bears with
   many things in kings; but thou art far different from thy father, for thou
   extortest labor from thy poor subjects, and buildest thy palaces by means of
   extortion and plunder. There is, therefore, no reason for thee to seek for
   thyself a covering from thy father, for thou art wholly fallen away from his
   integrity.”

   Others elicit an entirely different meaning, — that Josiah had prolonged his
   life, and conciliated the favor of God by ruling with justice. So, then,
   they connect the words thus: “Did not thy father eat and drink,” that is,
   “did he not live happily, because God had blessed him? Inquire the cause,
   and you will find it to be this — he faithfully discharged his duties, for
   he executed judgment and justice. As, then, thou seest that the equity and
   moderation which thy father had practiced, was the cause of his happy life,
   why dost not thou also imitate him?”

   But the Prophet seems to me to mean simply this, “Thy father doubtless lived
   happily, and nothing was wanting to him while he executed judgment and
   justice.” For thus appears better the contrast between the tyranny of
   Jehoiakim, and the uprightness of his father Josiah; as though he had said,
   “Thou deemest now thy state better than that of thy father, because thou
   surpassest him in luxury and splendor.

   As then thou exultest in vain things, thou seemest to thyself to be happier
   than thy father: but thy father was contented with his lot; nay, if his
   condition be duly regarded, God honored him with every abundance and variety
   of blessings; he did eat and drink.”

   By eating and drinking I understand nothing else, but that he lived
   cheerfully, enjoyed prosperity, spent a peaceable life. Thy father; he says,
   did eat and drink; that is, he had nothing to desire, and his condition was
   an evidence of God’s favor when he expected judgment and justice And not
   unsuitable to this view is what follows, Then it was well with him [52]

   We hence see that the foolish ambition of Jehoiakim is here laughed to
   scorn; for he seemed not to think himself a king unless he conducted himself
   like a madman. Such is the case with kings at this day; they are ashamed to
   appear humane, and devise means only to exercise tyranny; and they also
   contrive how they may depart as far as possible from the common usage and
   practice of men. As then kings are so ingenious in their own follies, which
   seem to be like veils, lest anything humane should be perceived in them, the
   Prophet justly inveighs here against Jehoiakim; “It was well,” he says,
   “with thy father; and yet he acted kindly and courteously towards his
   people; nor had he such haughtiness as to despise the common habits of men.
   Since then he was happy, if thou regardcst what belongs to real happiness,
   why dost thou please thyself so much? What hast thou that is better or more
   excellent than what he had!”

   We now perceive what the object of the Prophet was to shew, that it is the
   only true glory and the chief honor of kings, when they discharge their
   duties, and that the image of God shines forth in them, when they execute
   judgment and justice; and that when they ambitiously seek through a blind
   zeal to be the slaves of pride, it is a vain attempt, and contributes
   nothing towards that happy life which they foolishly imagine. To the same
   purpose he adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [51] The general sense is given, but not a literal rendering. The last verb
   is variously rendered; “because thou betakest thyself to cedar,” is the
   Vulg.; “wilt thou delight thyself in cedars?” the Syr.; the Targ. is a loose
   paraphrase, and the Sept. and Arab. wholly depart from our present text,
   “because thou art stimulated by Ahaz thy father.” Then what follows is
   widely different, but wholly inconsistent with the original. The verb is the
   Hithpael of חרה, to burn, to be hot; and it means to be hot or warm with
   anger, exertion, grief, or delight. In the second sense it is used in
   Jeremiah 12:5; but here in the last sense, “because thou art inflamed with
   cedar,” or greatly delightest thyself in cedar; and this meaning is
   countenanced both by the Vulg. and Syr. Blayney takes the third sense — “hot
   with grief,” and gives this version, which is approved by Horsley, though
   its meaning is not very evident, — Shalt thou reign because thou frettest
   thyself in cedar? Venema is more to the point, — Shalt thou reign, because
   thou art in great heat for cedar? — Ed.

   [52] The whole verse would read better thus, — 15. Shalt thou reign, because
   thou art enamored with cedar? Thy father — did he not eat and drink? When he
   administered judgment and justice, Then it was well with him. To eat and to
   drink, as Calvin, observes, means a happy life; his father enjoyed life,
   though he took no delight in cedars; but his happiness arose from governing
   justly his people. The Syr. connects the two last lines as above, — He
   executed judgment and justice, I therefore did him good. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:16

   16. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him:
   was not this to know me? saith the LORD.

   16. Judicium judicavit pauperis et egeni, tunc bene; an non cognoscere me,
   inquit Jehova?


   He more fully expresses what he had said, that Josiah lived usefully, and
   was honored and esteemed, for royal majesty shone forth in him. He then
   repeats in other words what he had said, but he did this for the sake of
   explanation. [53]

   He undertook, he says, the cause, or the quarrel, of the poor and needy
   There is here a part stated for the whole; for when any one deals kindly
   with the poor, he may yet plunder the wealth of the rich, which cannot be
   deemed right; but as the case most commonly is, that those who rule neglect
   the poor and helpless, the Prophet includes under one thing the whole duty
   of rulers, and says that King Josiah was upright, just, and equitable, that
   he not only abstained from wrongs, but also assisted the innocent whom he
   saw oppressed, and of his own accord interposed to prevent any to molest
   them. He then under one thing comprehends everything that belongs to the
   office of a just and upright judge. For it is the first thing for judges to
   abstain from all rapacity and violence; and the second thing is to extend a
   hand to the poor, and to bring them aid, whenever they see them exposed to
   the wrongs of others. He then judged the judgment, or undertook the cause,
   of the poor and needy; and it is added, Then well; that is, as I have
   explained, “This was the happiness of thy father Josiah, so that he was not
   despised by the people, nor had he any desire for anything more.”

   It then follows, Was not this to know me, saith Jehovah? [54] The Prophet
   shews again whence proceeded the liberty which King Jehoiakim took in luxury
   and superfluous display, as well as in plunder, cruelty, and oppression,
   even because he had cast away every care and concern for religion; for where
   a real knowledge of God exists, men must necessarily have regard to
   uprightness and moderation. He then who thus acts cruelly towards his
   neighbors, clearly shews that every thought of religion and every care for
   it is rooted out of his heart. In short, the Prophet means that Jehoiakim
   was not only unjust towards men, but was also guilty of impiety; for except
   he had become a profane despiser of God, he would not have thus unjustly
   oppressed his neighbors.

   But this passage deserves to be noticed, as it shews that piety leads men to
   all the duties of love. Where God then is known, kindness to man also
   appears. So also on the other hand we may conclude, that all regard for God
   is extinguished, and all fear of him is abolished, when men wilfully do
   wrong to one another, and when they seek to oppress or defraud one another.
   There is therefore no doubt but that gross impiety will be found where the
   offices of love are neglected. For when Jeremiah commended the piety of
   Josiah on this account, because he executed judgment and justice, he
   doubtless condemned Jehoiakim, as though he had said, that he was an
   abandoned and irreclaimable apostate; for had he retained a spark of
   religion, he would have acted more justly and humanely towards his people.
   It now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [53] Venema considers that there is here no repetition, but takes this verse
   as addressed to Jehoiakim, and gives this version, — By judging judge the
   afflicted and poor, Then it will be well with thee: Is not this the
   knowledge of me, saith Jehovah? But the words will not admit of this
   rendering. The verb is in the past tense, followed by a noun derived from
   the same verb, a thing not unusual in Hebrew. Literally the verse is, — He
   defended the defense (the cause) of the needy and poor, Then well it was
   with him: Was not that to know me, saith Jehovah? The pronoun הוא, is not
   this, but that, when used as a demonstrative pronoun. See Genesis 2:19. We
   may indeed render the last line thus, — Was not that the knowledge of me,
   saith Jehovah? That is, Was it not the fruit or the effect of that
   knowledge? — Ed.

   [54] The Vulg. is, “Was it not so, because he knew me, saith Jehovah?” the
   Syr., “He who doeth such things knoweth me, saith the Lord;” and the Targ.,
   “Is not that the knowledge which I desire, saith the Lord?” The Vulg. is the
   most correct. “They are said to know God,” says Grotius, “who shew by their
   deeds that they know what pleases Him.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:17

   17. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for
   to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it.

   17. Quia non oculus tuus et cor tuum nisi ad cupidatatem tuam, et ad
   sanguinem innoxium fundendum, et ad rapacitatem, et ad oppressionem, ad
   faciendum (hoc est, ut exequaris.


   Here the Prophet expresses more clearly how much Jehoiakim differed from
   Josiah his father. He indeed shews that he was wholly unlike him, because
   Josiah had endeavored to observe what was equitable, while he set all his
   thoughts on fraud, plunder, and cruelty; for by the eye and the heart he
   means all the faculties of his soul and body. One of the main senses of the
   body, as it is well known, is the sight. Hence the Prophet includes here
   whatever is external and internal in men, when he says, thine eye, that is,
   all thy bodily senses are set on covetousness, and also thine heart, that
   is, all thy thoughts, feelings, designs, meditations, and purposes are
   employed in the same way. He intimates, in short, that Jehoiakim was corrupt
   both in body and mind, so that having cast aside every fear of God, he
   abandoned himself to avarice as well as to plunder and all acts of
   oppression. Thine eye, he says, and thy heart is not, except on covetousness

   The verb בצע, betso, means to covet; hence the noun signifies not only
   avarice, but also any sinful lust. He adds cruelty, for it, cannot be but
   that all are bloody who give loose reins to their lusts. He mentions in the
   third place rapacity, or violent seizure; for עשק, oshek, means to take by
   force what belongs to another; hence the noun signifies rapacity. What
   follows in the last place is oppression, or disquietude. As רוף, ruts, means
   to run, Jerome renders it “the course of thy work,” as though ל, lamed,
   prefixed to עשות, oshut, were not one of the serviles, ם, ל, כ, ב, beth,
   caph, lamed, mem, but this cannot be admitted. The clear meaning of the
   Prophet indeed is, that Jehoiakim was not only intent on taking possession
   on what belonged to others, but that he also oppressed and distressed all he
   could. It is lastly added, to do; the verb to do is to be applied to what
   has gone before, that Jehoiakim employed all his thoughts, and was wholly
   engaged in evil deeds, that he not only contrived acts of cruelty and of
   avariciousness in his mind, but also carried fully into execution what he
   had contrived. [55] It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [55] The most literal version of this verse is the following, — For on
   nothing are thine eyes and thine heart, Except on thy gain, And on innocent
   blood, that it may be shed, And on oppression and on violence, That they may
   be done. “That it may be shed,” is literally, “for being shed,” it is a
   passive participle; and such is the case as to the last verb. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:18-19

   18. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah
   king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah
   sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory!

   18. Propterea sic dicit Jehova ad Joakim (vel, de, אל, capitur pro de, ergo
   de Joakim) filio Josiae regis Jehudah, Non lugebunt eum, Heus frater mi! et
   heus soror! non lugebunt eum, Heus domine! heus gloria ejus!

   19. He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth
   beyond the gates of Jerusalem.

   19. Sepultura asini sepelietur, ad trahendum, et projiciendum ad extra ad
   portas (ad verbum hoc est, longe extra portas) Jerosolymae.


   The Prophet having inveighed against Jehoiakim, now shews what kind of
   punishment from God awaited him; he would have otherwise despised the
   Prophet’s reproof; but when he heard that a reward was prepared for him, he
   must have been roused. Inasmuch then as he was seized with a foolish and
   even a sottish lust for glory, so that he cast aside every care for
   uprightness, the Prophet declares that disgrace was prepared for him; and
   hence he compares him after his death to an ass.

   Therefore thus saith Jehovah to King Jehoiakim, or concerning King
   Jehoiakim, [56] the son of Josiah the king, etc. He is not called the son of
   Josiah for honor’s sake, but for the purpose of touching him to the quick,
   because he had degenerated from the piety of his father. But as he hoped
   that the religion of Josiah would be to him a sort of covering, the Prophet
   derides and checks this vain confidence. “Thou gloriest in being the son of
   King Josiah, but thy holy father will avail thee nothing, for thou seemest
   avowedly to shew that thou art wholly different from him. Though then thou
   art, descended from Josiah, and though God has raised thee to the royal
   throne, yet there is no reason for thee to be confident as to thy safety;
   for these benefits of God will not preserve thee from that ignominious
   treatment which thou deservest.”

   He says first, They shall not bewail him, Ah my brother! Ah sister! The
   Prophet mentions by way of imitation the words of the mourners. That people,
   we know, were very vehement in expressing their sorrow. And this ought to be
   borne in mind, because some being persuaded that nothing is related by the
   Prophets but what ought to be taken as an example, do therefore think that
   these modes of lamentation were approved by God. But we have before seen
   what the Prophet said in Jeremiah 22:4,

   “Enter through these gates shall the kings
   of Judah and their princes in chariots,”

   yet we know that kings had been forbidden to make such ostentations; but God
   did not scrupulously refer to what was lawful or right in speaking of royal
   splendor; so also when he spoke of funeral rites. We ought not then to make
   a law of what the Prophet says, as though it were right and proper to bewail
   the dead with howling. There is indeed no doubt, but these excesses which
   the Prophet mentions were not only foolish, but also wholly condemnable; for
   we often vie with one another in our lamentations; and when men
   intemperately express their grief in funerals, they excite themselves into a
   sort of madness in crying and bewailing, and then when they compose
   themselves and simulate grief, they act a part as in a theater. But the
   Prophet here speaks only according to the common practice of the age, when
   he says, “They shall not bewail him,” etc.; that is, he states what was
   usually done, when one embraced another, when a sister said, “Ah, my
   brother!” and when a brother said, “Ah, my sister!” or, when the people
   said, “Ah, lord, O king, where is thy glory! where is thy honor! where thy
   crown! where thy scepter! where thy throne!“ Very foolish then were the
   lamentations which the Prophet mentions here. But as I have already said, it
   is enough for us to know, that he refers to these rites, then commonly
   practiced, without expressing his approbation of them.

   They shall not, he says, bewail King Jehoiakim; they shall not say at his
   funeral, Ah, my brother! Ah, sister! And, Ah, lord! Ah, his glory! [57]
   There shall be no such thing; and why? because he shall be buried with the
   burial of an ass We have before said, that it was justly deemed one of
   God’s curses when a carcass was cast away unburied; for God would have
   burial a proof to distinguish us from brute animals even after death, as we
   in life excel them, and as our condition is much nobler than that of the
   brute creation. Burial is also a pledge as it were of immortality; for when
   man’s body is laid hid in the earth, it is, as it were, a mirror of a future
   life. Since then burial is an evidence of God’s grace and favor towards
   mankind, it is on the other hand a sign of a curse, when burial is denied.

   But it has been elsewhere said, that temporal punishments ought not always
   to be viewed alike; for God has suffered sometimes his faithful servants to
   be unburied, according to what we read in Psalm 79:2, 3, that their bodies
   were cast forth in the fields, that they were exposed to be eaten by the
   beasts of the earth and by the birds of heaven. Those spoken of were the
   true and sincere worshippers of God. But we know that the good and the bad
   have temporal punishments in common; and this is true as to famine and
   nakedness, pestilence and war. The destruction of the city Jerusalem was a
   just punishment on the wicked; and yet Daniel and Jeremiah were driven into
   exile together with the wicked, and suffered great hardships; and, in short,
   they were so mixed with the ungodly, that their external condition was in
   nothing different. So, then, the state of things in the world is often in
   such disorder, that we cannot distinguish between the good and the bad by
   outward circumstances. But still it is right ever to hold this truth, that
   when burial is denied to a man, it is a sign of God’s curse.

   Hence, the Prophet says now, He shall be buried with the burial of an ass He
   mentions the ass because it is a mean animal; he might have named a horse or
   an ox, but as the ass is a meaner and more contemptible animal, it is the
   same thing as though he had said, “Jehoiakim shall be cast away with the
   dogs.” This prophecy no doubt grievously wounded not only the mind of the
   king himself, but also that of the whole people; for as yet his throne
   stood, and all highly regarded the family of David, and thought the kingdom
   sacred, as it was under the guardianship and protection of God. But the
   Prophet hesitated not to denounce what was afterwards confirmed by the
   event; for Jehoiakim was buried with the burial of an ass, as he was cast
   forth far beyond the gates of Jerusalem. Here the Prophet amplifies the
   disgrace by which the King Jehoiakim would be branded, for he might have
   been left dead in a journey; but he expresses what is more grievous than the
   casting forth; Drawn out, he says, and cast forth, etc.; that is, Jehoiakim
   shall not only be cast forth, but also drawn as an ass or a dog, lest his
   foetor should infect the city; as though he was unworthy not only of a
   grave, but also of being seen by men. [58]

   And this is to be especially noticed, for we hence conclude how great his
   perverseness was in despising the threatenings of God, since the Prophet
   could not otherwise storm the mind of the king, and terrify the people, than
   by exaggerating the indignity that was to happen to him. For if there had
   been any teachable spirit in the king and the people, the Prophet would have
   been content with making a simple statement, “Jehoiakim shall not be
   buried;” that is, God will punish him even when dead; the curse of God will
   not only be upon him while living, but he will also take vengeance on him
   after his death. He was not content with this kind of statement; but he
   shall be buried, he says, as an ass, and shall be cast far off; and further
   still, his carcass shall be drawn or dragged; so that it was to be an
   eternal mark of infamy and disgrace.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [56] It is “to” in the Sept. and Vulg., and “concerning” in the Syr., Arab.,
   and Targ. The latter is most adopted by commentators. — Ed.

   [57] The original is not “his,” but “her glory.” The lamentation is such as
   was used for kings, when there was also a condolence expressed for the
   queens. Ah, my brother! and, Ah, lord! was a lamentation for the king when
   dead, (Jeremiah 34:5;) and, Ah, sister! and, Ah, her glory! was sympathy for
   the surviving queen. Her glory had departed with her husband. This is
   Blayney’s view. The Versions and the Targum are all different, and not one
   of them renders the original correctly. The verse may be thus rendered, —
   18. Therefore thus saith Jehovah of Jehoiakim, The son of Josiah, the king
   of Judah — They shall not lament for him — “Ah, my brother, and, Ah, sister.
   They shall not lament for him — “Ah, Lord! and, Ah, her glory!” To render
   the ו disjunctively “or,” as in our version, seems not suitable. The
   lamentation and the condolence are to be connected together. The “Ah” might
   be rendered “Alas;” and so it is in many places. See 1 Kings 13:30. — Ed

   [58] The verb, or rather participle, rendered “drawn,” means to be dragged
   along, and not carried. See 2 Samuel 17:13. He was to be dragged out of the
   city and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. It is said in 2
   Chronicles 36:6, that Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters, to carry him to
   Babylon.” The probability is (for we have no express account) that he died
   while in fetters at Jerusalem, before he was removed, and that
   Nebuchadnezzar, from indignation at his rebellion, had him dragged as a dead
   ass out of the city and exposed as food for rapacious birds and beasts. We
   find it said in 2 Kings 24:6, that “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers;” but
   this only means that he died, or that he died a natural death and was not
   killed; for we find this phrase used, when burial is afterwards mentioned.
   See 2 Chronicles 12:16; 16:13, l4. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as it has pleased thee to perpetuate the memory of
   the dreadful vengeance which thou hast executed on the descendants of David,
   so that we may learn by their evils carefully to walk before thee, — O
   grant, that the forgetfulness of this example may never possess us, but that
   we may assiduously meditate on what is set before us, in order that we may
   thus endeavor to advance and promote the glory of thy name through the whole
   course of our life, so that we may at length be made partakers of thy
   celestial glory, which thou hast prepared for us, and which thine
   only-begotten Son has obtained for us by his own blood. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Third
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:20

   20. Go up to Lebanon, and cry; and lift up thy voice in Bashan, and cry from
   the passages: for all thy lovers are destroyed.

   20. Ascende in Libanum, et clama, et in Basan ede vocem tuam, et clama a
   lateribus, quia contriti sunt omnes amatores tui.


   Jeremiah triumphs over the Jews, and derides their presumption in thinking
   that they would be safe, though God was against them. He then shews that
   they were deceived in promising to themselves impunity; but he bids them to
   ascend Mount Lebanon, and to cry aloud on Mount Bashan, that they might know
   that there would be no aid for them when God’s judgment came. But the whole
   verse is ironical; for they would in vain cry and howl. Indeed, the Prophet
   thus treated them, because he saw that they were wholly irreclaimable. They
   were not worthy then that he should give them counsel, or faithfully warn
   them. He was therefore under the necessity ironically to deride their
   madness in promising safety to themselves, while they were continuing to
   provoke God’s vengeance against themselves.

   But at the same time he accommodates what he says to their intentions; for
   there is no doubt but that they ever cast their eyes either on Egypt or on
   Assyria for any aid they might want. Hence he says, Ascend Mount Lebanon,
   and cry, and then cry on Mount Bashan, and cry all around, (for by sides he
   means all parts;) but thou shall gain nothing, he says, for consumed are all
   thy lovers [59] We learn from the end of the verse that the Prophet said,
   Ascend, and cry, by way of derision. By lovers he means the Egyptians and
   the Assyrians, and other neighboring nations; for the Jews, when they feared
   any danger, were wont to flee to their neighbors, and God was in the
   meantime neglected by them; and for this reason they were called lovers. God
   had espoused the people as his own, and hence he often called them his wife,
   and he speaks here in the feminine gender; and thus the people are compared
   to a wife, and God assumes the character of a husband. When, therefore, the
   people, according to their self-will and humor, wandered here and there,
   this levity was called adultery; for the simplicity of faith is our
   spiritual chastity; for as a wife who regards her husband alone, keeps
   conjugal fidelity and chaste conduct, so when we continue to cleave to God
   alone, we are, in a spiritual sense, chaste as he requires us to be; but
   when we seek our safety from this and that quarter, we violate the fidelity
   which we owe to God. As soon, then, as we cast our thoughts here and there,
   it is to act like a woman who seeks vagrant and unlawful connections.

   We now see the reason why the Prophet compares the Egyptians and Assyrians
   to lovers, for he intimates that the people of Israel did in this manner
   commit adultery, as it has been stated in other places. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [59] “All around,” מעברים, is rendered “beyond the sea” by the Sept.; “to
   those who pass by,” by the Vulg.; “from the farther shores of the sea, by
   the Syr.; “at the fords,” by the Targ.; “beyond the fords,” that is, of the
   Nile, by Grotius and Piscator; and “from the borders,” by Blayney. But the
   most suitable rendering here is what has been adopted by Gataker and Venema,
   “from Abarim,” a mountain in the confines of Moab. See Numbers 27:12. There
   are here two mountains previously mentioned, lying to the north; and here is
   another to the east. Jerusalem (for that is here addressed) is commanded, by
   way of taunt, to ascend these mountains to cry for aid and to utter its
   lamentation; for all its lovers from these quarters were destroyed; the king
   of Babylon had subdued them. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:21

   21. I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear.
   This hath been thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyest not my voice.

   21. Loquutus sum tecum in pace tua (vel, quiete, vel, foelicitate tua,)
   dixisti, Non audiam; haec via tua (id est, ratio, vel, consuetudo) a
   pueritia tua, quod non audieris vocem meam.


   Here God shews that the people were worthy of the reward he had mentioned,
   even to mourn and to seek aid on every side without finding any. It, indeed,
   often happens that the excessive severity of a husband alienates his wife
   from his society; and when a husband, through want of thought, attends to
   other things and neglects his domestic affairs, and thus his wife goes
   astray; or when he connives at things when he sees his wife exposed to
   dangerous allurements and flatteries, the fault is in part to be ascribed to
   him. But God shews here that he had performed the duties of a good and
   faithful husband, and also that it was not his fault that the people did not
   perform their part.

   I spoke to thee, he says; that is, thou canst not say that thou hast gone
   astray through ignorance; for they who are proved guilty are wont to flee to
   this kind of excuse, — “I did not think; had I been warned, I would have
   attended to good advice; but on slippery ground it is easy to fall,
   especially when no one stretches forth his hand to give any help.” But God
   takes away here every pretext of this kind, and says, that he had spoken; as
   though he had said, “I warned thee in time; thou hast not then sinned
   through ignorance or want of thought.” In short, God condemns here the
   perverseness of the people, that they knowingly and wilfully abandoned
   themselves to every kind of wickedness. Now this passage deserves special
   notice; for we see that it is a twofold crime, when God in due time speaks
   to us and calls us to the right way, and we refuse to hear; for our
   wickedness is inexcusable when we suffer not ourselves to be corrected by
   him.

   I spoke to thee, he adds, in thy tranquillity By this circumstance also
   their crime is aggravated; for God not only by his Prophets made known to
   his people what was right, but had also, by his blessing, conciliated them
   to himself. For when a husband counsels his wife, and is at the same time
   austere or peevish, his wife will disregard whatever she may hear, for her
   mind will be preoccupied with dislike; but when a husband treats his wife
   kindly, and proves by his benevolence the love he entertains for her, and at
   the same time shews prudence in his conduct towards her, she must
   necessarily be of a very bad disposition if she is not moved by such advice,
   kindness, and benevolence on the part of her husband. Now, God shews here
   that he had sent Prophets in order to keep his people in the faithful
   discharge of their duties, and that he had also been kind and bountiful to
   them, that thereby they might be sweetly drawn to obey him. Therefore, by
   the word “tranquillity,” the Prophet sets forth God’s kindness and bounty
   towards his people. [60]

   It is, indeed, true what Moses says, that men are like mettlesome and wanton
   horses when they become fat. (Deuteronomy 32:15.) So fatness and
   tranquillity have such effect as to render us more refractory. Yet this
   cannot avail for an excuse when God kindly invites us, and connects with his
   doctrine kind and paternal benevolence, and confirms it by the effects when
   we are teachable and yield him willing obedience. Thus the Prophet closed
   the mouths of the Jews, for they would have sought probably to make this
   objection, — that vengeance was too vehemently denounced on them, and that
   God suddenly assailed them; but he shews that when in tranquillity and
   prosperity they might have acknowledged God’s paternal kindness, they had
   yet been rebellious and had abused the indulgence of God.

   I spoke to thee, he says, in thy tranquillity, and thou didst say, I will
   not hear It is not, indeed, probable that the Jews had spoken so insolently
   as to say openly and in such plain words, that they would not be obedient;
   but the Prophet regards their life and not their words. Though, then, the
   Jews did not express these words, — that they would not obey God; yet such
   language might have been clearly inferred from their conduct, for they were
   so perverse as not to render obedience to God and to his counsels.

   He adds, in the third place, that it had been the custom of the people from
   their childhood not to hear the voice of God. It is the height of impiety
   when we are not only refractory for one day or a short time, but when we
   pursue wickedness continually. God in the meantime intimates that he had
   from the beginning been solicitous for the safety of his people, but in
   vain. It sometimes happens that he who has become hardened in his vices,
   begins to be taught after the thirtieth or fortieth: year, but he is not
   very pliable; for men become hard by long usage; we see that old men are
   less teachable than the young; and why? because age in a manner makes them
   sturdy, so that they cannot bear to be turned and ruled. But God shews here,
   that such was the wickedness of his people, that they had been rebellious
   from their childhood; as though he had said, “Thou canst not make this
   excuse, that thou hast been for a long time without a teacher that thou hast
   been without any wisdom and understanding, and that on this account thou
   hast become hardened in evils; no, because I have found thee wholly
   unteachable from thy very childhood; it was thy custom, or manner, not to
   hear my voice,” or, “This has been thy custom, that thou didst not hear my
   voice;” literally, “because thou didst not hear my voice;” but it ought to
   be rendered as above, for כי, is not here a connective, but all expletive or
   an exegetical particle. [61] It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [60] The word for tranquillity is in the plural number, “tranquillities,”
   meaning tranquil, or quiet times or seasons. It is rendered “fall,” very
   unaccountably, by the Sept.; “abundance,” by the Vulg.; “affluence,” by the
   Syr.; “when thou didst sit tranquil,” by the Targ. But the word clearly
   means a tranquil, quiet, or peaceable state. Blayney rightly renders the
   expression, “in the times of thy tranquillity.” — Ed.

   [61] The כי is omitted in the Sept., and the clause is given as in
   apposition with the former, which seems to be the meaning; “the way” was not
   to hear God’s voice. Blayney, very unsuitably, connects the last line with
   the following verse. I render the verse thus, — 21. I spoke to thee in thy
   quiet times; Thou didst say, “I will not hear:” This has been thy way from
   thy childhood; For thou didst not hear my voice. It has been usual with many
   to render “hear,” “obey;” but not rightly. The complaint against the people
   was, that they would not “hear” the voice of God, much less obey it. The
   answer here was that they would not “hear.” The complaint, or the charge
   against them is the same, and the verb ought to be so rendered. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:22

   22. The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into
   captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy
   wickedness.

   22. Omnes pastores tuos depascet ventus, et amatores tui in exilium
   migrabunt; certe tunc pudefies et erubesces ab omni malitia tua (hoc est,
   propter cunctam malitiam tuam.)


   As the main fault was in the chief men, therefore God shews, that there
   would be no defense found in their prudence and wealth, when things came to
   an extremity: and it was a usual thing for the common people, when reproved,
   to refer to their rulers as their shield: nor is there a doubt but that the
   Jews made this objection to God’s Prophets, — “What do you mean? that God
   has suffered us to be unhappily governed by bad princes? then he has exposed
   us as a prey to wolves: now if he punishes us, it seems an unjust thing for
   us to suffer for the fault of others.” At the same time, they who thus spoke
   were secure and despised God, because they thought that their safety was
   secured by their chief men.

   Hence, the Prophet here shakes off from the Jews this vain confidence, Thy
   pastors, he says, the wind shall eat up By pastors he understands the king
   and his counsellors, as well as the priests and the prophets. The word eat
   up, means that all would be consumed by the wind. Sometimes, indeed, men are
   said to feed on the wind, that is, when they entertain vain confidences. So
   the wind means in other places vain hopes, as they say; but it is in another
   sense that the Prophet speaks, when he says that pastors would be eaten up
   by the wind, that is, that they would vanish away like the smoke. Thus God
   shews that their presumption, and frauds, and false imaginations, were
   nothing but smoke and emptiness. [62]

   He then speaks of their lovers, — that they would migrate into exile: for
   the Jews thought at first, that they would be impregnable as long as the
   throne of David stood; and then we know that the common people were easily
   deceived by external splendor, when they saw that the priests as well as the
   prophets and the king’s counsellors were endued with craftiness, and
   swelling with great pride; and hence they disregarded what the prophets
   threatened. Now, the second ground of confidence was their alliance with the
   Egyptians, the Assyrians, and other neighboring nations. Therefore God,
   after having said, that all their pastors would be destroyed, adds, that the
   Egyptians and others would be driven into captivity.

   He afterwards says, Surely, thou shalt then be ashamed, and shalt blush for
   all thy wickedness; [63] that is, “Thou shalt at length know that thou art
   justly punished for thy sins, when God shall denude thee of all aids, and
   make it evident that everything that now gives thee confidence is altogether
   empty and vain.” And he mentions all wickedness; for the Jews had not sinned
   only in one thing, but had added evils to evils, so that they had provoked
   God’s vengeance by an immense heap of wickedness. Their acknowledgment,
   however, would not be that which availed to repentance, but extorted; for
   the reprobate, willing or unwilling, are often constrained to acknowledge
   their shame. It follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [62] The wind sometimes means what is empty; and in this sense the Sept.,
   the Vulg., and the Arab. take it here, “All thy pastors the wind shall
   feed;” but the Syr. and the Targ. take the “wind” as meaning a blasting or a
   stormy wind: “All thy pastors the wind shall feed on,” or eat up, is the
   Syr.; and the Targ. gives this paraphrase, “All thy pastors shall be
   scattered unto every wind.” The verb, no doubt, means to feed, and to feed
   on, or eat up, or consume, but not to scatter or disperse. Therefore the
   meaning here is, either that the pastors would have nothing but what was
   empty to support them, or that they would be consumed as by a blast. The
   first is most consonant to the tenor of the passage; for the aid of their
   lovers is previously referred to; but they would find this aid to be
   “wind,” and then it is added, that these lovers as well as themselves would
   be driven into captivity. There is a striking paronomasia in the words. The
   word for pastors is derived from the verb to feed. We may give this version,
   “All thy feeders shall the wind feed.” The feeders had fed the people with
   winds, with empty expectations, and they, in their turn, would have nothing
   but wind, what was empty, to live upon or to support them. — Ed.

   [63] Our version is better as to the two verbs here used, “ashamed and
   confounded.” The latter is stronger than the former. The Vulg. and the Targ.
   invert the order, “confounded and ashamed.” The Sept. and Arab. have
   “ashamed and dishonored,” or despised. The first verb means simply to be
   ashamed, and the other to turn aside as it were from a sense of shame, as
   one not able to look on others. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:23

   23. O inhabitant of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars, how
   gracious shalt thou be when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in
   travail!

   23. Sedisti (hoc est, sedem tibi posuisti) in Libano, nidulata es in cedris,
   quomodo gratiosa fuisti (alii, vertunt, precata es) in veniendo tibi
   dolores, dolorem quasi parturientis (ad verbum, sed sensus est, quomodo
   gratiosa eris, ubi venerint tibi dolores, dolor quasi foeminae
   parturientis.)


   The Prophet confirms the same thing in other words; and hence it appears how
   difficult it is to shake off from men their false confidence, when they give
   themselves up to earthly things. As soon, then, as false confidence strikes
   its roots into the hearts of men, they cannot be moved either by any
   threatenings or by any dangers; even though death itself were hanging over
   them, they yet remain unconcerned: and hence Isaiah upbraids them and says,
   That they had made a covenant with death. (Isaiah 28:15.) This was the
   reason why the Prophet here multiplied words and used greater vehemence; it
   was for the purpose of correcting that perverseness which prevailed among
   the Jews; for they thought themselves beyond the reach of those darts which
   God’s hands would throw.

   He therefore says, that they had set their seat on Lebanon, and made their
   nest among the cedars Some interpreters understand this figuratively of the
   cedar houses in which they dwelt; that is, that they ornamented their houses
   or palaces, as we have seen, with boards of cedar. But I take the words more
   simply, — That they considered Lebanon as an impregnable stronghold, and
   that he compares them to birds which choose the highest cedars to make their
   nests in. The meaning is, that the Jews were so blinded by their pride, that
   they thought that they had Lebanon as a safe refuge, and also that they
   imagined that they had nests as it were in its cedars. But there is no doubt
   but that the Prophet, in mentioning this one particular, meant to include
   all those false and vain confidences with which the Jews were inebriated.
   But he speaks by way of concession, as though he had said, that the Jews
   were not terrified by God’s threatenings, because they cast their eyes on
   Lebanon and on its lofty cedars.

   But how gracious, he says, wilt thou be; that is, what grace wilt thou find,
   when sorrows shall come upon thee, the pain as of one in travail [64] The
   Prophet expresses here what often occurs in Scripture, that when the ungodly
   say, “Peace and safety,” sudden ruin comes on them. (1 Thessalonians 5:3.)
   He then does not allow that the Jews gained anything by thinking that they
   would have a quiet station on Lebanon, and by having their nests in the
   cedars, for God would bring on them sudden pains like those of women, who,
   while laughing and full of mirth, are in a moment seized with the pangs of
   childbearing. Jeremiah now says, that a similar thing would happen to the
   Jews. I touch but lightly on this point, while yet it is worthy of long and
   careful meditation. Let us then know, that nothing is more intolerable to
   God than when we promise to ourselves a quiet rest while he proclaims war
   against us, and while we, as it were designedly, daily provoke him. It
   follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [64] The former part of this passage is differently rendered by all the
   early versions: the Sept., “thou wilt groan;” the Vulg., “how thou hast
   groaned;” the Syr., “how much wilt thou groan.” The reading adopted was
   נהנת, from נהה, instead of נחנת, for the י is not found in many copies, nor
   in the Keri, nor in connection with the two participles at the beginning of
   the verse. The Targ. has “what wilt thou do.” Most of modern expounders take
   the text as we have it, and there are no different readings. Then the whole
   verse would read as follows, — 23. Inhabitress of Lebanon! nestler in the
   cedars! How graceful (or favored) shalt thou be, When come on thee shall
   throes, A pain like that of childbearing! The gender is feminine, and either
   Jerusalem or the house or family of David is meant. The word for “throes”
   means girding pains or pangs. The verse is the language of irony. The people
   were so hardened, that nothing else would have touched them. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:24

   24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of
   Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

   24. Vivo ego, dicit Jehova, quod si esset Coniahu filius Joakim regis
   Jehudah annulus signatorius super manum dexteram meam (hoc est, in many
   dextera mea,) ego inde to evallam (mutatio est personae.)


   God here makes an oath that he had resolved to punish Jeconiah, who was also
   called Jehoiachim. And he says, That though he sat on the throne of David,
   he would yet be a miserable exile. We have, indeed, seen elsewhere, that the
   Jews were so fascinated as to think that, God was bound to them; and at the
   same time they allowed themselves every liberty in sinning, under the
   pretense that God had promised that the kingdom of David would remain as
   long as the sun and moon continued in the heavens, (Psalm 89:37) but they
   did not consider that there was a mutual compact in God’s covenant; for he
   required them to be faithful on their part: nor did they consider that many
   were Abraham’s children according to the flesh, who were not his lawful
   children before God. As to the king himself, he never thought it possible
   that he should be driven into exile, because he was David’s successor and
   ordained by God.

   This, then, is the reason why God now declares, Even though that Coniah were
   as a sealing ring on my finger, I would yet pluck it off thence However
   exalted then was Jeconiah, God shews that his dignity would be only for a
   time, and would soon fade away; for he would be at length thrust from his
   throne, and his condition wholly changed. The word Coniah is, no doubt, in a
   mutilated form, instead of Jehoiachin. The Prophet then calls him Coniah by
   way of contempt, as though he did not think him worthy of the complete name,
   but expresses it in two instead of four syllables. So the Prophet, though
   Jeconiah was then the king, yet calls him Coniah. [65]

   Now, this passage teaches us, that we ought not to be in such a way proud of
   God’s favors, as to forget what we are, but ever to remember that we are
   dependent on him, and that we ought diligently to pray to him at all times;
   for security breeds contempt; hence it is; that God strips us of the
   ornaments with which we have been clothed; and it is a just reward for our
   ingratitude. Let all, then, who excel others know, that what has been given
   may at any time be taken away, except good conscience be as it were the
   guard to preserve God’s gifts and benefits, so that they may not at any time
   fall away or be lost. It follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [65] The early Versions throughout this passage give his name as Jeconiah;
   but the Targ., Coniah, according to the Hebrew. The Rabbins give various
   reasons for the change, and others too, which are frivolous. The reason
   given by Calvin and adopted by Gataker, Lowth, and others, is confirmed by
   the contemptuous language used in the 28th verse. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:25

   25. And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into
   the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand Nebuchadrezzar
   king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.

   25. Et ponam to (tradam to) in manum quierentium animam tuam, et in manum
   eorum a quorum facie formidas (metuis) et in manum Nebuchadrezzar regis
   Babylonii et in manum Cladaeorum.


   This verse is connected with the last, and more fully explains what had been
   briefly said. The plucking off of the sealing ring from God’s finger took
   place when Jeconiah was deprived of his glory and his kingdom, and made
   subject; to the king of Babylon. [66] Though the king spared his life, as
   sacred history testifies, (2 Kings 25:7; 2 Chronicles 36:6; Jeremiah 52:11,)
   yet when he surrendered himself to him, he trembled as though he saw the
   sword ready to cut off his head; for he expected no mercy, and his fear made
   him to go out of the city, and to surrender himself to his inveterate enemy.
   The import of the whole is, that King Jeconiah would come to extremities,
   for he would be forced to give up himself helpless and unarmed into the
   hands of his cruel enemies.

   But he repeats the commination, and enlarges on the subject; I will deliver
   thee, he says, into the hand of those who seek thy life, and then, into the
   hand of those whose face thou dreadest, and, in the third place, into the
   hand of Nebuchadnezer, (Nabuchadnezer, king of Babylon, is called here and
   in other places, Nebuchadrezer,) and lastly, into the hand of the Chaldeans.
   Thus the Prophet recounts, as it were in order, several kinds of death, that
   Jeconiah might know how dreadful God’s judgment would be. He adds —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [66] There is here a striking contrast: God would pluck off Jeconiah, were
   he like a signet on his right hand, and would deliver him into the hand of
   his enemies. From being as it were on the divine hand, he would be given up
   into the hand of those who sought his life. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:26

   26. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another
   country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die.

   26. Et projiciam to et matrem tuam quae genuit to in terram alienam, in qua
   non estis geniti, et illic moriemini.


   Here, again, the Prophet confirms what he had said of the severe vengeance
   which God would take on Jeconiah. And though he was in his thirty-seventh
   year brought out of prison, and admitted unto the royal table, among other
   princes, he yet died in exile; and perhaps it would have been better for him
   to continue in prison till his death than to have been corrupted by
   allurements when he became one of the princes, for he thus defiled himself.
   However this may have been, he died in exile together with his mother
   Nehusta.

   The Prophet then enhanced the grievousness of his punishment by saying, I
   will cause thee to migrate, or cast thee out, [67] and thy mother who bare
   thee. It is added, for the sake of indignity, that the mother of the king
   would be led captive with him; for the female sex is often spared, and she
   was also advanced in years. But God executed upon her his judgment, because
   she was his associate in impiety: “I will remove you,” he says, “into
   foreign lands, in which ye were not born, and there ye shall die.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   [67] The word is strong; it means to toss, to hurl, violently to cast forth,
   to throw with force, as one throws a missile weapon. See 1 Samuel 28:11. The
   “mittam“ of the Vulg. is too weak; the “aporr̔ipsō” of the Sept. is more
   suitable. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:27

   27. But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not
   return.

   27. Et in terram ad quam ipsi levant animum suum, ut revertantur illuc, non
   revertentur illuc.


   The Prophet again changes the person, and yet not inelegantly, for he speaks
   here as one indignant, and after having addressed a few words to King
   Jeconiah, he turns aside from him and declares what God would do. Thus, when
   we think one hardly worthy to be addressed, we change our discourse; and
   after having spoken a few words to him, we take another mode of speaking. In
   the same manner, the Prophet spoke very indignantly when he addressed
   Jehoiakim, and then he declared how God would deal with him: he passed by
   him as though he was deaf or unworthy of being noticed. We thus see the
   design of the Prophet in the change he makes in this passage.

   Into the land, he says, to which they raise up their mind that they may
   return, there they shall not return He had said before that both the king
   and his mother would die in a foreign land, and he now confirms the same
   thing; for the foolish notion, that the king of Babylon would be at length
   propitious to them, could not but with great difficulty be eradicated from
   their minds: nor is there a doubt but that such thoughts as these were
   entertained, — “When Nebuchadnezzar shall see us coming suppliantly to him,
   he will be turned to mercy, for what more does he require? He does not mean
   to fix here his royal palace; it; will satisfy him to have the people
   tributary to him; and when he shall find that I am a man of no courage, he
   will prefer having me a king, rather than to appoint a new one.” Such, then,
   was the reasoning which the king had with his courtiers. Hence this vain
   persuasion is what the Prophet now demolishes: They raise up their mind to
   the land, that is, they think of a free return at length into their own
   country; for to raise up the mind is to apply the mind or thought to any
   thing. They raise up, then, their mind to the land, that is, the land of
   Judah; but they shall never return thither, whatever they may promise to
   themselves. [68]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [68] The phrase, “to raise or lift up the mind,” or the soul, is to set the
   heart on a thing. The Vulg. has adopted the Hebrew idiom, “to which they
   lift up their soul.” The Sept. leaves out “return,” and have only, “which
   they wish in their souls.” Our version retains the true idea, though it be
   not literal, “whereunto they desire to return;” literally, “where they are
   lifting up their soul to return there:” the two adverbs of place are given,
   the relative adverb and the pronoun adverb, if we may so call them. It is
   the same sort of idiom as when a relative and a pronoun are used, one before
   and the other after the verb, as in Jeremiah 22:25, “whom thou fearest (or
   dreadest) their face,” rightly rendered in our version, “whose face thou
   fearest:” but the Welsh is literally the Hebrew; the idiom is exactly the
   same. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as thou promisest to us rest nowhere except in thy
   celestial kingdom, we may never suffer ourselves, while travelling on the
   earth, to be allured and driven here and there; but may we in the meantime
   call on thee with resigned minds, and thus carry on our warfare, that; how
   much soever thou mayest he pleased by various contests to try and prove us,
   we may still continue to be thy faithful soldiers, until we shall enjoy that
   rest which has been obtained for us by the blood of thine only-begotten Son.
   — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Fourth
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:28

   28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no
   pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a
   land which they know not?

   28. An simulachrum contemptum, contritum, vir iste Coniah? an vas, in quo
   non est oblectatio? ut quid disjecti sunt ipse et semen ejus et projecti
   super terram quam non noverunt?


   As the Prophet was hardly able to convince the Jews of what he had foretold,
   he confirms the same thing; but he speaks here as of what was incredible. He
   assumes the character of one greatly wondering, that others might cease to
   wonder. He then asks, whether it was possible that Jeconiah should be driven
   into exile and there miserably perish? We now see the design of the Prophet,
   that as the Jews thought that the kingdom would be perpetual, it was
   necessary to shake off such a notion, so that they might know that God had
   not in vain threatened what we have already noticed. But there is in these
   questions a kind of irony, for the Prophet might have made a positive
   assertion in plain words; but from regard to others, he hesitates through
   wonder, or seems to doubt as of a thing that was monstrous.

   Is he a statue? he says; some translate “a vessel;” but it seems to be taken
   here, as in other places, in its proper sense, a statue. Is, then, this man
   Coniah a despised and a broken statue? for פוף, puts, is both to fail and to
   break. [69] We have said that a part of his name was left out by way of
   contempt; still, as the Jews were so blinded by the royal dignity that they
   could not believe the prophecy, he asks respecting it as of a thing
   incredible. Is he a vessel? etc., he adds. The Hebrew word כלי, cali, we
   know, is taken for any kind of vessel; for the ancients called all kinds of
   furniture vessels. He asks, then, Is he a contemptible vessel? Is he a
   vessel in which there is no delight? He had before said that he was a
   despised statue. Why are they cast forth, he and his seed, and thrown into a
   land which they have not known? that is, into a remote land? [70] And we
   know that it is a hard lot when one is driven far away from his own country.
   There is, then, no doubt but that the Prophet enhances the grievousness of
   the evil when he speaks of an unknown country: for Zedekiah, who was put on
   the throne, was his uncle; and of his posterity the first was Salathiel,
   born in exile. It now follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [69] The verb means to loose, to set free; and it is here in a passive
   sense, to be loosed or set free. It seems to refer to the setting free the
   idol or statue from its fastenings; therefore, “broken down” would be its
   best rendering. — Ed.

   [70] It is singular that all the early versions soften down the strong terms
   used in this verse; not one of them give a faithful translation. The Sept.,
   the Syr., and the Arab. give hardly the half of the verse, and what they
   give is divested of the tone and spirit of the original. The Vulg. leaves
   out the word “idol” or statue, and puts “an earthen vessel” in its place.
   The whole verse I render as follows, — 28. A contemptible, broken down idol!
   Is this the man Coniah? Is he a vessel in which there is no delight? Why are
   they cast out, he and his seed, And sent into a land which they have not
   known? There is the relative which understood after “vessel” in the third
   line. The Welsh, which in this kind of idiom is exactly the same with the
   Hebrew, admits of the same sort of ellipsis, — Ai llester yw heb hoffder
   ynddo? Which is verbally the Hebrew, “Is he a vessel without delight in
   it?” The “casting out” was from the land of Canaan, and the “sending” was
   into the unknown land. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 22:29-30

   29. O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

   29. Terra, terra, terra, audi sermonem Jehovae,

   30. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not
   prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the
   throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

   30. Sic dicit Jehova, Scribite virum hunc orbum (vel, solitarium) virum, cui
   prospere non erit in diebus suis; quia prospere non habebit quisquam ex
   semine ejus sedens super solium Davidis et dominans adhuc in Jehudah.


   The Prophet more fully confirms what I have lately referred to; and the
   repetition was not superfluous in exclaiming “earth” three times, for as the
   hardness of iron is overcome by the repeated strokes of the hammer, so the
   Prophet repeated the word “earth,” that he might subdue that perverseness in
   which the Jews had so hardened themselves that no threats of God moved them.
   He did not adopt this vehemence, as rhetoricians do who aim to appear
   eloquent; but it was necessity that constrained him thus to assail that
   refractory people, who would have otherwise turned a deaf ear to what we
   have observed and read. By this preface, then, the Prophet especially shews
   that he spoke of God’s dreadful judgment, and also reminded the Jews of the
   certainty of this prophecy, though they were persuaded that the kingdom
   would never fall. Hence in this repetition we see that there is an implied
   reproof, as though he had said that they were indeed deaf, but that it was
   to no purpose, for they would be constrained to see the fulfillment of what
   they did not then believe. Earth, earth, earth, hear, he says. [71]

   Then he adds, Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man solitary, or childless.
   Some think that these words were addressed to angels or to prophets; but I
   regard not such a notion as well founded: this mode of speaking seems rather
   to me to have been taken from common practice, for decrees which were to
   continue in force for a long time were usually written. When an edict was
   proclaimed, and was to be in force only for a few days, it was not commonly
   recorded in the public monuments; but when a law was enacted, which was to
   be binding on posterity, it was written in the public tablets. Then the
   Prophet intimates that this judgment of God could not be rendered void, nor
   would be momentary like decrees which in a few days are disregarded and soon
   forgotten, but that it would be certain and permanent. Write ye, then, this
   man childless This bereavement is set in opposition to the promise of God,
   that there would be perpetual successors to David on his throne as long as
   the sun and moon were in the heavens. (Psalm 89:37.) And the Prophet shews
   here that this promise as to Jeconiah would not be fulfilled. [72]

   And he adds, Write ye this man as one who will not prosper in his days; nay,
   (for כי, seems to me to be emphatic here,) no one of his seed shall prosper;
   and then he adds an explanation, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling
   any more in Judah.

   Now, it is no wonder that the Jews regarded this judgment of God with
   abhorrence, as though it was something monstrous, for God seemed to them to
   be inconsistent with himself, for he had testified that his covenant would
   never be rendered void, and had appealed to the sun and moon as witnesses.
   Hence, when the posterity of David failed, at least when his throne was
   subverted, and no one appeared as his successor, the truth of the promise
   seemed to have failed, which was very strange. But it was possible for God,
   who doeth wonders, to execute such punishment on Jeconiah and on such as
   were like him, and yet in a secret and incomprehensible manner to bring
   things about, so that the covenant which he had made should not wholly fail.
   The grace of God, then, was hidden for a time, but never extinguished; for
   at length a rod did grow up from the stem of Jesse, as it is said by Isaiah.

   However, the words seem to imply otherwise, for Jeconiah is said to be
   solitary, and then unprosperous; and lastly, the Prophet declares that no
   one of his seed would sit on the royal throne. But we must bear in mind that
   these words are to be confined to a temporary punishment, and extend only to
   the coming of Christ, though the posterity of David, as we shall hereafter
   see, did begin to arise in Zerubbabel, but this was only an obscure and a
   small prelude. We must, therefore, come to the time of Christ if we would
   reconcile these two things which seem repugnant, — that Jeconiah became
   childless, and that a successor from the seed of David never failed; it was
   so, because this childlessness was only for a time; and this interruption of
   God’s grace was something like death; but in course of time it appeared that
   God was mindful of his covenant, even at a time when he seemed to have
   forgotten it. And this prophecy, therefore, ought; to be connected with that
   of Ezekiel,

   “Remove ye, remove, remove the crown until he comes whose it is.”
   (Ezekiel 21:26, 27.)

   There, also, Ezekiel repeats the word “remove” three times, as though he had
   said that there would be no kingdom of David, not only for a few months or
   years, but through a series of many ages.

   There is no wonder, then, that the Prophet declares here that Jeconiah would
   be childless, for such a sad calamity for so many ages, as the throne of
   David trodden under foot with scorn and contempt, might have overwhelmed the
   faithful with despair. This, then, was the reason why he said that he would
   be childless, and also that his whole posterity would be under a curse. But
   we must bear in mind that exception, which is expressed by another Prophet,

   “until he comes whose the crown is.” (Ezekiel 21:27)

   For it was reserved for the head of Christ, though for a long time it had
   been exposed to dishonor and to the reproaches of all nations.

   Now it is useful to know this, for we are taught that God is ever so
   consistent with himself, that his covenant, which he has made with Christ
   and with all his members, never fails, and that yet he punishes hypocrites
   even unto death. If any one, during a long period, had sought for the Church
   in the world, there was none in appearance; yet God shewed that he was
   faithful to his promises, for suddenly there arose a people regenerated by
   the Gospel, so that his covenant was not dead, but as it were for a time
   buried. The truth of God, then, was proved by the event; and yet he took a
   dreadful vengeance on the ingratitude of men when he thus blinded the whole
   world, now follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [71] It does not appear whether Calvin meant the earth generally or the land
   of Judea. But the latter most probably is what is intended. The version,
   then, ought to be, “Land, land, land!” The Sept. and the Arab. have “land”
   only twice, but the other versions have it three times as in Hebrew. The
   paraphrase of the Targ. is singular, “From their own land they have made
   them to migrate to another land; land of Israel! hear the words of the
   Lord.” “Land” means often the inhabitants; and what follows proves that it
   has this meaning here; for it is added, “Write ye,” etc. — Ed.

   [72] The word rendered “childless”“ properly means “wholly stripped,” or
   destitute, or “quite naked.” It is rendered “banished” by the Sept., but
   “childless” by the Vulg., the Syr., and the Targ. He was “childless” as a
   king, having had no son as a successor on the throne of David; but he had
   children, see 1 Chronicles 3:17, 18. And that this is the meaning appears
   evident from the end of the verse. Scott thinks that Zedekiah, the uncle of
   Jeconiah, is the person spoken of in these two last verses. He considers
   that the contents of this chapter were repeated in Zedekiah’s reign as a
   warning to him. But this view is not consistent with the general tenor of
   the chapter. See especially Jeremiah 22:13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19; these
   shew evidently that the prophecy was delivered in the time, probably in the
   latter time of Jehoiakim; then the Prophet proceeds, in Jeremiah 22:24 to
   the end of the chapter, prophetically to describe the late of his son
   Jeconiah. And having said that he would be childless as a king, that none of
   his seed would sit on the throne of David, he introduces in the next
   chapter, which is connected with this, the “righteous branch,” the Messiah,
   the King of Zion. The proper division of the chapter is at the ninth verse.
   According to this view there is a perfect consistency, — Jeconiah was the
   last reigning prince in the right line (Zedekiah, his uncle, was not in the
   right line) on the throne of David, as a temporal sovereign; then he, of
   whom David was a type, came, not to sit and to rule on the visible throne of
   David, but on that which it represented. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 23
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:1-3

   1. Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!
   saith the LORD.

   1. Vae Pastoribus qui perdunt et dissipant gregem pascuorum meorum! dicit
   Jehova.

   2. Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed
   my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not
   visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith
   the LORD.

   2. Propterea sic dicit Jehova, Deus Israel, super Pastores pascentes populum
   meum, Vos dissipastis gregem meum et dispulistis, et non visitastis eos
   (vel, oves meas;) Ecce ego visitans (hoc est, visitabo) super vos malitiam
   actionum vestrarum, dicit Jehova:

   3. And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I
   have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall
   be fruitful and increase.

   3. Ego autem colligam residuum ovium mearum ex omnibus terris, ad quas
   expulero eas, et reverti faciam eas ad caulas suas, et fructificabunt et
   multiplicabuntur.


   Here the Prophet promises the restoration of the Church; but he reminds
   hypocrites that there was no reason for them on that account to flatter
   themselves, especially the king, his councillors, and the priests. Then this
   prophecy is a mixture of promises and threatenings, for God promises that he
   would be propitious to the miserable Jews, after having chastised them, so
   that the seed of Abraham might not be entirely cut off: he yet deprives
   hypocrites of vain confidence, so that they might not falsely apply to
   themselves the hope of salvation, from which they had excluded themselves by
   their impiety. And this is what ought to be noticed, for as soon as God’s
   mercy is offered, hypocrites apply to themselves whatever God promises, and
   become more and more insolent, as though they held him bound to them; for
   impunity leads them to take more liberty to sin. Hence it is that they boast
   that they are safe, for they consider themselves to be the people of God.
   The Prophet, therefore, teaches here that whatever God promises belongs to
   his elect, that it does not appertain indiscriminately to all, nor ought to
   be extended to hypocrites who falsely pretend his name, but that it
   peculiarly belongs to the elect, though they may be small in number, and
   though they may be despised.

   He says first, Wo to the pastors who destroy, [73] etc. Here are contrary
   things — a pastor and a destroyer! But he concedes to them the name which
   was honorable; and yet he derides their false boasting, for they thought
   that they could hide their crimes under this shade, falsely claimed. Though
   then he calls them pastors, he yet removes the mask, and thus shews that
   they in vain boasted while they assumed the name of pastors. “Ye are
   pastors,” he says, ““and ye are destroyers! who dissipate or scatter the
   flock of my pastures.” [74]

   Here God shews the reason why he was so grievously displeased with these
   pastors; for by exercising tyranny over the people, they not only injured
   men, but also injured and dishonored God, who had received under his own
   protection his chosen people. It is indeed true that they deserved such a
   scattering; for we have already seen in many places, that the people could
   by no means be excused when they were deceived by wicked and unfaithful
   leaders; for in this way was rendered to them all their past reward for
   having provoked God’s wrath against themselves, from the least to the
   greatest. But the impiety of wicked pastors was not on this account
   excusable; for they ought to have considered for what purpose this burden
   was laid on them, and also by whom they had been appointed. God then
   intimates that great injury was done to him, when the people were thus so
   ignominiously scattered. He was himself the chief pastor; he had put as it
   were in his own place the king and his counsellors and also the priests.
   Justly then does he now condemn them, because they had destroyed the flock
   of God, according to what is said in another place,

   “That they had destroyed his vineyard.”
   (Jeremiah 12:10; Isaiah 5:3)

   In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of his pastures, he does not
   regard what they deserved, or what they were, but he, on the contrary, sets
   forth the favor bestowed on the seed of Abraham. He has respect then here to
   his gratuitous adoption, though the Jews had rendered themselves unworthy of
   such a benefit.

   He afterwards adds, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, to the pastors
   who feed my people In the same sense he calls them now his people, as he had
   called them before the flock of his pastures. They had alienated themselves
   from God, and he had already by his own decree repudiated them; and God
   might in one respect have deemed them aliens; and yet in respect of the
   covenant he acknowledged them as his own; and hence he calls them his people
   He now then confirms what we have already noticed, that these pastors were
   not only thieves and robbers, but also sacrilegious; for they not only had
   exercised cruelty towards the flock, but as far as they could injured and
   dishonored God himself, who had undertaken the care of that people.

   But there is here a twofold concession, he calls them pastors, and they are
   said to feed the people. He had said before that they destroyed and
   scattered the flock, and now he says that they fed them; but in what sense
   we well know, for by this kind of irony he meant to reprove them; they
   boasted that they were pastors, and they thought that their crimes would by
   such a covering be buried in the sight of God, as in the sight of men. In a
   similar manner when we speak in the present day of the Pope and his mitred
   bishops and filthy clergy, we use expressions which are commonly employed.
   But Antichrist is everything but a father, and we know how far they are from
   being really bishops who assume the title; and as to the clergy, the name is
   sacred, but they are very far from being God’s heritage. We indeed make no
   account of these empty titles. But it is a great aggravation of their guilt,
   that they being devils, should assume angelic names, that they being wolves
   and robbers, and sacrilegious, should falsely pretend God’s name, and
   recommend themselves by spurious titles, as though they were pastors,
   bishops, abbots, and prelates, and what not.

   So then our Prophet calls those whom he condemns, by way of taunt, pastors,
   and says that they fed, that is, were called for this end, to do this work.
   But he afterwards adds, My flock have ye scattered, and driven away, and not
   visited [75] Surely it was not to feed, to have no care for the sheep. To
   visit is to be extended here to every part of the duty of overseeing, as
   though he had said, that the flock had been by them neglected, betrayed, and
   deserted. We hence see that they had wholly neglected their pastoral office.
   But the other two things are still worse, for they had scattered and driven
   away the flock. Their sloth in neglecting the flock was not to be tolerated;
   but it was still more intolerable when they exercised so much cruelty as to
   scatter the flock as though they were deadly enemies; and yet these are the
   things for which Jeremiah condemns them. We hence see that there was an
   implied taunt, when he conceded to them the office of feeding.

   He then denounces judgment on them, I will visit upon you the wickedness of
   your doings Here God declares that he would punish the pastors, to whom was
   justly ascribed the scattering of the people. For though no one was exempt
   from blame, as it has been before stated; yet the main fault belonged to
   these pastors. This then is the reason why God declares that he would take
   vengeance; for he would not have his flock scattered with impunity.

   It then follows, And I will gather my flock. As they had driven the people
   away, so God promises that it would be his care to gather them. And yet he
   ascribes to himself what he had imputed to them — that he had driven away
   his flock, but in a different sense; the pastors had scattered the flock,
   not only by their sloth, but also by their cruelty, for they became
   rapacious wolves; but God had punished the people, for they all had fully
   deserved such a scattering. We hence see that the ungodly execute God’s
   judgment; but they are not on this account excusable as though they were
   God’s ministers, for they have nothing less in view. Nor can God be involved
   in their sin, while he thus employs them to execute his purpose. In short,
   the scattering of the people was a just punishment from God, for they had
   all departed from the faith, they had broken the sacred bond of the
   covenant, by which God had bound them to himself. It was also the fault of
   the pastors, because they avariciously and cruelly tyrannized over them. The
   pastors, as I have said, were not only the priests, but also the king and
   his counsellors.

   I will gather, he says, not the flock, but the remnant of the sheep God
   intimates here that he would be so merciful as to receive unto favor, not
   all indiscriminately, but a small number, constituting the elect. And hence
   Paul carefully distinguished between the people and the remnant of grace, or
   the gratuitous remnant; for Christ appeared by his coming to have abolished
   the covenant by which God had adopted the children of Abraham, but Paul does
   not admit this. Now, if any one objects and says that the greater part of
   the people had been cut off, this he allows; but he says that the covenant
   remains valid in the remnant, and produces also examples, such as that of
   which we now speak. God then has ever been the preserver of his Church; and
   thus his gratuitous adoption, by which he had chosen the seed of Abraham,
   never fails. But this adoption is effectual only as to the remnant.

   As to the word remnant, the fewness of those whom God had resolved to gather
   is not only intimated, but also the vengeance, which as to time had gone
   before; for God seemed to have destroyed the Jews when they were driven away
   into various lands, as they had no name remaining, the kingdom and the
   priesthood were abolished. It was therefore a certain kind of death, as I
   have before said; but God here declares that there would be some remnant,
   according to what is said in Isaiah 10:22, that God saved a few as it were
   from the consumption; for he refers there to the very few that remained
   alive, when they thought that all was over with the whole people, that there
   was no hope of restoration.

   I will gather, he says, the residue of my sheep from all the lands to which
   I shall have driven them He again confirms what I have stated, that there
   would be no place for mercy until he had cleansed his Church from its many
   filthy pollutions. The scattering then of the people into various lands was
   the purgation of the Church, according to what God says, that he would
   separate the refuse and the chaff from the wheat in chastising his people;
   for as the chaff and the refuse are blown here and there when the wheat is
   winnowed, and the wheat only remains and is afterwards laid up in the
   granary; so when God drove his people away into various lands, he then
   purged his Church. If any one objects and says, “Then the remnant were dealt
   with like the refuse;” it is true as to the individuals, but God refers here
   to himself, when he calls them his own, sheep, who were yet unworthy of such
   an honor.

   He then adds, that he would bring them back to their folds, [76] that they
   might be fruitful, that is, bring forth and increase, and be multiplied By
   folds he no doubt means the land of Canaan; for there was then no wealth in
   the world which the Jews would have preferred to the inheritance promised to
   them; the whole world was to them an exile. For God had chosen that land in
   which they dwelt, and had consecrated it to himself, and he gave it to them
   as an earnest or a pledge of the eternal inheritance. Rightly then does he
   now call that land folds, for they lived there under his guardianship and
   protection. The temple was as it were the pastoral staff; they knew that God
   dwelt there, that being protected by his power they might continue in
   safety. Since then there was safety for them under God’s protection in the
   land of Canaan, he calls it their fold. Then he says, that they may be
   fruitful, and be multiplied; for among other blessings their increase was
   not the least. He afterwards adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [73] It is an exclamation in the Sept. and Syr.; “Oh! the Pastors,” etc.,
   but a denunciation in the Vulg. and the Targ., “Wo to the Pastors,” etc. The
   original may be rendered in either way; the latter is the most suitable
   here. — Ed.

   [74] The word is singular in Hebrew, “pasture,” or feeding. — Ed

   [75] The meaning seems to be that they had caused the flock to be scattered
   and driven away through their bad conduct, because they did not take care of
   them, as the last verb means. The two first verbs are indeed in Hiphil, and
   may be rendered causatively thus, — Ye have caused my sheep to be scattered,
   And have caused them to be driven away; And ye have not cared for them. The
   last verb is not in Hiphil, and states the reason why the sheep had been
   dispersed. It means to oversee, to take care of, to attend to. The
   dispersion was owing to the neglect of the pastors in taking care of the
   sheep. The scattering or dispersion was their exile; which God states in the
   third verse was his act as a punishment for their wickedness, but the cause
   of dispersion was the conduct of the pastors. We see here an instance of the
   order in which ideas are often stated by the Prophets. Scattering, though
   mentioned first, is the last act, the most ostensible; the driving out of
   the land was the previous act, and the first in order, though the last
   stated, was the neglect of the pastors in taking an oversight of them. It is
   to begin with the effect and to go back to the cause. “You have caused them
   to be scattered to all lands, you have made them to be driven out of their
   own land, and you have neglected to take care of them.” These are the three
   points of accusation, but stated in an inverted order. There are constant
   instances of this kind of arrangement. — Ed.

   [76] “To their own pasture,” is the Sept. and Arab.; “to their own
   country,” the Vulg.; “to their own fold,” the Syr.; “to their own places,”
   the Targ. The Hebrew is, “to their own folds;” the word is plural, and means
   generally “habitations,” either for men, or cattle, or beasts. As sheep are
   mentioned, “folds” no doubt is the proper word. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:4

   4. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they
   shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith
   the LORD.

   4. Et excitabo super eos pastores, et pascent eos (hoc est, qui pascant,) et
   non timebunt amplius, et non pavebunt, et non deficient, dicit Jehova.


   He confirms the promise, for he would give them faithful and true pastors,
   who would perform their office as it behoved them; for it would not be
   enough that the sheep should be restored to their folds, except they were
   fed. We indeed know that a sheep is a silly animal, and therefore has need
   of a shepherd to rule and guide it. God then intimates by these words, that
   after he had collected his flock into the fold it would be the object of his
   constant care; for he would appoint pastors, who would discharge their
   office in a far different way from wolves and sacrilegious robbers. He then
   adds a promise as to their security, which we shall consider tomorrow.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that since thou didst formerly take such heavy
   vengeance on the impiety of thine ancient people, that thou didst not spare
   even kings, who were representatives of Christ, nor their counsellors, — O
   grant, that we at this day may continue in obedience to thy word, and not so
   kindle thy vengeance against us by our ingratitude, as to provoke thee to
   punish us with that sad and dreadful desolation which thou formerly didst
   not in vain denounce on thy people; but may thy Church become more and more
   fruitful, so that we may know that thou art really gracious to us; and may
   we thus in quietness give thee thanks, and suffer ourselves to be ruled by
   thee, even by the hand of thine only-begotten Son, until we shall be
   gathered from our scattering in this world into that eternal rest which he
   has obtained for us by his own blood. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Fifth

   We said in our yesterday’s Lecture, that when the Lord promised to give
   pastors, he pointed out by this mode of speaking the continuance of his
   favor; as though he had said, that he would not only be the Redeemer of his
   people, but would also take care of the safety of those whom he delivered
   from exile. The two things are indeed necessary, for it would have profited
   them nothing to have the hand of God stretched forth once in their behalf,
   except he continued his favors to them to the end. The sum of the whole,
   then, is this, that the Jews, after being restored to their own country,
   would be under God’s protection, so that their safety would be secured, and
   be permanent and not momentary.

   By adding, they shall not fear, nor dread, nor fail, [77] or be lessened, he
   intimates that the Jews would be in a tranquil state under the pastors whom
   he would set over them. And we know that the duty of a true pastor consists
   of two parts; for it is not enough for him to rule and guide the sheep,
   except He also defends them against all violence, the incursions of robbers
   and wolves. Now, this tranquillity is set in contrast with the disquietude
   with which the Jews had been for a long time harassed; for we know that they
   had been tossed with great anxieties, owing to the continual incursions of
   their enemies. As, then, they were trembling continually when they heard
   rumors of war, God promises them here a better condition, as we shall
   hereafter see more clearly. It now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [77] This verb is omitted by the Sept. and Arab., and rendered, “no one of
   their number shall be sought,” by the Vulg.; “nor wander,” by the Syr.; “nor
   be moved,” by the Targ. Our version has followed that of Montanus, “neither
   shall they be lacking.” Venema and Gataker render it, “nor shall they be
   missing;” and Blayney, “nor shall they be visited,” that is, with judgment.
   But the verb is used in the sense of being wanting or missing, see Numbers
   31:49; 1 Samuel 25:7; 15:21; and this is the meaning most suitable to this
   passage, — And I will set over them pastors, And they will feed them; And
   they shall fear no more, nor be terrified, Nor be missing, saith Jehovah.
   — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:5-6

   5. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a
   righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute
   judgment and justice in the earth.

   5. Ecce dies veniunt, dicit Jehova, et suscitabo Davidi germen justum; et
   regnabit rex, et prudenter (vel, prospere) aget: faciet judicium et
   justitiam in terra.

   6. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this
   is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

   6. Diebus ejus servabitur Jehudah, et Israel habitabit in fiducia (hoc est,
   tranquille: et hoc nomen, quo vocabunt eum, Jehova justitia nostra.


   The Prophet confirms what he had before said of the renewal of the Church;
   for it would not have been in itself sufficiently strong to say “I have
   promised pastors who shall faithfully perform their duty,” except the only
   true Pastor had been set before them, on whom God’s covenant was founded,
   and from whom was to be expected the accomplishment of the promises which
   were hoped for. And it was usual with all the prophets, whenever they gave
   the people the hope of salvation, to bring forward the coming of the
   Messiah, for in him have God’s promises always been, yea, and amen. (2
   Corinthians 1:20.) This, indeed, appears now, under the Gospel, more clear
   than formerly; but the faith of the Fathers could not have been complete
   except they directed their thoughts to the Messiah. As, then, neither the
   love of God could have been made certain to the Fathers, nor the testimony
   of his kindness and paternal favor be confirmed without Christ, this is the
   reason why the prophets were wont to set Christ before their eyes whenever
   they sought to inspire the miserable with a good hope, who otherwise must
   have been overwhelmed with sorrow and driven into despair.

   What, therefore, so often occurs in the prophets is deserving of special
   notice, so that we may know that God’s promises will become ineffectual to
   us, or be suspended, or even vanish away, except we raise all our thoughts
   to Christ, and seek in him what would not be otherwise certain and sure to
   us.

   According to this principle the Prophet now says, that the days would come
   in which God would raise up to David a righteous branch He had spoken
   generally of pastors; but the Jews might have still been in doubt, and
   hesitated to believe that any such thing could be hoped for; hence God calls
   here their attention to the Messiah; as though he had said, that no hope of
   salvation could be entertained except through the Mediator who had been
   promised to them, and that therefore they were not sufficiently wise except
   they turned their minds to him. Moreover, as the accomplishment of salvation
   was to be expected through the Mediator, God shews that the promise, that he
   would give them pastors, ought not to be doubted. Hence it appears that I
   rightly stated at the beginning, that the former doctrine is confirmed by
   this passage in which God promises the coming of the Mediator. And the
   demonstrative particle, behold, as we have elsewhere seen, is intended to
   shew certainty; and it was necessary for the Jews to be thus confirmed,
   because the time had not as yet arrived, and we know that their faith must
   have been grievously shaken by so many and so long trials, had they not some
   support. God, then, seems to point out the event as by the finger, though it
   was as yet very remote. He does not intimate a short time, but he thus
   speaks for the sake of making the thing certain, so that they might not
   faint through a long expectation. Come, then, he says, shall the days in
   which he will raise up to David a righteous branch

   Though the preposition ל, lamed, is often redundant, yet in this place it
   seems to me that God has a reference to the covenant which he had made with
   David. And the Prophet did this designedly, because the Jews were unworthy
   of being at all regarded by God; but he here promises that he would be
   faithful to that covenant which he had once made with David, because David
   himself was also faithful and embraced with true faith the promise made to
   him. God then, as though he would have nothing to do with that perverse and
   irreclaimable people, but with his servant David, says, “I will raise up to
   David a righteous branch;” as though he had said, “Though ye were even a
   hundred times unworthy of having a Deliverer, yet the memory of David shall
   ever remain complete with me, as he was perfect and faithful in keeping my
   covenant.” Now, it cannot be doubted but that the Prophet speaks here of
   Christ.

   The Jews, in order to obscure this prophecy, will have this to be applied to
   all the descendants of David; and thus they imagine an earthly kingdom, such
   as it was under Solomon and others. But such a thing cannot certainly be
   gathered from the words of the Prophet; for he does not speak here of many
   kings, but of one only. The word “branch,” I allow, may be taken in a
   collective sense; but what is afterwards said? A king shall reign They may
   also pervert this, for the word “king” is often taken for successors in a
   kingdom. This is indeed true; but we ought to consider the whole context. It
   is said, in his days Hence it appears evident that some particular king is
   intended, and that the words ought not to be applied to many. And the last
   clause is a further confirmation, This shall be his name, by which they
   shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness Here also the Jews pervert the
   words, for they make God the nominative case to the verb, as though the
   words were, “Jehovah shall call him our righteousness;” but this is contrary
   to all reason, for all must see that it is a forced and strained version.
   Thus these miserable men betray their own perverseness; for they pervert,
   without any shame, all the testimonies in favor of Christ; and they think it
   enough to elude whatever presses hard on them.

   We must now, then, understand that this passage cannot be explained of any
   but of Christ only. The design of the Holy Spirit we have already explained;
   God had from the beginning introduced this pledge whenever he intended to
   confirm faith in his promises; for without Christ God cannot be a Father and
   a Savior to men; nor could he have been reconciled to the Jews, because they
   had departed from him. How, indeed, could they have been received into favor
   without expiation? and how could they have hoped that God would become a
   Father to them, except they were reconciled to him? Hence without Christ
   they could not rely on the promises of salvation. Rightly, then, have I
   said, that this passage ought to be confined to the person of Christ.

   And we know of a certainty that he alone was a righteous branch; for though
   Hezekiah and Josiah were lawful successors, yet when we think of others, we
   must say, that they were monsters. Doubtless, with the exception of three or
   four, they were all spurious and covenant-breakers; yea, I say, spurious,
   for they had nothing in common with David, whom they ought to have taken as
   an example of piety. Since, then, they were wholly unlike their father
   David, they could not have been called righteous branches. They were,
   indeed, perfidious and apostates, for they had departed from God and his
   law. We hence see that there is here an implied contrast between Christ and
   all those spurious children who yet had descended from David, though wholly
   unworthy of such an honor on account of their impiety. Therefore as these
   kings had roused God’s wrath against the people, and had been the cause of
   their exile, the Prophet says now, that there would be at length a righteous
   branch; [78] that is, that though those did all they could to subvert God’s
   covenant by their wicked deeds, there would come at length the true and the
   only Son, who is elsewhere called the first-born in the whole world, (Psalm
   89:27,) and that he would be a righteous branch.

   And this ought to be carefully noticed; for neither Hezekiah nor Josiah, nor
   any like them, when viewed in themselves, were worthy of this sacred
   distinction,

   “I will make him the first-born in the earth;” and further,
   “My Son art thou.” (Psalm 2:7.)

   This could not have been said of any mortal man, viewed in himself. And then
   it is said,

   “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son;”

   and the Apostle tells us, that this cannot be applied even to angels.
   (Hebrews 1:5.) As, then, this dignity is higher than angels’ glory, it is
   certain that none of David’s successors were worthy of such an honor. Hence
   Christ is justly called a righteous Branch. At the same time, the Prophet,
   as I have already reminded you, seems to set the perfect integrity of Christ
   in opposition to the impiety of those who under a false pretense had
   exercised authority, as though they were of that sacred race of whom it had
   been said, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.”

   It follows, — And reign shall a king This also has not been added without
   reason, shortly after Jeconiah had been driven into exile, and also the
   whole royal family had been exposed to every kind of reproach. The crown,
   indeed, was cast on the ground, as it has already appeared, and was trodden
   under feet. There was, therefore, no hope of a future kingdom when the seed
   of Abraham had become, as it were, extinct. This is the reason why God
   promises what we now hear of the restoration of the throne; and we may
   easily infer from what all the prophets have said, that the salvation of the
   people was dependent on the person of their king; and whenever God bade the
   people to entertain hope, he set a king before their eyes. A king was to be
   their head under God’s government. We now see the design of the Prophet in
   saying, that a king would reign

   Some think that a king is to be understood as in opposition to a tyrant,
   because many kings had departed from their duty, and committed robbery under
   that specious authority. I have no doubt but that the word king was
   expressed, lest the people should doubt the fulfillment of this prophecy;
   for if it had been only said, “I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
   and he shall reign,” they might, indeed, have entertained some hope, but it
   would have been small, and not full and complete. We, indeed, know that
   Zerubbabel and others excelled in some things, and were highly regarded for
   David’s sake; but there was then no kingdom. God therefore intended here
   expressly to testify that there would be the high privilege of a kingdom,
   that there might be nothing wanting to the Jews, as the power of Christ
   would not be inferior to the power of David. Reign, then, shall a king; that
   is, he shall reign gloriously, so that there would not be merely some
   remnants of pristine dignity, but that a king would flourish, become strong,
   and attain perfection, such as it was under David and Solomon, and much more
   excellent. [79]

   It follows, — And shall act prudently, and shall do judgment and justice in
   the land; or, “he shall prosper,” for שכל, shecal, means both; yet the
   Prophet seems here to speak of right judgment rather than of success, for
   the two clauses ought to be read together, “he shall act prudently,” and “he
   shall do judgment and justice.” It seems then that he means this in short,
   — that Christ would be endued with the spirit of wisdom as well as of
   uprightness and equity, so that he would possess all the qualifications, and
   fulfill all the duties of a good and perfect king. [80]

   And in the first place, wisdom or prudence is necessary; for probity alone
   would not be sufficient in a king. In private individuals indeed it is of no
   small value; but probity in a king, without wisdom, will avail but little,
   hence, the Prophet here commends Christ for his good discernment, and then
   mentions his zeal for equity and justice. It is indeed true that Christ’s
   excellences are not sufficiently set forth by expressions such as these; but
   the similitude is taken from men; for the first endowment of a king is
   wisdom, and then integrity in the second place. And we know that Christ is
   often compared to earthly kings, or set forth to us under the image of an
   earthly king, in which we may see him; for God accommodates himself to our
   ignorance. As, then, we cannot comprehend the unspeakable justice of Christ
   or his wisdom, hence God, that he may by degrees lead us to the knowledge of
   Christ, shadows him forth to us under these figures or types. Though, then,
   what is said here does not come up to the perfection of Christ, yet the
   comparison ought not to be deemed improper; for God speaks to us according
   to the measure of our capacities, and could not at once in a few words fully
   express what Christ is. But we must bear in mind that from earthly kings we
   must ascend to Christ; for though he is compared to them, yet there is no
   equality; after having contemplated in the type what our minds can
   comprehend, we ought to ascend farther and much higher.

   Hence, the difference between the righteousness of Christ and the
   righteousness of kings ought to be here noticed. They who rule well can in
   no other way administer righteousness and judgment than by being careful to
   render to every one his own, and that by checking the audacity of the
   wicked, and by defending the good and the innocent; this only is what can be
   expected from earthly kings. But Christ is far different; for he is not only
   wise so as to know what is right and best, but he also endues his own people
   with wisdom and knowledge; he executes judgment and righteousness, not only
   because he defends the innocent, aids them who are oppressed, gives help to
   the miserable, and restrains the wicked; but he doeth righteousness, because
   he regenerates us by his Spirit, and he also doeth judgment, because he
   bridles, as it were, the devil. We now then understand the design of what I
   said, that we ought to mark the transcendency of Christ over earthly kings,
   and also the analogy; for there is some likeness and some difference: the
   difference between Christ and other kings is very great, and yet there is a
   likeness in some things; and earthly kings are set forth to us as figures
   and types of him.

   It then follows, that Judah shall be saved in the days of this king. By days
   we are not to understand the life only of Christ, which he lived in this
   world, but that perpetuity of which Isaiah speaks, when in wonder he asks,

   “His age who shall declare?” (Isaiah 53:8;)

   for he died once, that he might live to God, according to what Paul says.
   (Romans 6:10.) It was then but a short beginning of life when Christ was
   manifested in the world, and held converse with men; but his life is to
   continue for ever. It is then the same thing as though the Prophet had said,
   that when Christ came and descended from the Father, the Church would be
   saved.

   If it be now asked, “How long shall it be saved?” the answer is, “As long as
   the King himself shall continue; and there is no end to his kingdom.” It
   follows then that the salvation of the Church will be for ever. This is the
   import of the whole.

   Now, though the Prophet speaks of the deliverance of the people, there is
   yet no doubt but that he especially sets forth what properly belongs to the
   kingdom of Christ. He is set over us as a king, that he might be our Savior;
   and his salvation, though it extends to our bodies, ought yet to be viewed
   as properly belonging to our souls; for the kingdom of Christ is spiritual,
   and so is everything connected with it. Hence, when the Prophet says that
   saved would be Judah, it is the same thing as though he promised that the
   happiness of the Church would be real and solid under Christ.

   He adds, Israel shall dwell in confidence; for in a happy life the first
   thing is, that we possess tranquil and quiet minds; for tranquillity has not
   been without reason commended by the ancients. When all things which men
   covet are heaped together, and what they think necessary for happiness, they
   yet cannot be otherwise than miserable if their minds are not in a right
   state. It is not then without cause that tranquillity is added, when mention
   is made of salvation. And experience itself teaches us, that we have no
   salvation, unless we, relying on Christ the Mediator, have peace with God,
   as Paul also mentions it as the fruit of faith, and shews that we cannot
   otherwise but be always miserable: we have peace, he says, with God. (Romans
   5:1.) He hence also concludes that our very miseries are a help to our
   salvation; for afflictions prove patience, patience exercises hope, and hope
   never makes us ashamed; and the proof of this is added, because God thus
   really shews that he is present with us.

   We hence see how fitly the Prophet connects tranquillity of mind with
   happiness. Moreover it is certain that we do not yet enjoy either salvation
   or peace, such as are here promised; but let us learn by faith what
   salvation is, and also what is rest even in the midst of the agitations to
   which we are continually exposed; for we recumb on God when we cast our
   anchor in heaven. Since, then, the Prophet says here that Judah would be
   saved and that Israel would be in a tranquil state, let us know that he
   includes the whole kingdom of Christ from the beginning to the end, and that
   therefore it is no wonder that he speaks of that perfect happiness, the
   first fruits of which now only appear.

   He then adds, And this is the name by which they shall call him, Jehovah our
   Righteousness By these words the Prophet shews more clearly that he speaks
   not generally of David’s posterity, however excellent they may have been,
   but of the Mediator, who had been promised, and on whom depended the
   salvation of the people; for he says that this would be his name, Jehovah
   our Righteousness [81]

   Those Jews, who seem more modest than others, and dare not, through a dogged
   pertinacity, to corrupt this passage, do yet elude the application of this
   title to Christ, though it be suitable to him; for they say that the name is
   given to him, because he is the minister of God’s justice, as though it was
   said, that whenever this king appeared all would acknowledge God’s justice
   as shining forth in him. And they adduce other similar passages, as when
   Moses calls the altar, “Jehovah my banner,” or my protection. (Exodus
   17:15.) But there is no likeness whatever between an altar and Christ. For
   the same purpose they refer to another passage, where it is said,

   “And this is the name by which they shall call Jerusalem,
   Jehovah our peace.” (Ezekiel 48:35)

   Now Moses meant nothing else than that the altar was a monument of God’s
   protection; and Ezekiel only teaches, that the Church would be as it were a
   mirror in which God’s mercy would be seen, as it would shine forth then, as
   it were, visibly. But this cannot for the same reason be applied to Christ;
   he is set forth here as a Redeemer, and a name is given to him, — what name?
   the name of God. But the Jews object and say, that he was God’s minister,
   and that it might therefore be in a sense applied to him, though he was no
   more than a man.

   But all who without strife and prejudice judge of things, can easily see
   that this name is suitably applied to Christ, as he is God; and the Son of
   David belongs to him as he is man. The Son of David and Jehovah is one and
   the same Redeemer. Why is he called the Son of David? even because it was
   necessary that he should be born of that family. Why then is he called
   Jehovah? we hence conclude that there is something in him more excellent
   than what is human; and he is called Jehovah, because he is the
   only-begotten Son of God, of one and the same essence, glory, eternity, and
   divinity with the Father.

   It hence appears evident to all who judge impartially and considerately,
   that Christ is set forth here in his twofold character, so that the Prophet
   brings before us both the glory of his divinity and the reality of his
   humanity. And we know how necessary it was that Christ should come forth as
   God and man; for salvation cannot be expected in any other way than from
   God; and Christ must confer salvation on us, and not only be its minister.
   And then, as he is God, he justifies us, regenerates us, illuminates us into
   a hope of eternal life; to conquer sin and death is doubtless what only can
   be effected by divine power. Hence Christ, except he was God, could not have
   performed what we had to expect from him. It was also necessary that he
   should become man, that he might unite us to himself; for we have no access
   to God, except we become the friends of Christ; and how can we be so made,
   except by a brotherly union? It was not then without the strongest reason,
   that the Prophet here sets Christ before us both as a true man and the Son
   of David, and also as God or Jehovah, for he is the only-begotten Son of
   God, and ever the same in wisdom and glory with the Father, as John
   testifies in Jeremiah 17:5, 11.

   We now then perceive the simple and real meaning of this passage, even that
   God would restore his Church, because what he had promised respecting a
   Redeemer stood firm and inviolable. Then he adds what this Redeemer would be
   and what was to be expected from him; he declares that he would be the true
   God and yet the Son of David; and he also bids us to expect righteousness
   from him, and everything necessary to a full and perfect happiness.

   But by saying, God our righteousness, the Prophet still more fully shews
   that righteousness is not in Christ as though it were only his own, but that
   we have it in common with him, for he has nothing separate from us. God,
   indeed, must ever be deemed just, though iniquity prevailed through the
   whole world; and men, were they all wicked, could do nothing to impugn or
   mar the righteousness of God. But yet God is not our righteousness as he is
   righteous in himself, or as having his own peculiar righteousness; and as he
   is our judge, his own righteousness is adverse to us. But Christ’s
   righteousness is of another kind: it is ours, because Christ is righteous
   not for himself, but possesses a righteousness which he communicates to us.
   We hence see that the true character of Christ is here set forth, not that
   he would come to manifest divine justice, but to bring righteousness, which
   would avail to the salvation of men, For if we regard God in himself, as I
   have said, he is indeed righteous, but is not our righteousness. If, then,
   we desire to have God as our righteousness, we must seek Christ; for this
   cannot be found except in him. The righteousness of God has been set forth
   to us in Christ; and all who turn away from him, though they may take many
   circuitous courses, can yet never find the righteousness of God. Hence Paul
   says that he has been given or made to us righteousness, — for what end?
   that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (1 Corinthians 1:30.)
   Since, then, Christ is made our righteousness, and we are counted the
   righteousness of God in him, we hence learn how properly and fitly it has
   been said that he would be Jehovah, not only that the power of his divinity
   might defend us, but also that we might become righteous in him, for he is
   not only righteous for himself, but he is our righteousness. [82]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [78] The Sept. and Arab. give, “a righteous sun-rising — anatolēn
   dikaian;” the Vulg., “a righteous branch;” the Syr., “a ray of
   righteousness.” The Vulg. is alone correct, as there can be no doubt as to
   the original words. — Ed

   [79] We cannot express the words in our language without changing the terms
   as follows, “And a ruler shall rule,” or, “a reigner shall reign.” Bochart
   says that this double use of the same word, as a substantive and a verb,
   imports in Hebrew what is enhancive, according to what Calvin says here. The
   king was to be a king indeed, with full power and dignity, and with a large
   extent of empire. The Welsh will express the words literally, — A
   breniniaetha brenin. And so it is rendered in Greek, — Kai basileusei
   basileus — Ed.

   [80] The verb שכל first means to be wise or prudent, and in Hiphil, as here,
   to understand, to act wisely or prudently; and secondly, as the natural
   effect of wisdom, it means sometimes to prosper. But the first sense is
   given to it here by all the Versions: “and shall understand,” is the
   Septuagint; “and shall be wise,” the Vulgate; “and shall act prudently,” the
   Syriac. Our version is the Targum, Blayney gives the same idea with Calvin,
   “and shall act wisely;” which is no doubt the correct one. — Ed

   [81] See [2]the Preface to this volume.

   [82] “This king,” says Venema, “is the true God, the meritorious cause and
   pledge of our righteousness, and also the efficient cause and exemplar of
   all holiness, piety, and virtue.” He holds that Messiah alone is spoken of
   here, and blames Grotius for applying the passage in the first place to
   Zerubbabel, and maintains that what is said here cannot be applied to any
   but to the Messiah. He mentions, as a proof of this, his name — “a righteous
   Branch;” his royal dignity — “a king shall reign;” his title — “Jehovah our
   righteousness,” his prosperity and the security of his kingdom. All these
   things comport with the character of no one, but with that of our Lord Jesus
   Christ. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that we, having been all slaves to sin and to iniquity,
   but regenerated by the Spirit of thy only-begotten Son, may truly and with
   sincere desire seek to serve and worship thee alone, and so consecrate
   ourselves to thee, that it may appear that we do not falsely profess the
   name of Christ, but that we are truly his members, being partakers of that
   new life which he brought us; and may we make such progress in it, that,
   having finished our course on earth, we may at length come to that fullness
   of life and happiness which has been procured for us by him, and which is
   laid up in heaven for us. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Sixth
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:7-8

   7. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more
   say, the LORD liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the
   land of Egypt;

   7. Propterea ecce dies veniunt, (venient,) dicit Jehova, quibus non dicetur
   (ad verbum, et non dicetur, — non dicent) amplius, Vivit Jehova, qui eduxit
   filios Israel e terra Egypti;

   8. But, the LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the
   house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I
   had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

   8. Quin potius, Vivit Jehova, qui eduxit et adduxit (ascendere fecit et
   introduxit, ad verbum) semen domus Israel e terra Aquilonis, et ex omnibus
   terris, ad quas expuleram eos illue; et habitabunt super terram suam. [83]


   The Prophet, after having spoken of the Redeemer who was to be sent, now
   sets forth in high terms that great favor of God, and says that it would be
   so remarkable and glorious, that the former redemption would be nothing to
   the greatness and excellency of this. When the children of Israel were
   brought up out of Egypt, God, we know, testified his power by many miracles,
   in order that this favor towards his people might appear the more
   illustrious; and rightly did the Prophets exhort and encourage the faithful
   to entertain good hope by calling to their minds what was then done. But our
   Prophet enhances the second redemption by this comparison, that hereafter
   the kindness of God, with which he favored his people when he delivered them
   from the bondage of Egypt, would not be remembered, but that something more
   remarkable would be done, so that all would talk of it, and that all would
   proclaim the immense benefit, which God would confer on them in delivering
   them from their exile in Babylon. [84]

   He then says that the days would come in which it would not be said, Live
   does Jehovah, who brought his people from Egypt, but who brought his people
   from the land of the North [85] Yet he does not mean that the memory of
   God’s favor towards the Israelites, when he brought them from Egypt, was to
   be abolished; but he reasons here from the less to the greater, as though he
   had said that it was an evidence of God’s favor that could not be
   sufficiently praised, when he delivered his people from the land of Egypt,
   that if it were taken by itself, it was worthy of being for ever remembered;
   but that when compared with the second deliverance it would appear almost as
   nothing. The meaning is, that the second redemption would be so much more
   remarkable than the first, that it would obscure the remembrance of it,
   though it would not obliterate it.

   And this passage deserves to be especially noticed, for we hence learn how
   much we ought to value that redemption which we have obtained through the
   only-begotten Son of God. And hence, also, it follows that we are more bound
   to God than the Fathers under the Law, as he has dealt far more bountifully
   with us, and has put forth his power more fully and effectually in our
   behalf. We further learn, that the Prophet does not in this prophecy include
   a few years only, but the whole kingdom of Christ and its whole progress. He
   indeed speaks of the return of the people to their own country, and this
   ought to be allowed, though Christians have been too rigid in this respect;
   for passing by the whole intermediate time between the return of the people
   and the coming of Christ, they have too violently turned the prophecies to
   spiritual redemption. There is no doubt but that the Prophet makes a
   beginning with the free return of the people from captivity; but, as I have
   said, Christ’s redemption is not to be separated from this, otherwise the
   accomplishment of the promise would not appear to us, for a small portion
   only returned to their own land. We also know that they were harassed with
   many and continual troubles, so that their condition was always miserable,
   for nothing is worse than a state of disquietude. We know further, that they
   were spoiled, and that often, and were also reduced to a state of bondage.
   We know how cruelly they were treated at one time by the Egyptians, and at
   another by the kings of Syria. Then more was promised by Jeremiah than what
   God has really performed, except we include in this prophecy the kingdom of
   Christ. But as God so restored his Church by the hand of Cyrus, that it
   might be a kind of prelude to a future and perfect redemption, it is no
   wonder that the prophets, whenever they spoke of the people’s return and of
   the end of their exile, should look forward to Christ and to his spiritual
   kingdom.

   We now, then, see the design of the Prophet, when he says that the days
   would come in which their first redemption would not be spoken of by the
   people, as a remarkable or as the chief evidence of God’s favor and power,
   as their second redemption would far exceed it.

   As to the formula or manner of speaking, Live does Jehovah, we know that the
   ancients used such words in making a solemn oath, and whenever they sought
   to animate themselves with hope under adversities. Whenever, then, they
   found themselves so pressed down that they had no other escape from evil
   than through God’s favor, they usually said that the God who had formerly
   been the Redeemer of his people still lived, and that there was no
   diminution of his power, so that he could ten times, or a hundred times, or
   a thousand times, if necessary, bring help to his Church and to every member
   of it.

   He says, from all the lands to which I shall have driven them, and he says
   this for two reasons, which we shall presently state. The change of person
   does not obscure the meaning: Live, he says, does Jehovah, who brought out
   and led his people from the land of the north, and from all the lands to
   which I had driven them; but there is no ambiguity in the sense.

   As to the subject itself, it seems that God in the first place intended to
   remind the Jews of their sins, as this knowledge was to be the way to
   repentance, or a preparation for it. For except they were convinced that
   they were chastised for their sins by God’s hand, they would either have
   thought that their exile was by chance, or have given way to murmuring
   complaints as they often did. But God here declares that he was the author
   of their exile, in order that the Jews might know that God justly punished
   them for their many and grievous sins. But God, in the second place, shews
   that it was in his power, whenever he pleased, to restore those whom he had
   afflicted. It was the same as to raise from death those whom he had slain,
   according to what is said elsewhere,

   “God is he who kills, and who brings to life.”
   (1 Samuel 2:6.)

   Many indeed can destroy, but they cannot heal the wound which they may have
   made. But with regard to God, he is both a righteous Judge and a merciful
   Savior. As, then, death is in his power whenever he punishes men for their
   wickedness, so also he has life in his hand and at his bidding, whenever he
   intends to shew mercy. We now, then, perceive what the Prophet had in view
   in saying that the Jews had been driven away by God.

   He afterwards adds, They shall dwell in their own land It was necessary that
   the Jews should have been sustained by this support until the coming of
   Christ, for they saw that they would be in that inheritance which had been
   promised to the fathers as a pledge of eternal life and of the heavenly
   kingdom. It now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [83] These two verses are omitted here in the Sept. and Arab., but are given
   at the end of the chapter. — Ed.

   [84] It is a fact worthy of being observed, that what God effected in the
   course of his providence was more remarkable, and is represented as more
   astonishing, than what he did by means of many and wonderful miracles: the
   secret working of his providence on the minds of men is more wonderful and
   effects greater things than his power when put forth to reverse the course
   of nature. Though he performs no miracles now, yet he works in a way more
   wonderful than if he did. We cannot but see this if we notice the course of
   events with enlightened eyes. — Ed.

   [85] The verse begins with לכן, rendered “therefore,” or, “on this
   account,” by the Vulg., the Syr., and by our own version; but, “after
   this,” by Blayney, and “moreover,” by Gataker. It might be rendered
   “surely,” or doubtless, as it is by Venema, — Surely, behold the days are
   coming, saith Jehovah, When they shall no more say, Jehovah lives, etc. It
   is better to render the ו, “when,” than “that,” as in our version. The Sept.
   and Vulg, render it “and,” which gives no meaning in either language. Calvin
   follows the Syr., and gives the sense, “in which.” — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:9

   9. Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones
   shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome,
   because of the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.

   9. Propter prophetas (alii, ad prophetas, et potest legi ita ad verbum)
   contritum est (vel, confractum est) cor meum in medio mei; commota sunt
   (vel, concussa) omnia ossa mea (proprie, luxata sunt, quia de ossibus
   agitur; quantum ad verbum spectat, significat agitari, et moveri; sed
   quoniam nunc loquitur de ossibus, sermo erit aptior, luxata esse ossa;) fui
   tanquam vir ebrius super quem transiit vinum (hoc est tanquam vir obrutus
   vino) a facie Jehovae, et a facie sermonum sanctitatis ejus.


   The Prophet here again inveighs against the wickedness of the people; but as
   the prophets by their flatteries had then led astray the king and his
   princes, as well as the people, the Prophet directed his discourse to them,
   and says that his heart was troubled on account of the prophets We know that
   men think themselves half absolved when no one severely reproves them. When,
   therefore, the prophets ceased from their work, there was so great a
   security among the whole people, that there was no fear of God in them. This
   is the reason why the Prophet now says that his heart was troubled on
   account of so much indifference; for the prophets were, as it is said
   elsewhere, like dumb dogs; they overlooked the most grievous and the most
   atrocious sins, they made no effort to restore the people to the right way.
   Troubled, then, he says, is my heart for the prophets; a heavier judgment
   awaited them, for they ought to have been the instruments of God’s Spirit,
   the heralds of his judgments; they ought to have undertaken his cause by
   using exhortations, reproofs, and threatenings.

   There is yet no doubt but that what is said ought to be extended to the
   whole body of the people. But Jeremiah wished to begin with the prophets, as
   though he had said that it was monstrous that the prophets boasted that they
   were God’s ministers, and yet were dumb in the midst of so much wickedness.
   On account of the prophets, [86] he says, broken is my heart Then he says
   that his bones were disjointed. In the first chapter of Genesis, when Moses
   speaks of the Spirit as moving on the waters, he uses the same verb, but in
   a different conjugation. However this may be, it is most suitable to say
   that his bones were disjointed. [87] And we know that the bones are tied
   together by sinews, that they may not be moved from their places; for the
   loosening of one bone renders the whole body almost useless. He meant, then,
   by this kind of speaking, to express the most painful perturbation of mind,
   as though he had said that what he had, as the firmost and strongest thing,
   was become weak and altogether feeble.

   He afterwards compares himself to a drunken man; by which metaphor he
   understands that he was completely stunned, and that all his senses were
   taken from him. And he adds, over whom wine has passed The verb עבר, ober,
   means to pass beyond; but to pass over is its meaning here. He who is
   overcome by immoderate drinking seems as though he was drowned; for when one
   falls under the water, he is no more sunk than he who drowns his brain with
   wine; for drunkenness is like a grave, inasmuch as it holds the whole man
   under its power. Yet the Prophet meant no other thing than that this
   monstrous thing rendered those astonied who were of a sane and sound mind,
   and that it also shook and disjointed all the members, and terrified and
   confounded minds otherwise quiet and tranquil. For, certainly, Jeremiah was
   a wise man, and was also endued with courage, so that he would not have
   quailed under every evil though great; nor could he have been easily
   overwhelmed with stupor like a drunken man. Hence by these comparisons he
   shows how dreadful and monstrous it was, that the prophets were so
   unconcerned as not to say a word, when they saw that impiety and contempt of
   God were so rampant, when they saw the whole land defiled with every kind of
   wickedness, as we shall presently see.

   Then he says, On account of Jehovah, and on account of the words of his
   holiness By saying, on account of Jehovah, he brings God before them as a
   judge and avenger; as though he had said, “If they believe that there is a
   God in heaven, it is a wonder that they are so brutish as to dare to boast
   of his name, and yet silently to allow heaven and earth to be mingled
   together. Where, then, is their reason, when they dare so heedlessly to
   profess a name so fearful and awful? for whenever God’s name is mentioned,
   there ought to come into their minds not only his goodness and mercy, but
   also his severity, and then his power, which is dreadful to all the wicked.
   As then these men dare thus to trifle with God, must not their stupidity be
   monstrous?” What, then, the Prophet means is this, — that it was a wonder
   that the prophets undertook their office, and yet had no concern for the
   glory of God.

   And he adds, On account of the words of his holiness Men would seek easiness
   were not God to rouse them by his word. But as the Law had been written for
   the Jews, as these false prophets knew that if they wished rightly to
   perform their work, they ought to have been the expounders of the Law — as
   these things were sufficiently known, the Prophet justly refers here to the
   word of God, as though he would put a bridle in their mouths, lest they
   should, after their usual manner, evade what a bare profession of God’s name
   implied. Since, then, God had testified in his Law how he would have his
   people ruled, how was it that these prophets were not terrified by God’s
   words? And as hypocrites not only despise God himself, and depreciate his
   glory, but also disregard the doctrine of his law, the Prophet adorns God’s
   words with a remarkable encomium, calling his words the words of his
   holiness And he thus calls God’s words holy, and therefore inviolable, in
   order that the ungodly might know, that a dreadful vengeance was nigh them,
   because they disregarded both God and his holy words. It follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [86] These words are connected with the former verse in the Sept. where they
   seem to have no meaning. The Vulg. puts them as a heading to what follows,
   and Blayney has done the same, “concerning the prophets.” The Syr. connects
   them with the following words, as Calvin does, and our version, and also the
   Arab. and Targ. The most suitable rendering would be, — For the prophets
   broken is my heart within me. The sentence is otherwise hardly complete. It
   may be rendered “with regard to the prophets,” etc. — Ed.

   [87] The idea of shaking or trembling is commonly given here to the verb:
   “are shaken,” Sept.; “have trembled,” Vulg., Syr., and Targ. The word
   “tremble” is the most suitable. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:10

   10. For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land
   mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their
   course is evil, and their force is not right.

   10. Quia adulteriis referta est terra, quia a facie jurisjurandi (vel,
   perfidae) luxit terra, aruerunt speciosa deserti (vel, caulae deserti; nam
   pluribus modis vertunt;) et fuit cursus eorum malus, et robur eorum non
   rectum.


   Jeremiah now assigns the reason why he was so much horrified by the
   insensibility which he observed in the prophets. If things were in good
   order, or if, at least, they were tolerable, the prophets would have more
   calmly addressed the Jews; for what need is there to make a great ado when
   men willingly follow what God commands? When, therefore, we have to do with
   meek and modest men, vehemence is foolish; and they who thus bestir
   themselves, and seek, through great ambition, to shew very fervid zeal when
   there is no need, are nothing but apes; but when things are in disorder and
   confusion, then vehemence is wanted. Jeremiah now declares that things were
   so extremely out of order, that the prophets could not have been silent,
   except they were like logs of wood.

   These two things, then, ought to be connected together, — that the prophets
   were dumb, — and that they were dumb when there was the greatest necessity
   for speaking; for they saw the land filled with adulteries. Though he names
   adulterers, he yet condemns the crime. As then the land was polluted by
   adulteries and perjuries, as they all gave themselves up to do evil, it was
   by no means to be tolerated that the prophets should not be indignant, as
   though things were well ordered and peaceable.

   We hence see how much God abhors sloth in the ministers of his word, in
   those whom he appoints as teachers in his Church, while they connive at
   wickedness, and heedlessly pass by adulteries, and fornications, and
   perjuries, and frauds, and other kinds of wrongs; for if there were even the
   least particle of religion in their hearts, they would certainly have been
   moved, and could not have been for a moment silent. For if that zeal ought
   to be in all God’s children, which was in the Psalmist,

   “The zeal of thine house has consumed me, and the reproaches of them who
   reproached thee have fallen upon me,” 
   (Psalm 69:10,)

   how inexcusable must be the indifference of prophets, when they see God’s
   name exposed to mockery, and when they see every kind of wickedness
   prevailing? We now see not only what the Prophet teaches in this passage,
   but also the usefulness of his doctrine and how it ought to be applied. Let
   us then learn, that the more liberty men take in sinning, and the more
   audaciously their impiety and contempt of God break out, the more sharply
   ought prophets and faithful teachers to reprove and condemn them; and that
   it is the time of fighting, when the world thus presumptuously and furiously
   rise up against God.

   The Prophet mentions some kinds of evil, and yet does not enumerate all
   kinds; but under adulteries and perjuries he includes also other crimes. As
   to the word אלה, ale, it properly means swearing; but as cursing often
   accompanies it, some render it here “execration.” [88] But I rather think
   that what is meant is perjury, and that swearing here is taken in a bad
   sense, signifying swearing falsely in the name of God.

   Mourned, he says, has the land, and dried up have the pastures of the desert
   Here the Prophet strikingly shews how shameful was that torpor of which he
   speaks, for the land itself cried out, and not only the land which was
   cultivated and had on it many men, but also the very mountains and their
   recesses. He says that the land was in mourning, because God shewed his
   judgments everywhere by rendering the fields barren, and by other means
   which he used as punishments. And it is a very striking mode of speaking,
   when the Prophet mentions the mourning of the land, as though it assumed the
   character of a mourner, when it saw God angry on account of the wickedness
   of men. It is, indeed, a kind of personification, though he does not
   introduce the land as speaking; but he describes mourning as it appeared in
   the sterility of the land, and also in hails and storms, in unseasonable
   rains, in droughts, and in other calamities.

   Whenever then God raises his hand to punish men for their sins, if they
   themselves perceive it not, the very land, which is without sense and
   feeling, ought to fill them with shame for their madness; for mourning
   appears in the very land, as though it knew that God was displeased with it.
   When, therefore, men sleep in their sins, and thus disregard God’s
   vengeance, how monstrous must be their torpor! And if this be intolerable in
   the common people, what can be said of the prophets, who ought to proclaim
   such words as these, — “Cursed is he who has transgressed the precepts of
   this law” — “cursed is he who has corrupted the worship of God” — or, “who
   hath dealt unjustly with his neighbor,” — and whatever else the law
   contains? (Deuteronomy 27:26; Deuteronomy 28:47, 58.) We now then perceive
   how emphatical are the words when the Prophet says, Mourned has the land And
   he amplifies the same thing by saying, Dried up have the beautiful places of
   the desert; as though he had said, that God’s judgments were seen in the
   remotest places, not only in the plains, where the greater number of men
   dwelt, did the land mourn; but if any one ascended the mountains, where
   shepherds only with their flocks were to be found, even there the wrath of
   God was visible; and the very mountains cried out that God was angry; and
   yet men still deluded themselves, who, at the same time were expounders of
   the law, who were the mouth of God, and to whom he had committed the office
   of reproving; but they were dumb! We now understand what these words
   contain, and what is to be learnt from them.

   He adds, that their course was evil, [89] and that their strength was not
   right By course he no doubt means their doings and all their actions, and
   also the aid which they proposed to themselves; for our life is called a
   course, because God has not created us that we may lie down in one place,
   but he has set before us an end for which we are to live. Therefore, by
   course, the Scripture means all our doings, and the very end for which we
   are to live. He then says, that all their strength had been perverted; that
   is, that they had applied all their powers to do evil. It then hence appears
   that, except the prophets had been perfidious, they would have thought it
   full time to cry out, when men provoked God with so much audacity in their
   wicked courses. It follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [88] The early Versions and the Targum differ as to this word: the Sept.,
   the Syr., and the Arab. have “on account of these,” that is, adulterers; the
   Vulg.,” on account of a curse,” that is of God; the Targ., “on account of
   false swearing.” Blayney says, that there is nothing here about swearing,
   and renders the words “because of these:” but the 14th verse (Jeremiah
   23:14) decides the question, where we have “adultery” and “walking in
   lies,” ascribed to the same persons, the prophets. That, אלה means sometimes
   “false swearing,” is evident from Hosea 4:2; and in Hosea 10:4, we have the
   word “falsely” added to it. Their false swearing was their unfaithfulness to
   God’s covenant, their apostasy in worshipping idols. And the charge of being
   “adulterers” seems to refer to their spiritual adultery — their idolatry,
   and not as Calvin and others think, to that which is natural. Everything in
   the context favors this view; their wickedness was found in God’s house,
   verse 11 (Jeremiah 23:11); and a comparison is made between them and the
   Samaritan prophets, verse 14 (Jeremiah 23:14). The construction of this
   verse leads us to the same conclusion: when two כי occur in succession, as
   here, they may be rendered as and so, — As the land has been filled with
   adulterers, So for false swearing has the land mourned, Withered have the
   pastures of the wilderness; And their course has become calamitous, And
   their strength not firm, (that is, to run their course.) Houbigant and
   Horsley have re-arranged the whole verse, and made several transpositions.
   Had these learned men for a moment reflected how such delocations of words,
   as they suppose, could have taken place, they would have, no doubt,
   restrained their innovating propensities. — Ed.

   [89] That the word means “course,” is evident from Jeremiah 8:6, where it
   can have no other meaning. So it is rendered by the Sept. and the Vulg.
   Blayney gives it another meaning. Their will also hath been wickedness,
   And their might without right. He derives it from רצה, to choose, and not
   from ריף, run: but the sense of the last line is hardly discernible. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:11

   11. For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found
   their wickedness, saith the LORD.

   11. Quia tam propheta quam sacerdos impia egerunt; etiam in domo mea
   deprehendi (vel, reperi) malitiam ipsorum, dicit Jehova.


   He adds here that it ought not to appear strange that the prophets were
   silent when they ought to have loudly cried out, because they were guilty
   themselves: and whence can freedom of speech come except from a good
   conscience? Hypocrites, who indulge themselves, are indeed often severe
   against others, and even more than necessary; but no one can dare honestly
   to cry out against wickedness, but he who is innocent. For he who condemns
   others seems to make a law for himself, according to what a heathen writer
   has said, (Cicero in Salustium.) Then the Prophet here shews to us why the
   prophets were not only idle, but were even like stocks and stones; for in
   speaking against wickedness, it was necessary for them in the first place to
   amend themselves; for their lives were wholly dissolute. As then they were
   of all the most wicked, they could not boldly cry out against others; and
   hence the Prophet condemns them, because their own impiety prevented them to
   perform their own duty.

   It is, indeed, possible for one to live soberly, honestly, and justly, and
   yet to connive at the wickedness of others; but the Prophet here condemns
   the prophets and priests on two accounts, — for being mute, and for not
   undertaking God’s cause when they saw the land polluted with all kinds of
   defilements; and he then shews the fountain of this evil, that is, the cause
   why they were idle and wholly indifferent, and that was, because they dared
   not say a word against those crimes of which they were themselves guilty,
   yea, with which they were more loaded than even the common people. We now
   perceive the Prophet’s object in saying that both the priests and the
   prophets had acted impiously; [90] it was to shew, that their contempt of
   God, for which they were notorious, and also their wickedness, had taken
   away from them all power and freedom in acting.

   It is added, Even in my house have I found their wickedness He enhances what
   he had said of their impiety; for they were not only infamous and wicked in
   common life, as to the duties of the Second Table; but they also corrupted
   the whole service of God, and the true Prophets were derided by them. For
   what was found to be the priests’ wickedness in the Temple, except that they
   practiced a sort of merchandise under the cover of the priesthood? and then
   the prophets vitiated and adulterated God’s worship; and what was religion
   to them but the means of filthy lucre or gain? When, therefore, the prophets
   thus trod under foot the service of God, corrupted and perverted the Law to
   make gain or to acquire power, their impiety was not only seen in the habits
   of daily life, but also in the very Temple of God, that is, with regard to
   the sacerdotal office.

   Now, since this is true as to what took place under the Law, there is no
   wonder that such a base example is to be seen in the present day. And hence
   also is discovered the folly of the Papists, who think that they ingeniously
   evade every objection as to the crimes of the Pope and his filthy clergy, by
   saying that the Pope indeed may be wicked, as almost all of them have been,
   and that the same thing may be said of their mitred bishops; but that the
   Pope, as a Pope, cannot err, and that the bishops, as bishops, that is, in
   their government and office, are ruled by the Holy Spirit, because they
   represent the Church. But are they better than these ancient priests, whom
   God himself had expressly appointed, and to whom he commanded obedience to
   be rendered by the whole people? But the Prophet not only says here that
   they were wicked, that they acted impiously and wickedly towards their
   neighbors, that they committed plunders and robberies, that they were given
   to violence and rapacity, that they abandoned themselves to adultery and to
   every other crime; but he says also, that their wickedness was found in the
   very Temple, that is, in the very sacred office itself; for not only was
   their life wicked, but they also impiously and perfidiously corrupted the
   doctrine of God and subverted his worship.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [90] This verb is used three times in Jeremiah 3:1, 2, and 9, and in every
   instance in the sense of defiling the land with adultery, and in the two
   last verses, with spiritual adultery — idolatry. It is rendered here
   passively by the Sept. and the Vulg., “have become defiled;” but it is most
   commonly used in a transitive sense; and so Jun. and Trem. render it here,
   and consider it, the land, as understood after it; and this is most
   consistent with the context, — For both prophet and priest have defiled it:
   Also in my house have I found Their wickedness, saith Jehovah. The “house”
   of God is here put in contrast with the land or the country; and in Jeremiah
   23:15, it is expressly said that from Jerusalem pollution had gone forth
   throughout all the land. Idolatry is evidently what is meant throughout this
   passage, from verse 9 to 15 (Jeremiah 23:9-15). Calvin as to this verb has
   followed the Syriac version. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast been pleased to set before us an
   example of every perfection in thine only-begotten Son, we may study to form
   ourselves in imitation of him, and so to follow not only what he has
   prescribed, but also what he really performed, that we may prove ourselves
   to be really his members, and thus confirm our adoption; and may we so
   proceed in the whole course of our life, that we may at length be gathered
   into that blessed rest which the same, thine only-begotten Son, hath
   obtained for us by his own blood. — Amen.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Seventh
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:12

   12. Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness:
   they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them,
   even the year of their visitation, saith the LORD.

   12. Propterea erit via eorum ipsis tanquam lubricitates, in caligine
   impingent, et cadent in ea; quia inducam super eos malum, annum visitationis
   eorum, dicit Jehova.


   Here he declares to false prophets and unfaithful priests that the Lord’s
   judgment was nigh at hand, because they had deceived the people. But he
   speaks figuratively when he says, that their way would be to them as
   lubricities. By way he understands the means which they thought to be of the
   best kind, as elsewhere, nearly in the same sense, what is deemed
   delectable, or what conduces to sustain life, is called “the table” of the
   wicked. (Psalm 69:22.) The meaning then is, that when they thought all
   things prosperous, as if one made his way through a plain, they would find
   themselves on a slippery ground. Their way, then, would be to them as
   lubricities, [91] that is, when they seemed to take a safe counsel and so
   prudently to set all things in order, as that nothing could happen amiss to
   them, their way would become slippery, and that in darkness. He doubles the
   evil; for one may stand on a slippery ground, and yet may take care of
   himself on seeing danger; but when darkness is added to the slippery ground,
   he who can neither stand nor move can hardly do otherwise than fall, either
   on this or that side: hence he says, they shall stumble and fall in it

   The reason follows, even because the Lord was displeased with them. They
   could not then escape ruin, for they had to do with God. But as the ungodly
   derive false confidence from God’s forbearance, so that they dare to glory
   in their wickedness, he adds, the year of their visitation Though, then, God
   would not immediately put forth his hand to punish them, yet their time was
   to come; for the year of visitation means the suitable time which God has
   determined within himself. He indeed defers punishment; but when hypocrites
   and his despisers have long abused his forbearance, he then suddenly begins
   to thunder against them; and this is the year of visitation. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [91] Such is the word literally; but there is here an ellipsis, not uncommon
   in Hebrew; the word way is left out before “lubricities” or slipperinesses.
   The word being plural, and a reduplicate, expresses what is extreme — “most
   slippery,” or, wholly slippery, — 12. Therefore their way shall be to them,
   As a way wholly slippery in thick darkness; They shall drive on and fall in
   it; For I will bring on them an evil — The year of their visitation, saith
   Jehovah. It is not darkness, but thick darkness is what the word means; and
   it is connected with the previous words by the Targ. and by all the
   versions, except the Syr.; which Blayney has thus followed, — Into darkness
   shall they be thrust and shall fall therein. But this spoils the whole force
   of the passage: their way was to be altogether slippery, and also in thick
   darkness; along which they would be hurried on, or slide, or drive on, and
   the inevitable effect would be falling. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:13-14

   13. And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in
   Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.

   13. In prophetis (Et in prophetis) Samariae vidi fatuitatem (vel, insulsum,
   aut, insulsitatem;) prophetant in Baal, et errare faciunt (vel, decipiunt)
   populum meum Israel.

   14. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they
   commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of
   evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them
   unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

   14. Et in prophetis Jerusalem vidi pravitatem, adulterando et ambulando in
   fallacia; et roborant manus improborum, ut non revertantur quisque a malitia
   sua; erunt mihi onmes tanquam Sodoma, et habitatores ejus tanquam Gomorrha.


   These two verses are to be read together; for there is no doubt but that the
   Prophet here compares the false prophets, who had corrupted God’s worship in
   the kingdom of Israel, with those in Jerusalem who wished to appear more
   holy and more perfect. And he thus compares them that he might set forth
   those who sought to be deemed God’s faithful ministers, as being by far the
   worst; for he says, that he had found fatuity in the prophets of Samaria,
   but depravity in the prophets of Jerusalem. They are, therefore, mistaken in
   my judgment who take also, תפלה, tephle, as meaning depravity; for they do
   not consider that he here enhances by comparison their wickedness who
   thought themselves the best, as they say, without exception.

   As to the prophets of Samaria, they had been long ago condemned; nor was
   there any at Jerusalem who dared openly to defend them; for they had
   departed from the worship of God, and had led away the people from the only
   true Temple and altar. They were then held at that time in the kingdom of
   Judah as apostates, perfidious, and unprincipled. But the kingdom of Judah
   still wished to be deemed pure and blameless; and the prophets, who were
   there, boasted that they were uncorrupt and free from every spot. The
   Prophet therefore says, that fatuity had been found in the prophets of
   Samaria, that is, in those who had corrupted the ten tribes, and vitiated
   there the pure worship of God; but that there was more wickedness in the
   prophets of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah, because they were not
   only foolish, but also designedly subverted all religion, and allowed
   liberty in all kinds of wickedness, so that they carried as it were a banner
   in approbation of every species of iniquity. We hence see that the object of
   Jeremiah was to shew, that the prophets of the kingdom of Judah surpassed in
   impiety those very prophets whom they proudly condemned; for they were not
   only fatuitous and foolish, but had designedly as it were conspired against
   God, and had become open enemies not only to religion but to all laws.

   As to the words, that he found fatuity [92] in the prophets of Samaria, he
   speaks in the person of God, who is the only fit judge. And he subjoins the
   cause of their senselessness, because they prophesied by Baal, and made the
   people of Israel to go astray Had Jeremiah spoken only of these, he would no
   doubt have used stronger terms in describing their sin; but as he was
   contrasting them with those who were worse, he was satisfied with the word
   fatuity; as though he had said, “Were any one to consider them by
   themselves, they were indeed very wicked, and deserved the most severe
   punishment; but if they be compared with the prophets of Judah, then they
   must be deemed only fatuitous and sottish.” Then the copulative is to be
   rendered thus, “I have, indeed, seen fatuity in the prophets of Samaria;”
   and then differently in the following clause, “but in the prophets of Judah
   I have seen depravity.” It is to be read adversatively in this verse, and
   concessively in the former. Then in the prophets of Jerusalem have I seen
   depravity [93]

   It follows, They commit adultery, and walk in deception Expositors think
   that there is a change of number; but what if these words be applied to the
   people? as though Jeremiah had said, “When any one is an adulterer, when any
   one walks in deception, that is, when any one is fraudulent, they
   strengthen, the hands of the wicked.” And, doubtless, this sense seems here
   to be the most correct. Then Jeremiah shews how they surpassed other
   prophets in impiety, even because they dissimulated when they saw on one
   hand adulteries prevailing, and on the other frauds, plunders, and
   perjuries; and not only so, but they undertook the patronizing of the
   wicked, and strengthened the hands of the ungodly, and added audacity to
   their madness. For as fear weakens the hands, so does shame; as, then, these
   prophets removed shame as well as fear from the wicked and ungodly, so they
   strengthened their hands; that is, they gave them more confidence, so that
   they rushed headlong into every evil more freely and with greater liberty.

   That they might not return, he says, every one from his wickedness This is
   added for the sake of explanation; for, as I have said, either the fear of
   God or shame from men might have checked their audacity; but when they were
   confirmed and countenanced, they broke out into all excesses, and hardened
   themselves in their obstinacy: That they might not return, every one from
   his wickedness.

   In the last place he adds, They shall be to me all of them as Sodom, and its
   inhabitants as Gomorrah We see that the last clause is confined to the
   citizens of Jerusalem. Then God says, that these prophets would be like the
   Sodomites, and the citizens of Jerusalem like the citizens of Gomorrah. This
   is not to be understood only as to crimes, but also as to punishment; as
   though he had said, that there was no more hope of pardon for them than for
   the Sodomites, for they had provoked to the utmost the wrath of God, so that
   he could not now spare them. It then follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [92] Rendered “iniquities” by the Sept.; “fatuity” by the Vulg.;
   “falsehood” by the Syr.; and “impiety by the Targ. Blayney has, “that which
   was disgusting.” The word, as here, is found only in two other places, Job
   1:22; Job 24:12. It means, not what is “disgusting,” but what is crude,
   insipid, untempered, and hence figuratively, what is unreasonable, absurd,
   fatuitous, foolish. It is rendered “folly” in Job. The Vulg., which is
   followed by Calvin, gives its best meaning here — “fatuity.” To prophesy by
   Baal was the effect of infatuation: it was an absurd and fatuitous thing.
   This was the character of the thing in itself; and the evil which this
   fatuity produced was to lead the people astray. — Ed.

   [93] Or “wickedness — pravitatem,” rendered “horrible things” by the Sept.,
   and “folly” by the Syr. The Vulg. and the Targ. go altogether astray. The
   word means properly horridness, hideousness, or a horrid thing, and may be
   rendered enormity. The difference found in the Targ. and the Versions, as to
   the word and the manner of rendering the words which follow, seems to shew
   that the passage was not understood. I offer the following version, — 14.
   But among the prophets of Jerusalem Have I seen a horrid thing — The
   committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they have strengthened
   the hand of the wicked, That they might not turn, each from his wickedness:
   They are all of them become to me like Sodom, And its inhabitants like those
   of Gomorrah. The verb I render “the committing of adultery,” is an
   infinitive without a preposition; it cannot be otherwise rendered in our
   language, but in Welsh it can be rendered literally, as an infinitive
   without a preposition, though commonly in that language, as in Hebrew, the
   infinitive mood has a preposition before it. The “horrid thing” was
   adultery, that is, idolatry, combined with “walking in falsehood,” that is,
   with a false profession of prophesying in God’s name, which is afterwards
   more distinctly specified. Here was the difference between the prophets:
   those of Samaria were idolaters, and consistently they prophesied in the
   name of Baal; but the prophets of Jerusalem were not only idolaters, but
   added to this sin the enormity of defending all they did by alleging that
   they were the Lord’s prophets. This was the horrid thing. It is a great sin
   to advocate error, but to do this in the name of the Lord, or by perverting
   his word, is a horrid thing. The last line presents an instance of that
   ellipsis mentioned in [3]a Note on the 12th verse. The word “inhabitants” is
   to be understood before Gomorrah. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:15

   15. Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold,
   I will feed them with wormwood, and them drink the water of gall: for from
   the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land.

   15. Propterea sic dicit Jehova exercituum super (vel, ad) prophetas istos,
   Ecce ego cibabo eos amaritudine (aut, veneno; alii vertunt, absynthio, הנעל,
   sed nomen absynthii non videtur quadrare; ubicumque enim ponitur hoec vox,
   significat amaritudinem noxiam et virulentem et mortiferam,) et potabo eos
   aquis veneni (alii vertunt, fellis; diximus alibide hac voce, שאר,) quoniam
   a prophetis Jerusalem egressa est impietas in totam terram.


   This verse is addressed to the prophets of the kingdom of Judah, as we learn
   from its conclusion; and thus the exposition which I have given is
   confirmed, even this, that God extenuates the fault of other prophets, in
   speaking of the prophets of Jerusalem, who boasted of greater sanctity. But
   he declares that they would have poison for meat and gall for drink; as
   though he had said, “I will pursue them with every kind of punishment.” He
   expresses evidently the same thing I have before referred to, that their
   table would become a snare to them. (Psalm 69:22.) The ungodly, indeed,
   always think that they can by their arts escape; God on the other hand
   declares, that though they might have a table prepared, they yet would find
   nothing on it, but poison for meat, and gall for drink. For as to God’s
   children and faithful servants, evils are turned to their benefit; so as to
   the ungodly and his wicked despisers, all things must necessarily turn out
   for their ruin, even meat and drink, and their course of life, and in a word
   everything.

   The cause follows, For gone forth is impiety [94] through the whole land
   from the prophets of Jerusalem By which words he declares that they were the
   authors of all evils, so that in comparison with them the prophets of
   Samaria might have been deemed in a manner righteous. But there is no doubt
   but that this declaration was considered too severe; yet we see by what
   necessity Jeremiah was constrained thus to speak; for the lamp of God as yet
   remained at Jerusalem, according to what is said in many passages, nor was
   the light of sound doctrine wholly put out. They professed that they
   continued to obey the Law; and at the same time they were much worse than
   others, for not only the worship of God in the Temple and in the city was
   corrupted, but adulteries, frauds, plunders, and all kinds of wickedness
   prevailed everywhere. He adds —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [94] This is the Syr., but it is not the meaning; it is properly rendered
   “pollution,” or defilement, by the Sept., the Vulg., and Arab., but
   improperly flattery, by the Targ. The verb from which it comes is commonly
   rendered to defile; see Isaiah 24:5; Micah 4:11. The “profaneness” of our
   version, and “the perverseness” of Blayney, seem incorrect; the word is used
   in neither sense. The pollution here was by idolatry — the adultery
   beforementioned. This pollution had spread from Jerusalem through the whole
   land. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:16

   16. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets
   that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own
   heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.

   16. Sic dicit Jehovah exercituum, Ne audiatis verba prophetarum, qui
   prophetant vobis; evanescere faciunt ipsi vobis, visionem cordis sui
   loquuntur, non ex ore Jehovae.


   What is here said must have appeared very severe, and must have grievously
   offended the people; for Jeremiah forbade them to hear the teaching of the
   prophets. He indeed concedes to them the name of prophets, which was a
   sacred name; but yet he discredits them, and deprives them of all dignity.
   he speaks not of magicians or impostors, who were aliens to God’s people; he
   speaks not of Egyptians, or Chaldeans, or any like them, nor does he speak
   of the prophets of Samaria, but of those who daily appeared in the Temple
   and boasted that they were divinely chosen, endued with the spirit of
   revelation, and that they brought nothing but what God had committed to
   them. As then Jeremiah forbade them to hear these, some great perplexity
   must have necessarily seized the minds of all, especially of the simple, —
   “What does this mean? why does God suffer these unprincipled men to occupy a
   place in the Temple, and to exercise there the prophetic office, while at
   the same time they are cheats, perjurers, and impostors?”

   In the same manner we see that many at this day are perplexed on account of
   the discords by which the Church is harassed, and as it were torn to pieces.
   We are constrained to contend with those who arrogate to themselves the name
   of the Catholic Church, who boast that they are bishops, vicars of Christ,
   successors of the Apostles. When therefore the ignorant see such hostile
   conflicts in the very bosom of the Church, they must necessarily be
   terrified, and such stumbling-block shakes dreadfully their faith. Hence
   this passage ought to be especially noticed; for though at first ignorant
   people may be disturbed by such a prohibition as this, yet every one who
   really fears God will exercise his mind, so that he may distinguish between
   false and true prophets; and God will never leave his chosen people
   destitute of the spirit of judgment and discernment, when teachers contend
   on both sides, and tumults nearly overthrow the Church; even then, as I have
   said, God will preserve his own elect, provided we piously and humbly strive
   to submit to his word; he will also guide us by his hand, so that we may not
   be deceived. Since then God had commanded Jeremiah to forbid the people to
   hear the false prophets, let us not at this day wonder, that faithful
   teachers who desire to maintain true doctrine and genuine piety, feel
   themselves constrained to oppose these men of titles who shelter themselves
   under the masked names of pastors, and prelates, and bishops, that they may
   delude the unwary and the ignorant; Hear not, he says, the words of the
   prophets who prophesy to you

   He adds, They make you to be vain; that is, they infatuate you. [95] But
   this would not have been sufficient, had he not added what more fully
   confirmed it. Hence Jeremiah says, that they brought forward the vision of
   their own hearts, and did not speak what came from God’s mouth. This is a
   mark which can never deceive us, except we willingly throw ourselves into
   the snares and intrigues of Satan, as many do who wilfully seek to be
   deceived, and even hunt for falsehoods; but whosoever applies his mind to
   the study of truth, can never be deceived, if by this mark, which is set
   before us, he distinguishes between prophets and prophets; for every one who
   speaks according to the mere suggestions of his own mind must be an
   impostor. No one then ought to be deemed a sound teacher, but he who speaks
   from God’s mouth.

   But here a question may be raised, How can the common people understand that
   some speak from God’s mouth, and that others propound their own glosses? I
   answer, That the doctrine of the Law was then sufficient to guide the minds
   of the people, provided they closed not their eyes; and if the Law was
   sufficient at that time, God does now most surely give us a clearer light by
   his prophets, and especially by his Gospel. Since then God has once given us
   his testimony, every one ought to obey him as soon as he knows what is
   right, what he ought to follow, and what he ought to shun.

   We now then see how useful this passage is; for there is nothing more
   miserable than for men to be tossed here and there, and to be led astray
   from the way of salvation. There is therefore nothing more desirable than to
   know this way with certainty, Now, God shews us the way here as by the
   finger; for he says that those who speak from his mouth can be heard with
   safety; but that others are to be rejected, how much soever they may boast
   of being prophets, and thus seek under the guise of authority to subject
   men’s minds captive to themselves. And this ought to suffice at this day to
   put an end to all controversies; for on this no doubt depends almost every
   question that is now agitated in the world. The Papists will have their own
   devices to be taken as oracles, and claim to be the Church; but we, on the
   other hand, say that perfect wisdom is alone to be found in the Law, in the
   Prophets, and in the Gospel. Were we then to attend to the mouth of God, it
   would be easy to settle all the disputes between us. It hence also follows,
   that the Papists are deceived because they deign not to ask at God’s mouth,
   but choose to become slaves to men and to their own falsehoods, rather than
   to inquire what pleases God; for he himself has spoken, and has not spoken
   hiddenly, neither doubtfully nor obscurely; for there is nothing more clear
   than his teaching, provided men do not become wilfully blind. He then adds,
   —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [95] The Sept. gives this version, “for they make a vain vision for
   themselves; from their heart they speak, and not from the mouth of the
   Lord.” Though the sense is given, yet it is not a correct version. The Vulg.
   and Syr. keep nearer to the original, and render the first clause “and they
   deceive you.” The words literally are, “Infatuating you are they.” The whole
   verse is as follows, — 16. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not to the
   words of the prophets, Who prophesy unto you; Infatuating you are they; The
   vision of their own heart do they speak, And not from the mouth of Jehovah.
   The “And” in the last line is supplied in several copies, is given by the
   Sept. and the Syr. To render “from,” as Blayney does, “after the mouth,”
   etc., is no improvement. To speak “from the mouth of the Lord” is very
   striking. All the Versions retain the preposition “from,” and the Targ.
   gives “word” for “mouth.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:17-18

   17. They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall
   have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination
   of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

   17. Dicentes dicendo iis qui me contemnunt, Loquutus est Jehova, Pax erit
   vobis, et omnibus qui ambulant (cunctis ambulantibus; est quidem singularis
   numerus, ad verbum, cuique ambulanti) in pravitate cordis sui, dicunt, Non
   veniet super vos malum.

   18. For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and
   heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?

   18. Nam quis stetit in consilio Jehovae? et vidit et audivit sermonem ejus?
   Quis attendit ad sermonem ejus et audivit?


   Jeremiah introduces another mark by which the false prophets might be known
   as different from the true prophets, — they flattered the ungodly and wicked
   despisers of God. He thus repeats what he had before said, that they
   strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that they became hardened in their
   impiety, and threw aside every care for repentance. Though he uses different
   words, yet the meaning is the same, that they promised peace, or prosperity,
   to the despisers of God, for the word שלום, shalum, means to live well or
   happily.

   They say, then, to those who despise or reject me; for נאף, nats, means
   both. The doubling of the word for “saying,” is also emphatical, אמרים אמור,
   amrim amur: [96] for we know with how much haughtiness and confidence the
   false prophets dared to announce their dreams; for they were led by the
   spirit of pride, as they were the children of Satan. Hence then was their
   confidence, so that they made their declarations as though they had come
   down from heaven. They say, then, by saying; that is, they promise, and that
   with great effrontery, that peace would be to all the despisers of God; and
   not only so, but they pretended God’s name, Spoken, has Jehovah [97] They
   wished to be deemed the instruments or agents of the Holy Spirit, while they
   were vainly announcing, as it has been said, their own imaginations. And
   hence Jeremiah applied to them, though improperly, the word vision, They
   speak the vision of their own heart By using this word he makes a
   concession; for he might have said only, that they adduced nothing but
   trifles, even the falsehoods which they themselves had devised, but he
   mentions the word חזון, chezun, which in itself ought to be deemed of high
   import. And yet he means that they were only apes as prophets, when they
   prattled of visions and confidently declared that they brought forward the
   revelations of the Spirit. He then concedes to them, though improperly, that
   they saw visions; but what did they see? even that Jehovah had spoken, Peace
   shall be to you

   Then he says, They promise to those who walk in the wickedness of their own
   heart, that all things shall turn out well to them, No evil shall come upon
   you; as though he had said, “They promise impunity to all the wicked.”

   The verse which follows is usually thus explained, Jeremiah condemns the
   false teachers for their carelessness, because they attended not to the word
   of God, and regarded as nothing what the Law contained. But interpreters
   seem to me to have been certainly much mistaken in this view; for Jeremiah
   here shews throughout, he passage how insolently and arrogantly the false
   teachers conducted themselves in audaciously opposing the true and faithful
   servants of God, Who has stood in the counsel of Jehovah? They no doubt
   spoke thus tauntingly of the true prophets, “What! These announce to you
   pestilence, war, famine, as though they were angels sent by God from heaven;
   have they stood in the counsel of God?” Thus I connect this verse with the
   former, for I am fully persuaded that he refers here to the arrogance which
   the false teachers manifested towards the true teachers. [98]

   Examples of this in our time give a plain exposition to this passage. For
   when the Papists feel themselves driven to an extremity, when they prevail
   nothing by clamor and falsehood, they run to this sort of evasion, “He! if
   we must determine everything in religion by the Law, the Prophets, and the
   Gospel, what certainty can be found? The Scripture is like a nose of wax,
   for it can be turned to anything, and no meaning can with certainty be
   elicited; thus all things will remain perplexed and doubtful, if authority
   belongs to the Scripture alone.” We then see that the enemies of truth at
   this day, when they cannot otherwise cover their filthiness, labor to throw
   all things into confusion, and to discredit God’s word, and to introduce
   such darkness, that white cannot be distinguished from black, that light
   becomes mixed with darkness.

   Similar to this was the perverse wickedness of the false teachers. For
   Jeremiah and his associates, when they came forth, declared that God’s
   vengeance could no longer be deferred, for the people continued to provoke
   it; and they announced themselves as the heralds of God and witnesses to his
   hidden purpose; but these unprincipled men, that they might lull to sleep,
   yea, and stupify the consciences of men, said, “Eh! who has stood in the
   counsel of Jehovah? who has heard? who has attended? who has seen? all these
   things are uncertain; and though these severely threaten you with
   pestilence, war, and famine, yet there is no reason why ye ought to fear. Be
   then easy, and quietly and cheerfully enjoy yourselves, for they do not
   understand the purpose of God.” And this meaning we shall presently see
   confirmed by what is said in verse 22, ואםעמדו בסודי, veam omdu besudi, “And
   if they had stood in my counsel.” There is then no doubt but that he turns
   against them what they perversely boasted. But it now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [96] Some, as Venema and Blayney, think that אמרים belongs to the preceding
   verse; but this would not consist with the Hebrew idiom, where a participle
   often precedes a verb in the future tense, but never follows it; nor is this
   countenanced by any of the Versions or the Targ. The words as they stand are
   indeed unusual; the probability is that אמור should be אמרו, and all the
   Versions give it as such, “they say.” Then it would be, “Saying they say;”
   which imports the boldness and the confidence of the false prophets; that
   is, “They boldly say.” — Ed

   [97] There is a difference in the early versions as to this clause; it is
   connected in the Sept. and Arab. with the preceding, “They say to those who
   reject the word of the Lord,” etc., and Blayney has followed this
   arrangement. The Vulg., the Syr., and the Targ., take it as a separate
   clause, and render it as here. The Hebrew no doubt admits of either
   constructions, but the Lord appears to be the speaker, and therefore the
   latter construction ought to have the preference, — 17. They boldly say to
   those who despise me, Spoken hath Jehovah, “Peace shall be to you;” And to
   every one who walks in the resolutions of his own heart, They say, “Not come
   upon you shall evil.” This rendering also corresponds more with what is said
   in Jeremiah 23:25, that the prophets prophesied lies in God’s name. — Ed.

   [98] What seems to militate against this view is the fact, that these false
   prophets themselves pretended to a divine revelation; they announced their
   message as coming from God. Hence these questions seem to deny their
   pretensions. He seems to say, “Who of you have been in the council of
   Jehovah?” The tautology may be avoided without having recourse to the
   emendations which Blayney proposes, — But who (of you) has stood in the
   secret council of Jehovah? And saw and understood his business? Who has
   listened to his word and heard it? We know that דבר means not only a word,
   but also a thing, affair, business, matter, any thing represented or
   imagined. The verb to “see,” which implies a vision, proves that it means
   the latter here. Then in the last line it means a message, because it was
   what was listened to and heard. But the verb שמע, in the first clause,
   comports with seeing, and understanding is what it sometimes signifies; and
   in the last clause it comports with listening, which is that of hearing. The
   Prophet refers to a vision and to a message, or to an affair as set before
   one admitted into the council chamber of his sovereign, (for this is the
   representation,) and to a message given to him who is commissioned to
   transact the business. It is not an unusual thing in Scripture to use a word
   in two different senses in the same passage; but the surrounding context is
   always sufficient to make the subject clear. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:19

   19. Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD is gone forth in fury, even a grievous
   whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.

   19. Ecce turbo (vel, tempestas) Jehovae cum furore (vel, cum iracundia)
   egreditur, et turbo impendens super caput impiorum cadet (vel, turbo cadens
   cadet; est participium מתחולל, et postea est simplex verbum, sed eadem est
   radix utriusque.)


   I shall defer the consideration of this to the next Lecture. Tomorrow there
   will be no Lecture, for, as you know, the conferring of honors will engage
   us.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as we are ever inclined to be led away by
   ensnaring flatteries, and thus seek death and final ruin for ourselves, — O
   grant that we may learn to tremble at those denunciations announced by the
   prophets, by which thou shewest to us thy wrath, so that we may be roused to
   true repentance, and not harden ourselves through thy forbearance in what is
   evil, but pursue our heavenly course, until having at length put off all our
   vices, we shall be restored to that perfect form in which thy holy image
   fully shines forth, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Eighth

   The verse which I read at the end of my last Lecture must be now repeated to
   you, Behold, the tempest (or whirlwind) of Jehovah! it shall go forth with
   fury; even the impending whirlwind! on the head of the ungodly shall it
   abide, or fall; for יחול, ichul, means both. The Prophet now assails with
   more vehemence the false teachers, for they were almost stupid. None,
   indeed, can betray so much audacity as to oppose God, except when wholly
   blinded by Satan. Hence our Prophet deals with the false teachers as with
   fanatics or those wholly stupified: he tells them that God would come like a
   whirlwind Whether we render it a whirlwind or a storm, there is not much
   difference. [99] And he adds, that they could not escape, for the wrath of
   God was impending over them, and would at length remain on them.

   Now, it is usual in Scripture to deal very sharply with hypocrites, and
   especially with false teachers, because Satan rules in them to an awful
   extent. And doubtless, as I have already said, except a person be fascinated
   with illusions, he could not dare to oppose God. There is, then, no wonder
   that the Prophet fulminates against these ungodly teachers; for it was
   nothing but play and sport to them to pretend God’s sacred name that they
   might deceive the people. He afterwards adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [99] “Storm,” or tempest, is the most suitable here. The word חמה, after
   Jehovah, seems to belong to it — “hot tempest;” the reference is to the
   burning winds of the south. See Jeremiah 4:11, 12. The verse may be thus
   rendered, — Behold the burning tempest of Jehovah! It shall go forth, yea, a
   pregnant tempest; On the head of the wicked shall it burst. The tempest or
   storm would be “burning,” and also “pregnant,” or in travail, as the word
   means; and being as it were in labor, it would “burst,” or literally bring
   forth on the head of the wicked. The verb is not from יחל, but from חול,
   which means not only to be in labor but also to bring forth. “It shall
   come,” is the Sept. and the Vulg.; our version is the Targum. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:20

   20. The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till
   he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall
   consider it perfectly.

   20. Non revertetur iracundia Jehovae usque dum fecerit, et usque dum
   stabilierit cogitationes cordis sui: in extremitate dierum intelligetis hoc
   intelligentia (hoc est, intelligetis hujus rei intelligentiam, ad verbum.)


   He confirms what he had said, lest the hypocrites, with whom he had to do,
   should think that their punishment would be light and soon pass away. For
   though they may have seen that God’s hand was armed against them, yet they
   took comfort, because they expected that it would only be for a short time.
   Hence Jeremiah here reminds them that they were much deceived if they
   thought that they could dissipate as a cloud the vengeance that, was at
   hand; for God would not cease to punish them until he had destroyed them.

   There was another security which deceived the ungodly: they were not
   terrified by threatenings of the Prophet, because they thought that God was
   in a manner dallying with them whenever he denounced ruin. And, doubtless,
   the wicked could not have so securely indulged themselves, had it not been
   that they did not believe that God’s word would be fulfilled. As, then,
   God’s threatenings did not strike hypocrites with terror, the Prophet here
   declares that there was no reason for them to harbor the vain hope that God
   only uttered words, and that there would be no execution of his vengeance.

   Turn back, he says, shall not the anger of Jehovah until he has performed
   and confirmed the thoughts of his heart Jeremiah shews that God had not
   spoken in vain by his servants, according to what is done by men, who often
   speak rashly, for their tongue frequently outruns their purpose. But he
   reminds them here that God is far different from men, for he ever speaks in
   earnest, and his prophetic word is a sure evidence of his hidden purpose, as
   it will again be presently declared. This is the reason why he mentions the
   thoughts of his heart

   We must not yet think that God is like us, as though he reflected on this
   thing and on that, and formed many purposes, while one thing or another
   comes into his mind; no, such a gross idea as this cannot be entertained,
   and cannot be consistent with the nature of God.

   But Jeremiah calls, by a kind of metaphor, the counsel of God his thoughts,
   even that fixed and unchangeable counsel, which he declared by his prophets.
   Sometimes, indeed, God threatened, in order to restore men to repentance;
   but we must bear in mind that he neither varies himself nor changes his
   purpose. Whatever, then, the prophets announced in his name, flowed from his
   hidden purpose, and it was the same as though he had made known to us his
   own heart. And it is no small commendation to prophetic doctrine that God as
   it were connected his heart with his mouth. The mouth of God is the doctrine
   itself; and he says now that it had proceeded from the depth of his heart.
   It hence follows that there is nothing frustratory, (deceptive,) as they
   say, in God’s word; for he here declares that whatever he had committed to
   his servants were the thoughts of his heart. And to confirm, or establish,
   must be applied to the execution of his thoughts.

   The sum of the whole is, that God now pronounces a sentence against the
   people, which could not be reversed; for he had once for all decreed to
   destroy the men who were obstinate in their sins.

   But he seems to refer to the word יחול, ichul, which means, as I have said,
   to fall, and also to abide or to lie upon. According to this meaning, he
   says now, that the anger of God would not return, so as to change its
   course, until it had completed what had already been decreed, even what God
   had resolved respecting the destruction of the people.

   Then he adds, In the extremity of days ye shall understand the knowledge of
   this thing So it is literally; but we may give a simpler version, “Ye shall
   perceive the knowledge of this matter,” or “Ye shall know what this
   means.” The Prophet, no doubt, exults over the insensibility of those who
   could not be moved by such awful warnings. We know how great is the hardness
   of the ungodly, especially when Satan possesses their minds and hearts.
   There is, indeed, no iron and no stone which has so much hardness as there
   is in the perversely wicked; and they in a manner assail God with the
   greatest obstinacy, as though they were victorious, for they despise all his
   warnings and threatenings. Hence the Prophet derides their insolence, or
   rather their madness, and. says, “Ye shall understand,” but too late; for by
   extremity of days, [100] he means the time which God had appointed for his
   anger. But yet God had in due time warned them that they might repent before
   his judgment came. It was now then the same as though he left them in their
   own stupor, and said that they could not, however, escape the hand of God by
   their perverseness, according to what Paul says,

   “Let him who is ignorant, be ignorant.”
   (1 Corinthians 14:38.)

   He no doubt checks the arrogance of those who rejected every sound doctrine
   and all right counsels.

   So, then, the Prophet teaches us here that hypocrites gain nothing by
   setting up their own contumacy and arrogance in opposition to God, for they
   will find, though too late, that God has not spoken in vain. We then see
   that by extremity of days is to be understood that time when the door shall
   be closed, because they did not in due time respond to God when he invited
   them to himself, and set before them the hope of salvation.

   There is also another truth taught us here, that we are to seek God while he
   may be found, and call upon him while he is near. (Isaiah 55:6.) For if we
   abuse his forbearance and despise him who speaks to us today, we shall find
   out too late, and not without the most grievous sorrow, that we have been
   deceived by the devil, because we did not attend to God calling us. It
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [100] Literally, “at the posteriority of days,” meaning, at a future time,
   without designating any particular period; it is the same as “hereafter.”
   The words which follow can hardly be rendered literally in our language —
   “ye shall discern it with discernment.” What is the antecedent to “it,”
   which is, ה, a feminine gender? Venema says that it is to be taken as a
   neuter; but if so, what does it refer to? It appears to me that there is
   nothing in the passage to which it can be referred, except to the
   “tempest,” which is feminine, in the former verse; they would understand at
   a future time the meaning of that tempest, that it was from the Lord as a
   punishment for their sins. This they did not understand at the time. These
   two verses are found nearly in the same words at the end of Jeremiah 23:30:
   The last word is omitted there, — “At the posteriority of days ye shall
   discern it,” or understand it, or consider it. The Vulg. here is, “at the
   last days ye shall understand his counsel;” the Sept., “at the last of days
   ye shall understand it;” and the Targ., “at the end of days ye shall by
   understanding understand this.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:21

   21. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them,
   yet they prophesied.

   21. Non misi prophetas, et ipsi concurrerunt; non loquutus sum ad eos, et
   ipsi prophetarunt.


   The Prophet again warns the Jews not to be perverted by the flatteries of
   false teachers, and not to disregard the threatenings of God. We have
   already said that the minds of the people were then lulled asleep by false
   teachers, who promised them impunity. And there is no evil worse than when
   false teachers, under the name of God, flatter us, and drive away every fear
   and concern for our souls. This evil prevailed among the ancient people, as
   it does also at this day. Indeed the greater part of the world have ever
   sought flatterers, and when God sees that men thus indulge themselves, and
   in a manner seek for themselves snares, he gives loose reins to Satan and
   his ministers, that they may deceive those miserable men who thus wilfully
   seek to be deceived. The object, then, of Jeremiah was to remind the people
   often, that all flatteries were nothing but the wiles of Satan, or some
   deadly poison which stupified all their senses. For when one gives a person
   poison, which extinguishes the senses of the body and the faculties of the
   mind, it is all over with the miserable being who has been thus drugged. We
   see a similar thing done by false teachers, who soothe miserable sinners and
   promise peace to them, as we saw in our last lecture. As, then, it was
   difficult to awaken men out of this stupor, which became, as it were, innate
   in them, and as Satan always employs the same intrigues, it was necessary
   for the holy Prophet to urge his doctrine more and more.

   God now says that he did not send the Prophets, and yet they ran For this
   objection might have appeared sufficient against Jeremiah, — that he was
   alone, and that the other prophets were many in number. It is, indeed, the
   dictate of common sense, that we ought to believe a hundred persons rather
   than one. Jeremiah, then, was alone, and there was a great number of false
   prophets; and the prophetic name was common to them all. It was therefore
   necessary to meet this objection, which was calculated to render God’s
   faithful servant contemptible. Hence he mentions the difference between the
   false teachers with whom he contended and himself, as though he had said,
   “I indeed am alone, but sent by God; and I am thoroughly convinced of my
   legitimate calling, and am also ready to prove that I bring no inventions of
   my own brain; let not, then, a false comparison of one man with a great
   multitude deceive you. For the question here is not of men or of their
   authority, but what we ought to inquire is, who sends them? If God be the
   author of my mission, then I, though alone, am superior to the whole world;
   and if they have not been called by God, though they were a hundredfold more
   than they are, yet all that they boast of means nothing, for in God alone we
   ought to believe.” We now see the design of the Prophet in saying that the
   prophets ran, but were not sent, that they prophesied, but had received no
   commands from God.

   Now this passage especially teaches us that no one is worthy of being heard
   except he be a true minister of God. But there are two things necessary to
   prove a person to be such — a divine call, and faithfulness and integrity.
   Whosoever, then, thrusts in himself, however he may pretend a prophetic
   name, may be safely rejected, for God claims the right of being heard to
   himself alone. Yet a simple and naked call is not sufficient; but he who is
   called must also faithfully labor for his God; and both these things are
   intimated here, for he says that the prophets ran, though they were not
   sent, and that they prophesied, though they were without any command from
   God. I indeed allow that the same thing is here repeated, according to
   common usage, in Hebrew, in different words; yet the stronger expression is
   found in the second clause, for to send belongs properly to the call, and to
   command to the execution of the office. For God in the first place chose his
   prophets, and committed to them the office of teaching, and then he
   commanded them what to say, and dictated to them as it were his message,
   that they might not bring forward anything devised by themselves, but be
   only his heralds, as it has appeared elsewhere. [101]

   We hence learn also that our ears ought not to be open to impostors, who
   boldly pretend the name of God, but that we ought to distinguish between
   true and false teachers; for Jeremiah does not here speak to a few men, but
   he addresses the whole people. And what he designed to shew was, that they
   in vain sought to escape under the pretense of ignorance, who were not
   attentive to sound doctrine; for except they designedly neglected God and
   his word, they might have known whom to believe. It hence follows that
   frivolous is the excuse which many consider at this day to be as it were
   their sacred asylum; for they plead in their own behalf they have been
   deceived by false teachers. But we ought to see and to inquire whether God
   has sent them, and whether they teach as coming from his school, and bring
   anything but what they have received from his mouth.

   I shall not here speak at large of God’s call; but if any one wishes for a
   very short definition, let him take the following: There is a twofold call;
   one is internal and the other belongs to order, and may, therefore, be
   called external or ecclesiastical. But the external call is never
   legitimate, except it be preceded by the internal; for it does not belong to
   us to create prophets, or apostles, or pastors, as this is the special work
   of the Holy Spirit. Though then one be called and chosen by men a hundred
   times, he cannot yet be deemed a legitimate minister, except he has been
   called by God; for there are peculiar endowments required for the prophetic,
   the apostolic, and the pastoral office, which are not in the power or at the
   will of men. We hence see that the hidden call of God is ever necessary, in
   order that any one may become a prophet, or an apostle, or a pastor. But the
   second call belongs to order; for God will have all things carried on by us
   orderly and without confusion. (1 Corinthians 14:40.) Hence has arisen the
   custom of electing. But it often happens that the call of God is sufficient,
   especially for a time. For when there is no Church, there is no remedy for
   the evil, except God raises up extraordinary teachers. Then the ordinary
   call, of which we now speak, depends on a well-ordered state of things.
   Wherever there is a Church of God, it has its own laws, it has a certain
   rule of discipline: there no one should thrust in himself, so as to exercise
   the prophetic or the pastoral office, though he equaled all the angels in
   sanctity. But when there is no Church, God raises up teachers in an unusual
   way, who are not chosen by men; for such a thing cannot be done, where no
   Church is formed.

   This subject deserves, indeed, to be much more diffusely treated; but as I
   am not wont to digress unto particular points, it is enough for me to state
   what the present passage requires, which seems to be this, — that none ought
   to be acknowledged as God’s servants and teachers in the Church, except
   those who have been sent by God, and to whom he has, as it were, stretched
   forth his hand and given them their commission. But as the internal call of
   God cannot be surely known by us, we ought to see and ascertain whether he
   who speaks is the organ or instrument of the Holy Spirit. For whosoever
   brings forward his own figments and devises, is unworthy of being attended
   to. Hence, let him who speaks shew really that he is God’s ambassador; but
   how can he shew this? By speaking from the mouth of God himself; that is,
   let him not bring anything of his own, but faithfully deliver, as from hand
   to hand, what he has received from God. But as there might be still some
   perplexity on the subject, it follows —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [101] The order here is according to the usual style of the prophets; the
   most visible act is mentioned first — the prophets ran without being sent;
   then the previous act is referred to, — God never spoke to them, and yet
   they prophesied. They ran as though God had communicated something to them;
   but God neither spoke to them nor sent them. They had neither a mission nor
   a message from God. In the following verse, consistently still with the
   style of Scripture, the order is reversed. The message is first referred to,
   and then the mission. They had no message, because they never “stood” or
   were present in God’s council; and then they did not go forth for the
   purpose of turning the people from their evil way. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:22

   22. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my
   words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the
   evil of their doings.

   22. Quod si stetissent in concilio meo, certe (copula enim ita resolvi
   debet) udire fecissent verba mea populum meum (hoc est, docuissent populum
   meum sermones meos) et reduxissent eos a via sua mala, et a malitia
   studiorum ipsorum.


   This verse is as it were an explanation of the former; for many might have
   been perplexed, if it had only been said to them, that there are none who
   are fit and legitimate teachers but those who had been sent and entrusted
   with what God had commanded. Hence the Prophet here calls our attention to
   the truth which is certain and manifest; for God had delivered the sum of
   all truth in his Law. As then the perfection of wisdom was found in the Law,
   from which the prophets drew whatever we read in their writings, no excuses,
   such as the following, could be admitted, — “How can we know that the
   prophets speak from God’s mouth, that they bring nothing devised by
   themselves, that they have the instructions which God approves?”

   The Prophet then calls the attention of the Jews to the Law, as though He
   had said as Moses did,

   “There is no need to ascend above the clouds, or to descend into the depths,
   or to run beyond the sea; for the Law and the word is nigh in thy mouth,
   that is, God has set before you whatever is necessary and useful to be
   known.” (Deuteronomy 30:12-14; Romans 10:6.)

   This, then, is fully made known to you, nor will the knowledge of anything
   necessary be obscure, if ye attend to the Law. Hence the cause of error is
   not only your sloth, but also your perverseness; for ye wilfully neglect the
   Law, and remain doubtful and inquire, “Which is the way?”

   “This is the way,” said Moses, “walk ye in it.” (Deuteronomy 5:33.)

   We now then perceive what Jeremiah had in view: he had before said, that
   none were to be attended to, except they who were sent and spoke from the
   mouth of God; but he now explains what he meant, even that the Law contained
   the whole sum of wisdom. But as he had before introduced the false prophets,
   as boldly deriding the true and faithful servants of God, by objecting to
   them and saying, “Who had stood in the counsel of God? these imagine that
   they have fallen from the clouds, they terrify you with dreadful
   threatenings, as though they were angels from heaven,” — as then the false
   prophets were thus wont to speak disdainfully of God’s servants, and alleged
   that they did not stand in God’s counsel, Jeremiah now retorts upon them,
   and says, speaking in God’s name, If they had stood in my counsel, they
   would doubtless have spoken from my Law; as though he had said, “They
   believe not my servants, because they are men and not angels; they hence
   deny that they are of my counsel: thus they persuade the whole people to
   despise the doctrine of salvation. There are, however, some prophets whom I
   have sent: now, if they wish to be deemed sent, let them prove themselves to
   be so.” What is the true proof? If they had stood in my counsel, they would
   have doubtless made known my word to my people. What is that word? the
   definition follows, even the word of the Law, They would have turned the
   straying people from their evil way [102]

   The passage may seem obscure, but from the context itself we can gather that
   the real design of the Prophet was to convict the false teachers, that they
   might no longer boast of God’s name, and falsely pretend that they were
   endued with the prophetic office, and glory in that distinction. He says
   that it was an evident proof that they were not God’s prophets, because they
   did not faithfully teach what they ought to have derived from the Law.

   It is indeed certain, that no one has been God’s counsellor, according to
   what Scripture says in many places, when the object is to check the
   arrogance of those who, in their curiosity, attempt to penetrate into the
   hidden judgments of God, (Isaiah 40:13;) and Paul, while speaking of God’s
   eternal election, it being incomprehensible, exclaims, Who has been his
   counsellor? (Romans 11: 34.) He uses a similar language in the First Epistle
   to the Corinthians, (1 Corinthians 2:16:) and why? that he might check the
   temerity of the human mind, which ventures farther than it is lawful. But
   afterwards Paul adds by way of correction, “But we have the mind of
   Christ:” how so? because he has made known his counsel to us. When,
   therefore, the false prophets denied that God’s servants were his
   counsellors, they might indeed have said so, viewing them only as mortal
   men; but their object was to discredit and to render void the word of God;
   so that they wished to put a restraint not only on men, but also on God
   himself. This was an intolerable insult to God.

   Moreover the Prophet now turns as it were upon them, “There is then no
   Prophet of God in the world!” But fixed was that saying, that there would
   ever be some prophets; and none of the Jews could have dared to deny Moses
   to have been divinely inspired. This, then, being allowed, the Prophet now
   indirectly reproves them, “Where are the prophets of God?” and as they laid
   claim to this distinction, he says, “Doubtless ye stand not in God’s
   counsel. How so? because the counsel of God is included in his Law; and as
   ye have departed from the doctrine of true religion, as ye have no care to
   convey instruction, as your doctrine does not teach men the fear of God, nor
   leads to repentance, it follows that ye are not God’s counsellors nor his
   prophets.” But that this may appear more evident, we must bear in mind what
   Moses said, that God has his own secret things, but that whatever is taught
   in the Law belongs to us and to our children. (Deuteronomy 29:29.) There is
   then no reason why the inquiry should be difficult respecting the true
   prophets of God; for they, without controversy, deserve to be heard as the
   angels of God, who are faithful interpreters of his Law; but they who lead
   us away from the Law ought to be firmly and boldly rejected.

   But we must also bear in mind the definition that is given when it is said,
   that they ought to have turned the people from their evil way, and from the
   wickedness of their doings [103] We indeed know that the worst men
   insolently pretend to preach God’s word, as the Papists do at this day:
   though they have inebriated the whole world with their ungodly and delirious
   doctrines, they yet boast that they are the servants of God. Hence the
   Prophet, after having spoken generally of God’s word, adds a special
   distinction, — that the doctrine of God is that which edifies, which teaches
   and leads men to repentance and the fear of God, according to what Paul
   says, that the Scripture is useful for these purposes, (2 Timothy 3:16;) for
   by so saying, he intended to condemn all false interpreters of Scripture, as
   there were many then who boasted that they were the best teachers, while yet
   they only pleased itching ears. As then there were many who regarded display
   and not edification, Paul says, that the Scripture is useful; and therefore
   he rejected with contempt all expositions in which there was nothing useful.
   So also in this place the Prophet shews that the right and legitimate use of
   Scripture was when it was employed to restore men from their evil way.

   There is, indeed, here an instance of a part being stated for the whole: for
   if we only exhort men to repent, there will be no great fruit; and our
   teaching would be defective, for the doctrine of repentance would be
   inefficient without faith and without calling on the name of God. But the
   Prophet did not intend here to mention every part of a sound and useful
   doctrine; he deemed it enough to confute the false teachers who wished to be
   alone in repute, while yet they had no care to edify the people; for they
   saw all things in disorder, they saw crimes prevailing everywhere, they saw
   a dreadful contempt of God, but to these things they were wholly blind. It
   might then have been hence easily inferred that they neither faithfully
   labored for God nor manifested any care for the safety of the Church; for
   they thus betrayed miserable souls, whose ruin they saw was near at hand.

   We now then see the whole design of the Prophet. But there is no doubt but
   that to the evil way he added the wickedness of their doings, in order that
   he might more fully expose the insensibility of those who under such an
   urgency were silent and remained inactive. There is sometimes the need of a
   moderate reproof; but when people allow themselves an extreme license in
   wickedness, when impunity is everywhere permitted, and when such corruptions
   prevail in common, that nothing remains untainted, if then the tongue of the
   teacher is silent and as it were tied, is he not rightly called an idle and
   a dumb dog? And thus the Prophet enhances the insensibility, for which he
   condemns the false teachers; they were silent, as though things were in a
   good order, while they had to witness not only common crimes, but even a
   vast accumulation of all kinds of crimes; for the people gave themselves up
   not only to one kind of wickedness, but to all kinds, and wholly despised
   God and his Law. It afterwards follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [102] In the Sept. there is no corresponding clause to the “if” at the
   beginning of the verse. The Vulg. and the Targ., as in our version, make the
   “turning” to be such a clause, but strangely render it in the first person
   singular, “then would I have turned them,” etc. The rendering of Calvin, is
   the most suitable, only the ו after אם, might better be rendered “then” than
   “surely,” — But if they had stood in my council, Then would they have caused
   my people to hear my words, And turned them from their wicked way, And from
   the wickedness of their doings. Blayney renders the verse in the same way,
   making the corresponding clause to begin at the second line. — Ed.

   [103] Their “evil way” was their idolatry, and “the wickedness of their
   doings” was their injustice and immoral conduct. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:23-24

   23 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?

   23. An Deus e propinquo, dicit Jehova? Et non Deus e longinquo?

   24. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith
   the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

   24. An absonderit vir in latebris et ego non videbo eum, dicit Jehova? An
   non coelos et terram impleo, dicit Jehova?


   Here he especially shakes off from hypocrites their self-delusions; for they
   were torpid in their vices, because they thought that they could in a manner
   blind the eyes of God. They did not indeed say so; but the heedless security
   of men would, never be so great as it is, were they to believe that nothing
   is hid from God, but that he penetrates into the inmost recesses of the
   heart, that he discerns between the thoughts and the feelings, and leaves
   not unobserved the very marrow. If, then, this truth were fixed in the
   hearts of all, they would certainly obey God with more reverence, and also
   dread his threatenings.

   As, then, they are so heedlessly torpid, it follows, that they imagine God
   as not having a clear sight, who sees only things nigh him, like one who has
   a deficient vision, who can see what is near at hand, but not what is far
   off. Such is what hypocrites dream God to be, who after the manner of men
   either connives at things, or is blind, or at least does not clearly see but
   what is near at hand. We now understand the design of the Prophet in saying,
   that Jehovah is God afar off as well as near at hand.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as nothing necessary to be known for salvation is
   wanting in thy holy and celestial oracles, we may carefully and diligently
   study them, and so labor to make progress in the fear of thy name, in
   reliance on that grace which is offered to us in Christ, that we may derive
   real fruit from the reading and hearing of thy word; and may we also learn
   to turn everything to edification, so that thy name may be really glorified
   in us, and that we may through the whole course of our life make progress in
   faith and repentance, until we shall at length attain to that perfect
   holiness, to which thou daily invitest us, when we shall be wholly divested
   of all the filth of our flesh, and become fully renewed after the image of
   thy Son, our Lord. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Eighty-Ninth

   Am I a God at hand, saith Jehovah? and not a God afar off? Will a man hide
   himself in darkness, or in coverts, and I shall not see him, or that I could
   not see him, saith Jehovah? Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith Jehovah?
   Here the Prophet most sharply reproves the hypocrites, who thought that they
   had no concern with God, as is the case always with those who delude
   themselves in their sins. Though this truth is ever professed by them, that
   God is the judge of the world, and that an account must some time be
   rendered to him; yet they afterwards think that they can by some evasion
   escape, so that God will forgive them. In short, it is usual with hypocrites
   to trifle as it were childishly with God. On this account, God is grievously
   displeased with them, and declares that he is far different from what they
   imagine him to be. For while they thus set themselves up as arbitrators, so
   that they subject God to their own laws, they think him to be as it were
   full of apprehension, and that he sees nothing, or at least very little; he
   says, that he is not only a God near at hand but also afar off [104]

   Some apply this to time, as though he denied that he lately came into
   existence; and so they think that the only true and eternal God is compared
   with idols, which men form presumptuously for themselves. But the other
   meaning is far more suitable, — even that he is a God afar off; for as it is
   said elsewhere,

   “Though he dwells on high, yet he sees everything
   that is done on earth.” (Psalm 102:19)

   As, then, nothing escapes his sight, he is said to be a God afar off, while
   hypocrites thought him to be a God only near at hand, as we say in French,
   De courte veue, who sees only things near, as it were before the eyes. But a
   question has much more force than if it was said, that he was not merely a
   God near at hand; and this mode of speaking conveys reproof; for hypocrites
   greatly detract from his majesty, when they thus, according to their own
   notions, imagine that he can see no more than a mortal man. They would not
   indeed have dared to speak thus; but when any one examined all their
   counsels and their actions, he would have found that they could have never
   shewn so much audacity, had they not deceived themselves with the vain
   notion, that God could be deceived [105] And, therefore, Jeremiah does not
   relate their words, but points out the wickedness which sufficiently
   manifested itself in their doings, though they professed otherwise with
   their tongues.

   And that this is the meaning appears more clearly from the next verse, which
   ought to be read in connection with this; Will a man hide himself in
   coverts, that I should not see him? [106] This verse is added by way of
   explanation; there can therefore be no doubt respecting the words, far off
   and near, — that God is said to be a God afar off; because his eyes
   penetrate into the lowest depths, so that nothing can escape him.

   It is a wonder that the Greek translators made so great a mistake; for they
   wholly changed the sense, — that God is God nigh at hand, but not afar off.
   In the first place, they did not consider the question, and then, as they
   did not see the drift of the passage, they contrived from their own brains
   what is wholly remote from the words of the Prophet. This sentiment, that
   God is nigh and not afar off, is indeed true; but what is meant here is
   quite another thing, — that God sees in a way very different from men, for
   he fully and perfectly sees what is farthest from him, according to the
   passage we have quoted from Psalm 102:19; and there is another in Psalm
   139:7-12, where the Psalmist says,

   “Where shall I flee from thy face? for if I ascend into heaven, thou art
   there; if I lie down in hell, there thou stretchest forth thine hand; if I
   take the wings of the dawn and fly to the clouds, even thine hand will lay
   hold of me there; if I seek coverts, even the night itself is before thee as
   the light, and darkness shines as the light.”

   If, then, we join together these two passages, there will appear nothing
   ambiguous in the words of Jeremiah, — even that God penetrates with his eyes
   into the lowest depths, so that nothing is hid from him.

   But Jeremiah not only explains the meaning of the last verse, but also makes
   a practical use of it; Will any one, he says, hide himself in coverts that I
   should not see him? The seeing of God has a reference to his judgment. Then
   all frivolous speculations ought to be cast aside, since Scripture says that
   God sees all things; but we ought especially to consider for what purpose it
   is that he sees all things; which is evidently this, — that he may at last
   call to judgment whatever is done by men. There is then an application of
   the doctrine to our case; for we hence learn, that whatsoever we do, think,
   and speak, is known to God.

   By coverts, or hiding-places, he means all the secret frauds which men think
   they can cover; but by such an attempt they gain nothing but a heavier
   judgment. By coverts then we are to understand all those vain thoughts which
   hypocrites entertain; for they think that they can so hide themselves that
   God cannot see their purposes. Hence God laughs them to scorn, and says in
   effect, “Let them enter into their coverts, let them hide themselves as much
   as they please, I yet do see them in their coverts no less clearly than if
   they were quite close to me.”

   To confirm this he adds, Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith Jehovah? This
   must not be refinedly explained of the infinite essence of God. It is indeed
   true, that his essence extends through heaven and earth, as it is
   interminable. But Scripture will not have us to feed on frivolous and
   unprofitable notions; it teaches only what avails to promote true religion.
   What therefore God declares here, that he fills heaven and earth, ought to
   be applied to his providence and his power; as though he had said, that he
   is not so taken up with things in heaven that he neglects the concerns of
   earth, as profane men dream; but he is said to fill heaven and earth,
   because he governs all things, because all things are noticed by him,
   because he is, in short, the judge of the world.

   We now perceive what the Prophet means; and this passage is entitled to
   particular notice, because this error of imagining a God like ourselves is
   inbred almost in us all. Hence it is, that men allow themselves so much
   liberty; for they consider it a light thing to discharge their duty towards
   God, because they reflect not what sort of being he is, but they think of
   him according to their own understanding and character. As, then, we are
   thus gross in our ideas, it becomes us carefully to reflect on this passage,
   where God declares, that he is not only a God near at hand, that is, that he
   is not like us, who have only a limited power of seeing, but that he sees in
   the thickest darkness as well as in the clearest light; and that therefore
   it avails those nothing to deceive themselves who dig for themselves
   caverns, as it is said in Isaiah, and hide themselves in deep labyrinths.
   (Isaiah 2:21.) He thus denies that they gain anything, and gives this as the
   reason,

   “Because he fills heaven and earth;”

   that is, his providence, his power, and his justice are so diffused
   everywhere, that wherever men betake themselves, it is impossible for them
   to be concealed from him. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [104] “Am I not a God here upon earth, that seems farther from me, as well
   as in heaven, that seemeth nearer to me, as being the place of my special
   residence? do you think that because my palace is in heaven I take no notice
   of what is done upon earth?” — Gataker. This appears to be the meaning; for
   he says afterwards, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” The words seem
   literally to be, — 21. Am I a God of nearness, saith Jehovah? And not a God
   of distance? — Ed.

   [105] “The Scripture,” says Venema, “often brings to light and condemns, not
   what men profess, but what may be inferred from their doings.” — Ed.

   [106] The future here ought to be rendered potentially, — Can a man hide in
   hiding-places, That I should not see him, saith Jehovah? Do not I fill the
   heavens and the earth, saith Jehovah? The first line may be thus rendered
   more literally, — Can a man secrete himself in secrecies? In Welsh, — A
   lecha dyn mewn llechveydd? “The heavens,” and not “heaven,” ought to be the
   word in the last line; and so does Blayney render it. The visible and the
   invisible heaven are intended. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:25

   25. I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name,
   saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

   25. Audivi quod dicunt (vel, quid dicant,) prophetae prophetantes in nomine
   meo, dicendo, somniavi, somniavi.


   Jeremiah returns again to those impostors who soothed the people with their
   blandishments. Whenever Jeremiah and those who were like him, who faithfully
   performed their office, treated the people with severity by reproving and
   threatening them for their sins, these unprincipled men rose up against,
   them, and under the name of prophets flattered the ungodly despisers of God.
   It was, as we have before said, a most grievous trial, when in the very
   Church itself the ministers of Satan thus falsely pretended the name of God.
   The Jews would have unhesitantly despised and laughed to scorn what the vain
   prophets of the Gentiles might have boasted; for they knew that these had no
   knowledge of God; but when the false prophets of whom he now speaks occupied
   a place in the Church, and in high terms boasted that they were God’s
   servants, this would have greatly disturbed the weak and shaken their faith,
   and even wholly upset it, had not God stretched forth his hand. It is
   therefore no wonder that Jeremiah dwells so much on this subject; for it was
   an evil that could not be easily cured; had he said only, that they were not
   to be esteemed, the weak would not have been satisfied. It was hence
   necessary for him often to repeat this truth, that they were all to know
   that there was need of discrimination and judgment, and that those who
   pretended God’s name were not to be indiscriminately allowed to be his
   prophets.

   He then repeats what we have before observed, but in other words, — I have
   heard, says God, what the prophets say who prophesy in my name [107] An
   objection is anticipated, for it might have been said, “What can this mean?
   the prophets disagree! and what is to be done under these dissensions? they
   who differ dazzle our eyes with an illustrious title, and boldly affirm that
   they have been sent by God. As, then, there is such a conflict between the
   prophets, what are we to do?” God meets this objection, and declares that it
   was not unknown to him what the false prophets boasted of. He adds, that
   they prophesied in his name It was an offense, which must have greatly
   distressed weak minds, to hear of this profanation of God’s name. For as it
   behoves us reverently to receive what proceeds from God, so it is no small
   danger when God’s name is falsely and mendaciously pretended. As, then, they
   might have been greatly disturbed by this false pretext of what was good, it
   is here expressly said, that they had used the name of God, but he adds,
   falsely

   We hence see the truth of what I have said, that those who affirm that they
   are prophets and ostentatiously pretend God’s name, ought not to be received
   indiscriminately, but that judgment ought to be exercised; for it has been
   God’s will in all ages to try the faith of his servants by permitting to
   Satan and his ministers the liberty of pretending falsely his holy name. And
   as we see that the Church has ever been exposed to this evil, there is no
   cause for us to be disturbed at this day, when the same thing happens, for
   it is nothing new. Let us, therefore, learn to harden ourselves against such
   trials; and whenever false prophets try our faith, let; us remain firm,
   holding this principle, — that we ought wisely to consider, whether God
   himself speaks, or whether men falsely boast themselves to be his servants.

   To dream is to be taken here in a good sense; for, as we have seen
   elsewhere, God was wont to make himself known to his servants by dreams. It
   is not then every kind of dreams that is to be understood here, but, such
   dreams as were from above. The false prophets, indeed, stated what was not
   true by using this language; for it was the same as though they testified
   that they did not bring their own devices, but faithfully related what they
   had received from God. As the Pope at this day declares that he is the vicar
   of Christ and the successor of Peter, while he exercises tyranny over the
   Church; so also these, by a specious pretext, deceived the simple by saying
   that they brought nothing human, but were only witnesses as to God’s
   oracles. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [107] The more literal rendering is as follows, — 25. I have heard what the
   prophets have said, Who have prophesied in my name falsely, saying. — “I
   have dreamed, I have dreamed.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:26-27

   26. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies?
   yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

   26. Quosque erit in corde prophetarum prophetantium mendacium, et
   prophetarum doli cordis sui?

   27. Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which
   they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my
   name for Baal.

   27. Cogitantes ut faciant oblivisci populum meum nominis mei per somnia sua
   (vel, in somniis suis, ad verbum,) qua narrant quisque socio suo;
   quemadmodum obliti sunt patres eorum nominis mei in Baal.


   Here God reproves the false prophets, and also promises to his people what
   was especially to be desired, — that he would cleanse his Church from such
   pollutions. He then shews that it was his purpose to take vengeance, because
   the false prophets had dared in such an impious and bold manner to abuse his
   sacred name. For it ever occurred to their minds, “How is it that God
   permits this? Is it because he cares not for the safety of his people? or
   does it give him any delight when he sees truth mingled with falsehood, and
   light with darkness?” Hence God here shews that he for a time bore with that
   sacrilegious audacity which the false prophets practiced, but that he did
   not so connive at it as not at length to punish them.

   How long? he says, which is the same as though he had said, “It shall not be
   perpetual; though I may delay, yet they shall know that they have with
   extreme perverseness abused my forbearance.” And he also enhances their
   crime by saying, How long shall it be in the heart of the prophets to
   prophesy falsehood? By this way of speaking he intimates, that they erred
   not through ignorance, as many do, who through want of knowledge bring forth
   what they do not understand; but God here complains that these prophets, as
   it were designedly, rose up to suppress the truth. Then by heart is to be
   understood thought or purpose; as though he had said, that they designedly
   made a false pretense as to his name, that it was their settled purpose to
   deceive the people. [108]

   He adds, that they were prophets of the deceit of their own heart. This
   deceit of the heart is put in opposition to true doctrine; and thus God
   intimates that whatever men bring forward from themselves is deceitful, for
   nothing can proceed from them but vanity. There is yet no doubt but that he
   condemns that foolish conceit, of which the false prophets proudly boasted,
   that they were alone wise, as the case is now under the Papacy; how
   arrogantly do unprincipled men prattle whenever they speak of their own
   figments? Nothing can be more silly, and yet they think that they surpass
   the angels in acuteness and in high speculations. Such was the arrogance
   displayed by the false prophets of old. But God declares that whatever men
   invent, and whatever they devise, which they have not received from his
   mouth, is only the deceit of the heart.

   And this ought to be carefully noticed; for there are many plausible
   refinements, in which there is nothing solid, but they are mere trifles. If,
   then, at any time these vain thoughts seem pleasing to us, let us bear in
   mind what Jeremiah says here, that whatever proceeds not from God is the
   deceit of the heart; and further, that though the whole world applaud
   falsehoods and impostures, we ought yet to know that everything is a deceit
   which has not God himself as its author.

   Then follows a clearer definition, that they made his people to forget his
   name by their dreams, as their fathers had forgotten it through Baal. [109]
   We may infer from this verse, that those with whom Jeremiah contended were
   not openly the enemies of the Law; for they held many principles of true
   religion. They maintained in common with the true and sincere worshippers of
   God this truth, — that the only true God ought to be worshipped; and also
   this, — that there was only one legitimate altar on which sacrifices
   according to the Law were to be offered. On these points, then, there was no
   controversy. But yet they deceived the people by their flatteries; for they
   made gain of their prophetic office. Hence Jeremiah condemns them, because
   they made God’s name to be forgotten by their dreams, as their fathers had
   forgotten it through Baal; as though he had said, “These dreams are like the
   fictitious and spurious forms of worship, by which true religion was
   formerly subverted; for their fathers worshipped Baal and Baalim: they set
   up for themselves these false gods, and thus subverted the glory of God by
   their own devices.” The impiety of the false prophets, who lived in the time
   of Jeremiah, was not indeed so gross; and yet it was an indirect defection,
   for they brought forward their dreams, and falsely professed that. they were
   God’s servants, though he had not commissioned them.

   We have said elsewhere (Jeremiah 23:21) that their crime was twofold; first,
   they ran when not called nor sent; and secondly, they brought forward their
   own fancies and not the word of God. And this passage ought to be carefully
   noticed; for we here learn, that not only open defection cannot be endured
   by God, but also indirect depravations, which stealthily withdraw us from
   the fear of God. Then these two evils must be carefully avoided in the
   Church, if we desire to continue entire in our obedience to God. One evil is
   sufficiently known, that is, when truth is openly turned into falsehood,
   when men are drawn away into idolatry and filthy superstitions, or when the
   ancient people, as Jeremiah says, forgat the name of God through Baal. But
   the other evil is more hidden, and therefore more dangerous, that is, when
   some appearance of true religion is retained, and men are yet insidiously
   drawn away from the fear of God and his true worship, and from pure
   doctrine, as we see to be the case at this day in the Churches, which
   profess to have separated from the Papacy that they might embrace the
   doctrine of the Gospel: there are many among them who insidiously corrupt
   the simple and genuine doctrine of the Gospel. We see how many curious men
   there are at this time, who disturb all things by their own inventions, and
   how absurdly many seek refinements, and how confidently also do many
   propound their own inventions as oracles! It behoves us then to be watchful,
   not only that we may shun open abominations, but that we may also retain the
   pure and true word of God, so as not to allow false workers insidiously to
   corrupt and vitiate anything. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [108] Emendators have been very busy in correcting the first words in this
   verse, without the authority of any MSS., or of the early versions. When
   there is a meaning and a striking one, emendations, merely conjectural, are
   surely to be repudiated. Houbigant, Blayney, and Horsley, have their
   corrections, but we can do without them. What seems to have prompted
   conjectural emendations has been the ה prefixed to יש; but Gataker removed
   this difficulty; his version is substantially as follows, — How long! — Is
   it in the heart of these prophets, To be prophesying falsehood, And
   prophesying the deceit of their own hearts? To be “in the heart” is to be
   resolved, to form a purpose or determination. See Isaiah 63:4. It is the
   same, as though it was said, “Are these prophets resolved?” To be “in the
   heart” means also to delight in a thing. See Psalm 40:8. The meaning then
   may be, “Is it the delight of these prophets?” etc. But the first sense is
   the most suitable. “How long!” is an exclamation of wonder at their
   perseverance in their wicked course. They had been often warned, and yet
   they continued. Then follows a question, whether it was their settled
   purpose to persevere in prophesying falsely? — Ed.

   [109] Calvin begins this verse as our version, “Who think,” etc. So the
   Sept.; the Vulg. is, “who seek (or wish), volunt.” Blayney has, “who
   study.” The verb means sometimes to contrive or to purpose a thing after
   counting the reasons for and against. It may be rendered here, “who
   design.” The Syriac is, “whose counsel is.” It was their design and intended
   object to make the people to forget God’s name through their dreams. But how
   to forget his name? for they professed to announce their dreams in his name.
   God’s name here evidently means his revealed name, himself as revealed in
   his word. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:28

   28. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my
   word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?
   saith the LORD.

   28. Propheta apud quem est somnium, narrabit somnium; et apud quem est sermo
   meus, narrabit sermonem meum veritatis: quid palae ad triticum, dicit
   Jehova?


   We ought also to read this verse attentively, for doubtless it contains a
   doctrine especially useful. I have already said, that the faith of many
   might have failed at seeing a conflict in the Temple of God, not only among
   the common people, but also among the prophets of God. God did not appear
   from heaven, nor did he send his angels, but would have himself to be heard
   through men. They who came to the Temple expected the prophets to teach
   them. There the ministers of Satan appeared, who corrupted and perverted all
   things. There were a few, who sincerely declared the truth of God, and
   faithfully explained what God commanded. What could miserable men do in this
   case, who were willing to obey, and possessed a teachable spirit? Hence it
   was, that many threw aside every concern for religion, and gave themselves
   up to despair: “What means all this? why are there so many discords, so many
   disputes, so many contentions, so many invectives? Where can we now betake
   ourselves? It is better not to care for anything any more.” Thus many took
   occasion to indulge their indifference, choosing not to weary themselves any
   more, nor to seek what God was, what his will was, whether there was
   salvation for them, whether there was any hope, rather than to entangle
   themselves in troublesome and thorny disputes.

   Such a temptation existed in the time of Jeremiah. He, therefore, applied in
   due time a suitable remedy and said, The Prophet, who has a dream, that is,
   with whom is a dream, he will relate a dream; and then, The Prophet with
   whom is my word, he will speak my word; [110] as though God had said, that
   it was all extremely wicked thing to obstruct the way of truth by falsehood.
   But this is what usually happens, as I have already said; for where Satan
   has his agents, an obstacle seems to be in our way which prevents us to go
   on and proceed in the course of true religion. For when those who are
   right-minded, as we have said, see the prophets themselves contending,
   disputing, and quarrelling, they stand still, nay, they go backward. Now God
   shews that this is extremely unreasonable. Then the meaning is, as though he
   had said, “Let not the false prophets by Their fallacies impede the course
   of God’s servants, that they may not proceed, and that his word should not
   be reverently heard.”

   Unless we attend to this which the Prophet had in view, the passage will
   appear unmeaning. It has been often quoted, but this circumstance has not
   certainly been observed. We ought, therefore, ever to consider, why is a
   thing said. This verse depends on what is gone before; and God here answers
   a question, which might have been raised, — “What then must we do, for
   falsehoods conflict with truth?” God answers, that his word ought not to be
   prejudiced by this circumstance; as though he had said, “Let nothing prevent
   my Prophets from teaching; I bid them to be heard.” We hence conclude, that
   those do wrong to God, who allege the controversies, by which religion is
   torn and as it were lacerated, and think that they thus obtain a license to
   indulge their impiety; for it is not a reason that can avail them, that
   Satan and his ministers labor to discredit the authority of God and of his
   servants. Though these false prophets insinuate themselves, though they may
   set up themselves against the true and faithful servants of God, yet let
   dreams, that is, prophetic revelations, retain their weight, and let him
   with whom is God’s word, speak the word of God, so that it may be heard.
   This clause refers to the hearers; they were not to desist from rendering
   obedience to the Law, how much soever Satan might strive to subvert their
   faith by attempting to destroy its unity.

   It afterwards follows, What is the chaff to the wheat? This addition was
   also wholly necessary, for many might have again objected and said, that
   they had no sufficient judgment to distinguish between the true and false
   prophets. God here gives the answer, that the difference between true and
   false doctrine was nothing less to him who made a careful examination than
   between wheat and chaff And by this comparison he shews how foolishly and
   absurdly many detract from the authority of the Law on this pretense, that
   there are many who falsely interpret it. For when any one rejects the wheat
   because it is covered with chaff, does he not deserve to perish through
   hunger? and who will pity him who says that he has indeed wheat on his
   floor, but that it is mixed with chaff, and therefore not fit for food? Why,
   then, thou silly man, dost not thou separate the chaff from the wheat? But
   thou choosest to perish through want, rather than to cleanse the wheat that
   thou mayest have it for thy food. So also in the Temple the wheat is often
   mixed with the chaff, the pure truth of God is often defiled with many
   glosses and vain figments; and yet, except it be our own fault, we shall be
   able to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff. [111] But if we be
   negligent, and think that it is a sufficient excuse for despising the word
   of God, because Satan brings in his fallacies, we shall perish in our sloth
   like him who neglects to cleanse his wheat that he might turn it to bread.
   But the time will not allow me to say more.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [110] All the early versions and the Targ. render the last verb in the
   imperative mood, “Let him speak,” etc. And so most of modern expounders. —
   Ed

   [111] The difference between the chaff and the wheat is what the Sept. and
   Vulg. intimate, “What is the chaff to the wheat?” But the Syr. has another
   idea, “Why mingle ye the chaff with the wheat?” The literal rendering of the
   Hebrew is, “Why to the chaff the wheat?” The mixture is what seems to be
   intended. So thought Gataker and Blayney, who rendered it, “What has the
   chaff to do with the wheat?” that is, why do you mix them together? And so
   does Adam Clarke view the phrase. Venema, Henry, Scott, and Lowth take the
   first meaning, which is also that of our version; but the other is more
   agreeable to the original. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as thou art graciously pleased daily to set before
   us thy sure and certain will, we may open our eyes and cars, and raise all
   our thoughts to that which not only reveals to us what is right, but also
   confirms us in a sound mind, so that we may go on in the course of true
   religion, and never turn aside, whatever Satan and his ministers may devise
   against us, but that we may stand firm and persevere, until having finished
   our warfare, we shall, at length come unto that blessed rest which has been
   prepared for us in heaven by Jesus Christ our Lord. — Amen.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Lecture Ninetieth

   We saw yesterday that though the false prophets corrupted the true doctrine,
   yet the prophetic office remained in its honor without any loss to its
   authority. Hence Jeremiah said that all their fallacies ought not to be an
   hinderance to the faithful, so as to prevent them to proceed in the course
   of their calling, and that no one should object and say, that in so confused
   a state of things he could not know what to avoid and what to follow; he
   said that the difference between wheat and chaff was easily perceived,
   provided men were not wilfully blind. He now adds, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:29

   29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that
   breaketh the rock in pieces?

   29. An non ut sit sermo meus quasi ignis (hoc est, an non sermo meus tanquam
   ignis) dicit Jehova? Et tanquam malleus conterens saxum (vel, rupem.)


   He confirms what he said of the chaff and the wheat, but in different words.
   It was a fit comparison when Jeremiah compared God’s word to wheat, and the
   figments of men to chaff. But as the Jews, through their ingratitude,
   rendered the word of God ineffectual, so it did not become to them a
   spiritual support, the Prophet says that it would become like a fire and
   like a hammer, [112] as though he had said, that though the Jews were void
   of judgment, as they had become hardened in their wickedness, yet the word
   of God could not be rendered void, or at least its power could not be taken
   away; for as Paul says,

   “If it is not the odor of life unto life, it is the odor of death unto death
   to those who perish,” (2 Corinthians 2:16)

   and so also the same Apostle says in another place, that God’s servants had
   vengeance in their power, for they bear the spiritual sword, in order to
   cast down every height that exalteth itself against Christ; but he adds,

   “After the obedience” of the faithful “had been completed.”
   (2 Corinthians 10:6)

   The first and as it were the natural use of God’s word is to bring salvation
   to men; and hence it is called food; but it turns into poison to the
   reprobate: and this is the reason for so great a diversity.

   He said, first, that God’s word was wheat, because souls are nourished by it
   unto a celestial life; and nothing can be more delightful than this
   comparison. But now he declares it to be fire and a hammer There is in these
   terms some appearance of contradiction; but there is a distinction to be
   made as to the hearers, for they who reverently embrace the word of God, as
   it becomes them, and with genuine docility of faith, find it to be food to
   them; but the ungodly, as they are unworthy of such a benefit, find it to be
   far otherwise. For the word which is in itself life-giving, is changed into
   fire, which consumes and devours them; and also it becomes a hammer to
   break, to tear them in pieces, and to destroy them.

   The import of the whole is, that God’s word ever retains its own dignity;
   for if it happens to be despised by men, it cannot yet be deprived of its
   vigor and efficacy; if it be not wholesome for food, it will be like fire or
   like a hammer. Then these two comparisons belong to the wicked, for God’s
   word has another sense when called fire with reference to the faithful, even
   because it dries up and consumes the lusts of the flesh, as silver and gold
   are purified by fire. Hence the word of God is properly and fitly called
   fire, even with regard to the faithful; but not a devouring but a refining
   fire. But when it comes to the reprobate, it must necessarily destroy them,
   for they receive not the grace that it offers to them. It may also be called
   a hammer, for it subdues the depraved affections of the flesh and such as
   are opposed to God even in the elect; but it does not break the elect, for
   they suffer themselves to be subdued by it.

   But this hammer is said to break the stone or the rock because the reprobate
   will not hear to be corrected; they must, therefore, be necessarily broken
   and destroyed. For this reason Paul also, while speaking of the refractory,
   says,

   “Let him who is ignorant be ignorant.”
   (1 Corinthians 14:38)

   For by these words he means that they will at last find how great is the
   hardness of that word with which they dare to contend through the
   perverseness of their heart. But that passage which I have before quoted
   well explains what is here said by Jeremiah, even that truth in itself is
   wholesome, but that it turns into an odor of death unto death to those who
   perish. (2 Corinthians 2:16.) Paul, indeed, speaks of the Gospel, but this
   may be also applied to the Law. It now follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [112] The particle כה at the beginning of this verse, rendered ut by Calvin,
   seems to be without meaning. It is omitted by the Vulg., and rendered
   “behold” by the Sept. and Syr., as though it was חנה. Venema regarded it
   either as a noun, burning, from כוה, to burn, or a misprint for כח,
   strength, vigor, power. The last is adopted by Blayney, and approved by
   Horsley, and is countenanced by the Targ., “Are not all my words strong as
   fire?” Blayney’s version is, — Is not the power of my word like fire? This
   is the most probable meaning; though there is no different reading, yet the
   difference between the two letters is very small. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:30-32

   30. Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal
   my words every one from his neighbour.

   30. Propterea ecce ego ad (vel, super) prophetas, dicit Jehova, qui furantur
   sermones meos, quisque a socio suo:

   31. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their
   tongues, and say, He saith.

   31. Ecce ego ad (vel, super, vel, contra) prophetas, dicit Jehova, qui
   mollificant (vel, tollunt) linguam suam, et dicunt, sermo (vel, dictio:)

   32. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD,
   and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their
   lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not
   profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

   32. Ecce ego super (vel, ad, vel, contra) prophetantes somnia mendacii,
   dicit Jehova, et narrant illis et decipiunt populum meum in mendaciis suis
   et levitate sua; et ego (hoc est, quanquam ego) non miserim ipsos, neque
   mandaverim illis, et utilitate non proderunt (proficiendo non afferent
   utilitatem) populo huic, dicit Jehova.


   Jeremiah returns again to the false teachers, who were the authors of all
   the evils; for they fascinated the people with their flatteries, so that
   every regard for sound and heavenly doctrine was almost extinguished. But
   while God declares that he is an avenger against them, he does not exempt
   the people from punishment. We indeed know that a just reward was rendered
   to the reprobate, when God let loose the reins to the ministers of Satan
   with impunity to deceive them. But as the people acquiesced in those false
   allurements, while Jeremiah so severely reproved the false teachers, he
   reminds the people how foolishly they betook themselves under the shadow of
   those men, thinking themselves to be safe.

   He says, first, Behold, I am, against the prophets, who steal my words every
   one from his neighbor. Many explain this verse as though God condemned the
   false prophets, who borrowed something from the true prophets, so that they
   might be their rivals and as it were their apes; and no doubt the ungodly
   teachers had ever from the beginning made some assumptions, that they might
   be deemed God’s servants. But it seems, however, a forced view, that they
   stole words from the true prophets, for the words express what is different,
   that they stole every one from his friend Jeremiah would not have called
   God’s faithful servants by this name. I rather think that their secret arts
   are here pointed out, that they secretly and designedly conspired among
   themselves, and then that they spread abroad their own figments according to
   their usual manner. For the ungodly and the perfidious, that they might
   obtain credit among the simple and unwary, consulted together and devised
   all their measures craftily, that they might not be immediately found out;
   and thus one took from the other what he afterwards announced and published.
   And this is what Jeremiah calls stealing, because they secretly consulted,
   and then declared to the people what they agreed upon among themselves; and
   they did this as though every one had derived his oracle from heaven. I
   have, therefore, no doubt but that the Prophet condemns these hidden
   consultations when he says that every one stole from his neighhour. [113]

   We indeed see the same thing now under the Papacy, for the monks and
   unprincipled men of the same character have their own false doctrines; and
   when they ascend the pulpit, every one speaks as though he was endued with
   some special gift; and yet they steal every one from his friend, for they
   are like the soothsayers or the magi, who concocted among themselves their
   own falsehoods, and only brought out what they deemed necessary to delude
   the common people. This, then, was one of the vices which the Prophet shews
   prevailed among the false teachers, — that no one attended to the voice of
   God, but that every one took furtively from his friend what he afterwards
   openly proclaimed.

   He adds, secondly, Behold, I am against the prophets, who mollify their own
   tongue Almost all interpreters take לקה, lekech, as signifying to render
   sweet or soft; and they understand that the false prophets are condemned,
   because they flattered the wicked for the sake of gain; for had they
   offended or exasperated them, they could not have attached them to
   themselves. They then think that to mollify their tongue means here that
   they used their tongue in speaking smooth and flattering things. But others
   give another explanation, — that they mollified their tongue because they
   polished their words in imitation of God’s servants, so that their speech
   was sweeter than honey. But as לקה, lekech, means to receive and to take,
   and sometimes to raise on high, and sometimes to carry, I see not why it
   should not be taken in its proper meaning. I certainly see no reason to turn
   its meaning to a metaphor, when it can be taken in its plain sense of
   raising their tongue; they elevated themselves, and in high terms boasted
   that the office of teaching had been committed to them, for we know how
   haughtily false teachers elevate themselves. Therefore the verse may be
   taken thus, that God would punish those impostors who raised their tongue,
   that is, who proudly boasted and boldly arrogated to themselves authority,
   as though they were messengers from heaven. [114]

   It afterwards follows, And they say, נאם, nam, he saith. We know that it was
   a common thing for all the prophets to add, נאם יהוה, nam Jeve, the saying
   of Jehovah, or the word of Jehovah, in order to shew that they said nothing
   but what they had received from above. And if we read this verse as
   connected together, we shall find true what I have said — that the verb לקה,
   lekech, does not mean the smoothness or adulation used, but, the lofty
   vaunting of the false teachers, who wished to be deemed the organs of the
   Holy Spirit, and assumed to themselves all the authority of God. For their
   elation was this, that they confidently boasted that God himself had spoken,
   and said that it was the word; and they did this, that whatever they
   prattled might appear indisputed, though it was sufficiently evident that
   they falsely pretended the name of God.

   He adds, thirdly, Behold, I am against those who prophesy dreams of
   falsehood It was indeed necessary to say here, that though the false
   teachers arrogated to themselves what alone belonged to the servants of God,
   they were yet mendacious. He afterwards adds, They narrate them, and cause
   my people to err by their falsehoods and their levity The meaning is, that
   however proudly they might, have pretended the name of prophets, they were
   yet impostors, who deceived the people by narrating to them their false
   dreams. The word dream is taken here in a good sense, but the word added to
   it, shews that they boasted of dreams which were only their own; and this is
   again confirmed when Jeremiah says, that they deceived the people by their
   falsehoods; and he adds, by their levity, [115] which some render
   “flattery.” I doubt not but that it means their inventions, which were vain,
   because they proceeded only from vain presumption.

   He adds, Though I sent them not nor commanded them This negation ought
   especially to be noticed; for God shews how we are to form a judgment, when
   a question is raised respecting true and false teachers. Whatever,
   therefore, is without God’s command is like the wind, and will of itself
   vanish away. There is, then, no solidity in anything but in God’s command.
   Hence it follows, that all those who speak according to their own fancies
   are mendacious, and that whatever they bring forward has no weight in it;
   for God sets these two things in opposition the one to the other; on the one
   side are falsehood and levity, and on the other, his command and his call.
   It hence follows, that no one, except he simply obeys God and faithfully
   declares what he has received from him, can be of any account; for his whole
   weight is lighter than a feather, and all his apparent wisdom is falsehood.

   At last he says, that they would not profit his people In which words he
   warns the people to shun them as the plague. But we see how the world
   indulges itself in this respect; for they who are drowsy seek to absolve
   themselves on the plea of ignorance, and throw the blame on their pastors,
   as though they were themselves beyond the reach of danger. But the Lord here
   reminded the people, that the teachers whom they received were pestilent;
   though for another reason he testified that they were useless, and that in
   order that he might shake off the vain confidence of the Jews, who were wont
   to set up this shield against all God’s threatenings, that their false
   teachers promised them wonderful things. It follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [113] Various have been the expositions of this sentence: they adopted the
   manner of the true prophets, as some say, and used their words, an instance
   of which is found in Jeremiah 28:1-4; and this is the view of Scott; others
   hold that the imitation in saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” is what is
   referred to. It has also been suggested that they are intended — who,
   knowing the truth, withheld it from the people; and that to withhold what
   they knew, is represented here as stealing. But none of these views
   sufficiently account for the words here used, “who steal my words every one
   from his neighbor.” They were God’s words committed to the people, and these
   prophets stole them, that is, by rendering them void by their falsehoods and
   vain dreams, as Satan is said to steal the seed sown in the heart of the
   way-side hearer. This is the view taken by Grotius, Venema, and Gataker. —
   Ed.

   [114] There are those who, with Houbigant, suppose a transposition in the
   word, the ח being put last instead of being first; and then it would mean to
   render smooth. But this does not suit the passage. The probable idea is what
   is given paraphrastically by the Sept., “who send forth the prophecies of
   the tongue;” they derived their prophecies from their own hearts and their
   own tongues, and said that they came from God. They took or used their
   tongues only, and at the same time professed to speak God’s words. Or we may
   consider the taking or using the tongue as meaning only profession, as
   though it was said, “who profess and say, ‘He saith.’” The Syr. is, “who
   pervert their own tongues,” which means that they used them falsely; and the
   Targ., “who prophesy according to the will of their own heart.” — Ed.

   [115] The word is rendered “errors,” by the Sept.; “miracles,” by the Vulg.;
   “lasciviousness,” by the Syr.; and “rashness,” by the Targ. It comes from a
   verb which means to swell, to overflow. As a feminine noun it is only found
   here, and as a participial noun in two places, Judges 9:4, and Zephaniah
   3:4, in which places it evidently means licentious persons; and I once
   thought that as used here it means licentiousness; see [4]Note on Zephaniah
   3:4, in vol. 4 on the Minor Prophets: but I now think that the meaning most
   suitable here is excess or overflowing in words — vaunting boasting. The
   false prophets boasted that they were prophesying in God’s name; they were
   telling lies, and boasting that they were sent by God. In this way they
   succeeded in leading astray the people, Venema renders it “vain boasting.”
   Behold, I am against those who prophesy Lying dreams, saith Jehovah; And who
   declare them, that they may lead astray My people by their lies and by their
   vauntings. Then follows a virtual denial of their vauntings, for God had
   “not sent’ nor “commanded” them; and the conclusion of the verse refers to
   their lies, for what they said would “not profit” the people. Thus we see a
   perfect correspondence between what is said in this and in the following
   verse, and the order is according to the usual style of the Prophets, it
   being reversed in the latter instance; their vauntings were false, because
   God did not send them; and their lies were vain, for they would not profit
   the people. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:33

   33. And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee,
   saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What
   burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD.

   33. Quod si interrogaverint to populus hic, vel Propheta, vel Sacerdos,
   dicendo. Quod onus Jehovae? Tunc dices illis, Quod onus? Derelinquam vos,
   inquit Jehova.


   It appears sufficiently evident from this passage, — that the contumacy of
   the Jews was so great, that they sought from every quarter some excuse for
   their insensibility, as though they could with impunity despise God when
   they rejected his word. For the devil by his artifice fascinates the
   reprobate, when he renders God’s word either hateful or contemptible; and
   whenever he can exasperate their minds, so that they hear not God’s word
   except with disdain and bitterness, he gains fully his object. The Jews,
   then, were led into such a state of mind, that they regarded God’s word with
   hatred; and they were thus alienated from all docility and from every care
   for religion. In short, the prophets, as it is well known, everywhere employ
   the word משא, mesha, which means a burden.

   Now, a burden means a prophecy, which terrifies the despisers of God by
   threatening them with vengeance. As, then, their minds were exasperated,
   they called through hatred the word of God a burden, and used it as a
   proverbial saying, “It is a burden, a burden.” They ought to have been moved
   by God’s threatenings, and to have trembled on hearing that he was angry
   with them. The word burden, then, ought to have humbled them; but, on the
   contrary, they became exasperated, first, through haughtiness, then through
   an indomitable contumacy, and thirdly, they kindled into rage. We hence see
   how the expression arose, that the prophets called their prophecies burdens.
   God now severely condemns this fury, because they hesitated not thus openly
   to shew their insolence. It was surely a most shameful thing, that the word
   of God should be thus called in disdain and contempt, in the ways and
   streets; for they thus acted disdainfully and insolently against God; for it
   was the same as though they treated his word with open contempt. It was then
   no wonder that he reproved this fury with so much vehemence, by saying, But
   if this people ask thee, What is the burden of Jehovah?

   This manner of asking was altogether derisive, when they said to Jeremiah
   and to other servants of God, “What is the burden?” that is, “What dost thou
   bring to us, what trouble is to come on us?” They thus not only spoke
   contemptuously of God’s word, but, as though this wickedness was not
   sufficient, they became, as I have said, irritated and exasperated. If,
   then, they ask thee, What is the burden? And he speaks not only of the
   common people, but of the very prophets and priests.

   We hence learn how great a contempt for God then prevailed, so that there
   was no integrity either in the priestly or the prophetic order. It is indeed
   wonderful with what impudence they dared to boast themselves to be God’s
   servants, while they spoke with so much insolence! But the same thing
   happens in the world in our day; for we see that the ministers of Satan in
   no other way hold the world under their power, than by alluring the minds of
   the ungodly; and at the same time they cause God’s word to be hated, and say
   that it brings not only troubles, but also torments. Since, then, these
   unprincipled men, who thus lead with hatred and disdain the true doctrine,
   occupy pulpits, we need not wonder that the same evil prevailed in the
   ancient Church.

   It follows: If a prophet or a priest ask thee, What is the burden of
   Jehovah? thou shalt say to them, What burden? I will forsake thee, saith
   Jehovah. This was a most grievous threatening, but it has not been well
   considered and rightly understood; for interpreters have overlooked the
   implied contrast between the presence and the absence of God. Nothing could
   have been more acceptable to the Jews than God’s silence. And yet in no
   other way does he more clearly show that he is a Father to us, caring for
   our salvation, than by familiarly addressing us. Whenever, then, the
   prophetic word is announced, we have a sure and a clear evidence of God’s
   presence, as though he wished to be connected with us. But when the ungodly
   not only reject so remarkable a benefit, but also furiously repel, as far as
   they can, such a favor, they desire and seek the absence of God. Therefore
   God says, “Ye cannot bear my word, by which symbol I shew that I am present
   with you; I will forsake you;” that is, “I will no longer endure this
   indignity, but I will depart from you; there shall be hereafter no
   prophecy.” [116]

   At the first view this was not deemed grievous to the Jews; for as I have
   said, the ungodly desire nothing more than that God should be silent, and
   they thought that they had gained their greatest happiness, when with
   consciences lulled to sleep they indulged themselves in their filth. It was
   then their chief wish that God should depart from them. But yet there was
   nothing more to be dreaded. The Prophet then shews here that they were
   extremely infatuated and wholly fascinated by the devil, for they could
   desire nothing more dreadful than that God should depart from them; as
   though he had said, “My word is a weariness to you, and I in my turn will
   now avenge myself, for I am weary of forbearing you, when I see that you can
   by no means be healed; and as I have been hitherto assiduous in instructing
   you, and have found you unteachable, I will now in my turn leave you.” It
   follows, —
     _________________________________________________________________

   [116] The latter part of the verse is rendered by the Septuagint, “Ye are
   the assumption. (lōmma,) I will dash you to pieces, saith the Lord;” by the
   Vulgate, “Ye are the burden, I will surely cast you away, saith the Lord;”
   by the Syriac, “This is the word of the Lord; I will pluck you up, saith the
   Lord;” and by the Targum, “Such is the prophecy; I will cast you away, saith
   the Lord.” Blayney considers that these words את-מח משא ought to be thus
   arranged אתם המשא, consistently with all the Versions and the Targum; the
   letters are the same, only differently connected. This, doubtless, is the
   right reading, though not found in any MS.; both the Versions and the sense
   being in its favor. Then as to the verb, the most suitable meaning here is
   to cast off, as Blayney renders it. The verse then would read as follows,
   — 33. And when ask thee shall this people, Or a prophet or a priest, saying,
   “What is the burden of Jehovah?” Then say to them, “Ye are the burden;” And
   I will cast you off; saith Jehovah. It was a suitable answer to mockers, who
   made, as it were, a sport of the true Prophets. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:34

   34. And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say,
   The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house.

   34. Et propheta et sacerdos et populus qui dixerit, Onus Jehovae, visitabo
   super virum illum (hoc est, quicunque fuerit, sive propheta, sive sacerdos,
   sive homo quispiam vulgaris, visitabo super virum illum,) et super domum
   ejus.


   Prophecy might indeed have been called a burden, when anything sad was
   announced; but it might also have been so called, when men were aroused to
   fear God, or when they were exhorted to repent. But God has a reference here
   to that wicked impiety, when men dared in ridicule to call any prophecy a
   burden. And hence it appears, that they were all so given up to their sins,
   that the very name of God’s judgment was hated by them. We now then perceive
   the Prophet’s meaning when he said, that God would punish all those who
   called his word a burden; for the Prophets themselves were wont to speak
   thus; and we find that Jeremiah in many places used this word. He does not
   then speak here generally, but points out, as by the finger, a vice which
   prevailed; for the Jews had so hardened themselves in hatred to sound
   doctrine, that they said, “He! these Prophets do nothing but terrify us by
   threatenings and by denouncing ruin on us; and what will be the end of all
   this?” God says, that he would take punishment on all who thus spoke and on
   all their families. It hence appears how much he abominated this blasphemy;
   and hence also we see how precious to God is the honor of his word; for it
   is not of every kind of sin that God speaks when he extends his vengeance to
   posterity. It is the same thing as though Jeremiah had said, “It is
   altogether intolerable, when men became irritated and exasperated against
   God’s word.” And yet this evil is not an evil of one age only. We see that
   the Israelites ever complained of God’s rigor; hence that saying,

   “The ways of the Lord are not tortuous, but rather your ways, O house of
   Israel.”
   (Ezekiel 18:25.)

   And here we must notice the wickedness of the human mind; for God, as it has
   been before stated, has nothing else in view by calling us to himself, but
   to make us partakers of eternal life and salvation. It is then God’s design
   to receive us for the purpose or saving us; this is the end intended by, all
   the prophets; and hence the Prophet called before the word of God wheat; but
   what is done by men? They despise this favor; and not only so, but turn food
   into poison and cease not to provoke God’s wrath. He was, therefore,
   constrained to threaten them. When he finds us teachable, he allures us to
   himself even with paternal kindness. But when we provoke him to wrath, we in
   a manner force him to put on another character, according to what he says,
   that he will be refractory towards the refractory. (Psalm 18:26.) Yet we
   complain when God deals rigidly with us. We cease not to carry on war with
   him; but when he restrains and checks our insolence, we immediately
   expostulate with him, as though he were too severe and his word offended us.
   Whence is this offense? even from our obstinate wickedness. Were men to put
   an end to their sinful course, the Lord would change his manner of dealing
   with them, and gently treat them and foster them as chickens under his
   wings; but this they suffer not; nay, they reject such a treatment as much
   as they can. Hence it is, that they abhor the name of God and his word. What
   then is the excuse for the complaint, when they say that God is too
   rigorous, as though his word were a burden? There is none; for they are
   themselves refractory against God, and thus his word becomes a hammer to
   break their heads, to shatter and destroy them. We now see the reason why
   God not only declares that he was angry with these ungodly despisers of his
   word, but also denounces the same vengeance on their posterity. [117]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [117] The beginning of this verse will read better in connection with the
   last, in apposition with “you” whom the Lord threatened to cast off, — Then
   say to them, “Ye are the burden;” And I will cast you off, saith Jehovah —
   34. Even the prophet and the priest and the people: Who will say, “The
   burden of Jehovah,” Yea, I will punish that man and his house. Notice here
   the change of order in the words; in the preceding verse we find “the people
   and the prophet and the priest;” but here, “the prophet and the priest and
   the people.” Whoever he might be, whether a prophet or a priest or one of
   the people,” that man was to be punished. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Jeremiah 23:35

   35. Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his
   brother, What hath the LORD answered? and, What hath the LORD spoken?

   35. Sic dicetis quisque ad socium suum, et quisque ad fratrem suum, Quid
   respondit Jehova? Et quid loquutus est Jehova?


   Here the Prophet explains himself more clearly; he shews why God would not
   have his word to be called a burden. Why so? because they in a manner closed
   the way, so that they derived no benefit from God’s word, while they
   regarded it with disdain and hatred; for the word burden was an obstacle, so
   that they gave no access to God, nor opened their ears to hear his word. God
   then bids them to come with empty and sincere hearts; for it is a real
   preparation for a teachable spirit, when we acknowledge that we ought to
   believe in God’s word, and also when we are not possessed by a perverse
   feeling which forms a prejudice and in a manner holds us bound, so that we
   are not free to form a right judgment.

   The import of the passage then is this, that the Jews, renouncing their
   blasphemies, were to prepare themselves reverently to hear God’s word, for
   hearing is due to God; and then that this word was to be heard with sincere
   hearts, so that no weariness, nor pride, nor hatred, nor any depraved
   feeling, might hinder his word from being believed and reverently heard by
   all. This then is what the Prophet means when he says, “Ye shall hereafter
   change your impious expression, and shall say, What has Jehovah answered?
   what has Jehovah spoken?” That is, they shall not themselves close the door,
   but willingly come to the school of God, being meek and teachable, so that
   nothing would hinder them from rendering honor to God and from embracing his
   word, that they might be terrified by his threatenings, and that being
   allured by his promises they might devote themselves wholly to him.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PRAYER

   Grant, Almighty God, that as nothing is better for us or more necessary for
   our chief happiness, than to depend on thy word, for that is a sure pledge
   of thy good will towards us, — O grant, that as thou hast favored us with so
   singular a benefit, which thou manifest to us daily, we may be attentive to
   hear thee and submit ourselves to thee in true fear, meekness, and humility,
   so that we may be prepared in the spirit of meekness to receive whatever
   proceeds from thee, a