Chapter 60

had spoken to _them_ since the thirteenth year of Josiah. As early as in chap. ii. 2, at the beginning of a discourse which bears a general introductory character, and which immediately follows, and is connected with his vocation in chap. i., he receives the command: "Go, and cry into the ears of Jerusalem." The opening speech itself cannot, according to its contents, have been spoken in some corner of the country, but in the metropolis only, in the temple more specially, the centre of the nation and its spiritual dwelling place. It was there that that must be delivered which was to be told to the whole people as such.

[Pg 373]

THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-17.

The whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms one connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the inscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the inscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external than internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole series of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the correctness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would determine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the exact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion belongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet have expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in terms so general as: "And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah the king?" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found more accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections, disappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, _e.g._, the twofold reference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff., xxxvi., xxxvii., on which _Eichhorn_ and _Dahler_ lay so much stress. We are not entitled here to suppose a reference to a definite historical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed out in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe and unfounded conjectures. In both of the passages something future is spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is this:--that Asshur, _i.e._, the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up Judah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten tribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help against him. This thought refers to historical circumstances which had already existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which, in reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea, compare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us, not so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so uttered at some particular [Pg 374] period in the reign of Josiah, as rather a _resumé_ of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under Josiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular circumstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an inward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen of the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission which he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah. Even the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places this relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the minor prophets; comp. _e.g._, the introduction to Micah.

In the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold object,--first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap. iii. 6-iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to the end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it is intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled upon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that these two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another. According to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for Israel cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This object even comes out distinctly in ver. 6-11, and the import of the discourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to be rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to be spared.--When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four years had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon Israel; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah, instead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of others, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction of the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was, on the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still existed, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they imagined, appeared to them as a seal which God impressed upon their ways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought that they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of Christ, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circumstance that they still considered themselves as the sole members of [Pg 375] the Kingdom of God, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it. The Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the same relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of Israel.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 14. "_Turn, O apostate children, saith the Lord, for I marry myself unto you, and I take one of a city, and two of a family, and bring you to Zion._"

The question here is:--To whom is the discourse here addressed,--to the members of Israel, _i.e._, the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of the interpreters suppose (_Abarbanel_, _Calvin_, _Schmid_, and others), or, as others assume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has considerable influence upon the exposition of the whole passage; but it must unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first view. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same phrase, "turn, O apostate children," occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel. Apostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing expression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8-11. The measure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of the Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the more culpable. _Farther_--A detailed announcement of salvation for Judah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded; and ver. 18 ("In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side of [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel," according to which the return of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here been mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of salvation, contained in vers. 14-17, refers to Israel. To Israel the Prophet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the house of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3, it is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons of Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be understood. _Finally_--It will be seen from the exposition, that it is only on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of ver. 16, 17, become intelligible.--In our explanation of the words [Hebrew: ki anki belti atkM], we follow the precedent of the Vulgate (_quia ego vir vester_), of _Luther_ ("I will [Pg 376] marry you to me"), of _Calvin_, _Schimd_, and others. On the other hand, others, especially _Pococke_, _ad P.M._ p. 2, _Schultens_ on Prov. xxx. 22, _Venema_, _Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Bleek_, have made every endeavour to prove that [Hebrew: bel] is used _sensu malo_ here, as well as in chap. xxxi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether similar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the passages at the same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold way. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, and refer solely to the Arabic, where [Hebrew: bel] means _fastidire_. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, "to rule," that of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by referring, with _Gesenius_, to other verbs in which the signification, _to subdue_, _to be distinguished_, _to rule_, has been changed into that of _looking down_, _despising_, and _contemning_. As regards the _first_ derivation, even if the Arabic _usus loquendi_ were proved, we could not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. But with respect to this Arabic _usus loquendi_, it is far from being proved and established. It is true that such would not be the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression [Arabic: **] _fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit_; but it is only by a strange _quid pro quo_ that interpreters, even _Schultens_ among them, following the example of _Kimchi_, have saddled this expression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of _Adul Walid_, who, instead of it, has [Arabic: **] _any one is embarrassed in his affair_. The signification _fastidire_, _rejicere_, is, in general, quite foreign to the Arabic. The verb [Arabic: **] denotes only: _mente turbatus_, _attonitus fuit_, _i.e._, _to be possessed_, _deprived of the use of one's strength_, _to be embarrassed_, _not to know how to help one's self_: compare the _Camus_ in _Schultens_ and _Freytag_. As soon as the plain connection of this signification with the ordinary one is perceived, it is seen at once, that it is here out of the question. As regards the second derivation, we must bring this objection against it, that the fundamental signification of _ruling_, from which that of _ruling tyrannically_ is said to have arisen, is entirely foreign to the Hebrew. More clearly than by modern Lexicographers it was seen by _Cocceius_, that the fundamental, yea the only signification of [Hebrew: bel], is that of _possessing_, [Pg 377] _occupying_. It may, indeed, be used also of rulers, as, _e.g._ Isa. xxvi. 13, and 1 Chron. iv. 22; but not in so far as they rule, but in so far as they possess. On the former passage: "Jehovah our God, [Hebrew: belvnv advniM zvltiM], Lords beside thee have dominion over us," _Schultens_, it is true, remarks: "Every one here easily recognizes a severe and tyrannical dominion;" but it is rather the circumstance that the land of the Lord has at all foreign possessors, which is the real sting of the grief of those lamenting, and which so much occupies them, that they scarcely think of the way and manner of the possessing.--Passages such as Is. liv. 1,[1] lxii. 4, compare Job