{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41893/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41893","id":"gutenberg_41893","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41893","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Jeremiah -- Commentaries","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n\n\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n _Editor of \"The Expositor\"_\n\n\n\n\n\n THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH\n CHAPTERS XXI.-LII.\n\n BY\n W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n =London=\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MDCCCXCV\n\n\n\n\n THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n _Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d, each vol._\n\n\n FIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\n Colossians.\n By A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n St. Mark.\n By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n Genesis.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n 1 Samuel.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n 2 Samuel.\n By the same Author.\n\n Hebrews.\n By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\n SECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\n Galatians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n The Pastoral Epistles.\n By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Isaiah I.-XXXIX.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n Vol. I.\n\n The Book of Revelation.\n By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n 1 Corinthians.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n The Epistles of St. John.\n By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.\n\n\n THIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\n Judges and Ruth.\n By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Jeremiah.\n By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n Isaiah XL.-LXVI.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n Vol. II.\n\n St. Matthew.\n By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n Exodus.\n By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n St. Luke.\n By Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\n FOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.\n\n Ecclesiastes.\n By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n St. James and St. Jude.\n By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Proverbs.\n By Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n Leviticus.\n By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\n FIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\n The Psalms.\n By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n 1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n The Book of Job.\n By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Ephesians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\n SIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n 1 Kings.\n By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n Philippians.\n By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Joshua.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Epistles of St. Peter.\n By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\n SEVENTH SERIES, 1893-4.\n\n 2 Kings.\n By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n Romans.\n By H. C. G. MOULE, M.A.\n\n The Books of Chronicles.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n 2 Corinthians.\n By JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n Numbers.\n By R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\n EIGHTH SERIES, 1895-6.\n\n Daniel.\n By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n The Book of Jeremiah.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n Deuteronomy.\n By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n The Song of Solomon and\n Lamentations.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Ezekiel.\n By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n The Minor Prophets.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D.\n Two Vols.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n BOOK OF JEREMIAH\n\n CHAPTERS XXI.-LII.\n\n\n\n\n\n BY\n W. H. BENNETT, M.A.\n\n PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE\n HACKNEY AND NEW COLLEGES\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n =London=\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MDCCCXCV\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nThe present work deals primarily with Jeremiah xxi.-lii., thus forming\na supplement to the volume of the _Expositor's Bible_ on Jeremiah by\nthe Rev. C. J. Ball, M.A. References to the earlier chapters are only\nintroduced where they are necessary to illustrate and explain the\nlater sections.\n\nI regret that two important works, Prof. Skinner's _Ezekiel_ in this\nseries, and Cornill's _Jeremiah_ in Dr. Haupt's _Sacred Books of the\nOld Testament_, were published too late to be used in the preparation\nof this volume.\n\nI have again to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Rev. T. H. Darlow,\nM.A., for a careful reading and much valuable criticism of my MS.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n (_The larger figures in black type are the chief references. Passages\n in i.-xx. are only noticed by way of illustration of later sections_)\n\n\n CHAP. PAGE\n\n i. 7 295\n 10 295, 308\n 10-12 340\n 15 295\n 18 82\n\n ii. 10, 11 51\n 27 290\n 34 272\n\n iii. 14 352\n 15 324\n\n iv. 19 327\n 21 302\n\n v. 31 15\n\n vi. 28 275\n\n vii. 4 20\n 5-9 272\n 12-14 14\n\n ix. 11, x. 22 306\n\n xi. 19 6\n\n xii. 14 323\n\n xiii. 18 90\n\n xiv. 8 308\n\n xv. 1 296\n 1-4 240\n 4 202\n\n xvi. 1 6\n 10 274\n 13 308\n 14, 15 320\n\n xvii. 1 353\n 23 291\n\n xix. 4 272\n 15 304\n\n xx. 2 272\n\n xxi. 1-10 141\n 3-6 303\n\n xxii. 1-9 295\n 10-12 3\n 13-19 63\n 17 272\n 20-30 80\n\n xxiii., xxiv. 96\n\n xxiii. 3-8 319\n 12 299, 302\n 14 272\n 25-27 288\n 25-32 340\n 33, 34 304\n 40 307\n\n xxiv. 99\n 6, 7 319\n\n xxv. 5 297\n 9 215\n 10 306, 307\n 12 316\n 15-38 211\n 34-38 101\n xxvi. 10\n 3 298\n 6 307\n\n xxvii., xxviii. 115\n\n xxvii. 9 340\n\n xxix. 131\n 8 340\n 10 316\n 4-14 259\n 23 273\n\n xxx., xxxi. 319\n\n xxxi. 31-38 346\n\n xxxii. 308\n 26-35 274\n 34, 35 285\n\n xxxiii. 319\n\n xxxiv. 141\n 2 305\n 21 304\n 22 305\n\n xxxv. 44\n 15 297\n 17 304\n\n xxxvi. 28\n 2 298\n 30, 31 63\n 31 83, 304\n\n xxxvii. 1-10 141\n 8 305\n 11-21 155\n 12 309\n\n xxxviii. 155\n\n xxxix. 172\n 15-18 155\n\n xl. 172\n\n xli. 172\n\n xlii., xliii. 187\n 8-13 220\n\n xliv. 197\n 30 220, 229\n\n xlv. 54\n\n xlvi. 220\n 25 229\n\n xlvii. 230\n\n xlviii. 234\n\n xlix. 1-6 242\n 7-22 243\n 23-27 248\n 28-33 251\n 34-39 255\n\n l., li. 258\n\n lii. 172\n\n\n\n\n CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\n\n\nIn the present stage of investigation of Old Testament Chronology,\nabsolute accuracy cannot be claimed for such a table as the following.\nHardly any, if any, of these dates are supported by a general\nconsensus of opinion. On the other hand, the range of variation is,\nfor the most part, not more than three or four years, and the table\nwill furnish an approximately accurate idea of sequences and\nsynchronisms. In other respects also the data admit of alternative\ninterpretations, and the course of events is partly a matter of\ntheory--hence the occasional insertion of (?).\n\n ------------+----------------------+-----------------+---------------+\n CLASSICAL | JUDAH AND JEREMIAH | ASSYRIA | EGYPT |\n SYNCHRONISMS| | | |\n ------------+----------------------+-----------------+---------------+\n Traditional | | | |\n date of the | MANASSEH (?) | | |\n foundation | |=Esarhaddon=, 681| |\n of Rome, 753| |=Assurbanipal=, | |\n | | 668 |XXVIth Dynasty |\n | | | Psammetichus |\n | Jeremiah born, | | I., 666 |\n | probably between 655 | | |\n | and 645 | | |\n | AMON, 640 | | |\n | JOSIAH, 638 | | |\n | |Last kings of | |\n |Jeremiah's call in the| Assyria, number | =Psammetichus=|\n | 13th year of Josiah, | and names |besieges Ashdod|\n | 626 | uncertain, |for twenty-nine|\n | Scythian inroad| 626-607-6 |years |\n | into Western Asia| | |\n |Habakkuk |-----------------| |\n |Zephaniah | BABYLON. | |\n | Publication of |=Nabopolassar=, | |\n | Deuteronomy, 621 | 626 | |\n |Josiah slain at | | =Necho=, |\n | Megiddo, 608 | | 612 |\n |JEHOAHAZ, 608 |_FALL OF | |\n |(xxii. 10-12, Ch. I.) | NINEVEH,_ | |\n | | 607-6 | |\n |Deposed by Necho, who | | |\n | appoints | | |\n |JEHOIAKIM, | | |\n | 608 | | |\n |(xxii. 13-19, xxxvi. | | |\n | 30, 31, VI.) | | |\n |Jeremiah predicts ruin| | |\n | of Judah and is | | |\n | tried for blasphemy | | |\n | (xxvi., II.) | | |\n | | | |\n |_FOURTH YEAR OF_ | _BATTLE OF CARCHEMISH_ |\n |_JEHOIAKIM_, 605-4 | (xlvi., XVII.) |\n | | | |\n |Nebuchadnezzar[1] | | |\n | advances into Syria,| | |\n | is suddenly recalled|=Nebuchadnezzar,=| |\n | to Babylon-- | 604 | |\n | _before_ | | |\n | subduing Judah (?) | | |\n | | | |\n |Baruch writes | | |\n | Jeremiah's prophecies| | |\n | in a roll, which is | | |\n | read successively to | | |\n | the people, the | | |\n | nobles, and | | |\n | Jehoiakim, and | | |\n | destroyed by the king| | |\n | (xxxvi., III.; xlv., | | |\n | V.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Nebuchadnezzar invades| | |\n | Judah (?), the | | |\n | Rechabites take | | |\n | refuge in | | |\n | Jerusalem (?), the | | |\n | Jews rebuked by their| | |\n | example (xxxv., IV.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Jehoiakim submits to | | |\n | Nebuchadnezzar, | | |\n | revolts after three | | |\n | years, is attacked by| | |\n | various \"bands,\" but | | |\n | dies before | | |\n | Nebuchadnezzar | | |\n | arrives | | |\n |JEHOIACHIN, 597 | | |\n | (xxii. 20-30, VII.)| | |\n | | | |\n |Continues revolt, but | | |\n | surrenders to | | |\n | Nebuchadnezzar on his| | |\n | arrival; is deposed | | |\n | and carried to | | |\n | Babylon with many of | | |\n | his subjects. | | |\n | Nebuchadnezzar | | |\n | appoints | | |\n | | | |\n |ZEDEKIAH, 596 | |=Psammetichus= |\n | | |=II.=, 596 |\n |Jeremiah attempts to | | |\n | keep Zedekiah loyal | | |\n | to Nebuchadnezzar, | Ezekiel | |\n | and contends with | | |\n | priests and prophets | | |\n | who support Egyptian | | |\n | party (xxiii., xxiv.,| | |\n | VIII.) | | |\n | | | |\n Solon's |Proposed confederation| | |\n legislation,| against | | |\n 594 | Nebuchadnezzar | | |\n | denounced by | |=Hophra=, |\n | Jeremiah, but | | 591 |\n | supported by | | |\n | Hananiah; proposal | | |\n | abandoned; Hananiah | | |\n | dies (xxvii., | | |\n | xxviii., IX.), 593-2 | | |\n | | | |\n |Controversy by letter | | |\n | with hostile prophets| | |\n | at Babylon (xxix., | | |\n | X.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Judah revolts, | | |\n | encouraged by Hophra.| | |\n | Jerusalem is besieged| | |\n | by Chaldeans. There | | |\n | being no prospect of | | |\n | relief by Egypt, | | |\n | Jeremiah regains his | | |\n | influence and pledges| | |\n | the people by | | |\n | covenant to release | | |\n | their slaves. | | |\n | | | |\n |On the news of | | |\n | Hophra's advance, the| | |\n | Chaldeans raise the | | |\n | siege; the Egyptian | | |\n | party again become | | |\n | supreme and annul the| | |\n | covenant (xxi. 1-10, | | |\n | xxxiv., xxxvii. 1-10,| | |\n | XI.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Jeremiah attempts to | | |\n | leave the city, is | | |\n | arrested and | | |\n | imprisoned | | |\n |Hophra retreats into | | |\n | Egypt and the | | |\n | Chaldeans renew the | | |\n | siege (xxxvii. 11-21,| | |\n | xxxviii., xxxix. | | |\n | 15-18, XII.) | | |\n | | | |\n |While imprisoned | | |\n | Jeremiah buys his | | |\n | kinsman's inheritance| | |\n | (xxxii., XXX.) | | |\n | | | |\n |_DESTRUCTION OF | Siege of Tyre | |\n | JERUSALEM_, 586 | | |\n | | | |\n |Jeremiah remains for a| | |\n | month a prisoner | | |\n | amongst the other | | |\n | captives. Nebuzaradan| | |\n | arrives; arranges for| | |\n | deportation of bulk | | |\n | of population; | | |\n | appoints Gedaliah | | |\n | governor of residue; | | |\n | releases Jeremiah, | | |\n | who elects to join | | |\n | Gedaliah at Mizpah. | | |\n | Gedaliah murdered. | | |\n | Jeremiah carried off,| | |\n | but rescued by | | |\n | Johanan (xxxix.-xli.,| | |\n | lii., XIII.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Johanan, in spite of | | |\n | Jeremiah's protest, | | |\n | goes down to Egypt | | |\n | and takes Jeremiah | | |\n | with him (xlii., | | |\n | xliii., XIV.) | | |\n | | | |\n |Jews in Egypt hold | | |\n | festival in honour of| | |\n | Queen of Heaven. | |=Amasis=, |\n | Ineffectual protest | | 570 |\n | of Jeremiah (xliv., | | |\n | XV.) | | |\n | |Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt, (?)|\n | | 568 |\n Pistratus, | |=Evil-Merodach=, | |\n 560-527 |Release of Jehoiachin | 561 | |\n | | | |\n |_CYRUS CONQUERS BABYLON AND GIVES_ | |\n |_THE JEWS PERMISSION TO RETURN,_ | |\n |_538_ | |\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] For spelling see note, page 4\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n PREFACE v\n\n INDEX OF CHAPTERS vii\n\n CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE ix\n\n BOOK I\n\n _PERSONAL UTTERANCES AND\n NARRATIVES_\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n INTRODUCTORY: JEHOAHAZ. xxii. 10-12 3\n\n \"Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for\n him that goeth away: for he shall return no more.\"--xxii, 10\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n A TRIAL FOR HERESY. xxvi.: cf. vii.-x. 10\n\n \"When Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that Jehovah had\n commanded him to speak unto all the people, the priests and the\n prophets and all the people laid hold on him, saying, Thou shalt\n surely die.\"--xxvi. 8\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n THE ROLL. xxxvi. 28\n\n \"Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that\n I have spoken unto thee.\"--xxxvi. 2\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n THE RECHABITES. xxxv. 44\n\n \"Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me\n for ever.\"--xxxv. 19\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n BARUCH. xlv. 54\n\n \"Thy life will I give unto thee for a prey.\"--xlv. 5\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n THE JUDGMENT ON JEHOIAKIM. xxii. 13-19, xxxvi. 30, 31 63\n\n \"Jehoiakim ... slew him (Uriah) with the sword, and cast his dead\n body into the graves of the common people.\"--xxvi. 23\n\n \"Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim, ... He shall\n be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond\n the gates of Jerusalem.\"--xxii. 18, 19\n\n Jehoiakim ... did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah,\n according to all that his fathers had done.--2 KINGS xxiii. 36, 37\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n JEHOIACHIN. xxii. 20-30 80\n\n \"A despised broken vessel.\"--xxii. 28\n\n \"A young lion. And he went up and down among the lions, he became\n a young lion and he learned to catch the prey, he devoured\n men.\"--EZEK. xix. 5, 6\n\n \"Jehoiachin ... did evil in the sight of Jehovah, according to all\n that his father had done.\"--2 KINGS xxiv. 8, 9\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n BAD SHEPHERDS AND FALSE PROPHETS. xxiii.; xxiv. 96\n\n \"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My\n pasture!\"--xxii. 1\n\n \"Of what avail is straw instead of grain?... Is not My word like\n fire, ... like a hammer that shattereth the rocks?\"--xxiii. 28, 29\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n HANANIAH. xxvii., xxviii. 115\n\n \"Hear now, Hananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee, but thou makest\n this people to trust in a lie.\"--xxviii. 15\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EXILES. xxix. 131\n\n \"Jehovah make thee like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of\n Babylon roasted in the fire.\"--xxix. 22\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n A BROKEN COVENANT. xxi. 1-10, xxxiv.; xxxvii. 1-10 141\n\n \"All the princes and people ... changed their minds and reduced to\n bondage again all the slaves whom they had set free.\"--xxxiv. 10,\n 11\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n JEREMIAH'S IMPRISONMENT. xxxvii. 11-21, xxxviii.,\n xxxix. 15-18 155\n\n \"Jeremiah abode in the court of the guard until the day that\n Jerusalem was taken.\"--xxxviii. 28\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n GEDALIAH. xxxix.-xli., lii. 172\n\n \"Then arose Ishmael ben Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with\n him, and smote with the sword and slew Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben\n Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon had made king over the\n land.\"--xli. 2\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n THE DESCENT INTO EGYPT. xlii., xliii. 187\n\n \"They came into the land of Egypt, for they obeyed not the voice\n of Jehovah.\"--xliii. 7\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN. xliv. 197\n\n \"Since we left off burning incense and offering libations to the\n Queen of Heaven, we have been in want of everything, and have been\n consumed by the sword and the famine.\"--xliv. 18\n\n\n BOOK II\n\n _PROPHECIES CONCERNING FOREIGN\n NATIONS_\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n JEHOVAH AND THE NATIONS. xxv. 15-38 211\n\n \"Jehovah hath a controversy with the nations.\"--xxv. 31\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n EGYPT. xliii. 8-13, xliv. 30, xlvi. 220\n\n \"I will visit Amon of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods\n and their kings; even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in\n him.\"--xlvi. 25\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n THE PHILISTINES. xlvii. 230\n\n \"O sword of Jehovah, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up\n thyself into thy scabbard; rest, and be still.\"--xlvii. 6\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n MOAB. xlviii. 234\n\n \"Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath\n magnified himself against Jehovah.\"--xlviii. 42\n\n \"Chemosh said to me, Go, take Nebo against Israel ... and I took\n it ... and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them\n before Chemosh.\"--MOABITE STONE.\n\n \"Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter\n days.\"--xlviii. 47\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n AMMON. xlix. 1-6 242\n\n \"Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth Moloch\n possess Gad, and his people dwell in the cities thereof?\"--xlix. 1\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n EDOM. xlix. 7-22 243\n\n \"Bozrah shall become an astonishment, a reproach, a waste, and a\n curse.\"--xlix. 13\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n DAMASCUS. xlix. 23-27 248\n\n \"I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall devour\n the palaces of Benhadad.\"--xlix. 27\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n KEDAR AND HAZOR. xlix. 28-33 251\n\n \"Concerning Kedar, and the kingdoms of Hazor which Nebuchadnezzar\n king of Babylon smote.\"--xlix. 28\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n ELAM. xlix. 34-39 255\n\n \"I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.\"--xlix.\n 35\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n BABYLON. l., li. 258\n\n \"Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in\n pieces.\"--l. 2\n\n\n BOOK III\n\n _JEREMIAH'S TEACHING CONCERNING\n ISRAEL AND JUDAH_\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n INTRODUCTORY 267\n\n \"I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall\n be My people.\"--xxxi. 1\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CORRUPTION 270\n\n \"Very bad figs, ... too bad to be eaten.\"--xxiv. 2, 8, xxix. 17\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n PERSISTENT APOSTASY 283\n\n \"They have forsaken the covenant of Jehovah their God, and\n worshipped other gods, and served them.\"--xxii. 9\n\n \"Every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his heart.\"--xxiii.\n 17\n\n CHAPTER XXIX\n\n RUIN. xxii. 1-9, xxvi. 14 295\n\n \"The sword, the pestilence, and the famine.\"--xxi, 9 _and passim_.\n\n \"Terror on every side.\"--vi. 25, xx. 10, xlvi. 5, xlix. 29; _also\n as proper name_, MAGOR-MISSABIB, xx. 3\n\n CHAPTER XXX\n\n RESTORATION--I. THE SYMBOL. xxxii. 308\n\n \"And I bought the field of Hanameel.\"--xxxii. 9\n\n CHAPTER XXXI\n\n RESTORATION--II. THE NEW ISRAEL. xxiii. 3-8, xxiv.\n 6, 7, xxx., xxxi., xxxiii. 319\n\n \"In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell\n safely: and this is the name whereby she shall be called, Jehovah\n our Righteousness.\"--xxxiii. 16\n\n CHAPTER XXXII\n\n RESTORATION--III. REUNION. xxxi. 329\n\n \"I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the\n seed of man, and with the seed of beast.\"--xxxi. 27\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII\n\n RESTORATION--IV. THE NEW COVENANT. xxxi. 31-38:\n cf. Hebrews viii. 346\n\n \"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house\n of Judah.\"--xxxi. 31\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV\n\n RESTORATION--V. REVIEW. xxx.-xxxiii. 357\n\n\n EPILOGUE\n\n CHAPTER XXXV\n\n JEREMIAH AND CHRIST 367\n\n \"Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from amongst\n thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye\n hearken.\"--DEUT. xviii. 15\n\n \"Jesus ... asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that the\n Son of Man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some,\n Elijah: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.\"--MATT. xvi.\n 13, 14\n\n\n\n\n BOOK I\n\n _PERSONAL UTTERANCES AND NARRATIVES_\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n _INTRODUCTORY:_[2] _JEHOAHAZ_\n\n xxii. 10-12.\n\n \"Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for\n him that goeth away: for he shall return no more.\"--JER. xxii. 10.\n\n\nAs the prophecies of Jeremiah are not arranged in the order in which\nthey were delivered, there is no absolute chronological division\nbetween the first twenty chapters and those which follow. For the most\npart, however, chapters xxi.-lii. fall in or after the fourth year of\nJehoiakim (B.C. 605). We will therefore briefly consider the situation\nat Jerusalem in this crisis. The period immediately preceding B.C. 605\nsomewhat resembles the era of the dissolution of the Roman Empire or\nof the Wars of the French Revolution. An old-established international\nsystem was breaking in pieces, and men were quite uncertain what form\nthe new order would take. For centuries the futile assaults of the\nPharaohs had only served to illustrate the stability of the Assyrian\nsupremacy in Western Asia. Then in the last two decades of the seventh\ncentury B.C. the Assyrian Empire collapsed, like the Roman Empire\nunder Honorius and his successors. It was as if by some swift\nsuccession of disasters modern France or Germany were to become\nsuddenly and permanently annihilated as a military power. For the\nmoment, all the traditions and principles of European statesmanship\nwould lose their meaning, and the shrewdest diplomatist would be\nentirely at fault. Men's reason would totter, their minds would lose\ntheir balance at the stupendous spectacle of so unparalleled a\ncatastrophe. The wildest hopes would alternate with the extremity of\nfear; everything would seem possible to the conqueror.\n\nSuch was the situation in B.C. 605, to which our first great group of\nprophecies belongs. Two oppressors of Israel--Assyria and Egypt--had\nbeen struck down in rapid succession. When Nebuchadnezzar[3] was\nsuddenly recalled to Babylon by the death of his father, the Jews\nwould readily imagine that the Divine judgment had fallen upon Chaldea\nand its king. Sanguine prophets announced that Jehovah was about to\ndeliver His people from all foreign dominion, and establish the\nsupremacy of the Kingdom of God. Court and people would be equally\npossessed with patriotic hope and enthusiasm. Jehoiakim, it is true,\nwas a nominee of Pharaoh Necho; but his gratitude would be far too\nslight to override the hopes and aspirations natural to a Prince of\nthe House of David.\n\nIn Hezekiah's time, there had been an Egyptian and an Assyrian party\nat the court of Judah; the recent supremacy of Egypt had probably\nincreased the number of her partisans. Assyria had disappeared, but\nher former adherents would retain their antipathy to Egypt, and their\npersonal feuds with Jews of the opposite faction; they were as tools\nlying ready to any hand that cared to use them. When Babylon succeeded\nAssyria in the overlordship of Asia, she doubtless inherited the\nallegiance of the anti-Egyptian party in the various Syrian states.\nJeremiah, like Isaiah, steadily opposed any dependence upon Egypt; it\nwas probably by his advice that Josiah undertook his ill-fated\nexpedition against Pharaoh Necho. The partisans of Egypt would be the\nprophet's enemies; and though Jeremiah never became a mere dependent\nand agent of Nebuchadnezzar, yet the friends of Babylon would be his\nfriends, if only because her enemies were his enemies.\n\nWe are told in 2 Kings xxiii. 37 that Jehoiakim did evil in the sight\nof Jehovah according to all that his father had done. Whatever other\nsins may be implied by this condemnation, we certainly learn that the\nking favoured a corrupt form of the religion of Jehovah in opposition\nto the purer teaching which Jeremiah inherited from Isaiah.\n\nWhen we turn to Jeremiah himself, the date \"the fourth year of\nJehoiakim\" reminds us that by this time the prophet could look back upon\na long and sad experience; he had been called in the thirteenth year of\nJosiah, some twenty-four years before. With what sometimes seems to our\nlimited intelligence the strange irony of Providence, this lover of\npeace and quietness was called to deliver a message of ruin and\ncondemnation, a message that could not fail to be extremely offensive\nto most of his hearers, and to make him the object of bitter hostility.\n\nMuch of this Jeremiah must have anticipated, but there were some from\nwhose position and character the prophet expected acceptance, even of\nthe most unpalatable teaching of the Spirit of Jehovah. The personal\nvindictiveness with which priests and prophets repaid his loyalty to\nthe Divine mission and his zeal for truth came to him with a shock of\nsurprise and bewilderment, which was all the greater because his most\ndetermined persecutors were his sacerdotal kinsmen and neighbours at\nAnathoth. \"Let us destroy the tree,\" they said, \"with the fruit\nthereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his\nname may be no more remembered.\"[4]\n\nHe was not only repudiated by his clan, but also forbidden by Jehovah\nto seek consolation and sympathy in the closer ties of family life:\n\"Thou shalt not take a wife, thou shalt have no sons or daughters.\"[5]\nLike Paul, it was good for Jeremiah \"by reason of the present\ndistress\" to deny himself these blessings. He found some compensation\nin the fellowship of kindred souls at Jerusalem. We can well believe\nthat, in those early days, he was acquainted with Zephaniah, and that\nthey were associated with Hilkiah and Shaphan and King Josiah in the\npublication of Deuteronomy and its recognition as the law of Israel.\nLater on Shaphan's son Ahikam protected Jeremiah when his life was in\nimminent danger.\n\nThe twelve years that intervened between Josiah's Reformation and his\ndefeat at Megiddo were the happiest part of Jeremiah's ministry. It is\nnot certain that any of the extant prophecies belong to this period.\nWith Josiah on the throne and Deuteronomy accepted as the standard of\nthe national life, the prophet felt absolved for a season from his\nmission to pluck up and break down, and perhaps began to indulge in\nhopes that the time had come to build and to plant. Yet it is\ndifficult to believe that he had implicit confidence in the permanence\nof the Reformation or the influence of Deuteronomy. The silence of\nIsaiah and Jeremiah as to the ecclesiastical reforms of Hezekiah and\nJosiah stands in glaring contrast to the great importance attached to\nthem by the Books of Kings and Chronicles. But, in any case, Jeremiah\nmust have found life brighter and easier than in the reigns that\nfollowed. Probably, in these happier days, he was encouraged by the\nsympathy and devotion of disciples like Baruch and Ezekiel.\n\nBut Josiah's attempt to realise a Kingdom of God was short-lived; and,\nin a few months, Jeremiah saw the whole fabric swept away. The king\nwas defeated and slain; and his religious policy was at once reversed\neither by a popular revolution or a court intrigue. The people of the\nland made Josiah's son Shallum king, under the name of Jehoahaz. This\nyoung prince of twenty-three only reigned three months, and was then\ndeposed and carried into captivity by Pharaoh Necho; yet it is\nrecorded of him, that he did evil in the sight of Jehovah, according\nto all that his fathers had done.[6] He--or, more probably, his\nministers, especially the queen-mother[7]--must have been in a hurry\nto undo Josiah's work. Jeremiah utters no condemnation of Jehoahaz; he\nmerely declares that the young king will never return from his exile,\nand bids the people lament over his captivity as a more grievous fate\nthan the death of Josiah:--\n\n \"Weep not for the dead,\n Neither lament over him:\n But weep sore for him that goeth into captivity;\n For he shall return no more,\n Neither shall he behold his native land.\"[8]\n\nEzekiel adds admiration to sympathy: Jehoahaz was a young lion skilled\nto catch the prey, he devoured men, the nations heard of him, he was\ntaken in their pit, and they brought him with hooks into the land of\nEgypt.[9] Jeremiah and Ezekiel could not but feel some tenderness\ntowards the son of Josiah; and probably they had faith in his personal\ncharacter, and believed that in time he would shake off the yoke of\nevil counsellors and follow in his father's footsteps. But any such\nhopes were promptly disappointed by Pharaoh Necho, and Jeremiah's\nspirit bowed beneath a new burden as he saw his country completely\nsubservient to the dreaded influence of Egypt.\n\nThus, at the time when we take up the narrative, the government was in\nthe hands of the party hostile to Jeremiah, and the king, Jehoiakim,\nseems to have been his personal enemy. Jeremiah himself was somewhere\nbetween forty and fifty years old, a solitary man without wife or\nchild. His awful mission as the herald of ruin clouded his spirit with\ninevitable gloom. Men resented the stern sadness of his words and\nlooks, and turned from him with aversion and dislike. His unpopularity\nhad made him somewhat harsh; for intolerance is twice curst, in that\nit inoculates its victims with the virus of its own bitterness. His\nhopes and illusions lay behind him; he could only watch with\nmelancholy pity the eager excitement of these stirring times. If he\ncame across some group busily discussing the rout of the Egyptians at\nCarchemish, or the report that Nebuchadnezzar was posting in hot haste\nto Babylon, and wondering as to all that this might mean for Judah,\nhis countrymen would turn to look with contemptuous curiosity at the\nbitter, disappointed man who had had his chance and failed, and now\ngrudged them their prospect of renewed happiness and prosperity.\nNevertheless Jeremiah's greatest work still lay before him. Jerusalem\nwas past saving; but more was at stake than the existence of Judah and\nits capital. But for Jeremiah the religion of Jehovah might have\nperished with His Chosen People. It was his mission to save Revelation\nfrom the wreck of Israel. Humanly speaking, the religious future of\nthe world depended upon this stern solitary prophet.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] Cf. Preface.\n\n[3] We know little of Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns. In 2 Kings xxiv. 1\nwe are told that Nebuchadnezzar \"came up\" in the days of Jehoiakim,\nand Jehoiakim became his servant three years. It is not clear whether\nNebuchadnezzar \"came up\" immediately after the battle of Carchemish,\nor at a later time after his return to Babylon. In either case the\nimpression made by his hasty departure from Syria would be the same.\nCf. Cheyne, _Jeremiah_ (Men of the Bible), p. 132. I call the Chaldean\nking Nebuchadnezzar--not Nebuchadrezzar--because the former has been\nan English household word for centuries.\n\n[4] xi. 19.\n\n[5] xvi. 2.\n\n[6] 2 Kings xxiii. 30-32.\n\n[7] Cf. xxii. 26.\n\n[8] xxii. 10-12.\n\n[9] Ezek. xix. 3, 4.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n _A TRIAL FOR HERESY_\n\n xxvi.: cf. vii.-x.\n\n \"When Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that Jehovah had\n commanded him to speak unto all the people, the priests and the\n prophets and all the people laid hold on him, saying, Thou shalt\n surely die.\"--JER. xxvi. 8.\n\n\nThe date of this incident is given, somewhat vaguely, as the beginning\nof the reign of Jehoiakim. It was, therefore, earlier than B.C. 605,\nthe point reached in the previous chapter. Jeremiah could offer no\npolitical resistance to Jehoiakim and his Egyptian suzerain; yet it\nwas impossible for him to allow Josiah's policy to be reversed without\na protest. Moreover, something, perhaps much, might yet be saved for\nJehovah. The king, with his court and prophets and priests, was not\neverything. Jeremiah was only concerned with sanctuaries, ritual, and\npriesthoods as means to an end. For him the most important result of\nthe work he had shared with Josiah was a pure and holy life for the\nnation and individuals. Renan--in some passages, for he is not always\nconsistent--is inclined to minimise the significance of the change\nfrom Josiah to Jehoiakim; in fact, he writes very much as a cavalier\nmight have done of the change from Cromwell to Charles II. Both the\nJewish kings worshipped Jehovah, each in his own fashion: Josiah was\ninclined to a narrow puritan severity of a life; Jehoiakim was a\nliberal, practical man of the world. Probably this is a fair modern\nequivalent of the current estimate of the kings and their policy,\nespecially on the part of Jehoiakim's friends; but then, as unhappily\nstill in some quarters, \"narrow puritan severity\" was a convenient\ndesignation for a decent and honourable life, for a scrupulous and\nself-denying care for the welfare of others. Jeremiah dreaded a\nrelapse into the old half-heathen ideas that Jehovah would be pleased\nwith homage and service that satisfied Baal, Moloch, and Chemosh. Such\na relapse would lower the ethical standard, and corrupt or even\ndestroy any beginnings of spiritual life. Our English Restoration is\nan object-lesson as to the immoral effects of political and\necclesiastical reaction; if such things were done in sober England,\nwhat must have been possible to hot Eastern blood! In protesting\nagainst the attitude of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah would also seek to save\nthe people from the evil effects of the king's policy. He knew from\nhis own experience that a subject might trust and serve God with his\nwhole heart, even when the king was false to Jehovah. What was\npossible for him was possible for others. He understood his countrymen\ntoo well to expect that the nation would continue to advance in paths\nof righteousness which its leaders and teachers had forsaken; but,\nscattered here and there through the mass of the people, was Isaiah's\nremnant, the seed of the New Israel, men and women to whom the\nRevelation of Jehovah had been the beginning of a higher life. He\nwould not leave them without a word of counsel and encouragement.\n\nAt the command of Jehovah, Jeremiah appeared before the concourse of\nJews, assembled at the Temple for some great fast or festival. No\nfeast is expressly mentioned, but he is charged to address \"all the\ncities of Judah\"[10]; _all_ the outlying population would only meet at\nthe Temple on some specially holy day. Such an occasion would\nnaturally be chosen by Jeremiah for his deliverance, just as Christ\navailed Himself of the opportunities offered by the Passover and the\nFeast of Tabernacles, just as modern philanthropists seek to find a\nplace for their favourite topics on the platform of May Meetings.\n\nThe prophet was to stand in the court of the Temple and repeat once\nmore to the Jews his message of warning and judgment, \"all that I have\ncharged thee to speak unto them, thou shalt not keep back a single\nword.\" The substance of this address is found in the various\nprophecies which expose the sin and predict the ruin of Judah. They\nhave been dealt with in the former volume[11] on Jeremiah in this\nseries, and are also referred to in Book III.\n\nAccording to the universal principle of Hebrew prophecy, the\npredictions of ruin were conditional; they were still coupled with the\noffer of pardon to repentance, and Jehovah did not forbid his prophet\nto cherish a lingering hope that \"perchance they may hearken and turn\nevery one from his evil way, so that I may repent Me of the evil I\npurpose to inflict upon them because of the evil of their doings.\"\nProbably the phrase \"every one from his evil way\" is primarily\ncollective rather than individual, and is intended to describe a\nnational reformation, which would embrace all the individual citizens;\nbut the actual words suggest another truth, which must also have been\nin Jeremiah's mind. The nation is, after all, an aggregate of men and\nwomen; there can be no national reformation, except through the\nrepentance and amendment of individuals.\n\nJeremiah's audience, it must be observed, consisted of worshippers on\nthe way to the Temple, and would correspond to an ordinary congregation\nof church-goers, rather than to the casual crowd gathered round a street\npreacher, or to the throngs of miners and labourers who listened to\nWhitfield and Wesley. As an acknowledged prophet, he was well within his\nrights in expecting a hearing from the attendants at the feast, and men\nwould be curious to see and hear one who had been the dominant influence\nin Judah during the reign of Josiah. Moreover, in the absence of evening\nnewspapers and shop-windows, a prophet was too exciting a distraction to\nbe lightly neglected. From Jehovah's charge to speak all that He had\ncommanded him to speak and not to keep back a word, we may assume that\nJeremiah's discourse was long: it was also avowedly an old sermon[12];\nmost of his audience had heard it before, all of them were quite\nfamiliar with its main topics. They listened in the various moods of a\nmodern congregation \"sitting under\" a distinguished preacher. Jeremiah's\nfriends and disciples welcomed the ideas and phrases that had become\npart of their spiritual life. Many enjoyed the speaker's earnestness and\neloquence, without troubling themselves about the ideas at all. There\nwas nothing specially startling about the well-known threats and\nwarnings; they had become\n\n \"A tale of little meaning tho' the words were strong.\"\n\nMen hardened their hearts against inspired prophets as easily as they\ndo against the most pathetic appeals of modern evangelists. Mingled\nwith the crowd were Jeremiah's professional rivals, who detested both\nhim and his teaching--priests who regarded him as a traitor to his own\ncaste, prophets who envied his superior gifts and his force of\npassionate feeling. To these almost every word he uttered was\noffensive, but for a while there was nothing that roused them to very\nvehement anger. He was allowed to finish what he had to say, \"to make\nan end of speaking all that Jehovah had commanded him.\" But in this\nperoration he had insisted on a subject that stung the indifferent\ninto resentment and roused the priests and prophets to fury.\n\n\"Go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I caused My name\nto dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of\nMy people Israel. And now, because ye have done all these works, saith\nJehovah, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye\nheard not; and I called you, but ye answered not: therefore will I do\nunto the house, that is called by My name, wherein ye trust, and unto\nthe place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to\nShiloh.\"[13]\n\nThe Ephraimite sanctuary of Shiloh, long the home of the Ark and its\npriesthood, had been overthrown in some national catastrophe.\nApparently when it was destroyed it was no mere tent, but a\nsubstantial building of stone, and its ruins remained as a permanent\nmonument of the fugitive glory of even the most sacred shrine.\n\nThe very presence of his audience in the place where they were met\nshowed their reverence for the Temple: the priests were naturally\ndevotees of their own shrine; of the prophets Jeremiah himself had said,\n\"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule in accordance with\ntheir teaching.\"[14] Can we wonder that \"the priests and the prophets\nand all the people laid hold on him, saying, Thou shalt surely die\"? For\nthe moment there was an appearance of religious unity in Jerusalem; the\npriests, the prophets, and the pious laity on one side, and only the\nsolitary heretic on the other. It was, though on a small scale, as if\nthe obnoxious teaching of some nineteenth-century prophet of God had\ngiven an unexpected stimulus to the movement for Christian reunion; as\nif cardinals and bishops, chairmen of unions, presidents of conferences,\nmoderators of assemblies, with great preachers and distinguished laymen,\nunited to hold monster meetings and denounce the Divine message as\nheresy and blasphemy. In like manner Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians\nfound a basis of common action in their hatred of Christ, and Pilate and\nHerod were reconciled by His cross.\n\nMeanwhile the crowd was increasing: new worshippers were arriving, and\nothers as they left the Temple were attracted to the scene of the\ndisturbance. Doubtless too the mob, always at the service of\npersecutors, hurried up in hope of finding opportunities for mischief\nand violence. Some six and a half centuries later, history repeated\nitself on the same spot, when the Asiatic Jews saw Paul in the Temple\nand \"laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the\nman, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people and the law\nand this place, ... and all the city was moved, and the people ran\ntogether and laid hold on Paul.\"[15]\n\nOur narrative, as it stands, is apparently incomplete: we find Jeremiah\nbefore the tribunal of the princes, but we are not told how he came\nthere; whether the civil authorities intervened to protect him, as\nClaudius Lysias came down with his soldiers and centurions and rescued\nPaul, or whether Jeremiah's enemies observed legal forms, as Annas and\nCaiaphas did when they arrested Christ. But, in any case, \"the princes\nof Judah, when they heard these things, came up from the palace into the\nTemple, and took their seats as judges at the entry of the new gate of\nthe Temple.\" The \"princes of Judah\" play a conspicuous part in the last\nperiod of the Jewish monarchy: we have little definite information about\nthem, and are left to conjecture that they were an aristocratic\noligarchy or an official clique, or both; but it is clear that they were\na dominant force in the state, with recognised constitutional status,\nand that they often controlled the king himself. We are also ignorant as\nto the \"new gate\"; it may possibly be the upper gate built by\nJotham[16] about a hundred and fifty years earlier.\n\nBefore these judges, Jeremiah's ecclesiastical accusers brought a\nformal charge; they said, almost in the very words which the high\npriest and the Sanhedrin used of Christ, \"This man is worthy of death,\nfor he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your\nears\"--_i.e._ when he said, \"This house shall be like Shiloh, and this\ncity shall be desolate without inhabitant.\" Such accusations have been\nalways on the lips of those who have denounced Christ and His\ndisciples as heretics. One charge against Himself was that He said, \"I\nwill destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I\nwill build another that is made without hands.\"[17] Stephen was\naccused of speaking incessantly against the Temple and the Law, and\nteaching that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the Temple and change\nthe customs handed down from Moses. When he asserted that \"the Most\nHigh dwelleth not in temples made with hands,\" the impatience of his\naudience compelled him to bring his defence to an abrupt\nconclusion.[18] Of Paul we have already spoken.\n\nHow was it that these priests and prophets thought that their princes\nmight be induced to condemn Jeremiah to death for predicting the\ndestruction of the Temple? A prophet would not run much risk nowadays\nby announcing that St. Paul's should be made like Stonehenge, or St.\nPeter's like the Parthenon. Expositors of Daniel and the Apocalypse\nhabitually fix the end of the world a few years in advance of the\ndate at which they write, and yet they do not incur any appreciable\nunpopularity. It is true that Jeremiah's accusers were a little afraid\nthat his predictions might be fulfilled, and the most bitter\npersecutors are those who have a lurking dread that their victims are\nright, while they themselves are wrong. But such fears could not very\nwell be evidence or argument against Jeremiah before any court of law.\n\nIn order to realise the situation we must consider the place which the\nTemple held in the hopes and affections of the Jews. They had always\nbeen proud of their royal sanctuary at Jerusalem, but within the last\nhundred and fifty years it had acquired a unique importance for the\nreligion of Israel. First Hezekiah, and then Josiah, had taken away\nthe other high places and altars at which Jehovah was worshipped, and\nhad said to Judah and Jerusalem, \"Ye shall worship before this\naltar.\"[19] Doubtless the kings were following the advice of Isaiah\nand Jeremiah. These prophets were anxious to abolish the abuses of the\nlocal sanctuaries, which were a continual incentive to an extravagant\nand corrupt ritual. Yet they did not intend to assign any supreme\nimportance to a priestly caste or a consecrated building. Certainly\nfor them the hope of Israel and the assurance of its salvation did not\nconsist in cedar and hewn stones, in silver and gold. And yet the\nunique position given to the Temple inevitably became the\nstarting-point for fresh superstition. Once Jehovah could be\nworshipped not only at Jerusalem, but at Beersheba and Bethel and many\nother places where He had chosen to set His name. Even then, it was\nfelt that the Divine Presence must afford some protection for His\ndwelling-places. But now that Jehovah dwelt nowhere else but at\nJerusalem, and only accepted the worship of His people at this single\nshrine, how could any one doubt that He would protect His Temple and\nHis Holy City against all enemies, even the most formidable? Had He\nnot done so already?\n\nWhen Hezekiah abolished the high places, did not Jehovah set the seal\nof approval upon his policy by destroying the army of Sennacherib? Was\nnot this great deliverance wrought to guard the Temple against\ndesecration and destruction, and would not Jehovah work out a like\nsalvation in any future time of danger? The destruction of Sennacherib\nwas essential to the religious future of Israel and of mankind; but it\nhad a very mingled influence upon the generations immediately\nfollowing. They were like a man who has won a great prize in a\nlottery, or who has, quite unexpectedly, come into an immense\ninheritance. They ignored the unwelcome thought that the Divine\nprotection depended on spiritual and moral conditions, and they clung\nto the superstitious faith that at any moment, even in the last\nextremity of danger and at the eleventh hour, Jehovah might, nay, even\n_must_, intervene. The priests and the inhabitants of Jerusalem could\nlook on with comparative composure while the country was ravaged, and\nthe outlying towns were taken and pillaged; Jerusalem itself might\nseem on the verge of falling into the hands of the enemy, but they\nstill trusted in their Palladium. Jerusalem could not perish, because\nit contained the one sanctuary of Jehovah; they sought to silence\ntheir own fears and to drown the warning voice of the prophet by\nvociferating their watchword: \"The Temple of Jehovah! the Temple of\nJehovah! The Temple of Jehovah is in our midst!\"[20]\n\nIn prosperous times a nation may forget its Palladium, and may\ntolerate doubts as to its efficacy; but the strength of the Jews was\nbroken, their resources were exhausted, and they were clinging in an\nagony of conflicting hopes and fears to their faith in the\ninviolability of the Temple. To destroy their confidence was like\nsnatching away a plank from a drowning man. When Jeremiah made the\nattempt, they struck back with the fierce energy of despair. It does\nnot seem that at this time the city was in any immediate danger; the\nincident rather falls in the period of quiet submission to Pharaoh\nNecho that preceded the battle of Carchemish. But the disaster of\nMegiddo was fresh in men's memories, and in the unsettled state of\nEastern Asia no one knew how soon some other invader might advance\nagainst the city. On the other hand, in the quiet interval, hopes\nbegan to revive, and men were incensed when the prophet made haste to\nnip these hopes in the bud, all the more so because their excited\nanticipations of future glory had so little solid basis. Jeremiah's\nappeal to the ill-omened precedent of Shiloh naturally roused the\nsanguine and despondent alike into frenzy.\n\nJeremiah's defence was simple and direct: \"Jehovah sent me to prophesy\nall that ye have heard against this house and against this city. Now\ntherefore amend your ways and your doings, and hearken unto the voice\nof Jehovah your God, that He may repent Him of the evil that He hath\nspoken against you. As for me, behold, I am in your hands: do unto me\nas it seems good and right unto you. Only know assuredly that, if ye\nput me to death, ye will bring the guilt of innocent blood upon\nyourselves, and upon this city and its inhabitants: for of a truth\nJehovah sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.\" There\nis one curious feature in this defence. Jeremiah contemplates the\npossibility of two distinct acts of wickedness on the part of his\npersecutors: they may turn a deaf ear to his appeal that they should\nrepent and reform, and their obstinacy will incur all the\nchastisements which Jeremiah had threatened; they may also put him to\ndeath and incur additional guilt. Scoffers might reply that his\nprevious threats were so awful and comprehensive that they left no\nroom for any addition to the punishment of the impenitent. Sinners\nsometimes find a grim comfort in the depth of their wickedness; their\ncase is so bad that it cannot be made worse, they may now indulge\ntheir evil propensities with a kind of impunity. But Jeremiah's\nprophetic insight made him anxious to save his countrymen from further\nsin, even in their impenitence; the Divine discrimination is not taxed\nbeyond its capabilities even by the extremity of human wickedness.\n\nBut to return to the main feature in Jeremiah's defence. His accusers'\ncontention was that his teaching was so utterly blasphemous, so\nentirely opposed to every tradition and principle of true\nreligion--or, as we should say, so much at variance with all\northodoxy--that it could not be a word of Jehovah. Jeremiah does not\nattempt to discuss the relation of his teaching to the possible limits\nof Jewish orthodoxy. He bases his defence on the bare assertion of his\nprophetic mission--Jehovah had sent him. He assumes that there is no\nroom for evidence or discussion; it is a question of the relative\nauthority of Jeremiah and his accusers, whether he or they had the\nbetter right to speak for God. The immediate result seemed to justify\nhim in this attitude. He was no obscure novice, seeking for the first\ntime to establish his right to speak in the Divine name. The princes\nand people had been accustomed for twenty years to listen to him, as\nto the most fully acknowledged mouthpiece of Heaven; they could not\nshake off their accustomed feeling of deference, and once more\nsuccumbed to the spell of his fervid and commanding personality. \"Then\nsaid the princes and all the people unto the priests and the prophets,\nThis man is not worthy of death; for he hath spoken to us in the name\nof Jehovah our God.\" For the moment the people were won over and the\nprinces convinced; but priests and prophets were not so easily\ninfluenced by inspired utterances; some of these probably thought that\nthey had an inspiration of their own, and their professional\nexperience made them callous.\n\nAt this point again the sequence of events is not clear; possibly the\naccount was compiled from the imperfect recollections of more than one\nof the spectators. The pronouncement of the princes and the people\nseems, at first sight, a formal acquittal that should have ended the\ntrial, and left no room for the subsequent intervention of \"certain of\nthe elders,\" otherwise the trial seems to have come to no definite\nconclusion, and the incident simply terminated in the personal\nprotection given to Jeremiah by Ahikam ben Shaphan. Possibly, however,\nthe tribunal of the princes was not governed by any strict rules of\nprocedure; and the force of the argument used by the elders does not\ndepend on the exact stage of the trial at which it was introduced.\n\nEither Jeremiah was not entirely successful in his attempt to get the\nmatter disposed of on the sole ground of his own prophetic authority, or\nelse the elders were anxious to secure weight and finality for the\nacquittal, by bringing forward arguments in its support. The elders were\nan ancient Israelite institution, and probably still represented the\npatriarchal side of the national life; nothing is said as to their\nrelation to the princes, and this might not be very clearly defined. The\nelders appealed, by way of precedent, to an otherwise unrecorded\nincident of the reign of Hezekiah. Micah the Morasthite had uttered\nsimilar threats against Jerusalem and the Temple: \"Zion shall be\nploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain\nof the house as the high places of the forest.\"[21] But Hezekiah and his\npeople, instead of slaying Micah, had repented, and the city had been\nspared. They evidently wished that the precedent could be wholly\nfollowed in the present instance; but, at any rate, it was clear that\none of the most honoured and successful of the kings of Judah had\naccepted a threat against the Temple as a message from Jehovah.\nTherefore the mere fact that Jeremiah had uttered such a threat was\ncertainly not _prim\u00e2 facie_ evidence that he was a false prophet. We are\nnot told how this argument was received, but the writer of the chapter,\npossibly Baruch, does not attribute Jeremiah's escape either to his\nacquittal by the princes or to the reasoning of the elders. The people\napparently changed sides once more, like the common people in the New\nTestament, who heard Christ gladly and with equal enthusiasm clamoured\nfor His crucifixion. At the end of the chapter we find them eager to\nhave the prophet delivered into their hands that they may put him to\ndeath. Apparently the prophets and priests, having brought matters into\nthis satisfactory position, had retired from the scene of action; the\nheretic was to be delivered over to the secular arm. The princes, like\nPilate, seemed inclined to yield to popular pressure; but Ahikam, a son\nof the Shaphan who had to do with the finding of Deuteronomy, stood by\nJeremiah, as John of Gaunt stood by Wyclif, and the Protestant Princes\nby Luther, and the magistrates of Geneva by Calvin; and Jeremiah could\nsay with the Psalmist:--\n\n \"I have heard the defaming of many,\n Terror on every side:\n While they took counsel together against me,\n They devised to take away my life.\n But I trusted in Thee, O Jehovah:\n I said, Thou art my God.\n My times are in Thy hand:\n Deliver me from the hand of mine enemies, and from them that\n persecute me.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Let the lying lips be dumb,\n Which speak against the righteous insolently,\n With pride and contempt.\n Oh, how great is Thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for\n them that fear Thee,\n Which Thou hast wrought for them that put their trust in\n Thee, before the sons of men.\"[22]\n\nWe have here an early and rudimentary example of religious toleration,\nof the willingness, however reluctant, to hear as a possible Divine\nmessage unpalatable teaching, at variance with current theology; we\nsee too the fountain-head of that freedom which since has \"broadened\ndown from precedent to precedent.\"\n\nBut unfortunately no precedent can bind succeeding generations, and both\nJudaism and Christianity have sinned grievously against the lesson of\nthis chapter. Jehoiakim himself soon broke through the feeble restraint\nof this new-born tolerance. The writer adds an incident that must have\nhappened somewhat later,[23] to show how real was Jeremiah's danger, and\nhow transient was the liberal mood of the authorities. A certain Uriah\nben Shemaiah of Kirjath Jearim had the courage to follow in Jeremiah's\nfootsteps and speak against the city \"according to all that Jeremiah had\nsaid.\" With the usual meanness of persecutors, Jehoiakim and his\ncaptains and princes vented upon this obscure prophet the ill-will which\nthey had not dared to indulge in the case of Jeremiah, with his\ncommanding personality and influential friends. Uriah fled into Egypt,\nbut was brought back and slain, and his body cast out unburied into the\ncommon cemetery. We can understand Jeremiah's fierce and bitter\nindignation against the city where such things were possible.\n\nThis chapter is so full of suggestive teaching that we can only touch\nupon two or three of its more obvious lessons. The dogma which shaped\nthe charge against Jeremiah and caused the martyrdom of Uriah was the\ninviolability of the Temple and the Holy City. This dogma was a\nperversion of the teaching of Isaiah, and especially of Jeremiah\nhimself,[24] which assigned a unique position to the Temple in the\nreligion of Israel. The carnal man shows a fatal ingenuity in sucking\npoison out of the most wholesome truth. He is always eager to discover\nthat something external, material, physical, concrete--some building,\norganisation, ceremony, or form of words--is a fundamental basis of\nthe faith and essential to salvation. If Jeremiah had died with\nJosiah, the \"priests and prophets\" would doubtless have quoted his\nauthority against Uriah. The teaching of Christ and His apostles, of\nLuther and Calvin and their fellow-reformers, has often been twisted\nand forged into weapons to be used against their true followers. We\nare often tempted in the interest of our favourite views to lay undue\nstress on secondary and accidental statements of great teachers. We\nfail to keep the due proportion of truth which they themselves\nobserved, and in applying their precepts to new problems we sacrifice\nthe kernel and save the husk. The warning of Jeremiah's persecutors\nmight often \"give us pause.\" We need not be surprised at finding\npriests and prophets eager and interested champions of a perversion of\nrevealed truth. Ecclesiastical office does not necessarily confer any\ninspiration from above. The hereditary priest follows the traditions\nof his caste, and even the prophet may become the mouthpiece of the\npassions and prejudices of those who accept and applaud him. When men\nwill not endure sound doctrine, they heap to themselves teachers\nafter their own lusts; having itching ears, they turn away their ears\nfrom the truth and turn unto fables.[25] Jeremiah's experience shows\nthat even an apparent consensus of clerical opinion is not always to\nbe trusted. The history of councils and synods is stained by many foul\nand shameful blots; it was the \u0152cumenical Council at Constance that\nburnt Huss, and most Churches have found themselves, at some time or\nother, engaged in building the tombs of the prophets whom their own\nofficials had stoned in days gone by. We forget that _Athanasius\ncontra mundum_ implies also _Athanasius contra ecclesiam_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] The expression is curious; it usually means all the cities of\nJudah, except Jerusalem; the LXX. reading varies between \"all the\nJews\" and \"all Judah.\"\n\n[11] See especially the exposition of chaps. vii.-x., which are often\nsupposed to be a reproduction of Jeremiah's utterance on this occasion.\n\n[12] The Hebrew apparently implies that the discourse was a repetition\nof former prophecies.\n\n[13] vii. 12-14. Even if chaps. vii.-x. are not a report of Jeremiah's\ndiscourse on this occasion, the few lines in xxvi. are evidently a\nmere summary, and vii. will best indicate the substance of his\nutterance. The verses quoted occur towards the beginning of vii.-x.,\nbut from the emphatic reference to Shiloh in the brief abstract in\nxxvi., Jeremiah must have dwelt on this topic, and the fact that the\noutburst followed his conclusion suggests that he reserved this\nsubject for his peroration.\n\n[14] v. 31.\n\n[15] Acts xxi. 27-30.\n\n[16] 2 Kings xv. 35.\n\n[17] Mark xiv. 58.\n\n[18] Acts vi. 13, 14, vii. 48.\n\n[19] 2 Kings xviii. 4, xxiii.; Isa. xxxvi. 7.\n\n[20] vii. 4.\n\n[21] Micah iii. 12. As the quotation exactly agrees with the verse in\nour extant Book of Micah, we may suppose that the elders were\nacquainted with his prophecies in writing.\n\n[22] Psalm xxxi. 13-15, 18, 19. The Psalm is sometimes ascribed to\nJeremiah, because it can be so readily applied to this incident. The\nreader will recognise his characteristic phrase \"Terror on every side\"\n(Magor-missabib).\n\n[23] This incident cannot be part of the speech of the elders; it would\nonly have told against the point they were trying to make. The various\nphases--prophesy, persecution, flight, capture, and execution--must have\ntaken some time, and can scarcely have preceded Jeremiah's utterance \"at\nthe beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim.\"\n\n[24] Assuming his sympathy with Deuteronomy.\n\n[25] 2 Tim. iv. 3.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n THE ROLL\n\n xxxvi.\n\n \"Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that\n I have spoken unto thee.\"--JER. xxxvi. 2.\n\n\nThe incidents which form so large a proportion of the contents of our\nbook do not make up a connected narrative; they are merely a series of\ndetached pictures: we can only conjecture the doings and experiences\nof Jeremiah during the intervals. Chapter xxvi. leaves him still\nexposed to the persistent hostility of the priests and prophets, who\nhad apparently succeeded in once more directing popular feeling\nagainst their antagonist. At the same time, though the princes were\nnot ill-disposed towards him, they were not inclined to resist the\nstrong pressure brought to bear upon them. Probably the attitude of\nthe populace varied from time to time, according to the presence among\nthem of the friends or enemies of the prophet; and, in the same way,\nwe cannot think of \"the princes\" as a united body, governed by a\nsingle impulse. The action of this group of notables might be\ndetermined by the accidental preponderance of one or other of two\nopposing parties. Jeremiah's only real assurance of safety lay in the\npersonal protection extended to him by Ahikam ben Shaphan. Doubtless\nother princes associated themselves with Ahikam in his friendly\naction on behalf of the prophet.\n\nUnder these circumstances, Jeremiah would find it necessary to restrict\nhis activity. Utter indifference to danger was one of the most ordinary\ncharacteristics of Hebrew prophets, and Jeremiah was certainly not\nwanting in the desperate courage which may be found in any Mohammedan\ndervish. At the same time he was far too practical, too free from morbid\nself-consciousness, to court martyrdom for its own sake. If he had\npresented himself again in the Temple when it was crowded with\nworshippers, his life might have been taken in a popular tumult, while\nhis mission was still only half accomplished. Possibly his priestly\nenemies had found means to exclude him from the sacred precincts.\n\nMan's extremity was God's opportunity; this temporary and partial\nsilencing of Jeremiah led to a new departure, which made the influence\nof his teaching more extensive and permanent. He was commanded to\ncommit his prophecies to writing. The restriction of his active\nministry was to bear rich fruit, like Paul's imprisonment, and\nAthanasius' exile, and Luther's sojourn in the Wartburg. A short time\nsince there was great danger that Jeremiah and the Divine message\nentrusted to him would perish together. He did not know how soon he\nmight become once more the mark of popular fury, nor whether Ahikam\nwould still be able to protect him. The roll of the book could speak\neven if he were put to death.\n\nBut Jeremiah was not thinking chiefly about what would become of his\nteaching if he himself perished. He had an immediate and particular end\nin view. His tenacious persistence was not to be baffled by the\nprospect of mob violence, or by exclusion from the most favourable\nvantage-ground. Renan is fond of comparing the prophets to modern\njournalists; and this incident is an early and striking instance of the\nsubstitution of pen, ink, and paper for the orator's tribune. Perhaps\nthe closest modern parallel is that of the speaker who is howled down at\na public meeting and hands his manuscript to the reporters.\n\nIn the record of the Divine command to Jeremiah, there is no express\nstatement as to what was to be done with the roll; but as the object\nof writing it was that \"perchance the house of Judah might hear and\nrepent,\" it is evident that from the first it was intended to be read\nto the people.\n\nThere is considerable difference of opinion[26] as to the contents of\nthe roll. They are described as: \"All that I have spoken unto thee\nconcerning[27] Jerusalem[28] and Judah, and all the nations, since I\n(first) spake unto thee, from the time of Josiah until now.\" At first\nsight this would seem to include all previous utterances, and therefore\nall the extant prophecies of a date earlier than B.C. 605, _i.e._ those\ncontained in chapters i.-xii. and some portions of xiv.-xx. (we cannot\ndetermine which with any exactness), and probably most of those dated in\nthe fourth year of Jehoiakim, _i.e._ xxv. and parts of xlv.-xlix.\nCheyne,[29] however, holds that the roll simply contained the striking\nand comprehensive prophecy in chapter xxv. The whole series of chapters\nmight very well be described as dealing with Jerusalem, Judah, and the\nnations; but at the same time xxv. might be considered equivalent, by\nway of summary, to all that had been spoken on these subjects. From\nvarious considerations which will appear as we proceed with the\nnarrative, it seems probable that the larger estimate is the more\ncorrect, _i.e._ that the roll contained a large fraction of our Book of\nJeremiah, and not merely one or two chapters. We need not, however,\nsuppose that every previous utterance of the prophet, even though still\nextant, must have been included in the roll; the \"all\" would of course\nbe understood to be conditioned by relevancy; and the narratives of\nvarious incidents are obviously not part of what Jehovah had spoken.\n\nJeremiah dictated his prophecies, as St. Paul did his epistles, to an\namanuensis; he called his disciple Baruch[30] ben Neriah, and dictated\nto him \"all that Jehovah had spoken, upon a book, in the form of a\nroll.\"\n\nIt seems clear that, as in xxvi., the narrative does not exactly\nfollow the order of events,[31] and that verse 9, which records the\nproclamation of a fast in the ninth month of Jehoiakim's fifth year,\nshould be read before verse 5, which begins the account of the\ncircumstances leading up to the actual reading of the roll. We are not\ntold in what month of Jehoiakim's fourth year Jeremiah received this\ncommand to write his prophecies in a roll, but as they were not read\ntill the ninth month of the fifth year, there must have been an\ninterval of at least ten months or a year between the Divine command\nand the reading by Baruch. We can scarcely suppose that all or nearly\nall this delay was caused by Jeremiah and Baruch's waiting for a\nsuitable occasion. The long interval suggests that the dictation took\nsome time, and that therefore the roll was somewhat voluminous in its\ncontents, and that it was carefully compiled, not without a certain\namount of revision.\n\nWhen the manuscript was ready, its authors had to determine the right\ntime at which to read it; they found their desired opportunity in the\nfast proclaimed in the ninth month. This was evidently an extraordinary\nfast, appointed in view of some pressing danger; and, in the year\nfollowing the battle of Carchemish, this would naturally be the advance\nof Nebuchadnezzar. As our incident took place in the depth of winter,\nthe months must be reckoned according to the Babylonian year, which\nbegan in April; and the ninth month, Kisleu, would roughly correspond to\nour December. The dreaded invasion would be looked for early in the\nfollowing spring, \"at the time when kings go out to battle.\"[32]\n\nJeremiah does not seem to have absolutely determined from the first\nthat the reading of the roll by Baruch was to be a substitute for his\nown presence. He had probably hoped that some change for the better in\nthe situation might justify his appearance before a great gathering in\nthe Temple. But when the time came he was \"hindered\"[33]--we are not\ntold how--and could not go into the Temple. He may have been\nrestrained by his own prudence, or dissuaded by his friends, like Paul\nwhen he would have faced the mob in the theatre at Ephesus; the\nhindrance may have been some ban under which he had been placed by the\npriesthood, or it may have been some unexpected illness, or legal\nuncleanness, or some other passing accident, such as Providence often\nuses to protect its soldiers till their warfare is accomplished.\n\nAccordingly it was Baruch who went up to the Temple. Though he is said\nto have read the book \"in the ears of all the people,\" he does not\nseem to have challenged universal attention as openly as Jeremiah had\ndone; he did not stand forth in the court of the Temple,[34] but\nbetook himself to the \"chamber\" of the scribe,[35] or secretary of\nstate, Gemariah ben Shaphan, the brother of Jeremiah's protector\nAhikam. This chamber would be one of the cells built round the upper\ncourt, from which the \"new gate\"[36] led into an inner court of the\nTemple. Thus Baruch placed himself formally under the protection of\nthe owner of the apartment, and any violence offered to him would have\nbeen resented and avenged by this powerful noble with his kinsmen and\nallies. Jeremiah's disciple and representative took his seat at the\ndoor of the chamber, and, in full view of the crowds who passed and\nrepassed through the new gate, opened his roll and began to read aloud\nfrom its contents. His reading was yet another repetition of the\nexhortations, warnings, and threats which Jeremiah had rehearsed on\nthe feast day when he spake to the people \"all that Jehovah had\ncommanded him\"; and still both Jehovah and His prophet promised\ndeliverance as the reward of repentance. Evidently the head and front\nof the nation's offence had been no open desertion of Jehovah for\nidols, else His servants would not have selected for their audience\nHis enthusiastic worshippers as they thronged to His Temple. The fast\nitself might have seemed a token of penitence, but it was not accepted\nby Jeremiah, or put forward by the people, as a reason why the\nprophecies of ruin should not be fulfilled. No one offers the very\nnatural plea: \"In this fast we are humbling ourselves under the mighty\nhand of God, we are confessing our sins, and consecrating ourselves\nafresh to service of Jehovah. What more does He expect of us? Why does\nHe still withhold His mercy and forgiveness? Wherefore have we fasted,\nand Thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and Thou\ntakest no knowledge?\" Such a plea would probably have received an\nanswer similar to that given by one of Jeremiah's successors: \"Behold,\nin the day of your fast ye find your own pleasure, and oppress all\nyour labourers. Behold, ye fast for strife and contention, and to\nsmite with the fist of wickedness: ye fast not this day so as to make\nyour voice to be heard on high. Is such the fast that I have chosen?\nthe day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a\nrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this\na fast, and a day acceptable to Jehovah?\"\n\n\"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bonds of\nwickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go\nfree, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the\nhungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?\nwhen thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not\nthyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the\nmorning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily: and thy\nrighteousness shall go before thee; the glory of Jehovah shall be thy\nrearward.\"[37]\n\nJeremiah's opponents did not grudge Jehovah His burnt-offerings and\ncalves of a year old; He was welcome to thousands of rams, and ten\nthousands of rivers of oil. They were even willing to give their\nfirstborn for their transgression, the fruit of their body for the sin\nof their soul; but they were not prepared \"to do justly, and to love\nmercy, and to walk humbly with their God.\"[38]\n\nWe are not told how Jeremiah and the priests and prophets formulated the\npoints at issue between them, which were so thoroughly and universally\nunderstood that the record takes them for granted. Possibly Jeremiah\ncontended for the recognition of Deuteronomy, with its lofty ideals of\npure religion and a humanitarian order of society. But, in any case,\nthese incidents were an early phase of the age-long struggle of the\nprophets of God against the popular attempt to make ritual and sensuous\nemotion into excuses for ignoring morality, and to offer the cheap\nsacrifice of a few unforbidden pleasures, rather than surrender the\ngreed of grain, the lust of power, and the sweetness of revenge.\n\nWhen the multitudes caught the sound of Baruch's voice and saw him\nsitting in the doorway of Gemariah's chamber, they knew exactly what\nthey would hear. To them he was almost as antagonistic as a Protestant\nevangelist would be to the worshippers at some great Romanist feast;\nor perhaps we might find a closer parallel in a Low Church bishop\naddressing a ritualistic audience. For the hearts of these hearers\nwere not steeled by the consciousness of any formal schism. Baruch and\nthe great prophet whom he represented did not stand outside the\nrecognised limits of Divine inspiration. While the priests and\nprophets and their adherents repudiated his teaching as heretical,\nthey were still haunted by the fear that, at any rate, his threats\nmight have some Divine authority. Apart from all theology, the prophet\nof evil always finds an ally in the nervous fears and guilty\nconscience of his hearer.\n\nThe feelings of the people would be similar to those with which they had\nheard the same threats against Judah, the city and the Temple, from\nJeremiah himself. But the excitement aroused by the defeat of Pharaoh\nand the hasty return of Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon had died away. The\nimminence of a new invasion made it evident that this had not been the\nDivine deliverance of Judah. The people were cowed by what must have\nseemed to many the approaching fulfilments of former threatenings; the\nritual of a fast was in itself depressing; so that they had little\nspirit to resent the message of doom. Perhaps too there was less to\nresent: the prophecies were the same, but Baruch may have been less\nunpopular than Jeremiah, and his reading would be tame and ineffective\ncompared to the fiery eloquence of his master. Moreover the powerful\nprotection which shielded him was indicated not only by the place he\noccupied, but also by the presence of Gemariah's son, Micaiah.\n\nThe reading passed off without any hostile demonstration on the part of\nthe people, and Micaiah went in search of his father to describe to him\nthe scene he had just witnessed. He found him in the palace, in the\nchamber of the secretary of state, Elishama, attending a council of the\nprinces. There were present, amongst others, Elnathan ben Achbor, who\nbrought Uriah back from Egypt, Delaiah ben Shemaiah, and Zedekiah ben\nHananiah. Micaiah told them what he had heard. They at once sent for\nBaruch and the roll. Their messenger, Jehudi ben Nethaniah, seems to\nhave been a kind of court-usher. His name signifies \"the Jew,\" and as\nhis great-grandfather was Cushi, \"the Ethiopian,\" it has been suggested\nthat he came of a family of Ethiopian descent, which had only attained\nin his generation to Jewish citizenship.[39]\n\nWhen Baruch arrived, the princes greeted him with the courtesy and even\ndeference due to the favourite disciple of a distinguished prophet. They\ninvited him to sit down and read them the roll. Baruch obeyed; the\nmethod of reading suited the enclosed room and the quiet, interested\naudience of responsible men, better than the swaying crowd gathered\nround the door of Gemariah's chamber. Baruch now had before him\nministers of state who knew from their official information and\nexperience how extremely probable it was that the words to which they\nwere listening would find a speedy and complete fulfilment. Baruch must\nalmost have seemed to them like a doomster who announces to a condemned\ncriminal the ghastly details of his coming execution. They exchanged\nlooks of dismay and horror, and when the reading was over, they said to\none another,[40] \"We must tell the king of all these words.\" First,\nhowever, they inquired concerning the exact circumstances under which\nthe roll had been written, that they might know how far responsibility\nin this matter was to be divided between the prophet and his disciple,\nand also whether all the contents rested upon the full authority of\nJeremiah. Baruch assured them that it was simply a case of dictation:\nJeremiah had uttered every word with his own mouth, and he had\nfaithfully written it down; everything was Jeremiah's own.[41]\n\nThe princes were well aware that the prophet's action would probably be\nresented and punished by Jehoiakim. They said to Baruch: \"Do you and\nJeremiah go and hide yourselves, and let no one know where you are.\"\nThey kept the roll and laid it up in Elishama's room; then they went to\nthe king. They found him in his winter room, in the inner court of the\npalace, sitting in front of a brasier of burning charcoal. On this\nfast-day the king's mind might well be careful and troubled, as he\nmeditated on the kind of treatment that he, the nominee of Pharaoh\nNecho, was likely to receive from Nebuchadnezzar. We cannot tell whether\nhe contemplated resistance or had already resolved to submit to the\nconqueror. In either case he would wish to act on his own initiative,\nand might be anxious lest a Chaldean party should get the upper hand in\nJerusalem and surrender him and the city to the invader.\n\nWhen the princes entered, their number and their manner would at once\nindicate to him that their errand was both serious and disagreeable. He\nseems to have listened in silence while they made their report of the\nincident at the door of Gemariah's chamber and their own interview with\nBaruch.[42] The king sent for the roll by Jehudi, who had accompanied\nthe princes into the presence chamber; and on his return the same\nserviceable official read its contents before Jehoiakim and the princes,\nwhose number was now augmented by the nobles in attendance upon the\nking. Jehudi had had the advantage of hearing Baruch read the roll, but\nancient Hebrew manuscripts were not easy to decipher, and probably\nJehudi stumbled somewhat; altogether the reading of prophecies by a\ncourt-usher would not be a very edifying performance, or very gratifying\nto Jeremiah's friends. Jehoiakim treated the matter with deliberate and\nostentatious contempt. At the end of every three or four columns,[43] he\nput out his hand for the roll, cut away the portion that had been read,\nand threw it on the fire; then he handed the remainder back to Jehudi,\nand the reading was resumed till the king thought fit to repeat the\nprocess. It at once appeared that the audience was divided into two\nparties. When Gemariah's father, Shaphan, had read Deuteronomy to\nJosiah, the king rent his clothes; but now the writer tells us, half\naghast, that neither Jehoiakim nor any of his servants were afraid or\nrent their clothes, but the audience, including doubtless both court\nofficials and some of the princes, looked on with calm indifference. Not\nso the princes who had been present at Baruch's reading: they had\nprobably induced him to leave the roll with them, by promising that it\nshould be kept safely; they had tried to keep it out of the king's hands\nby leaving it in Elishama's room, and now they made another attempt to\nsave it from destruction. They entreated Jehoiakim to refrain from open\nand insolent defiance of a prophet who might after all be speaking in\nthe name of Jehovah. But the king persevered. The alternate reading and\nburning went on; the unfortunate usher's fluency and clearness would not\nbe improved by the extraordinary conditions under which he had to read;\nand we may well suppose that the concluding columns were hurried over in\na somewhat perfunctory fashion, if they were read at all. As soon as the\nlast shred of parchment was shrivelling on the charcoal, Jehoiakim\ncommanded three of his officers[44] to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch. But\nthey had taken the advice of the princes and were not to be found:\n\"Jehovah hid them.\"\n\nThus the career of Baruch's roll was summarily cut short. But it had\ndone its work; it had been read on three separate occasions, first\nbefore the people, then before the princes, and last of all before the\nking and his court. If Jeremiah had appeared in person, he might have\nbeen at once arrested, and put to death like Uriah. No doubt this\nthreefold recital was, on the whole, a failure; Jeremiah's party among\nthe princes had listened with anxious deference, but the appeal had\nbeen received by the people with indifference and by the king with\ncontempt. Nevertheless it must have strengthened individuals in the\ntrue faith, and it had proclaimed afresh that the religion of Jehovah\ngave no sanction to the policy of Jehoiakim: the ruin of Judah would\nbe a proof of the sovereignty of Jehovah and not of His impotence. But\nprobably this incident had more immediate influence over the king than\nwe might at first sight suppose. When Nebuchadnezzar arrived in\nPalestine, Jehoiakim submitted to him, a policy entirely in accordance\nwith the views of Jeremiah. We may well believe that the experiences\nof this fast-day had strengthened the hands of the prophet's friends,\nand cooled the enthusiasm of the court for more desperate and\nadventurous courses. Every year's respite for Judah fostered the\ngrowth of the true religion of Jehovah.\n\nThe sequel showed how much more prudent it was to risk the existence\nof a roll rather than the life of a prophet. Jeremiah was only\nencouraged to persevere. By the Divine command, he dictated his\nprophecies afresh to Baruch, adding besides unto them many like words.\nPossibly other copies were made of the whole or parts of this roll,\nand were secretly circulated, read, and talked about. We are not told\nwhether Jehoiakim ever heard this new roll; but, as one of the many\nlike things added to the older prophecies was a terrible personal\ncondemnation of the king,[45] we may be sure that he was not allowed\nto remain in ignorance, at any rate, of this portion of it.\n\nThe second roll was, doubtless, one of the main sources of our\npresent Book of Jeremiah, and the narrative of this chapter is of\nconsiderable importance for Old Testament criticism. It shows that a\nprophetic book may not go back to any prophetic autograph at all; its\nmost original sources may be manuscripts written at the prophet's\ndictation, and liable to all the errors which are apt to creep into\nthe most faithful work of an amanuensis. It shows further that, even\nwhen a prophet's utterances were written down during his lifetime, the\nmanuscript may contain only his recollections[46] of what he said\nyears before, and that these might be either expanded or abbreviated,\nsometimes even unconsciously modified, in the light of subsequent\nevents. Verse 32 shows that Jeremiah did not hesitate to add to the\nrecord of his former prophecies \"many like words\": there is no reason\nto suppose that these were all contained in an appendix; they would\noften take the form of annotations.\n\nThe important part played by Baruch as Jeremiah's secretary and\nrepresentative must have invested him with full authority to speak for\nhis master and expound his views; such authority points to Baruch as\nthe natural editor of our present book, which is virtually the \"Life\nand Writings\" of the prophet. The last words of our chapter are\nambiguous, perhaps intentionally. They simply state that many like\nwords were added, and do not say by whom; they might even include\nadditions made later on by Baruch from his own reminiscences.\n\nIn conclusion, we may notice that both the first and second copies of\nthe roll were written by the direct Divine command, just as in the\nHexateuch and the Book of Samuel we read of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel\ncommitting certain matters to writing at the bidding of Jehovah. We\nhave here the recognition of the inspiration of the scribe, as\nancillary to that of the prophet. Jehovah not only gives His word to\nHis servants, but watches over its preservation and transmission.[47]\nBut there is no inspiration to _write_ any new revelation: the spoken\nword, the consecrated life, are inspired; the book is only a record of\ninspired speech and action.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] See Cheyne, Giesebrecht, Orelli, etc.\n\n[27] R.V. \"against.\" The Hebrew is ambiguous.\n\n[28] So Septuagint. The Hebrew text has Israel, which is a less\naccurate description of the prophecies, and is less relevant to this\nparticular occasion.\n\n[29] _Jeremiah_ (Men of the Bible), p. 132.\n\n[30] Cf. Chap. V. on \"Baruch.\"\n\n[31] Verses 5-8 seem to be a brief alternative account to 9-26.\n\n[32] 1 Chron. xx. i.\n\n[33] _'\u0100C\u00dbR_: A.V., R.V., \"shut up\"; R.V. margin, \"restrained.\" The\nterm is used in xxxiii. 1, xxxix. 15, in the sense of \"imprisoned,\"\nbut here Jeremiah appears to be at liberty. The phrase _'\u0100C\u0326\u00dbR W\n\u0100Z\u00dbBH_, A.V. \"shut up or left\" (Deut. xxxii. 36, etc.), has been\nunderstood, those under the restraints imposed upon ceremonial\nuncleanness and those free from these restraints, _i.e._ everybody;\nthe same meaning has been given to _'\u0100C\u0326\u00dbR_ here.\n\n[34] xxvi. 2.\n\n[35] So Cheyne; the Hebrew does not make it clear whether the title\n\"scribe\" refers to the father or the son. Giesebrecht understands it\nof Shaphan, who appears as scribe in 2 Kings xxii. 8. He points out\nthat in verse 20 Elishama is called the scribe, but we cannot assume\nthat the title was limited to a single officer of state.\n\n[36] Cf. xxvi. 10.\n\n[37] Isa. lviii. 3-8.\n\n[38] Micah vi. 6-8.\n\n[39] So Orelli, _in loco_.\n\n[40] Hebrew text \"to Baruch,\" which LXX. omits.\n\n[41] In verse 18 the word \"with ink\" is not in the LXX., and may be an\naccidental repetition of the similar word for \"his mouth.\"\n\n[42] The A.V. and R.V. \"all the words\" is misleading: it should rather\nbe \"everything\"; the princes did not recite all the contents of the\nroll.\n\n[43] The English tenses \"cut,\" \"cast,\" are ambiguous, but the Hebrew\nimplies that the \"cutting\" and \"casting on the fire\" were repeated\nagain and again.\n\n[44] One is called Jerahmeel the son of Hammelech (A.V.), or \"the\nking's son\" (R.V.); if the latter is correct we must understand merely\na prince of the blood-royal and not a son of Jehoiakim, who was only\nthirty.\n\n[45] For verses 29-31 see Chap. VI., where they are dealt with in\nconnection with xxii. 13-19.\n\n[46] The supposition that Jeremiah had written notes of previous\nprophecies is not an impossible one, but it is a pure conjecture.\n\n[47] Cf. Orelli, _in loco_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n _THE RECHABITES_\n\n xxxv.\n\n \"Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me\n for ever.\"--JER. xxxv. 19.\n\n\nThis incident is dated \"in the days of Jehoiakim.\" We learn from verse\n11 that it happened at a time when the open country of Judah was\nthreatened by the advance of Nebuchadnezzar with a Chaldean and Syrian\narmy. If Nebuchadnezzar marched into the south of Palestine\nimmediately after the battle of Carchemish, the incident may have\nhappened, as some suggest, in the eventful fourth year of Jehoiakim;\nor if he did not appear in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem till after\nhe had taken over the royal authority at Babylon, Jeremiah's interview\nwith the Rechabites may have followed pretty closely upon the\ndestruction of Baruch's roll. But we need not press the words\n\"Nebuchadnezzar ... came up into the land\"; they may only mean that\nJudah was invaded by an army acting under his orders. The mention of\nChaldeans and Assyrians suggests that this invasion is the same as\nthat mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 1, 2, where we are told that Jehoiakim\nserved Nebuchadnezzar three years and then rebelled against him,\nwhereupon Jehovah sent against him bands of Chaldeans, Syrians,\nMoabites, and Ammonites, and sent them against Judah to destroy it.\nIf this is the invasion referred to in our chapter it falls towards\nthe end of Jehoiakim's reign, and sufficient time had elapsed to allow\nthe king's anger against Jeremiah to cool, so that the prophet could\nventure out of his hiding-place.\n\nThe marauding bands of Chaldeans and their allies had driven the\ncountry people in crowds into Jerusalem, and among them the nomad clan\nof the Rechabites. According to 1 Chron. ii. 55, the Rechabites traced\ntheir descent to a certain Hemath, and were a branch of the Kenites,\nan Edomite tribe dwelling for the most part in the south of Palestine.\nThese Kenites had maintained an ancient and intimate alliance with\nJudah, and in time the allies virtually became a single people, so\nthat after the Return from the Captivity all distinction of race\nbetween Kenites and Jews was forgotten, and the Kenites were reckoned\namong the families of Israel. In this fusion of their tribe with\nJudah, the Rechabite clan would be included. It is clear from all the\nreferences both to Kenites and to Rechabites that they had adopted the\nreligion of Israel and worshipped Jehovah. We know nothing else of the\nearly history of the Rechabites. The statement in Chronicles that the\nfather of the house of Rechab was Hemath perhaps points to their\nhaving been at one time settled at some place called Hemath near Jabez\nin Judah. Possibly too Rechab, which means \"rider,\" is not a personal\nname, but a designation of the clan as horsemen of the desert.\n\nThese Rechabites were conspicuous among the Jewish farmers and\ntownsfolk by their rigid adherence to the habits of nomad life; and it\nwas this peculiarity that attracted the notice of Jeremiah, and made\nthem a suitable object-lesson to the recreant Jews. The traditional\ncustoms of the clan had been formulated into positive commands by\nJonadab, the son of Rechab, _i.e._ the Rechabite. This must be the\nsame Jonadab who co-operated with Jehu in overthrowing the house of\nOmri and suppressing the worship of Baal. Jehu's reforms concluded the\nlong struggle of Elijah and Elisha against the house of Omri and its\nhalf-heathen religion. Hence we may infer that Jonadab and his\nRechabites had come under the influence of these great prophets, and\nthat their social and religious condition was one result of Elijah's\nwork. Jeremiah stood in the true line of succession from the northern\nprophets in his attitude towards religion and politics; so that there\nwould be bonds of sympathy between him and these nomad refugees.\n\nThe laws or customs of Jonadab, like the Ten Commandments, were\nchiefly negative: \"Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons\nfor ever: neither shall ye build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant\nvineyards, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents;\nthat ye may live many days in the land wherein ye are strangers.\"\n\nVarious parallels have been found to the customs of the Rechabites. The\nHebrew Nazarites abstained from wine and strong drink, from grapes and\ngrape juice and everything made of the vine, \"from the kernels even to\nthe husk.\"[48] Mohammed forbade his followers to drink any sort of wine\nor strong drink. But the closest parallel is one often quoted from\nDiodorus Siculus,[49] who, writing about B.C. 8, tells us that the\nNabatean Arabs were prohibited under the penalty of death from sowing\ncorn or planting fruit trees, using wine or building houses. Such\nabstinence is not primarily ascetic; it expresses the universal contempt\nof the wandering hunter and herdsman for tillers of the ground, who are\ntied to one small spot of earth, and for burghers, who further imprison\nthemselves in narrow houses and behind city walls. The nomad has a not\naltogether unfounded instinct that such acceptance of material\nrestraints emasculates both soul and body. A remarkable parallel to the\nlaws of Jonadab ben Rechab is found in the injunctions of the dying\nhighlander, Ranald of the Mist, to his heir: \"Son of the Mist! be free\nas thy forefathers. Own no lord--receive no law--take no hire--give no\nstipend--build no hut--enclose no pasture--sow no grain.\"[50] The\nRechabite faith in the higher moral value of their primitive habits had\nsurvived their alliance with Israel, and Jonadab did his best to protect\nhis clan from the taint of city life and settled civilisation.\nAbstinence from wine was not enjoined chiefly, if at all, to guard\nagainst intoxication, but because the fascinations of the grape might\ntempt the clan to plant vineyards, or, at any rate, would make them\ndangerously dependent upon vine-dressers and wine-merchants.\n\nTill this recent invasion, the Rechabites had faithfully observed\ntheir ancestral laws, but the stress of circumstances had now driven\nthem into a fortified city, possibly even into houses, though it is\nmore probable that they were encamped in some open space within the\nwalls.[51] Jeremiah was commanded to go and bring them into the\nTemple, that is, into one of the rooms in the Temple buildings, and\noffer them wine. The narrative proceeds in the first person, \"I took\nJaazaniah,\" so that the chapter will have been composed by the prophet\nhimself. In somewhat legal fashion he tells us how he took \"Jaazaniah\nben Jeremiah, ben Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and\nall the clan of the Rechabites.\" All three names are compounded of the\nDivine name Iah, Jehovah, and serve to emphasise the devotion of the\nclan to the God of Israel. It is a curious coincidence that the\nsomewhat rare name Jeremiah[52] should occur twice in this connection.\nThe room to which the prophet took his friends is described as the\nchamber of the disciples of the man of God[53] Hanan ben Igdaliah,\nwhich was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber\nof the keeper of the threshold, Maaseiah ben Shallum. Such minute\ndetails probably indicate that this chapter was committed to writing\nwhile these buildings were still standing and still had the same\noccupants as at the time of this incident, but to us the topography is\nunintelligible. The \"man of God\" or prophet Hanan was evidently in\nsympathy with Jeremiah, and had a following of disciples who formed a\nsort of school of the prophets, and were a sufficiently permanent body\nto have a chamber assigned to them in the Temple buildings. The\nkeepers of the threshold were Temple officials of high standing. The\n\"princes\" may have been the princes of Judah, who might very well have\na chamber in the Temple courts; but the term is general, and may\nsimply refer to other Temple officials. Hanan's disciples seem to have\nbeen in good company.\n\nThese exact specifications of person and place are probably designed\nto give a certain legal solemnity and importance to the incident, and\nseem to warrant us in rejecting Reuss' suggestion that our narrative\nis simply an elaborate prophetic figure.[54]\n\nAfter these details Jeremiah next tells us how he set before his\nguests bowls of wine and cups, and invited them to drink. Probably\nJaazaniah and his clansmen were aware that the scene was intended to\nhave symbolic religious significance. They would not suppose that the\nprophet had invited them all, in this solemn fashion, merely to take a\ncup of wine; and they would welcome an opportunity of showing their\nloyalty to their own peculiar customs. They said: \"We will drink no\nwine: for our father Jonadab the son of Rechab commanded us, saying,\nYe shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons for ever.\" They\nfurther recounted Jonadab's other commands and their own scrupulous\nobedience in every point, except that now they had been compelled to\nseek refuge in a walled city.\n\nThen the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah; he was commanded to make\nyet another appeal to the Jews, by contrasting their disobedience with\nthe fidelity of the Rechabites. The Divine King and Father of Israel had\nbeen untiring in His instruction and admonitions: \"I have spoken unto\nyou, rising up early and speaking.\" He had addressed them in familiar\nfashion through their fellow-countrymen: \"I have sent also unto you all\nMy servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them.\" Yet they\nhad not hearkened unto the God of Israel or His prophets. The Rechabites\nhad received no special revelation; they had not been appealed to by\nnumerous prophets. Their Torah had been simply given them by their\nfather Jonadab; nevertheless the commands of Jonadab had been regarded\nand those of Jehovah had been treated with contempt.\n\nObedience and disobedience would bring forth their natural fruit. \"I\nwill bring upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all\nthe evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken\nunto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but\nthey have not answered.\" But because the Rechabites obeyed the\ncommandment of their father Jonadab, \"Therefore thus saith Jehovah\nSabaoth, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand\nbefore Me for ever.\"\n\nJehovah's approval of the obedience of the Rechabites is quite\nindependent of the specific commands which they obeyed. It does not\nbind us to abstain from wine any more than from building houses and\nsowing seed. Jeremiah himself, for instance, would have had no more\nhesitation in drinking wine than in sowing his field at Anathoth. The\ntribal customs of the Rechabites had no authority whatever over him.\nNor is it exactly his object to set forth the merit of obedience and\nits certain and great reward. These truths are rather touched upon\nincidentally. What Jeremiah seeks to emphasise is the gross, extreme,\nunique wickedness of Israel's disobedience. Jehovah had not looked for\nany special virtue in His people. His Torah was not made up of\ncounsels of perfection. He had only expected the loyalty that Moab\npaid to Chemosh, and Tyre and Sidon to Baal. He would have been\nsatisfied if Israel had observed His laws as faithfully as the nomads\nof the desert kept up their ancestral habits. Jehovah had spoken\nthrough Jeremiah long ago and said: \"Pass over the isles of Chittim,\nand see; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if\nthere be any such thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are\nyet no gods? but My people have changed their glory for that which\ndoth not profit.\"[55] Centuries later Christ found Himself constrained\nto upbraid the cities of Israel, \"wherein most of His mighty works\nwere done\": \"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if\nthe mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and\nSidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.... It\nshall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than\nfor you.\"[56] And again and again in the history of the Church the\nHoly Spirit has been grieved because those who profess and call\nthemselves Christians, and claim to prophesy and do many mighty works\nin the name of Christ, are less loyal to the gospel than the heathen\nto their own superstitions.\n\nBuddhists and Mohammedans have been held up as modern examples to\nrebuke the Church, though as a rule with scant justification. Perhaps\nmaterial for a more relevant contrast may be found nearer home.\nChristian societies have been charged with conducting their affairs by\nmethods to which a respectable business firm would not stoop; they are\nsaid to be less scrupulous in their dealings and less chivalrous in\ntheir honour than the devotees of pleasure; at their gatherings they\nare sometimes supposed to lack the mutual courtesy of members of a\nLegislature or a Chamber of Commerce. The history of councils and\nsynods and Church meetings gives colour to such charges, which could\nnever have been made if Christians had been as jealous for the Name of\nChrist as a merchant is for his credit or a soldier for his honour.\n\nAnd yet these contrasts do not argue any real moral and religious\nsuperiority of the Rechabites over the Jews or of unbelievers over\nprofessing Christians. It was comparatively easy to abstain from wine\nand to wander over wide pasture lands instead of living cooped up in\ncities--far easier than to attain to the great ideals of Deuteronomy\nand the prophets. It is always easier to conform to the code of\nbusiness and society than to live according to the Spirit of Christ.\nThe fatal sin of Judah was not that it fell so far short of its\nideals, but that it repudiated them. So long as we lament our own\nfailures and still cling to the Name and Faith of Christ, we are not\nshut out from mercy; our supreme sin is to crucify Christ afresh, by\ndenying the power of His gospel, while we retain its empty form.\n\nThe reward promised to the Rechabites for their obedience was that\n\"Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before Me for\never\"; to stand before Jehovah is often used to describe the exercise\nof priestly or prophetic ministry. It has been suggested that the\nRechabites were hereby promoted to the status of the true Israel, \"a\nkingdom of priests\"; but this phrase may merely mean that their clan\nshould continue in existence. Loyal observance of national law, the\nsubordination of individual caprice and selfishness to the interests\nof the community, make up a large part of that righteousness that\nestablisheth a nation.\n\nHere, as elsewhere, students of prophecy have been anxious to discover\nsome literal fulfilment; and have searched curiously for any trace of\nthe continued existence of the Rechabites. The notice in Chronicles\nimplies that they formed part of the Jewish community of the\nRestoration. Apparently Alexandrian Jews were acquainted with\nRechabites at a still later date. Psalm lxxi. is ascribed by the\nSeptuagint to \"the sons of Jonadab.\" Eusebius[57] mentions \"priests of\nthe sons of Rechab,\" and Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller of the\ntwelfth century, states that he met with them in Arabia. More recent\ntravellers have thought that they discovered the descendants of Rechab\namongst the nomads in Arabia or the Peninsula of Sinai that still\npractised the old ancestral customs.\n\nBut the fidelity of Jehovah to His promises does not depend upon our\nunearthing obscure tribes in distant deserts. The gifts of God are\nwithout repentance, but they have their inexorable conditions; no\nnation can flourish for centuries on the virtues of its ancestors. The\nRechabites may have vanished in the ordinary stream of history, and\nyet we can hold that Jeremiah's prediction has been fulfilled and is\nstill being fulfilled. No scriptural prophecy is limited in its\napplication to an individual or a race, and every nation possessed by\nthe spirit of true patriotism shall \"stand before Jehovah for ever.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] Num. vi. 2.\n\n[49] xix. 94.\n\n[50] Scott, _Legend of Montrose_, chap. xxii.\n\n[51] The term \"house of the Rechabites\" in verse 2 means \"family\" or\n\"clan,\" and does not refer to a building.\n\n[52] Eight Jeremiahs occur in O.T.\n\n[53] Literally \"sons of Hanan.\"\n\n[54] Jeremiah, according to this view, had no interview with the\nRechabites, but made an imaginary incident a text for his discourse.\n\n[55] ii. 10, 11.\n\n[56] Matt. xi. 21, 22.\n\n[57] _Ch. Hist._, ii. 23.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n _BARUCH_\n\n xlv.\n\n \"Thy life will I give unto thee for a prey.\"--JER. xlv. 5.\n\n\nThe editors of the versions and of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament\nhave assigned a separate chapter to this short utterance concerning\nBaruch; thus paying an unconscious tribute to the worth and importance\nof Jeremiah's disciple and secretary, who was the first to bear the\nfamiliar Jewish name, which in its Latinised form of Benedict has been a\nfavourite with saints and popes. Probably few who read of these great\nascetics and ecclesiastics give a thought to the earliest recorded\nBaruch, nor can we suppose that Christian Benedicts have been named\nafter him. One thing they may all have in common: either their own faith\nor that of their parents ventured to bestow upon a \"man born unto\ntrouble as the sparks fly upward\" the epithet \"Blessed.\" We can scarcely\nsuppose that the life of any Baruch or Benedict has run so smoothly as\nto prevent him or his friends from feeling that such faith has not been\noutwardly justified and that the name suggested an unkind satire.\nCertainly Jeremiah's disciple, like his namesake Baruch Spinoza, had to\nrecognise his blessings disguised as distress and persecution.\n\nBaruch ben Neriah is said by Josephus[58] to have belonged to a most\ndistinguished family, and to have been exceedingly well educated in his\nnative language. These statements are perhaps legitimate deductions from\nthe information supplied by our book. His title \"scribe\"[59] and his\nposition as Jeremiah's secretary imply that he possessed the best\nculture of his time; and we are told in li. 59 that Seraiah ben Neriah,\nwho must be Baruch's brother, was chief chamberlain (R.V.) to Zedekiah.\nAccording to the Old Latin Version of the Apocryphal Book of Baruch (i.\n1) he was of the tribe of Simeon, a statement by no means improbable in\nview of the close connection between Judah and Simeon, but needing the\nsupport of some better authority.\n\nBaruch's relation to Jeremiah is not expressly defined, but it is\nclearly indicated in the various narratives in which he is referred\nto. We find him in constant attendance upon the prophet, acting both\nas his \"scribe,\" or secretary, and as his mouthpiece. The relation was\nthat of Joshua to Moses, of Elisha to Elijah, of Gehazi to Elisha, of\nMark to Paul and Barnabas, and of Timothy to Paul. It is described in\nthe case of Joshua and Mark by the term \"minister,\" while Elisha is\ncharacterised as having \"poured water on the hands of Elijah.\" The\n\"minister\" was at once personal attendant, disciple, representative,\nand possible successor of the prophet. The position has its analogue\nin the service of the squire to the medi\u00e6val knight, and in that of an\nunpaid private secretary to a modern cabinet minister. Squires\nexpected to become knights, and private secretaries hope for a seat in\nfuture cabinets. Another less perfect parallel is the relation of the\nmembers of a German theological \"seminar\" to their professor.\n\nBaruch is first[60] introduced to us in the narrative concerning the\nroll. He appears as Jeremiah's amanuensis and representative, and is\nentrusted with the dangerous and honourable task of publishing his\nprophecies to the people in the Temple. Not long before, similar\nutterances had almost cost the master his life, so that the disciple\nshowed high courage and devotion in undertaking such a commission. He\nwas called to share with his master at once the same cup of\npersecution--and the same Divine protection.\n\nWe next hear of Baruch in connection with the symbolic purchase of the\nfield at Anathoth.[61] He seems to have been attending on Jeremiah\nduring his imprisonment in the court of the guard, and the documents\ncontaining the evidence of the purchase were entrusted to his care.\nBaruch's presence in the court of the guard does not necessarily imply\nthat he was himself a prisoner. The whole incident shows that\nJeremiah's friends had free access to him; and Baruch probably not\nonly attended to his master's wants in prison, but also was his\nchannel of communication with the outside world.\n\nWe are nowhere told that Baruch himself was either beaten or\nimprisoned, but it is not improbable that he shared Jeremiah's\nfortunes even to these extremities. We next hear of him as carried\ndown to Egypt[62] with Jeremiah, when the Jewish refugees fled thither\nafter the murder of Gedaliah. Apparently he had remained with Jeremiah\nthroughout the whole interval, had continued to minister to him\nduring his imprisonment, and had been among the crowd of Jewish\ncaptives whom Nebuchadnezzar found at Ramah. Josephus probably makes a\nsimilar conjecture[63] in telling us that, when Jeremiah was released\nand placed under the protection of Gedaliah at Mizpah, he asked and\nobtained from Nebuzaradan the liberty of his disciple Baruch. At any\nrate Baruch shared with his master the transient hope and bitter\ndisappointment of this period; he supported him in dissuading the\nremnant of Jews from fleeing into Egypt, and was also compelled to\nshare their flight. According to a tradition recorded by Jerome,\nBaruch and Jeremiah died in Egypt. But the Apocryphal Book of Baruch\nplaces him at Babylon, whither another tradition takes him after the\ndeath of Jeremiah in Egypt.[64] These legends are probably mere\nattempts of wistful imagination to supply unwelcome blanks in history.\n\nIt has often been supposed that our present Book of Jeremiah, in some\nstage of its formation, was edited or compiled by Baruch, and that\nthis book may be ranked with biographies--like Stanley's Life of\nArnold--of great teachers by their old disciples. He was certainly the\namanuensis of the roll, which must have been the most valuable\nauthority for any editor of Jeremiah's prophecies. And the amanuensis\nmight very easily become the editor. If an edition of the book was\ncompiled in Jeremiah's lifetime, we should naturally expect him to use\nBaruch's assistance; if it first took shape after the prophet's death,\nand if Baruch survived, no one would be better able to compile the\n\"Life and Works of Jeremiah\" than his favourite and faithful\ndisciple. The personal prophecy about Baruch does not occur in its\nproper place in connection with the episode of the roll, but is\nappended at the end of the prophecies,[65] possibly as a kind of\nsubscription on the part of the editor. These data do not constitute\nabsolute proof, but they afford strong probability that Baruch\ncompiled a book, which was substantially our Jeremiah. The evidence is\nsimilar in character to, but much more conclusive than, that adduced\nfor the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Apollos.\n\nAlmost the final reference to Baruch suggests another aspect of his\nrelation to Jeremiah. The Jewish captains accused him of unduly\ninfluencing his master against Egypt and in favour of Chaldea. Whatever\ntruth there may have been in this particular charge, we gather that\npopular opinion credited Baruch with considerable influence over\nJeremiah, and probably popular opinion was not far wrong. Nothing said\nabout Baruch suggests any vein of weakness in his character, such as\nPaul evidently recognised in Timothy. His few appearances upon the scene\nrather leave the impression of strength and self-reliance, perhaps even\nself-assertion. If we knew more about him, possibly indeed if any one\nelse had compiled these \"Memorabilia,\" we might discover that much in\nJeremiah's policy and teaching was due to Baruch, and that the master\nleaned somewhat heavily upon the sympathy of the disciple. The qualities\nthat make a successful man of action do not always exempt their\npossessor from being directed or even controlled by his followers. It\nwould be interesting to discover how much of Luther is Melanchthon. Of\nmany a great minister, his secretaries and subordinates might say\nsafely, in private, _Cujus pars magna fuimus_.\n\nThe short prophecy which has furnished a text for this chapter shows\nthat Jeremiah was not unaware of Baruch's tendency to self-assertion,\nand even felt that sometimes it required a check. Apparently chapter\nxlv. once formed the immediate continuation of chapter xxxvi., the\nnarrative of the incident of the roll. It was \"the word spoken by\nJeremiah the prophet to Baruch ben Neriah, when he wrote these words\nin a book at the dictation of Jeremiah in the fourth year of\nJehoiakim.\" The reference evidently is to xxxvi. 32, where we are told\nthat Baruch wrote, at Jeremiah's dictation, all the words of the book\nthat had been burnt, and many like words.\n\nClearly Baruch had not received Jeremiah's message as to the sin and\nruin of Judah without strong protest. It was as distasteful to him as\nto all patriotic Jews and even to Jeremiah himself. Baruch had not yet\nbeen able to accept this heavy burden or to look beyond to the\nbrighter promise of the future. He broke out into bitter complaint:\n\"Woe is me now! for Jehovah hath added sorrow to my pain; I am weary\nwith my groaning, and find no rest.\"[66] Strong as these words are,\nthey are surpassed by many of Jeremiah's complaints to Jehovah, and\ndoubtless even now they found an echo in the prophet's heart. Human\nimpatience of suffering revolts desperately against the conviction\nthat calamity is inevitable; hope whispers that some unforeseen\nProvidence will yet disperse the storm-clouds, and the portents of\nruin will dissolve like some evil dream. Jeremiah had, now as always,\nthe harsh, unwelcome task of compelling himself and his fellows to\nface the sad and appalling reality. \"Thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I am\nbreaking down that which I built, I am plucking up that which I\nplanted.\"[67] This was his familiar message concerning Judah, but he\nhad also a special word for Baruch: \"And as for thee, dost thou seek\ngreat things for thyself?\" What \"great things\" could a devout and\npatriotic Jew, a disciple of Jeremiah, seek for himself in those\ndisastrous times? The answer is at once suggested by the renewed\nprediction of doom. Baruch, in spite of his master's teaching, had\nstill ventured to look for better things, and had perhaps fancied that\nhe might succeed where Jeremiah had failed and might become the\nmediator who should reconcile Israel to Jehovah. He may have thought\nthat Jeremiah's threats and entreaties had prepared the way for some\nmessage of reconciliation. Gemariah ben Shaphan and other princes had\nbeen greatly moved when Baruch read the roll. Might not their emotion\nbe an earnest of the repentance of the people? If he could carry on\nhis master's work to a more blessed issue than the master himself had\ndared to hope, would not this be a \"great thing\" indeed? We gather\nfrom the tone of the chapter that Baruch's aspirations were unduly\ntinged with personal ambition. While kings, priests, and prophets were\nsinking into a common ruin from which even the most devoted servants\nof Jehovah would not escape, Baruch was indulging himself in visions\nof the honour to be obtained from a glorious mission, successfully\naccomplished. Jeremiah reminds him that he will have to take his\nshare in the common misery. Instead of setting his heart upon \"great\nthings\" which are not according to the Divine purpose, he must be\nprepared to endure with resignation the evil which Jehovah \"is\nbringing upon all flesh.\" Yet there is a word of comfort and promise:\n\"I will give thee thy life for a prey in all places whither thou\ngoest.\" Baruch was to be protected from violent or premature death.\n\nAccording to Renan,[68] this boon was flung to Baruch\nhalf-contemptuously, in order to silence his unworthy and unseasonable\nimportunity:--\n\n\"Dans une catastrophe qui va englober l'humanit\u00e9 tout enti\u00e8re, il est\nbeau de venir r\u00e9clamer de petites faveurs d'exception! Baruch aura la\nvie sauve partout o\u00f9 il ira; qu'il s'en contente!\"\n\nWe prefer a more generous interpretation. To a selfish man, unless\nindeed he clung to bare life in craven terror or mere animal tenacity,\nsuch an existence as Baruch was promised would have seemed no boon at\nall. Imprisonment in a besieged and starving city, captivity and exile,\nhis fellow-countrymen's ill-will and resentment from first to\nlast--these experiences would be hard to recognise as privileges\nbestowed by Jehovah. Had Baruch been wholly self-centred, he might well\nhave craved death instead, like Job, nay, like Jeremiah himself. But\nlife meant for him continued ministry to his master, the high privilege\nof supporting him in his witness to Jehovah. If, as seems almost\ncertain, we owe to Baruch the preservation of Jeremiah's prophecies,\nthen indeed the life that was given him for a prey must have been\nprecious to him as the devoted servant of God. Humanly speaking, the\nfuture of revealed religion and of Christianity depended on the survival\nof Jeremiah's teaching, and this hung upon the frail thread of Baruch's\nlife. After all, Baruch was destined to achieve \"great things,\" even\nthough not those which he sought after; and as no editor's name is\nprefixed to our book, he cannot be accused of self-seeking. So too for\nevery faithful disciple, his life, even if given for a prey, even if\nspent in sorrow, poverty, and pain, is still a Divine gift, because\nnothing can spoil its opportunity of ministering to men and glorifying\nGod, even if only by patient endurance of suffering.\n\nWe may venture on a wider application of the promise, \"Thy life shall\nbe given thee for a prey.\" Life is not merely continued existence in\nthe body: life has come to mean spirit and character, so that Christ\ncould say, \"He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.\" In\nthis sense the loyal servant of God wins as his prey, out of all\npainful experiences, a fuller and nobler life. Other rewards may come\nin due season, but this is the most certain and the most sufficient.\nFor Baruch, constant devotion to a hated and persecuted master,\nuncompromising utterance of unpopular truth, had their chief issue in\nthe redemption of his own inward life.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[58] _Antt._, x. 9, 1.\n\n[59] xxxvi. 26, 32.\n\n[60] In order of time, ch. xxxvi.\n\n[61] xxxii.\n\n[62] xliii.\n\n[63] _Antt._, x. 9, 1.\n\n[64] Bissell's Introduction to Baruch in Lange's Commentary.\n\n[65] So LXX., which here probably gives the true order.\n\n[66] The clause \"I am weary with my groaning\" also occurs in Psalm vi.\n6.\n\n[67] The concluding clause of the verse is omitted by LXX., and is\nprobably a gloss added to indicate that the ruin would not be confined\nto Judah, but would extend \"over the whole earth.\" Cf. Kautzsch.\n\n[68] _Hist. of Israel_, iii., 293.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n _THE JUDGMENT ON JEHOIAKIM_\n\n xxii. 13-19, xxxvi. 30, 31.\n\n \"Jehoiakim ... slew him (Uriah) with the sword, and cast his dead\n body into the graves of the common people.\"--JER. xxvi. 23.\n\n \"Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim, ... He shall be\n buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the\n gates of Jerusalem.\"--JER. xxii. 18, 19.\n\n \"Jehoiakim ... did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah,\n according to all that his fathers had done.\"--2 KINGS xxiii. 36, 37.\n\n\nOur last four chapters have been occupied with the history of Jeremiah\nduring the reign of Jehoiakim, and therefore necessarily with the\nrelations of the prophet to the king and his government. Before we\npass on to the reigns of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, we must consider\ncertain utterances which deal with the personal character and career\nof Jehoiakim. We are helped to appreciate these passages by what we\nhere read, and by the brief paragraph concerning this reign in the\nSecond Book of Kings. In Jeremiah the king's policy and conduct are\nspecially illustrated by two incidents, the murder of the prophet\nUriah and the destruction of the roll. The historian states his\njudgment of the reign, but his brief record[69] adds little to our\nknowledge of the sovereign.\n\nJehoiakim was placed upon the throne as the nominee and tributary of\nPharaoh Necho; but he had the address or good fortune to retain his\nauthority under Nebuchadnezzar, by transferring his allegiance to the\nnew suzerain of Western Asia. When a suitable opportunity offered, the\nunwilling and discontented vassal naturally \"turned and rebelled\nagainst\" his lord. Even then his good fortune did not forsake him;\nalthough in his latter days Judah was harried by predatory bands of\nChaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, yet Jehoiakim \"slept with\nhis fathers\" before Nebuchadnezzar had set to work in earnest to\nchastise his refractory subject. He was not reserved, like Zedekiah,\nto endure agonies of mental and physical torture, and to rot in a\nBabylonian dungeon.\n\nJeremiah's judgment upon Jehoiakim and his doings is contained in the\ntwo passages which form the subject of this chapter. The utterance in\nxxxvi. 30, 31, was evoked by the destruction of the roll, and we may\nfairly assume that xxii. 13-19 was also delivered after that incident.\nThe immediate context of the latter paragraph throws no light on the\ndate of its origin. Chapter xxii. is a series of judgments on the\nsuccessors of Josiah, and was certainly composed after the deposition\nof Jehoiachin, probably during the reign of Zedekiah; but the section\non Jehoiakim must have been uttered at an earlier period. Renan indeed\nimagines[70] that Jeremiah delivered this discourse at the gate of the\nroyal palace at the very beginning of the new reign. The nominee of\nEgypt was scarcely seated on the throne, his \"new name\" Jehoiakim--\"He\nwhom Jehovah establisheth\"--still sounded strange in his ears, when\nthe prophet of Jehovah publicly menaced the king with condign\npunishment. Renan is naturally surprised that Jehoiakim tolerated\nJeremiah, even for a moment. But, here as often elsewhere, the French\ncritic's dramatic instinct has warped his estimate of evidence. We\nneed not accept the somewhat unkind saying that picturesque anecdotes\nare never true, but, at the same time, we have always to guard against\nthe temptation to accept the most dramatic interpretation of history\nas the most accurate. The contents of this passage, the references to\nrobbery, oppression, and violence, clearly imply that Jehoiakim had\nreigned long enough for his government to reveal itself as hopelessly\ncorrupt. The final breach between the king and the prophet was marked\nby the destruction of the roll, and xxii. 13-19, like xxxvi. 30, 31,\nmay be considered a consequence of this breach.\n\nLet us now consider these utterances. In xxxvi. 30_a_ we read,\n\"Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, He\nshall have none to sit upon the throne of David.\" Later on,[71] a like\njudgment was pronounced upon Jehoiakim's son and successor Jehoiachin.\nThe absence of this threat from xxii. 13-19 is doubtless due to the\nfact that the chapter was compiled when the letter of the prediction\nseemed to have been proved to be false by the accession of Jehoiachin.\nIts spirit and substance were amply satisfied by the latter's\ndeposition and captivity after a brief reign of a hundred days.\n\nThe next clause in the sentence on Jehoiakim runs: \"His dead body\nshall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the\nfrost.\" The same doom is repeated in the later prophecy:--\n\n \"They shall not lament for him,\n Alas my brother! Alas my brother!\n They shall not lament for him,\n Alas lord! Alas lord![72]\n He shall be buried with the burial of an ass,\n Dragged forth and cast away without the gates of Jerusalem.\"\n\nJeremiah did not need to draw upon his imagination for this vision of\njudgment. When the words were uttered, his memory called up the murder\nof Uriah ben Shemaiah and the dishonour done to his corpse. Uriah's\nonly guilt had been his zeal for the truth that Jeremiah had\nproclaimed. Though Jehoiakim and his party had not dared to touch\nJeremiah or had not been able to reach him, they had struck his\ninfluence by killing Uriah. But for their hatred of the master, the\ndisciple might have been spared. And Jeremiah had neither been able to\nprotect him, nor allowed to share his fate. Any generous spirit will\nunderstand how Jeremiah's whole nature was possessed and agitated by a\ntempest of righteous indignation, how utterly humiliated he felt to be\ncompelled to stand by in helpless impotence. And now, when the tyrant\nhad filled up the measure of his iniquity, when the imperious impulse\nof the Divine Spirit bade the prophet speak the doom of his king,\nthere breaks forth at last the long pent-up cry for vengeance:\n\"Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughtered saint\"--let the persecutor suffer the\nagony and shame which he inflicted on God's martyr, fling out the\nmurderer's corpse unburied, let it lie and rot upon the dishonoured\ngrave of his victim.\n\nCan we say, Amen? Not perhaps without some hesitation. Yet surely, if\nour veins run blood and not water, our feelings, had we been in\nJeremiah's place, would have been as bitter and our words as fierce.\nJehoiakim was more guilty than our Queen Mary, but the memory of the\ngrimmest of the Tudors still stinks in English nostrils. In our own\ndays, we have not had time to forget how men received the news of\nHannington's murder at Uganda, and we can imagine what European\nChristians would say and feel if their missionaries were massacred in\nChina.\n\nAnd yet, when we read such a treatise as Lactantius wrote _Concerning\nthe Deaths of Persecutors_, we cannot but recoil. We are shocked at the\nstern satisfaction he evinces in the miserable ends of Maximin and\nGalerius, and other enemies of the true faith. Discreet historians have\nmade large use of this work, without thinking it desirable to give an\nexplicit account of its character and spirit. Biographers of Lactantius\nfeel constrained to offer a half-hearted apology for the _De Morte\nPersecutorum_. Similarly we find ourselves of one mind with Gibbon,[73]\nin refusing to derive edification from a sermon in which Constantine the\nGreat, or the bishop who composed it for him, affected to relate the\nmiserable end of all the persecutors of the Church. Nor can we share the\nexultation of the Covenanters in the Divine judgment which they saw in\nthe death of Claverhouse; and we are not moved to any hearty sympathy\nwith more recent writers, who have tried to illustrate from history the\ndanger of touching the rights and privileges of the Church. Doubtless\nGod will avenge His own elect; nevertheless _Nemo me impune lacessit_ is\nno seemly motto for the Kingdom of God. Even Greek mythologists taught\nthat it was perilous for men to wield the thunderbolts of Zeus. Still\nless is the Divine wrath a weapon for men to grasp in their differences\nand dissensions, even about the things of God. Michael the Archangel,\neven when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses,\ndurst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord\nrebuke thee.[74]\n\nHow far Jeremiah would have shared such modern sentiment, it is hard\nto say. At any rate his personal feeling is kept in the background; it\nis postponed to the more patient and deliberate judgment of the Divine\nSpirit, and subordinated to broad considerations of public morality.\nWe have no right to contrast Jeremiah with our Lord and His\nproto-martyr Stephen, because we have no prayer of the ancient prophet\nto rank with, \"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,\"\nor again with, \"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.\" Christ and\nHis disciple forgave wrongs done to themselves: they did not condone\nthe murder of their brethren. In the Apocalypse, which concludes the\nEnglish Bible, and was long regarded as God's final revelation, His\nlast word to man, the souls of the martyrs cry out from beneath the\naltar: \"How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge and\navenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?\"[75]\n\nDoubtless God will avenge His own elect, and the appeal for justice\nmay be neither ignoble nor vindictive. But such prayers, beyond all\nothers, must be offered in humble submission to the Judge of all. When\nour righteous indignation claims to pass its own sentence, we do well\nto remember that our halting intellect and our purblind conscience\nare ill qualified to sit as assessors of the Eternal Justice.\n\nWhen Saul set out for Damascus, \"breathing out threatening and\nslaughter against the disciples of the Lord,\" the survivors of his\nvictims cried out for a swift punishment of the persecutor, and\nbelieved that their prayers were echoed by martyred souls in the\nheavenly Temple. If that ninth chapter of the Acts had recorded how\nSaul of Tarsus was struck dead by the lightnings of the wrath of God,\npreachers down all the Christian centuries would have moralised on the\nrighteous Divine judgment. Saul would have found his place in the\nhomiletic Chamber of Horrors with Ananias and Sapphira, Herod and\nPilate, Nero and Diocletian. Yet the Captain of our salvation,\nchoosing His lieutenants, passes over many a man with blameless\nrecord, and allots the highest post to this blood-stained persecutor.\nNo wonder that Paul, if only in utter self-contempt, emphasised the\ndoctrine of Divine election. Verily God's ways are not our ways and\nHis thoughts are not our thoughts.\n\nStill, however, we easily see that Paul and Jehoiakim belong to two\ndifferent classes. The persecutor who attempts in honest but misguided\nzeal to make others endorse his own prejudices, and turn a deaf ear\nwith him to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, must not be ranked with\npoliticians who sacrifice to their own private interests the\nRevelation and the Prophets of God.\n\nThis prediction which we have been discussing of Jehoiakim's shameful\nend is followed in the passage in chapter xxxvi. by a general\nannouncement of universal judgment, couched in Jeremiah's usual\ncomprehensive style:--\n\n\"I will visit their sin upon him and upon his children and upon his\nservants, and I will bring upon them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem\nand the men of Judah all the evil which I spake unto them and they did\nnot hearken.\"\n\nIn chapter xxii. the sentence upon Jehoiakim is prefaced by a\nstatement of the crimes for which he was punished. His eyes and his\nheart were wholly possessed by avarice and cruelty; as an\nadministrator he was active in oppression and violence.[76] But\nJeremiah does not confine himself to these general charges; he\nspecifies and emphasises one particular form of Jehoiakim's\nwrong-doing, the tyrannous exaction of forced labour for his\nbuildings. To the sovereigns of petty Syrian states, old Memphis and\nBabylon were then what London and Paris are to modern Ameers,\nKhedives, and Sultans. Circumstances, indeed, did not permit a Syrian\nprince to visit the Egyptian or Chaldean capital with perfect comfort\nand unrestrained enjoyment. Ancient Eastern potentates, like medi\u00e6val\nsuzerains, did not always distinguish between a guest and a hostage.\nBut the Jewish kings would not be debarred from importing the luxuries\nand imitating the vices of their conquerors.\n\nRenan says[77] of this period: \"L'Egypte \u00e9tait, \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, le\npays o\u00f9 les industries de luxe \u00e9taient le plus d\u00e9velopp\u00e9es. Tout le\nmonde raffolaient, en particulier, de sa carrosserie et de ses meubles\nouvrag\u00e9s. Joiaquin et la noblesse de J\u00e9rusalem ne songeaient qu'\u00e0 se\nprocurer ces beaux objets, qui r\u00e9alisaient ce qu'on avait vu de plus\nexquis en fait de go\u00fbt jusque-l\u00e0.\"\n\nThe supreme luxury of vulgar minds is the use of wealth as a means of\ndisplay, and monarchs have always delighted in the erection of vast\nand ostentatious buildings. At this time Egypt and Babylon vied with\none another in pretentious architecture. In addition to much useful\nengineering work, Psammetichus I. made large additions to the temples\nand public edifices at Memphis, Thebes, Sais, and elsewhere, so that\n\"the entire valley of the Nile became little more than one huge\nworkshop, where stone-cutters and masons, bricklayers and carpenters,\nlaboured incessantly.\"[78] This activity in building continued even\nafter the disaster to the Egyptian arms at Carchemish.\n\nNebuchadnezzar had an absolute mania for architecture. His numerous\ninscriptions are mere catalogues of his achievements in building. His\nhome administration and even his extensive conquests are scarcely\nnoticed; he held them of little account compared with his temples and\npalaces--\"this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal\ndwelling-place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my\nmajesty.\"[79] Nebuchadnezzar created most of the magnificence that\nexcited the wonder and admiration of Herodotus a century later.\n\nJehoiakim had been moved to follow the notable example of Chaldea and\nEgypt. By a strange irony of fortune, Egypt, once the cynosure of\nnations, has become in our own time the humble imitator of Western\ncivilisation, and now boulevards have rendered the suburbs of Cairo \"a\nshabby reproduction of modern Paris.\" Possibly in the eyes of Egyptians\nand Chaldeans Jehoiakim's efforts only resulted in a \"shabby\nreproduction\" of Memphis or Babylon. Nevertheless these foreign luxuries\nare always expensive; and minor states had not then learnt the art of\ntrading on the resources of their powerful neighbours by means of\nforeign loans. Moreover Judah had to pay tribute first to Pharaoh Necho,\nand then to Nebuchadnezzar. The times were bad, and additional taxes for\nbuilding purposes must have been felt as an intolerable oppression.\nNaturally the king did not pay for his labour; like Solomon and all\nother great Eastern despots, he had recourse to the _corvee_, and for\nthis in particular Jeremiah denounced him.\n\n \"Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness\n And his chambers by injustice;\n That maketh his neighbour toil without wages,\n And giveth him no hire;\n That saith, 'I will build me a wide house\n And spacious chambers,'\n And openeth out broad windows, with woodwork of cedar\n And vermilion painting.\"\n\nThen the denunciation passes into biting sarcasm:--\n\n \"Art thou indeed a king,\n Because thou strivest to excel in cedar?\"[80]\n\nPoor imitations of Nebuchadnezzar's magnificent structures could not\nconceal the impotence and dependence of the Jewish king. The\npretentiousness of Jehoiakim's buildings challenged a comparison which\nonly reminded men that he was a mere puppet, with its strings pulled now\nby Egypt and now by Babylon. At best he was only reigning on sufferance.\n\nJeremiah contrasts Jehoiakim's government both as to justice and\ndignity with that of Josiah:--\n\n \"Did not thy father eat and drink?\"[81]\n\n(He was no ascetic, but, like the Son of Man, lived a full, natural,\nhuman life.)\n\n \"And do judgment and justice?\n Then did he prosper.\n He judged the cause of the poor and needy,\n Then was there prosperity.\n Is not this to know Me?\n Jehovah hath spoken it.\"\n\nProbably Jehoiakim claimed by some external observance, or through\nsome subservient priest or prophet, to \"know Jehovah\"; and Jeremiah\nrepudiates the claim.\n\nJosiah had reigned in the period when the decay of Assyria left Judah\ndominant in Palestine, until Egypt or Chaldea could find time to\ngather up the outlying fragments of the shattered empire. The wisdom\nand justice of the Jewish king had used this breathing space for the\nadvantage and happiness of his people; and during part of his reign\nJosiah's power seems to have been as extensive as that of any of his\npredecessors on the throne of Judah. And yet, according to current\ntheology, Jeremiah's appeal to the prosperity of Josiah as a proof of\nGod's approbation was a startling anomaly. Josiah had been defeated\nand slain at Megiddo in the prime of his manhood, at the age of\nthirty-nine. None but the most independent and enlightened spirits\ncould believe that the Reformer's premature death, at the moment when\nhis policy had resulted in national disaster, was not an emphatic\ndeclaration of Divine displeasure. Jeremiah's contrary belief might be\nexplained and justified. Some such justification is suggested by the\nprophet's utterance concerning Jehoahaz: \"Weep not for the dead,\nneither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away.\" Josiah had\nreigned with real authority, he died when independence was no longer\npossible; and therein he was happier and more honourable than his\nsuccessors, who held a vassal throne by the uncertain tenure of\ntime-serving duplicity, and were for the most part carried into\ncaptivity. \"The righteous was taken away from the evil to come.\"[82]\n\nThe warlike spirit of classical antiquity and of Teutonic chivalry\nwelcomed a glorious death upon the field of battle:--\n\n \"And how can man die better\n Than facing fearful odds,\n For the ashes of his fathers,\n And the temples of his Gods?\"\n\nNo one spoke of Leonidas as a victim of Divine wrath. Later Judaism\ncaught something of the same temper. Judas Maccab\u00e6us, when in extreme\ndanger, said, \"It is better for us to die in battle, than to look upon\nthe evils of our people and our sanctuary\"; and later on, when he\nrefused to flee from inevitable death, he claimed that he would leave\nbehind him no stain upon his honour.[83] Islam also is prodigal in its\npromises of future bliss to those soldiers who fall fighting for its\nsake.\n\nBut the dim and dreary She\u00f4l of the ancient Hebrews was no glorious\nValhalla or houri-peopled Paradise. The renown of the battle-field was\npoor compensation for the warm, full-blooded life of the upper air.\nWhen David sang his dirge for Saul and Jonathan, he found no comfort\nin the thought that they had died fighting for Israel. Moreover the\nwarrior's self-sacrifice for his country seems futile and inglorious,\nwhen it neither secures victory nor postpones defeat. And at Megiddo\nJosiah and his army perished in a vain attempt to come\n\n \"Between the pass and fell incensed points\n Of mighty opposites.\"\n\nWe can hardly justify to ourselves Jeremiah's use of Josiah's reign as\nan example of prosperity as the reward of righteousness; his\ncontemporaries must have been still more difficult to convince. We\ncannot understand how the words of this prophecy were left without any\nattempt at justification, or why Jeremiah did not meet by anticipation\nthe obvious and apparently crushing rejoinder that the reign\nterminated in disgrace and disaster.\n\nNevertheless these difficulties do not affect the terms of the\nsentence upon Jehoiakim, or the ground upon which he was condemned. We\nshall be better able to appreciate Jeremiah's attitude and to discover\nits lessons if we venture to reconsider his decisions. We cannot\nforget that there was, as Cheyne puts it, a duel between Jeremiah and\nJehoiakim; and we should hesitate to accept the verdict of Hildebrand\nupon Henry IV. of Germany, or of Thomas \u00e0 Becket on Henry II. of\nEngland. Moreover the data upon which we have to base our judgment,\nincluding the unfavourable estimate in the Book of Kings, come to us\nfrom Jeremiah or his disciples. Our ideas about Queen Elizabeth would\nbe more striking than accurate if our only authorities for her reign\nwere Jesuit historians of England. But Jeremiah is absorbed in lofty\nmoral and spiritual issues; his testimony is not tainted with that\nsectarian and sacerdotal casuistry which is always so ready to\nsubordinate truth to the interests of \"the Church.\" He speaks of facts\nwith a simple directness which leaves us in no doubt as to their\nreality; his picture of Jehoiakim may be one-sided, but it owes\nnothing to an inventive imagination.\n\nEven Renan, who, in Ophite fashion, holds a brief for the bad\ncharacters of the Old Testament, does not seriously challenge\nJeremiah's statements of fact. But the judgment of the modern critic\nseems at first sight more lenient than that of the Hebrew prophet: the\nformer sees in Jehoiakim \"un prince lib\u00e9ral et mod\u00e9r\u00e9,\"[84] but when\nthis favourable estimate is coupled with an apparent comparison with\nLouis Philippe, we must leave students of modern history to decide\nwhether Renan is really less severe than Jeremiah. Cheyne, on the\nother hand, holds[85] that \"we have no reason to question Jeremiah's\nverdict upon Jehoiakim, who, alike from a religious and a political\npoint of view, appears to have been unequal to the crisis in the\nfortunes of Israel.\" No doubt this is true; and yet perhaps Renan is\nso far right that Jehoiakim's failure was rather his misfortune than\nhis fault. We may doubt whether any king of Israel or Judah would have\nbeen equal to the supreme crisis which Jehoiakim had to face. Our\nscanty information seems to indicate a man of strong will, determined\ncharacter, and able statesmanship. Though the nominee of Pharaoh\nNecho, he retained his sceptre under Nebuchadnezzar, and held his own\nagainst Jeremiah and the powerful party by which the prophet was\nsupported. Under more favourable conditions he might have rivalled\nUzziah or Jeroboam II. In the time of Jehoiakim, a supreme political\nand military genius would have been as helpless on the throne of Judah\nas were the Pal\u00e6ologi in the last days of the Empire at\nConstantinople. Something may be said to extenuate his religious\nattitude. In opposing Jeremiah he was not defying clear and\nacknowledged truth. Like the Pharisees in their conflict with Christ,\nthe persecuting king had popular religious sentiment on his side.\nAccording to that current theology which had been endorsed in some\nmeasure even by Isaiah and Jeremiah, the defeat at Megiddo proved that\nJehovah repudiated the religious policy of Josiah and his advisers.\nThe inspiration of the Holy Spirit enabled Jeremiah to resist this\nshallow conclusion, and to maintain through every crisis his unshaken\nfaith in the profounder truth. Jehoiakim was too conservative to\nsurrender at the prophet's bidding the long-accepted and fundamental\ndoctrine of retribution, and to follow the forward leading of\nRevelation. He \"stood by the old truth\" as did Charles V. at the\nReformation. \"Let him that is without sin\" in this matter \"first cast\na stone at\" him.\n\nThough we extenuate Jehoiakim's conduct, we are still bound to condemn\nit; not however because he was exceptionally wicked, but because he\nfailed to rise above a low spiritual average: yet in this judgment we\nalso condemn ourselves for our own intolerance, and for the prejudice\nand self-will which have often blinded our eyes to the teachings of\nour Lord and Master.\n\nBut Jeremiah emphasises one special charge against the king--his\nexaction of forced and unpaid labour. This form of taxation was in\nitself so universal that the censure can scarcely be directed against\nits ordinary and moderate exercise. If Jeremiah had intended to\ninaugurate a new departure, he would have approached the subject in a\nmore formal and less casual fashion. It was a time of national danger\nand distress, when all moral and material resources were needed to\navert the ruin of the state, or at any rate to mitigate the sufferings\nof the people; and at such a time Jehoiakim exhausted and embittered\nhis subjects--that he might dwell in spacious halls with woodwork of\ncedar. The Temple and palaces of Solomon had been built at the expense\nof a popular resentment, which survived for centuries, and with which,\nas their silence seems to show, the prophets fully sympathised. If\neven Solomon's exactions were culpable, Jehoiakim was altogether\nwithout excuse.\n\nHis sin was that common to all governments, the use of the authority of\nthe state for private ends. This sin is possible not only to sovereigns\nand secretaries of state, but to every town councillor and every one who\nhas a friend on a town council, nay, to every clerk in a public office\nand to every workman in a government dockyard. A king squandering public\nrevenues on private pleasures, and an artisan pilfering nails and iron\nwith an easy conscience because they only belong to the state, are\nguilty of crimes essentially the same. On the one hand, Jehoiakim as the\nhead of the state was oppressing individuals; and although modern states\nhave grown comparatively tender as to the rights of the individual, yet\neven now their action is often cruelly oppressive to insignificant\nminorities. But, on the other hand, the right of exacting labour was\nonly vested in the king as a public trust; its abuse was as much an\ninjury to the community as to individuals. If Jeremiah had to deal with\nmodern civilisation, we might, perchance, be startled by his passing\nlightly over our religious and political controversies to denounce the\nsquandering of public resources in the interests of individuals and\nclasses, sects and parties.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[69] 2 Kings xxiii. 34-xxiv. 7.\n\n[70] iii. 274.\n\n[71] xxii. 30.\n\n[72] R.V., \"Ah my brother! or Ah sister!... Ah lord! or Ah his glory!\"\nThe text is based on an emendation of Graetz, following the Syriac.\n(Giesebrecht.)\n\n[73] Chap. xiii.\n\n[74] Jude 9.\n\n[75] Apc. vi. 10.\n\n[76] xxii. 17. The exact meaning of the word translated \"violence\" (so\nA.V., R.V.) is very doubtful.\n\n[77] _Hist._, etc., iii. 266.\n\n[78] Rawlinson, _Ancient Egypt_ (Story of the Nations).\n\n[79] Dan. iv. 30.\n\n[80] I have followed R.V., but the text is probably corrupt. Cheyne\nfollows LXX. (A) in reading \"because thou viest with Ahab\": LXX. (B) has\n\"Ahaz\" (so Ewald). Giesebrecht proposes to neglect the accents and\ntranslate, \"viest in cedar buildings with thy father\" (_i.e._ Solomon).\n\n[81] According to Giesebrecht (cf. however the last note) this clause\nis an objection which the prophet puts into the mouth of the king. \"My\nfather enjoyed the good things of life--why should not I?\" The prophet\nrejoins, \"Nay, but he did judgment,\" etc.\n\n[82] Isa. lvii. (English Versions).\n\n[83] Macc. ii. 59, ix. 10.\n\n[84] iii. 269.\n\n[85] P. 142.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n _JEHOIACHIN_[86]\n\n xxii. 20-30.\n\n \"A despised broken vessel,\"--JER. xxii. 28.\n\n \"A young lion. And he went up and down among the lions, he became\n a young lion and he learned to catch the prey, he devoured\n men.\"--EZEK. xix. 5, 6.\n\n \"Jehoiachin ... did evil in the sight of Jehovah, according to all\n that his father had done.\"--2 KINGS xxiv. 8, 9.\n\n\nWe have seen that our book does not furnish a consecutive biography of\nJeremiah; we are not even certain as to the chronological order of the\nincidents narrated. Yet these chapters are clear and full enough to\ngive us an accurate idea of what Jeremiah did and suffered during the\neleven years of Jehoiakim's reign. He was forced to stand by while the\nking lent the weight of his authority to the ancient corruptions of\nthe national religion, and conducted his home and foreign policy\nwithout any regard to the will of Jehovah, as expressed by His\nprophet. His position was analogous to that of a Romanist priest under\nElizabeth or a Protestant divine in the reign of James II. According\nto some critics, Nebuchadnezzar was to Jeremiah what Philip of Spain\nwas to the priest and William of Orange to the Puritan.\n\nDuring all these long and weary years, the prophet watched the ever\nmultiplying tokens of approaching ruin. He was no passive spectator,\nbut a faithful watchman to the house of Israel; again and again he\nrisked his life in a vain attempt to make his fellow-countrymen aware\nof their danger.[87] The vision of the coming sword was ever before\nhis eyes, and he blew the trumpet and warned the people; but they\nwould not be warned, and the prophet knew that the sword would come\nand take them away in their iniquity. He paid the penalty of his\nfaithfulness; at one time or another he was beaten, imprisoned,\nproscribed, and driven to hide himself; still he persevered in his\nmission, as time and occasion served. Yet he survived Jehoiakim,\npartly because he was more anxious to serve Jehovah than to gain the\nglorious deliverance of martyrdom; partly because his royal enemy\nfeared to proceed to extremities against a prophet of Jehovah, who was\nbefriended by powerful nobles, and might possibly have relations with\nNebuchadnezzar himself. Jehoiakim's religion--for like the Athenians\nhe was probably \"very religious\"--was saturated with superstition, and\nit was only when deeply moved that he lost the sense of an external\nsanctity attaching to Jeremiah's person. In Israel prophets were\nhedged by a more potent divinity than kings.\n\nMeanwhile Jeremiah was growing old in years and older in experience.\nWhen Jehoiakim died, it was nearly forty years since the young priest\nhad first been called \"to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy\nand to overthrow; to build and to plant\"; it was more than eleven\nsince his brighter hopes were buried in Josiah's grave. Jehovah had\npromised that He would make His servant into \"an iron pillar and\nbrasen walls.\"[88] The iron was tempered and hammered into shape\nduring these days of conflict and endurance, like--\n\n \" ... iron dug from central gloom,\n And heated hot with burning fears\n And dipt in baths of hissing tears,\n And battered with the shocks of doom,\n To shape and use.\"\n\nHe had long lost all trace of that sanguine youthful enthusiasm which\npromises to carry all before it. His opening manhood had felt its happy\nillusions, but they did not dominate his soul and they soon passed away.\nAt the Divine bidding, he had surrendered his most ingrained prejudices,\nhis dearest desires. He had consented to be alienated from his brethren\nat Anathoth, and to live without home or family; although a patriot, he\naccepted the inevitable ruin of his nation as the just judgment of\nJehovah; he was a priest, imbued by heredity and education with the\nreligious traditions of Israel, yet he had yielded himself to Jehovah,\nto announce, as His herald, the destruction of the Temple, and the\ndevastation of the Holy Land. He had submitted his shrinking flesh and\nreluctant spirit to God's most unsparing demands, and had dared the\nworst that man could inflict. Such surrender and such experiences\nwrought in him a certain stern and terrible strength, and made his life\nstill more remote from the hopes and fears, the joys and sorrows of\ncommon men. In his isolation and his inspired self-sufficiency he had\nbecome an \"iron pillar.\" Doubtless he seemed to many as hard and cold as\niron; but this pillar of the faith could still glow with white heat of\nindignant passion, and within the shelter of the \"brasen walls\" there\nstill beat a human heart, touched with tender sympathy for those less\ndisciplined to endure.\n\nWe have thus tried to estimate the development of Jeremiah's character\nduring the second period of his ministry, which began with the death\nof Josiah and terminated with the brief reign of Jehoiachin. Before\nconsidering Jeremiah's judgment upon this prince we will review the\nscanty data at our disposal to enable us to appreciate the prophet's\nverdict.\n\nJehoiakim died while Nebuchadnezzar was on the march to punish his\nrebellion. His son Jehoiachin, a youth of eighteen,[89] succeeded his\nfather and continued his policy. Thus the accession of the new king\nwas no new departure, but merely a continuance of the old order; the\ngovernment was still in the hands of the party attached to Egypt, and\nopposed to Babylon and hostile to Jeremiah. Under these circumstances\nwe are bound to accept the statement of Kings that Jehoiakim \"slept\nwith his fathers,\" _i.e._ was buried in the royal sepulchre.[90] There\nwas no literal fulfilment of the prediction that he should \"be buried\nwith the burial of an ass.\" Jeremiah had also declared concerning\nJehoiakim: \"He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.\"[91]\nAccording to popular superstition, the honourable burial of Jehoiakim\nand the succession of his son to the throne further discredited\nJeremiah and his teaching. Men read happy omens in the mere observance\nof ordinary constitutional routine. The curse upon Jehoiakim seemed so\nmuch spent breath: why should not Jeremiah's other predictions of ruin\nand exile also prove a mere _vox et pr\u00e6terea nihil_? In spite of a\nthousand disappointments, men's hopes still turned to Egypt; and if\nearthly resources failed they trusted to Jehovah Himself to intervene,\nand deliver Jerusalem from the advancing hosts of Nebuchadnezzar, as\nfrom the army of Sennacherib.\n\nEzekiel's elegy over Jehoiachin suggests that the young king displayed\nenergy and courage worthy of a better fortune:--\n\n \"He walked up and down among the lions,\n He became a young lion;\n He learned to catch the prey,\n He devoured men.\n He broke down[92] their palaces,\n He wasted their cities;\n The land, was desolate, and the fulness thereof,\n At the noise of his roaring.\"[93]\n\nHowever figurative these lines may be, the hyperbole must have had some\nbasis in fact. Probably before the regular Babylonian army entered\nJudah, Jehoiachin distinguished himself by brilliant but useless\nsuccesses against the marauding bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites,\nand Ammonites, who had been sent to prepare the way for the main body.\nHe may even have carried his victorious arms into the territory of Moab\nor Ammon. But his career was speedily cut short: \"The servants of\nNebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem and besieged the\ncity.\" Pharaoh Necho made no sign, and Jehoiachin was forced to retire\nbefore the regular forces of Babylon, and soon found himself shut up in\nJerusalem. Still for a time he held out, but when it was known in the\nbeleaguered city that Nebuchadnezzar was present in person in the camp\nof the besiegers, the Jewish captains lost heart. Perhaps too they hoped\nfor better treatment, if they appealed to the conqueror's vanity by\noffering him an immediate submission which they had refused to his\nlieutenants. The gates were thrown open; Jehoiachin and the Queen\nMother, Nehushta, with his ministers and princes and the officers of his\nhousehold, passed out in suppliant procession, and placed themselves and\ntheir city at the disposal of the conqueror. In pursuance of the policy\nwhich Nebuchadnezzar had inherited from the Assyrians, the king and his\ncourt and eight thousand picked men were carried away captive to\nBabylon.[94] For thirty-seven years Jehoiachin languished in a Chaldean\nprison, till at last his sufferings were mitigated by an act of grace,\nwhich signalised the accession of a new king of Babylon.\nNebuchadnezzar's successor Evil Merodach, \"in the year when he began to\nreign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison, and\nspake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings\nthat were with him in Babylon. And Jehoiachin changed his prison\ngarments, and ate at the royal table continually all the days of his\nlife, and had a regular allowance given him by the king, a daily\nportion, all the days of his life.\"[95] At the age of fifty-five, the\nlast survivor of the reigning princes of the house of David emerges from\nhis dungeon, broken in mind and body by his long captivity, to be a\ngrateful dependent upon the charity of Evil Merodach, just as the\nsurvivor of the house of Saul had sat at David's table. The young lion\nthat devoured the prey and caught men and wasted cities was thankful to\nbe allowed to creep out of his cage and die in comfort--\"a despised\nbroken vessel.\"\n\nWe feel a shock of surprise and repulsion as we turn from this\npathetic story to Jeremiah's fierce invectives against the unhappy\nking. But we wrong the prophet and misunderstand his utterance if we\nforget that it was delivered during that brief frenzy in which the\nyoung king and his advisers threw away the last chance of safety for\nJudah. Jehoiachin might have repudiated his father's rebellion against\nBabylon; Jehoiakim s death had removed the chief offender, no personal\nblame attached to his successor, and a prompt submission might have\nappeased Nebuchadnezzar's wrath against Judah and obtained his favour\nfor the new king. If a hot-headed young rajah of some protected Indian\nstate revolted against the English suzerainty and exposed his country\nto the misery of a hopeless war, we should sympathise with any of his\ncounsellors who condemned such wilful folly; we have no right to find\nfault with Jeremiah for his severe censure of the reckless vanity\nwhich precipitated his country's fate.\n\nJeremiah's deep and absorbing interest in Judah and Jerusalem is\nindicated by the form of this utterance; it is addressed to the\n\"Daughter of Zion\"[96]:--\n\n \"Go up to Lebanon, and lament,\n And lift up thy voice in Bashan,\n And lament from Abarim,[97]\n For thy lovers are all destroyed!\"\n\nHer \"lovers,\" her heathen allies, whether gods or men, are impotent,\nand Judah is as forlorn and helpless as a lonely and unfriended woman;\nlet her bewail her fate upon the mountains of Israel, like Jephthah's\ndaughter in ancient days.\n\n \"I spake unto thee in thy prosperity;\n Thou saidst, I will not hearken.\n This hath been thy way from thy youth,\n That thou hast not obeyed My voice.\n The tempest shall be the shepherd to all thy shepherds.\"\n\nKings and nobles, priests and prophets, shall be carried off by the\nChaldean invaders, as trees and houses are swept away by a hurricane.\nThese shepherds who had spoiled and betrayed their flock would\nthemselves be as silly sheep in the hands of robbers.\n\n \"Thy lovers shall go into captivity.\n Then, verily, shalt thou be ashamed and confounded\n Because of all thy wickedness.\n O thou that dwellest in Lebanon!\n O thou that hast made thy nest in the cedar!\"\n\nThe former mention of Lebanon reminded Jeremiah of Jehoiakim's halls\nof cedar. With grim irony he links together the royal magnificence of\nthe palace and the wild abandonment of the people's lamentation.\n\n \"How wilt thou groan[98] when pangs come upon thee,\n Anguish as of a woman in travail!\"\n\nThe nation is involved in the punishment inflicted upon her rulers. In\nsuch passages the prophets largely identify the nation with the\ngoverning classes--not without justification. No government, whatever\nthe constitution may be, can ignore a strong popular demand for\nrighteous policy, at home and abroad. A special responsibility of\ncourse rests on those who actually wield the authority of the state,\nbut the policy of rulers seldom succeeds in effecting much either for\ngood or evil without some sanction of public feeling. Our revolution\nwhich replaced the Puritan Protectorate by the restored Monarchy was\nrendered possible by the change of popular sentiment. Yet even under\nthe purest democracy men imagine that they divest themselves of civic\nresponsibility by neglecting their civic duties; they stand aloof, and\nblame officials and professional politicians for the injustice and\ncrime wrought by the state. National guilt seems happily disposed of\nwhen laid on the shoulders of that convenient abstraction \"the\ngovernment\"; but neither the prophets nor the Providence which they\ninterpret recognise this convenient theory of vicarious atonement: the\nking sins, but the prophet's condemnation is uttered against and\nexecuted upon the nation.\n\nNevertheless a special responsibility rests upon the ruler, and now\nJeremiah turns from the nation to its king.\n\n \"As I live--Jehovah hath spoken it--\n Though Coniah ben Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring\n upon My right hand----\"\n\nBy a forcible Hebrew idiom Jehovah, as it were, turns and confronts\nthe king and specially addresses him:--\n\n \"Yet would I pluck thee thence.\"\n\nA signet ring was valuable in itself, and, as far as an inanimate object\ncould be, was an \"_alter ego_\" of the sovereign; it scarcely ever left\nhis finger, and when it did, it carried with it the authority of its\nowner. A signet ring could not be lost or even cast away without some\nreflection upon the majesty of the king. Jehoiachin's character was by\nno means worthless; he had courage, energy, and patriotism. The heir of\nDavid and Solomon, the patron and champion of the Temple, dwelt, as it\nwere, under the very shadow of the Almighty. Men generally believed that\nJehovah's honour was engaged to defend Jerusalem and the house of David.\nHe Himself would be discredited by the fall of the elect dynasty and the\ncaptivity of the chosen people. Yet everything must be sacrificed--the\ncareer of a gallant young prince, the ancient association of the sacred\nName with David and Zion, even the superstitious awe with which the\nheathen regarded the God of the Exodus and of the deliverance from\nSennacherib. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of the Divine\njudgment. And yet we still sometimes dream that the working out of the\nDivine righteousness will be postponed in the interests of\necclesiastical traditions and in deference to the criticisms of ungodly\nmen!\n\n \"And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy\n life,\n Into the hand of them of whom thou art afraid,\n Into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the\n Chaldeans.\n And I will hurl thee and the mother that bare thee into\n another land, where ye were not born:\n There shall ye die.\n And unto the land whereunto their soul longeth to return,\n Thither they shall not return.\"\n\nAgain the sudden change in the person addressed emphasises the scope\nof the Divine proclamation; the doom of the royal house is not only\nannounced to them, but also to the world at large. The mention of the\nQueen Mother, Nehushta, reveals what we should in any case have\nconjectured, that the policy of the young prince was largely\ndetermined by his mother. Her importance is also indicated by xiii.\n18, usually supposed to be addressed to Jehoiachin and Nehushta:---\n\n \"Say unto the king and the queen mother,\n Leave your thrones and sit in the dust,\n For your glorious diadems are fallen.\"\n\nThe Queen Mother is a characteristic figure of polygamous Eastern\ndynasties, but we may be helped to understand what Nehushta was to\nJehoiachin if we remember the influence of Eleanor of Poitou over\nRichard I. and John, and the determined struggle which Margaret of\nAnjou made on behalf of her ill-starred son.\n\nThe next verse of our prophecy seems to be a protest against the\nsevere sentence pronounced in the preceding clauses:--\n\n \"Is then this man Coniah a despised vessel, only fit to be\n broken?\n Is he a tool, that no one wants?\"\n\nThus Jeremiah imagines the citizens and warriors of Jerusalem crying\nout against him, for his sentence of doom against their darling prince\nand captain. The prophetic utterance seemed to them monstrous and\nincredible, only worthy to be met with impatient scorn. We may find a\nmedi\u00e6val analogy to the situation at Jerusalem in the relations of\nClement IV. to Conradin, the last heir of the house of Hohenstaufen.\nWhen this youth of sixteen was in the full career of victory, the Pope\npredicted that his army would be scattered like smoke, and pointed out\nthe prince and his allies as victims for the sacrifice. When Conradin\nwas executed after his defeat at Tagliacozzo, Christendom was filled\nwith abhorrence at the suspicion that Clement had countenanced the\ndoing to death of the hereditary enemy of the Papal See. Jehoiachin's\nfriends felt towards Jeremiah somewhat as these thirteenth-century\nGhibellines towards Clement.\n\nMoreover the charge against Clement was probably unfounded; Milman[99]\nsays of him, \"He was doubtless moved with inner remorse at the\ncruelties of 'his champion' Charles of Anjou.\" Jeremiah too would\nlament the doom he was constrained to utter. Nevertheless he could not\npermit Judah to be deluded to its ruin by empty dreams of glory:--\n\n \"O land, land, land,\n Hear the word of Jehovah.\"\n\nIsaiah had called all Nature, heaven and earth to bear witness against\nIsrael, but now Jeremiah is appealing with urgent importunity to Judah.\n\"O Chosen Land of Jehovah, so richly blessed by His favour, so sternly\nchastised by His discipline, Land of prophetic Revelation, now at last,\nafter so many warnings, believe the word of thy God and submit to His\njudgment. Hasten not thy unhappy fate by shallow confidence in the\ngenius and daring of Jehoiachin: he is no true Messiah.\"\n\n \"For saith Jehovah,\n Write this man childless,\n A man whose life shall not know prosperity:\n For none of his seed shall prosper;\n None shall sit upon the throne of David,\n Nor rule any more over Judah.\"\n\nThus, by Divine decree, the descendants of Jehoiakim were\ndisinherited; Jehoiachin was to be recorded in the genealogies of\nIsrael as having no heir. He might have offspring,[100] but the\nMessiah, the Son of David, would not come of his line.\n\nTwo points suggest themselves in connection with this utterance of\nJeremiah; first as to the circumstances under which it was uttered,\nthen as to its application to Jehoiachin.\n\nA moment's reflection will show that this prophecy implied great courage\nand presence of mind on the part of Jeremiah--his enemies might even\nhave spoken of his barefaced audacity. He had predicted that Jehoiakim's\ncorpse should be cast forth without any rites of honourable sepulture;\nand that no son of his should sit upon the throne. Jehoiakim had been\nburied like other kings, he slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his\nson reigned in his stead. The prophet should have felt himself utterly\ndiscredited; and yet here was Jeremiah coming forward unabashed with new\nprophecies against the king, whose very existence was a glaring disproof\nof his prophetic inspiration. Thus the friends of Jehoiachin. They would\naffect towards Jeremiah's message the same indifference which the\npresent generation feels for the expositors of Daniel and the\nApocalypse, who confidently announce the end of the world for 1866, and\nin 1867 fix a new date with cheerful and undiminished assurance. But\nthese students of sacred records can always save the authority of\nScripture by acknowledging the fallibility of their calculations. When\ntheir predictions fail, they confess that they have done their sum wrong\nand start it afresh. But Jeremiah's utterances were not published as\nhuman deductions from inspired data; he himself claimed to be inspired.\nHe did not ask his hearers to verify and acknowledge the accuracy of his\narithmetic or his logic, but to submit to the Divine message from his\nlips. And yet it is clear that he did not stake the authority of Jehovah\nor even his own prophetic status upon the accurate and detailed\nfulfilment of his predictions. Nor does he suggest that, in announcing a\ndoom which was not literally accomplished, he had misunderstood or\nmisinterpreted his message. The details which both Jeremiah and those\nwho edited and transmitted his words knew to be unfulfilled were allowed\nto remain in the record of Divine Revelation--not, surely, to illustrate\nthe fallibility of prophets, but to show that an accurate forecast of\ndetails is not of the essence of prophecy; such details belong to its\nform and not to its substance. Ancient Hebrew prophecy clothed its ideas\nin concrete images; its messages of doom were made definite and\nintelligible in a glowing series of definite pictures. The prophets were\nrealists and not impressionists. But they were also spiritual men,\nconcerned with the great issues of history and religion. Their message\nhad to do with _these_: they were little interested in minor matters;\nand they used detailed imagery as a mere instrument of exposition.\nPopular scepticism exulted when subsequent facts did not exactly\ncorrespond to Jeremiah's images, but the prophet himself was\nunconscious of either failure or mistake. Jehoiakim might be\nmagnificently buried, but his name was branded with eternal dishonour;\nJehoiachin might reign for a hundred days, but the doom of Judah was not\naverted, and the house of David ceased for ever to rule in Jerusalem.\n\nOur second point is the application of this prophecy to Jehoiachin.\nHow far did the king deserve his sentence? Jeremiah indeed does not\nexplicitly blame Jehoiachin, does not specify his sins as he did those\nof his royal sire. The estimate recorded in the Book of Kings\ndoubtless expresses the judgment of Jeremiah, but it may be directed\nnot so much against the young king as against his ministers. Yet the\nking cannot have been entirely innocent of the guilt of his policy and\ngovernment. In chapter xxiv., however, Jeremiah speaks of the captives\nat Babylon, those carried away with Jehoiachin, as \"good figs\"; but we\nscarcely suppose he meant to include the king himself in this\nfavourable estimate, otherwise we should discern some note of sympathy\nin the personal sentence upon him. We are left, therefore, to conclude\nthat Jeremiah's judgment was unfavourable; although, in view of the\nprince's youth and limited opportunities, his guilt must have been\nslight compared to that of his father.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, we have the manifest sympathy and even\nadmiration of Ezekiel. The two estimates stand side by side in the\nsacred record to remind us that God neither tolerates man's sins\nbecause there is a better side to his nature, nor yet ignores his\nvirtues on account of his vices. For ourselves we may be content to\nleave the last word on this matter with Jeremiah. When he declares\nGod's sentence on Jehoiachin, he does not suggest that it was\nundeserved, but he refrains from any explicit reproach. Probably if he\nhad known how entirely his prediction would be fulfilled, if he had\nforeseen the seven-and-thirty weary years which the young lion was to\nspend in his Babylonian cage, Jeremiah would have spoken more tenderly\nand pitifully even of the son of Jehoiakim.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[86] Also called Coniah and Jeconiah.\n\n[87] Considerable portions of chaps. i.-xx. are referred to the reigns\nof Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin: see previous volume on Jeremiah.\n\n[88] i. 18.\n\n[89] The Chronicler's account of Jehoiakim's end (2 Chron. xxviii.\n6-8) is due to a misunderstanding of the older records. According to\nChronicles Jehoiachin was only eight, but all our data indicate that\nKings is right.\n\n[90] In LXX. of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, Jehoiakim, like Manasseh and Amon,\nwas \"buried in the garden of Uzza\": B, Ganoz\u00e6; A, Ganozan. Cheyne is\ninclined to accept this statement, which he regards as derived from\ntradition.\n\n[91] xxxvi. 30.\n\n[92] So A. B. Davidson in Cambridge Bible, etc., by a slight\nconjectural emendation; there have been many other suggested\ncorrections of the text. The Hebrew text as it stands would mean\nliterally \"he knew their widows\" (R.V. margin); A.V., R.V., by a\nslight change, \"he knew their (A.V. desolate) palaces.\"\n\n[93] Ezek. xix. 5-7.\n\n[94] 2 Kings xxiv. 8-17.\n\n[95] 2 Kings xxv. 27-30; Jer. lii. 31-34.\n\n[96] The Hebrew verbs are in 2 s. fem.; the person addressed is not\nnamed, but from analogy she can only be the \"Daughter of Zion,\" _i.e._\nJerusalem personified.\n\n[97] Identified with the mountains of Moab.\n\n[98] R.V. margin, with LXX., Vulg., and Syr.\n\n[99] Milman's _Latin Christianity_, vi. 392.\n\n[100] 1 Chron. iii. 17 mentions the \"sons\" of Jeconiah, and in Matt.\ni. 12 Shealtiel is called his \"son,\" but in Luke iii. 27 Shealtiel is\ncalled the son of Neri.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n _BAD SHEPHERDS AND FALSE PROPHETS_\n\n xxiii., xxiv.\n\n \"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My\n pasture!\"--JER. xxiii. 1.\n\n \"Of what avail is straw instead of grain?... Is not My word like\n fire, ... like a hammer that shattereth the rocks?\"--JER. xxiii.\n 28, 29.\n\n\nThe captivity of Jehoiachin and the deportation of the flower of the\npeople marked the opening of the last scene in the tragedy of Judah and\nof a new period in the ministry of Jeremiah. These events, together with\nthe accession of Zedekiah as Nebuchadnezzar's nominee, very largely\naltered the state of affairs in Jerusalem. And yet the two main features\nof the situation were unchanged--the people and the government\npersistently disregarded Jeremiah's exhortations. \"Neither Zedekiah, nor\nhis servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of\nJehovah which He spake by the prophet Jeremiah.\"[101] They would not\nobey the will of Jehovah as to their life and worship, and they would\nnot submit to Nebuchadnezzar. \"Zedekiah ... did evil in the sight of\nJehovah, according to all that Jehoiakim had done; ... and Zedekiah\nrebelled against the king of Babylon.\"[102]\n\nIt is remarkable that though Jeremiah consistently urged submission to\nBabylon, the various arrangements made by Nebuchadnezzar did very little\nto improve the prophet's position or increase his influence. The\nChaldean king may have seemed ungrateful only because he was ignorant of\nthe services rendered to him--Jeremiah would not enter into direct and\npersonal co-operation with the enemy of his country, even with him whom\nJehovah had appointed to be the scourge of His disobedient people--but\nthe Chaldean policy served Nebuchadnezzar as little as it profited\nJeremiah. Jehoiakim, in spite of his forced submission, remained the\nable and determined foe of his suzerain, and Zedekiah, to the best of\nhis very limited ability, followed his predecessor's example.\n\nZedekiah was uncle of Jehoiachin, half-brother of Jehoiakim, and own\nbrother to Jehoahaz.[103] Possibly the two brothers owed their bias\nagainst Jeremiah and his teaching to their mother, Josiah's wife\nHamutal, the daughter of another Jeremiah, the Libnite. Ezekiel thus\ndescribes the appointment of the new king: \"The king of Babylon ...\ntook one of the seed royal, and made a covenant with him; he also put\nhim under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land: that the\nkingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by\nkeeping of his covenant it might stand.\"[104] Apparently\nNebuchadnezzar was careful to choose a feeble prince for his \"base\nkingdom\"; all that we read of Zedekiah suggests that he was weak and\nincapable. Henceforth the sovereign counted for little in the\ninternal struggles of the tottering state. Josiah had firmly\nmaintained the religious policy of Jeremiah, and Jehoiakim, as firmly,\nthe opposite policy; but Zedekiah had neither the strength nor the\nfirmness to enforce a consistent policy and to make one party\npermanently dominant. Jeremiah and his enemies were left to fight it\nout amongst themselves, so that now their antagonism grew more bitter\nand pronounced than during any other reign.\n\nBut whatever advantage the prophet might derive from the weakness of\nthe sovereign was more than counterbalanced by the recent deportation.\nIn selecting the captives Nebuchadnezzar had sought merely to weaken\nJudah by carrying away every one who would have been an element of\nstrength to the \"base kingdom.\" Perhaps he rightly believed that\nneither the prudence of the wise nor the honour of the virtuous would\novercome their patriotic hatred of subjection; weakness alone would\nguarantee the obedience of Judah. He forgot that even weakness is apt\nto be foolhardy--when there is no immediate prospect of penalty.\n\nOne result of his policy was that the enemies and friends of Jeremiah\nwere carried away indiscriminately; there was no attempt to leave\nbehind those who might have counselled submission to Babylon as the\nacceptance of a Divine judgment, and thus have helped to keep Judah\nloyal to its foreign master. On the contrary Jeremiah's disciples were\nchiefly thoughtful and honourable men, and Nebuchadnezzar's policy in\ntaking away \"the mighty of the land\" bereft the prophet of many\nfriends and supporters, amongst them his disciple Ezekiel and\ndoubtless a large class of whom Daniel and his three friends might be\ntaken as types. When Jeremiah characterises the captives as \"good\nfigs\" and those left behind as \"bad figs,\"[105] and the judgment is\nconfirmed and amplified by Ezekiel,[106] we may be sure that most of\nthe prophet's adherents were in exile.\n\nWe have already had occasion to compare the changes in the religious\npolicy of the Jewish government to the alternations of Protestant and\nRomanist sovereigns among the Tudors; but no Tudor was as feeble as\nZedekiah. He may rather be compared to Charles IX. of France, helpless\nbetween the Huguenots and the League. Only the Jewish factions were\nless numerous, less evenly balanced; and by the speedy advance of\nNebuchadnezzar civil dissensions were merged in national ruin.\n\nThe opening years of the new reign passed in nominal allegiance to\nBabylon. Jeremiah's influence would be used to induce the vassal king to\nobserve the covenant he had entered into and to be faithful to his oath\nto Nebuchadnezzar. On the other hand a crowd of \"patriotic\" prophets\nurged Zedekiah to set up once more the standard of national\nindependence, to \"come to the help of the Lord against the mighty.\" Let\nus then briefly consider Jeremiah's polemic against the princes,\nprophets, and priests of his people. While Ezekiel in a celebrated\nchapter[107] denounces the idolatry of the princes, priests, and women\nof Judah, their worship of creeping things and abominable beasts, their\nweeping for Tammuz, their adoration of the sun, Jeremiah is chiefly\nconcerned with the perverse policy of the government and the support it\nreceives from priests and prophets, who profess to speak in the name of\nJehovah. Jeremiah does not utter against Zedekiah any formal judgment\nlike those on his three predecessors. Perhaps the prophet did not regard\nthis impotent sovereign as the responsible representative of the state,\nand when the long-expected catastrophe at last befell the doomed people,\nneither Zedekiah nor his doings distracted men's attention from their\nown personal sufferings and patriotic regrets. At the point where a\nparagraph on Zedekiah would naturally have followed that on Jehoiachin,\nwe have by way of summary and conclusion to the previous sections a\nbrief denunciation of the shepherds of Israel.\n\n\"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My\npasture!... Ye have scattered My flock, and driven them away, and have\nnot cared for them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your\ndoings.\"\n\nThese \"shepherds\" are primarily the kings, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and\nJehoiachin, who have been condemned by name in the previous chapter,\ntogether with the unhappy Zedekiah, who is too insignificant to be\nmentioned. But the term shepherds will also include the ruling and\ninfluential classes of which the king was the leading representative.\n\nThe image is a familiar one in the Old Testament and is found in the\noldest literature of Israel,[108] but the denunciation of the rulers of\nJudah as unfaithful shepherds is characteristic of Jeremiah, Ezekiel,\nand one of the prophecies appended to the Book of Zechariah.[109]\nEzekiel xxxiv. expands this figure and enforces its lessons:--\n\n \"Woe unto the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves!\n Should not the shepherds feed the sheep? Ye eat the fat, and\n ye clothe you with the wool.\n Ye kill the fatlings; but ye feed not the sheep.\n The diseased have ye not strengthened,\n Neither have ye healed the sick,\n Neither have ye bound up the bruised,\n Neither have ye brought back again that which was driven\n away,\n Neither have ye sought for that which was lost,\n But your rule over them has been harsh and violent.\n And for want of a shepherd, they were scattered,\n And became food for every beast of the field.\"[110]\n\nSo in Zechariah ix., etc., Jehovah's anger is kindled against the\nshepherds, because they do not pity His flock.[111] Elsewhere[112]\nJeremiah speaks of the kings of all nations as shepherds, and pronounces\nagainst them also a like doom. All these passages illustrate the concern\nof the prophets for good government. They were neither Pharisees nor\nformalists; their religious ideals were broad and wholesome. Doubtless\nthe elect remnant will endure through all conditions of society; but the\nKingdom of God was not meant to be a pure Church in a rotten state. This\npresent evil world is no manure heap to fatten the growth of holiness:\nit is rather a mass for the saints to leaven.\n\nBoth Jeremiah and Ezekiel turn from the unfaithful shepherds whose\n\"hungry sheep look up and are not fed\" to the true King of Israel, the\n\"Shepherd of Israel that led Joseph like a flock, and dwelt between\nthe Cherubim.\" In the days of the Restoration He will raise up\nfaithful shepherds, and over them a righteous Branch, the real Jehovah\nZidqenu, instead of the sapless twig who disgraced the name\n\"Zedekiah.\" Similarly Ezekiel promises that God will set up one\nshepherd over His people, \"even My servant David.\" The pastoral care\nof Jehovah for His people is most tenderly and beautifully set forth\nin the twenty-third Psalm. Our Lord, the root and the offspring of\nDavid, claims to be the fulfilment of ancient prophecy when He calls\nHimself \"the Good Shepherd.\" The words of Christ and of the Psalmist\nreceive new force and fuller meaning when we contrast their pictures\nof the true Shepherd with the portraits of the Jewish kings drawn by\nthe prophets. Moreover the history of this metaphor warns us against\nignoring the organic life of the Christian society, the Church, in our\nconcern for the spiritual life of the individual. As Sir Thomas More\nsaid, in applying this figure to Henry VIII., \"Of the multitude of\nsheep cometh the name of a shepherd.\"[113] A shepherd implies not\nmerely a sheep, but a flock; His relation to each member is tender and\npersonal, but He bestows blessings and requires service in fellowship\nwith the Family of God.\n\nBy a natural sequence the denunciation of the unfaithful shepherds is\nfollowed by a similar utterance \"concerning the prophets.\" It is true\nthat the prophets are not spoken of as shepherds; and Milton's use of\nthe figure in _Lycidas_ suggests the New Testament rather than the\nOld. Yet the prophets had a large share in guiding the destinies of\nIsrael in politics as well as in religion, and having passed sentence\non the shepherds--the kings and princes--Jeremiah turns to the\necclesiastics, chiefly, as the heading implies, to the prophets. The\npriests indeed do not escape, but Jeremiah seems to feel that they are\nadequately dealt with in two or three casual references. We use the\nterm \"ecclesiastics\" advisedly; the prophets were now a large\nprofessional class, more important and even more clerical than the\npriests. The prophets and priests together were the clergy of Israel.\nThey claimed to be devoted servants of Jehovah, and for the most part\nthe claim was made in all sincerity; but they misunderstood His\ncharacter, and mistook for Divine inspiration the suggestions of their\nown prejudice and self-will.\n\nJeremiah's indictment against them has various counts. He accuses them\nof speaking without authority, and also of time-serving, plagiarism,\nand cant.\n\nFirst, then, as to their unauthorised utterances: Jeremiah finds them\nguilty of an unholy licence in prophesying, a distorted caricature of\nthat \"liberty of prophesying\" which is the prerogative of God's\naccredited ambassadors.\n\n \"Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto\n you.\n They make fools of you:\n The visions which they declare are from their own hearts,\n And not from the mouth of Jehovah.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Who hath stood in the council of Jehovah,\n To perceive and hear His word?\n Who hath marked His word and heard it?\n I sent not the prophets--yet they ran;\n I spake not unto them--yet they prophesied.\"\n\nThe evils which Jeremiah describes are such as will always be found in\nany large professional class. To use modern terms--in the Church, as\nin every profession, there will be men who are not qualified for the\nvocation which they follow. They are indeed not called to their\nvocation; they \"follow,\" but do not overtake it. They are not sent of\nGod, yet they run; they have no Divine message, yet they preach. They\nhave never stood in the council of Jehovah; they might perhaps have\ngathered up scraps of the King's purposes from His true councillors;\nbut when they had opportunity they neither \"marked nor heard\"; and yet\nthey discourse concerning heavenly things with much importance and\nassurance. But their inspiration, at its best, has no deeper or richer\nsource than their own shallow selves; their visions are the mere\nproduct of their own imaginations. Strangers to the true fellowship,\ntheir spirit is not \"a well of water springing up unto eternal life,\"\nbut a stagnant pool. And, unless the judgment and mercy of God\nintervene, that pool will in the end be fed from a fountain whose\nbitter waters are earthly, sensual, devilish.\n\nWe are always reluctant to speak of ancient prophecy or modern\npreaching as a \"profession.\" We may gladly dispense with the word, if\nwe do not thereby ignore the truth which it inaccurately expresses.\nMen lived by prophecy, as, with Apostolic sanction, men live by \"the\ngospel.\" They were expected, as ministers are now, though in a less\ndegree, to justify their claims to an income and an official status,\nby discharging religious functions so as to secure the approval of the\npeople or the authorities. Then, as now, the prophet's reputation,\ninfluence, and social standing, probably even his income, depended\nupon the amount of visible success that he could achieve.\n\nIn view of such facts, it is futile to ask men of the world not to\nspeak of the clerical life as a profession. They discern no ethical\ndifference between a curate's dreams of a bishopric and the\naspirations of a junior barrister to the woolsack. Probably a refusal\nto recognise the element common to the ministry with law, medicine,\nand other professions, injures both the Church and its servants. One\npeculiar difficulty and most insidious temptation of the Christian\nministry consists in its mingled resemblances to and differences from\nthe other professions. The minister has to work under similar worldly\nconditions, and yet to control those conditions by the indwelling\npower of the Spirit. He has to \"run,\" it may be twice or even three\ntimes a week, whether he be sent or no: how can he always preach only\nthat which God has taught him? He is consciously dependent upon the\nexercise of his memory, his intellect, his fancy: how can he avoid\nspeaking \"the visions of his own heart\"? The Church can never allow\nits ministers to regard themselves as mere professional teachers and\nlecturers, and yet if they claim to be more, must they not often fall\nunder Jeremiah's condemnation?\n\nIt is one of those practical dilemmas which delight casuists and\ndistress honest and earnest servants of God. In the early Christian\ncenturies similar difficulties peopled the Egyptian and Syrian deserts\nwith ascetics, who had given up the world as a hopeless riddle. A full\ndiscussion of the problem would lead us too far away from the exposition\nof Jeremiah, and we will only venture to make two suggestions.\n\nThe necessity, which most ministers are under, of \"living by the\ngospel,\" may promote their own spiritual life and add to their\nusefulness. It corrects and reduces spiritual pride, and helps them to\nunderstand and sympathise with their lay brethren, most of whom are\nsubject to a similar trial.\n\nSecondly, as a minister feels the ceaseless pressure of strong\ntemptation to speak from and live for himself--his lower, egotistic\nself--he will be correspondingly driven to a more entire and persistent\nsurrender to God. The infinite fulness and variety of Revelation is\nexpressed by the manifold gifts and experience of the prophets. If only\nthe prophet be surrendered to the Spirit, then what is most\ncharacteristic of himself may become the most forcible expression of his\nmessage. His constant prayer will be that he may have the child's heart\nand may never resist the Holy Ghost, that no personal interest or\nprejudice, no bias of training or tradition or current opinion, may dull\nhis hearing when he stands in the council of the Lord, or betray him\ninto uttering for Christ's gospel the suggestions of his own self-will\nor the mere watchwords of his ecclesiastical faction.\n\nBut to return to the ecclesiastics who had stirred Jeremiah's wrath.\nThe professional prophets naturally adapted their words to the itching\nears of their clients. They were not only officious, but also\ntime-serving. Had they been true prophets, they would have dealt\nfaithfully with Judah; they would have sought to convince the people\nof sin, and to lead them to repentance; they would thus have given\nthem yet another opportunity of salvation.\n\n \"If they had stood in My council,\n They would have caused My people to hear My words;\n They would have turned them from their evil way,\n And from the evil of their doings.\"\n\nBut now:--\n\n \"They walk in lies and strengthen the hands of evildoers,\n That no one may turn away from his sin.\n\n * * * * *\n\n They say continually unto them that despise the word of\n Jehovah,[114]\n Ye shall have peace;\n And unto every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his\n heart they say,\n No evil shall come upon you.\"\n\nUnfortunately, when prophecy becomes professional in the lowest sense\nof the word, it is governed by commercial principles. A sufficiently\nimperious demand calls forth an abundant supply. A sovereign can \"tune\nthe pulpits\"; and a ruling race can obtain from its clergy formal\necclesiastical sanction for such \"domestic institutions\" as slavery.\nWhen evildoers grow numerous and powerful, there will always be\nprophets to strengthen their hands and encourage them not to turn away\nfrom their sin. But to give the lie to these false prophets God sends\nJeremiahs, who are often branded as heretics and schismatics,\nturbulent fellows who turn the world upside-down.\n\nThe self-important, self-seeking spirit leads further to the sin of\nplagiarism:--\n\n \"Therefore I am against the prophets, is the utterance of\n Jehovah,\n Who steal My word from one another.\"\n\nThe sin of plagiarism is impossible to the true prophet, partly\nbecause there are no rights of private property in the word of\nJehovah. The Old Testament writers make free use of the works of their\npredecessors. For instance, Isaiah ii. 2-4 is almost identical with\nMicah iv. 1-3; yet neither author acknowledges his indebtedness to the\nother or to any third prophet.[115] Uriah ben Shemaiah prophesied\naccording to all the words of Jeremiah,[116] who himself owes much to\nHosea, whom he never mentions. Yet he was not conscious of stealing\nfrom his predecessor, and he would have brought no such charge against\nIsaiah or Micah or Uriah. In the New Testament 2 Peter and Jude have\nso much in common that one must have used the other without\nacknowledgment. Yet the Church has not, on that ground, excluded\neither Epistle from the Canon. In the goodly fellowship of the\nprophets and the glorious company of the apostles no man says that the\nthings which he utters are his own. But the mere hireling has no part\nin the spiritual communism wherein each may possess all things because\nhe claims nothing. When a prophet ceases to be the messenger of God,\nand sinks into the mercenary purveyor of his own clever sayings and\nbrilliant fancies, then he is tempted to become a clerical Autolycus,\n\"a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles.\" Modern ideas furnish a curious\nparallel to Jeremiah's indifference to the borrowings of the true\nprophet, and his scorn of the literary pilferings of the false. We\nhear only too often of stolen sermons, but no one complains of\nplagiarism in prayers. Doubtless among these false prophets charges of\nplagiarism were bandied to and fro with much personal acrimony. But it\nis interesting to notice that Jeremiah is not denouncing an injury\ndone to himself; he does not accuse them of thieving from him, but\nfrom one another. Probably assurance and lust of praise and power\nwould have overcome any awe they felt for Jeremiah. He was only free\nfrom their depredations, because--from their point of view--his words\nwere not worth stealing. There was nothing to be gained by repeating\nhis stern denunciations, and even his promises were not exactly suited\nto the popular taste.\n\nThese prophets were prepared to cater for the average religious\nappetite in the most approved fashion--in other words, they were\nmasters of cant. Their office had been consecrated by the work of true\nmen of God like Elijah and Isaiah. They themselves claimed to stand in\nthe genuine prophetic succession, and to inherit the reverence felt\nfor their great predecessors, quoting their inspired utterances and\nadopting their weighty phrases. As Jeremiah's contemporaries listened\nto one of their favourite orators, they were soothed by his assurances\nof Divine favour and protection, and their confidence in the speaker\nwas confirmed by the frequent sound of familiar formul\u00e6 in his\nunctuous sentences. These had the true ring; they were redolent of\nsound doctrine, of what popular tradition regarded as orthodox.\n\nThe solemn attestation NE'UM YAHWE, \"It is the utterance of Jehovah,\"\nis continually appended to prophecies, almost as if it were the\nsign-manual of the Almighty. Isaiah and other prophets frequently use\nthe term MASSA (A.V., R.V., \"burden\") as a title, especially for\nprophecies concerning neighbouring nations. The ancient records loved\nto tell how Jehovah revealed Himself to the patriarchs in dreams.\nJeremiah's rivals included dreams in their clerical apparatus:--\n\n \"Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams--\n _Ne'um Yahwe_--\n And tell them, and lead astray My people\n By their lies and their rodomontade;\n It was not I who sent or commanded them,\n Neither shall they profit this people at all,\n _Ne'um Yahwe_\"\n\nThese prophets \"thought to cause the Lord's people to forget His name,\nas their fathers forgot His name for Baal, by their dreams which they\ntold one another.\"\n\nMoreover they could glibly repeat the sacred phrases as part of their\nprofessional jargon:--\n\n \"Behold, I am against the prophets,\n It is the utterance of Jehovah (_Ne'um Yahwe_),\n That use their tongues\n To utter utterances (_Wayyin'amu Ne'um_).\"\n\n\"To utter utterances\"--the prophets uttered them, not Jehovah. These\nsham oracles were due to no Diviner source than the imagination of\nfoolish hearts. But for Jeremiah's grim earnestness, the last clause\nwould be almost blasphemous. It is virtually a caricature of the most\nsolemn formula of ancient Hebrew religion. But this was really\ndegraded when it was used to obtain credence for the lies which men\nprophesied out of the deceit of their own heart. Jeremiah's seeming\nirreverence was the most forcible way of bringing this home to his\nhearers. There are profanations of the most sacred things which can\nscarcely be spoken of without an apparent breach of the Third\nCommandment. The most awful taking in vain of the name of the Lord God\nis not heard among the publicans and sinners, but in pulpits and on\nthe platforms of religious meetings.\n\nBut these prophets and their clients had a special fondness for the\nphrase \"The burden of Jehovah,\" and their unctuous use of it most\nespecially provoked Jeremiah's indignation:--\n\n \"When this people, priest, or prophet shall ask thee,\n What is the burden of Jehovah?\n Then say unto them, Ye are the burden.[117]\n But I will cast you off, _Ne'um Yahwe_.\n If priest or prophet or people shall say, The burden of\n Jehovah,\n I will punish that man and his house.\n And ye shall say to one another,\n What hath Jehovah answered? and, What hath Jehovah spoken?\n And ye shall no more make mention of the burden of Jehovah:\n For (if ye do) men's words shall become a burden to\n themselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Thus shall ye inquire of a prophet,\n What hath Jehovah answered thee?\n What hath Jehovah spoken unto thee?\n But if ye say, The burden of Jehovah,\n Thus saith Jehovah: Because ye say this word, The burden of\n Jehovah,\n When I have sent unto you the command,\n Ye shall not say, The burden of Jehovah,\n Therefore I will assuredly take you up,\n And will cast away from before Me both you and the city which\n I gave to you and to your fathers.\n I will bring upon you everlasting reproach\n And everlasting shame, that shall not be forgotten.\"\n\nJeremiah's insistence and vehemence speak for themselves. Their moral\nis obvious, though for the most part unheeded. The most solemn\nformul\u00e6, hallowed by ancient and sacred associations, used by inspired\nteachers as the vehicle of revealed truths, may be debased till they\nbecome the very legend of Antichrist, blazoned on the _Vexilla Regis\nInferni_. They are like a motto of one of Charles's Paladins flaunted\nby his unworthy descendants to give distinction to cruelty and vice.\nThe Church's line of march is strewn with such dishonoured relics of\nher noblest champions. Even our Lord's own words have not escaped.\nThere is a fashion of discoursing upon \"the gospel\" which almost\ntempts reverent Christians to wish they might never hear that word\nagain. Neither is this debasing of the moral currency confined to\nreligious phrases; almost every political and social watchword has\nbeen similarly abused. One of the vilest tyrannies the world has ever\nseen--the Reign of Terror--claimed to be an incarnation of \"Liberty,\nEquality, and Fraternity.\"\n\nYet the Bible, with that marvellous catholicity which lifts it so high\nabove the level of all other religious literature, not only records\nJeremiah's prohibition to use the term \"Burden,\" but also tells us that\ncenturies later Malachi could still speak of \"the burden of the word of\nJehovah.\" A great phrase that has been discredited by misuse may yet\nrecover itself; the tarnished and dishonoured sword of faith may be\nbaptised and burnished anew, and flame in the forefront of the holy war.\n\nJeremiah does not stand alone in his unfavourable estimate of the\nprofessional prophets of Judah; a similar depreciation seems to be\nimplied by the words of Amos: \"I am neither a prophet nor of the sons\nof the prophets.\"[118] One of the unknown authors whose writings have\nbeen included in the Book of Zechariah takes up the teaching of Amos\nand Jeremiah and carries it a stage further:--\n\n \"In that day (it is the utterance of Jehovah Sabaoth) I will\n cut off the names of the idols from the land,\n They shall not be remembered any more;\n Also the prophets and the spirit of uncleanness\n Will I expel from the land.\n When any shall yet prophesy,\n His father and mother that begat him shall say unto him,\n Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of\n Jehovah:\n And his father and mother that begat him shall thrust him\n through when he prophesieth.\n In that day every prophet when he prophesieth shall be\n ashamed of his vision;\n Neither shall any wear a hairy mantle to deceive:\n He shall say, I am no prophet;\n I am a tiller of the ground,\n I was sold for a slave in my youth.\"[119]\n\nNo man with any self-respect would allow his fellows to dub him\nprophet; slave was a less humiliating name. No family would endure the\ndisgrace of having a member who belonged to this despised caste;\nparents would rather put their son to death than see him a prophet. To\nsuch extremities may the spirit of time-serving and cant reduce a\nnational clergy. We are reminded of Latimer's words in his famous\nsermon to Convocation in 1536: \"All good men in all places accuse your\navarice, your exactions, your tyranny. I commanded you that ye should\nfeed my sheep, and ye earnestly feed yourselves from day to day,\nwallowing in delights and idleness. I commanded you to teach my law;\nyou teach your own traditions, and seek your own glory.\"[120]\n\nOver against their fluent and unctuous cant Jeremiah sets the terrible\nreality of his Divine message. Compared to this, their sayings are like\nchaff to the wheat; nay, this is too tame a figure--Jehovah's word is\nlike fire, like a hammer that shatters rocks. He says of himself:--\n\n \"My heart within me is broken; all my bones shake:\n I am like a drunken man, like a man whom wine hath overcome,\n Because of Jehovah and His holy words.\"\n\nThus we have in chapter xxiii. a full and formal statement of the\ncontroversy between Jeremiah and his brother-prophets. On the one\nhand, self-seeking and self-assurance winning popularity by orthodox\nphrases, traditional doctrine, and the prophesying of smooth things;\non the other hand, a man to whom the word of the Lord was like a fire\nin his bones, who had surrendered prejudice and predilection that he\nmight himself become a hammer to shatter the Lord's enemies, a man\nthrough whom God wrought so mightily that he himself reeled and\nstaggered with the blows of which he was the instrument.\n\nThe relation of the two parties was not unlike that of St. Paul and\nhis Corinthian adversaries: the prophet, like the Apostle, spoke \"in\ndemonstration of the Spirit and of power\"; he considered \"not the word\nof them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is\nnot in word, but in power.\" In our next chapter we shall see the\npractical working of this antagonism which we have here set forth.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[101] xxxvii. 2.\n\n[102] 2 Kings xxiv. 18-20.\n\n[103] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 makes Zedekiah the brother of Jehoiachin,\npossibly using the word in the general sense of \"relation.\" Zedekiah's\nage shows that he cannot have been the son of Jehoiakim.\n\n[104] Ezek. xvii. 13, 14.\n\n[105] xxiv.\n\n[106] vii.-xi.\n\n[107] viii.\n\n[108] Gen. xlix. 24, J. from older source. Micah v. 5.\n\n[109] ix.-xi., xiii. 7-9.\n\n[110] Ezek. xxxiv. 2-5.\n\n[111] Zech. x. 3, xi. 5.\n\n[112] xxv. 34-38.\n\n[113] Froude, i. 205.\n\n[114] LXX. See R.V. margin.\n\n[115] Possibly, however, the insertion of this passage in one of the\nbooks may have been the work of an editor, and we cannot be sure that,\nin Jeremiah's time, collections entitled Isaiah and Micah both\nincluded this section.\n\n[116] xxvi. 20.\n\n[117] So LXX. and modern editors: see Giesebrecht, _in loco_. R.V.\n\"What burden!\"\n\n[118] vii. 14; but cf. R.V.; \"I was,\" etc.\n\n[119] Zech. xiii. 2-5. Post-exilic, according to most critics\n(Driver's _Introduction, in loco_).\n\n[120] Froude, ii. 474.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n _HANANIAH_\n\n xxvii., xxviii.\n\n \"Hear now, Hananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee, but thou makest\n this people to trust in a lie.\"--JER. xxviii. 15.\n\n\nThe most conspicuous point at issue between Jeremiah and his opponents\nwas political rather than ecclesiastical. Jeremiah was anxious that\nZedekiah should keep faith with Nebuchadnezzar, and not involve Judah\nin useless misery by another hopeless revolt. The prophets preached\nthe popular doctrine of an imminent Divine intervention to deliver\nJudah from her oppressors. They devoted themselves to the easy task of\nfanning patriotic enthusiasm, till the Jews were ready for any\nenterprise, however reckless.\n\nDuring the opening years of the new reign, Nebuchadnezzar's recent\ncapture of Jerusalem and the consequent wholesale deportation were\nfresh in men's minds; fear of the Chaldeans together with the\ninfluence of Jeremiah kept the government from any overt act of\nrebellion. According to li. 59, the king even paid a visit to Babylon,\nto do homage to his suzerain.\n\nIt was probably in the fourth year of his reign[121] that the\ntributary Syrian states began to prepare for a united revolt against\nBabylon. The Assyrian and Chaldean annals constantly mention such\ncombinations, which were formed and broken up and reformed with as\nmuch ease and variety as patterns in a kaleidoscope. On the present\noccasion the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Zidon sent their\nambassadors to Jerusalem to arrange with Zedekiah for concerted\naction. But there were more important persons to deal with in that\ncity than Zedekiah. Doubtless the princes of Judah welcomed the\nopportunity for a new revolt. But before the negotiations were very\nfar advanced, Jeremiah heard what was going on. By Divine command, he\nmade \"bands and bars,\" _i.e._ yokes, for himself and for the\nambassadors of the allies, or possibly for them to carry home to their\nmasters. They received their answer, not from Zedekiah, but from the\ntrue King of Israel, Jehovah Himself. They had come to solicit armed\nassistance to deliver them from Babylon; they were sent back with\nyokes to wear as a symbol of their entire and helpless subjection to\nNebuchadnezzar. This was the word of Jehovah:--\n\n \"The nation and the kingdom that will not put its neck beneath\n the yoke of the king of Babylon,\n That nation will I visit with sword and famine and pestilence\n until I consume them by his hand.\"\n\nThe allied kings had been encouraged to revolt by oracles similar to\nthose uttered by the Jewish prophets in the name of Jehovah; but:--\n\n \"As for you, hearken not to your prophets, diviners, dreams,\n soothsayers and sorcerers,\n When they speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king\n of Babylon.\n They prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your\n land;\n That I should drive you out, and that you should perish.\n But the nation that shall bring their neck under the yoke of\n the king of Babylon, and serve him,\n That nation will I maintain in their own land (it is the\n utterance of Jehovah), and they shall till it and\n dwell in it.\"\n\nWhen he had sent his message to the foreign envoys, Jeremiah addressed\nan almost identical admonition to his own king. He bids him submit to\nthe Chaldean yoke, under the same penalties for disobedience--sword,\npestilence, and famine for himself and his people. He warns him also\nagainst delusive promises of the prophets, especially in the matter of\nthe sacred vessels.\n\nThe popular doctrine of the inviolable sanctity of the Temple had\nsustained a severe shock when Nebuchadnezzar carried off the sacred\nvessels to Babylon. It was inconceivable that Jehovah would patiently\nsubmit to so gross an indignity. In ancient days the Ark had plagued\nits Philistine captors till they were only too thankful to be rid of\nit. Later on a graphic narrative in the Book of Daniel told with what\nswift vengeance God punished Belshazzar for his profane use of these\nvery vessels. So now patriotic prophets were convinced that the golden\ncandlestick, the bowls and chargers of gold and silver, would soon\nreturn in triumph, like the Ark of old; and their return would be the\nsymbol of the final deliverance of Judah from Babylon. Naturally the\npriests above all others would welcome such a prophecy, and would\nindustriously disseminate it. But Jeremiah \"spake to the priests and\nall this people, saying, Thus saith Jehovah:--\n\n \"Hearken not unto the words of your prophets, which prophesy\n unto you,\n Behold, the vessels of the house of Jehovah shall be brought\n back from Babylon now speedily:\n For they prophesy a lie unto you.\"\n\nHow could Jehovah grant triumphant deliverance to a carnally minded\npeople who would not understand His Revelation, and did not discern\nany essential difference between Him and Moloch and Baal?\n\n \"Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon and live.\n Why should this city become a desolation?\"\n\nPossibly, however, even now, the Divine compassion might have spared\nJerusalem the agony and shame of her final siege and captivity. God\nwould not at once restore what was lost, but He might spare what was\nstill left. Jeremiah could not endorse the glowing promises of the\nprophets, but he would unite with them to intercede for mercy upon the\nremnant of Israel.\n\n \"If they are prophets and the word of Jehovah is with them,\n Let them intercede with Jehovah Sabaoth, that the rest of the\n vessels of the Temple, the Palace, and the City may\n not go to Babylon.\"\n\nThe God of Israel was yet ready to welcome any beginning of true\nrepentance. Like the father of the Prodigal Son, He would meet His\npeople when they were on the way back to Him. Any stirring of filial\npenitence would win an instant and gracious response.\n\nWe can scarcely suppose that this appeal by Jeremiah to his\nbrother-prophets was merely sarcastic and denunciatory. Passing\ncircumstances may have brought Jeremiah into friendly intercourse with\nsome of his opponents; personal contact may have begotten something\nof mutual kindliness; and hence there arose a transient gleam of hope\nthat reconciliation and co-operation might still be possible. But it\nwas soon evident that the \"patriotic\" party would not renounce their\nvain dreams; Judah must drink the cup of wrath to the dregs: the\npillars, the sea, the bases, the rest of the vessels left in Jerusalem\nmust also be carried to Babylon, and remain there till Jehovah should\nvisit the Jews and bring them back and restore them to their own land.\n\nThus did Jeremiah meet the attempt of the government to organise a\nSyrian revolt against Babylon, and thus did he give the lie to the\npromises of Divine blessing made by the prophets. In the face of his\nutterances, it was difficult to maintain the popular enthusiasm\nnecessary to a successful revolt. In order to neutralise, if possible,\nthe impression made by Jeremiah, the government put forward one of\ntheir prophetic supporters to deliver a counter-blast. The place and\nthe occasion were similar to those chosen by Jeremiah for his own\naddress to the people and for Baruch's reading of the roll--the court\nof the Temple where the priests and \"all the people\" were assembled.\nJeremiah himself was there. Possibly it was a feast-day. The incident\ncame to be regarded as of special importance, and a distinct heading\nis attached to it, specifying its exact date, \"in the same year\"--as\nthe incidents of the previous chapter--\"in the beginning of the reign\nof Zedekiah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month.\"\n\nOn such an occasion, Jeremiah's opponents would select as their\nrepresentative some striking personality, a man of high reputation for\nability and personal character. Such a man, apparently, they found in\nHananiah ben Azzur of Gibeon. Let us consider for a moment this\nmouthpiece and champion of a great political and ecclesiastical party,\nwe might almost say of a National Government and a National Church. He\nis never mentioned except in chapter xxviii., but what we read here is\nsufficiently characteristic, and receives much light from the other\nliterature of the period. As Gibeon is assigned to the priests in\nJoshua xxi. 17, it has been conjectured that, like Jeremiah himself,\nHananiah was a priest. The special stress laid on the sacred vessels\nwould be in accordance with this theory.\n\nIn our last chapter we expounded Jeremiah's description of his\nprophetic contemporaries, as self-important and time-serving, guilty\nof plagiarism and cant. Now from this dim, inarticulate crowd of\nprofessional prophets, an individual steps for a moment into the light\nof history and speaks with clearness and emphasis. Let us gaze at him,\nand hear what he has to say.\n\nIf we could have been present at this scene immediately after a\ncareful study of chapter xxvii. even the appearance of Hananiah would\nhave caused us a shock of surprise--such as is sometimes experienced\nby a devout student of Protestant literature on being introduced to a\nlive Jesuit, or by some budding secularist when he first makes the\npersonal acquaintance of a curate. We might possibly have discerned\nsomething commonplace, some lack of depth and force in the man whose\nfaith was merely conventional; but we should have expected to read\n\"liar and hypocrite\" in every line of his countenance, and we should\nhave seen nothing of the sort. Conscious of the enthusiastic support\nof his fellow-countrymen and especially of his own order, charged--as\nhe believed--with a message of promise for Jerusalem, Hananiah's face\nand bearing, as he came forward to address his sympathetic audience,\nbetrayed nothing unworthy of the high calling of a prophet. His words\nhad the true prophetic ring, he spoke with assured authority:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel,\n I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon.\"\n\nHis special object was to remove the unfavourable impression caused by\nJeremiah's contradiction of the promise concerning the sacred vessels.\nLike Jeremiah, he meets this denial in the strongest and most\nconvincing fashion. He does not argue--he reiterates the promise in a\nmore definite form and with more emphatic asseveration. Like Jonah at\nNineveh, he ventures to fix an exact date in the immediate future for\nthe fulfilment of the prophecy. \"Yet forty days,\" said Jonah, but the\nnext day he had to swallow his own words; and Hananiah's prophetic\nchronology met with no better fate:--\n\n\"Within two full years will I bring again to this place all the\nvessels of the Temple, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away.\"\n\nThe full significance of this promise is shown by the further\naddition:--\n\n\"And I will bring again to this place the king of Judah, Jeconiah ben\nJehoiakim, and all the captives of Judah that went to Babylon (it is\nthe utterance of Jehovah); for I will break the yoke of the king of\nBabylon.\"\n\nThis bold challenge was promptly met:--\n\n\"The prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah before the\npriests and all the people that stood in the Temple.\" Not \"the true\nprophet\" and \"the false prophet,\" not \"the man of God\" and \"the\nimpostor,\" but simply \"the prophet Jeremiah\" and \"the prophet\nHananiah.\" The audience discerned no obvious difference of status or\nauthority between the two--if anything the advantage lay with\nHananiah; they watched the scene as a modern churchman might regard a\ndiscussion between ritualistic and evangelical bishops at a Church\nCongress, only Hananiah was their ideal of a \"good churchman.\" The\ntrue parallel is not debates between atheists and the Christian\nEvidence Society, or between missionaries and Brahmins, but\ncontroversies like those between Arius and Athanasius, Jerome and\nRufinus, Cyril and Chrysostom.\n\nThese prophets, however, display a courtesy and self-restraint that\nhave, for the most part, been absent from Christian polemics.\n\n\"Jeremiah the prophet said, Amen: may Jehovah bring it to pass; may He\nestablish the words of thy prophecy, by bringing back again from Babylon\nunto this place both the vessels of the Temple and all the captives.\"\n\nWith that entire sincerity which is the most consummate tact, Jeremiah\navows his sympathy with his opponents' patriotic aspirations, and\nrecognises that they were worthy of Hebrew prophets. But patriotic\naspirations were not a sufficient reason for claiming Divine authority\nfor a cheap optimism. Jeremiah's reflection upon the past had led him to\nan entirely opposite philosophy of history. Behind Hananiah's words lay\nthe claim that the religious traditions of Israel and the teaching of\nformer prophets guaranteed the inviolability of the Temple and the Holy\nCity. Jeremiah appealed to their authority for his message of doom:--\n\n\"The ancient prophets who were our predecessors prophesied war and\ncalamity and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms.\"\n\nIt was almost a mark of the true prophet that he should be the herald\nof disaster. The prophetical books of the Old Testament Canon fully\nconfirm this startling and unwelcome statement. Their main burden is\nthe ruin and misery that await Israel and its neighbours. The\npresumption therefore was in favour of the prophet of evil, and\nagainst the prophet of good. Jeremiah does not, of course, deny that\nthere had been, and might yet be, prophets of good. Indeed every\nprophet, he himself included, announced some Divine promise, but:--\n\n\"The prophet which prophesieth of peace shall be known as truly sent\nof Jehovah when his prophecy is fulfilled.\"\n\nIt seemed a fair reply to Hananiah's challenge. His prophecy of the\nreturn of the sacred vessels and the exiles within two years was\nintended to encourage Judah and its allies to persist in their revolt.\nThey would be at once victorious, and recover all and more than all\nwhich they had lost. Under such circumstances Jeremiah's criterion of\n\"prophecies of peace\" was eminently practical. \"You are promised these\nblessings within two years: very well, do not run the terrible risks\nof a rebellion; keep quiet and see if the two years bring the\nfulfilment of this prophecy--it is not long to wait.\" Hananiah might\nfairly have replied that this fulfilment depended on Judah's faith and\nloyalty to the Divine promise; and their faith and loyalty would be\nbest shown by rebelling against their oppressors. Jehovah promised\nCanaan to the Hebrews of the Exodus, but their carcasses mouldered in\nthe desert because they had not courage enough to attack formidable\nenemies. \"Let us not,\" Hananiah might have said, \"imitate their\ncowardice, and thus share alike their unbelief and its penalty.\"\n\nNeither Jeremiah's premises nor his conclusions would commend his\nwords to the audience, and he probably weakened his position by\nleaving the high ground of authority and descending to argument.\nHananiah at any rate did not follow his example: he adheres to his\nformer method, and reiterates with renewed emphasis the promise which\nhis adversary had contradicted. Following Jeremiah in his use of the\nparable in action, so common with Hebrew prophets, he turned the\nsymbol of the yoke against its author. As Zedekiah ben Chenaanah made\nhim horns of iron and prophesied to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, \"Thus saith\nJehovah, With these shalt thou push the Syrians until thou have\nconsumed them,\"[122] so now Hananiah took the yoke off Jeremiah's neck\nand broke it before the assembled people and said:--\n\n\"Thus saith Jehovah, Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar\nking of Babylon from the neck of all nations within two full years.\"\n\nNaturally the promise is \"for all nations\"--not for Judah only, but\nfor the other allies.\n\n\"And the prophet Jeremiah went his way.\" For the moment Hananiah had\ntriumphed; he had had the last word, and Jeremiah was silenced. A public\ndebate before a partisan audience was not likely to issue in victory for\nthe truth. The situation may have even shaken his faith in himself and\nhis message; he may have been staggered for a moment by Hananiah's\napparent earnestness and conviction. He could not but remember that the\ngloomy predictions of Isaiah's earlier ministry had been followed by the\nglorious deliverance from Sennacherib. Possibly some similar sequel was\nto follow his own denunciations. He betook himself anew to fellowship\nwith God, and awaited a fresh mandate from Jehovah.\n\n\"Then the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah, ... Go and tell\nHananiah: Thou hast broken wooden yokes; thou shalt make iron yokes in\ntheir stead. For thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel: I have\nput a yoke of iron upon the necks of all these nations, that they may\nserve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.\"[123]\n\nWe are not told how long Jeremiah had to wait for this new message, or\nunder what circumstances it was delivered to Hananiah. Its symbolism\nis obvious. When Jeremiah sent the yokes to the ambassadors of the\nallies and exhorted Zedekiah to bring his neck under the yoke of\nNebuchadnezzar, they were required to accept the comparatively\ntolerable servitude of tributaries. Their impatience of this minor\nevil would expose them to the iron yoke of ruin and captivity.\n\nThus the prophet of evil received new Divine assurance of the abiding\ntruth of his message and of the reality of his own inspiration. The\nsame revelation convinced him that his opponent was either an impostor\nor woefully deluded:--\n\n\"Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto the prophet Hananiah, Hear now,\nHananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee, but thou makest this people to\ntrust in a lie. Therefore thus saith Jehovah: I will cast thee away\nfrom on the face of the earth; this year thou shalt die, because thou\nhast preached rebellion against Jehovah.\"\n\nBy a judgment not unmixed with mercy, Hananiah was not left to be\nconvicted of error or imposture, when the \"two full years\" should have\nelapsed, and his glowing promises be seen to utterly fail. He also was\n\"taken away from the evil to come.\"\n\n\"So Hananiah the prophet died in the same year in the seventh\nmonth\"--_i.e._ about two months after this incident. Such personal\njudgments were most frequent in the case of kings, but were not\nconfined to them. Isaiah[124] left on record prophecies concerning the\nappointment to the treasurership of Shebna and Eliakim; and elsewhere\nJeremiah himself pronounces the doom of Pashhur ben Immer, the\ngovernor of the Temple; but the conclusion of this incident reminds us\nmost forcibly of the speedy execution of the apostolic sentence upon\nAnanias and Sapphira.\n\nThe subjects of this and the preceding chapter raise some of the most\nimportant questions as to authority in religion. On the one hand, on\nthe subjective side, how may a man be assured of the truth of his own\nreligious convictions; on the other hand, on the objective side, how\nis the hearer to decide between conflicting claims on his faith and\nobedience?\n\nThe former question is raised as to the personal convictions of the\ntwo prophets. We have ventured to assume that, however erring and\nculpable Hananiah may have been, he yet had an honest faith in his\nown inspiration and in the truth of his own prophecies. The conscious\nimpostor, unhappily, is not unknown either in ancient or modern\nChurches; but we should not look for edification from the study of\nthis branch of morbid spiritual pathology. There were doubtless Jewish\ncounterparts to \"Mr. Sludge the Medium\" and to the more subtle and\nplausible \"Bishop Blougram\"; but Hananiah was of a different type. The\nevident respect felt for him by the people, Jeremiah's almost\ndeferential courtesy and temporary hesitation as to his rival's Divine\nmission, do not suggest deliberate hypocrisy. Hananiah's \"lie\" was a\nfalsehood in fact but not in intention. The Divine message \"Jehovah\nhath not sent thee\" was felt by Jeremiah to be no mere exposure of\nwhat Hananiah had known all along, but to be a revelation to his\nadversary as well as to himself.\n\nThe sweeping condemnation of the prophets in chapter xxiii. does not\nexclude the possibility of Hananiah's honesty, any more than our\nLord's denunciation of the Pharisees as \"devourers of widows' houses\"\nnecessarily includes Gamaliel. In critical times, upright, earnest men\ndo not always espouse what subsequent ages hold to have been the cause\nof truth. Sir Thomas More and Erasmus remained in the communion which\nLuther renounced: Hampden and Falkland found themselves in opposite\ncamps. If such men erred in their choice between right and wrong, we\nmay often feel anxious as to our own decisions. When we find ourselves\nin opposition to earnest and devoted men, we may well pause to\nconsider which is Jeremiah and which Hananiah.\n\nThe point at issue between these two prophets was exceedingly simple\nand practical--whether Jehovah approved of the proposed revolt and\nwould reward it with success. Theological questions were only\nindirectly and remotely involved. Yet, in face of his opponent's\npersistent asseverations, Jeremiah--perhaps the greatest of the\nprophets--went his way in silence to obtain fresh Divine confirmation\nof his message. And the man who hesitated was right.\n\nTwo lessons immediately follow, one as to practice, the other as to\nprinciple. It often happens that earnest servants of God find\nthemselves at variance, not on simple practical questions, but on the\nhistory and criticism of the remote past, or on abstruse points of\ntranscendental theology. Before any one ventures to denounce his\nadversary as a teacher of deadly error, let him, like Jeremiah, seek,\nin humble and prayerful submission to the Holy Spirit, a Divine\nmandate for such denunciation.\n\nBut again Jeremiah was willing to reconsider his position, not merely\nbecause he himself might have been mistaken, but because altered\ncircumstances might have opened the way for a change in God's\ndealings. It was a bare possibility, but we have seen elsewhere that\nJeremiah represents God as willing to make a gracious response to the\nfirst movement of compunction. Prophecy was the declaration of His\nwill, and that will was not arbitrary, but at every moment and at\nevery point exactly adapted to conditions with which it had to deal.\nIts principles were unchangeable and eternal; but prophecy was chiefly\nan application of these principles to existing circumstances. The true\nprophet always realised that his words were for men as they were when\nhe addressed them. Any moment might bring a change which would\nabrogate or modify the old teaching, and require and receive a new\nmessage. Like Jonah, he might have to proclaim ruin one day and\ndeliverance the next. A physician, even after the most careful\ndiagnosis, may have to recognise unsuspected symptoms which lead him\nto cancel his prescription and write a new one. The sickening and\nhealing of the soul involve changes equally unexpected. The Bible does\nnot teach that inspiration, any more than science, has only one\ntreatment for each and every spiritual condition and contingency. The\ntrue prophet's message is always a word in season.\n\nWe turn next to the objective question: How is the hearer to decide\nbetween conflicting claims on his faith and obedience? We say the right\nwas with Jeremiah; but how were the Jews to know that? They were\naddressed by two prophets, or, as we might say, two accredited\necclesiastics of the national Church; each with apparent earnestness and\nsincerity claimed to speak in the name of Jehovah and of the ancient\nfaith of Israel, and each flatly contradicted the other on an immediate\npractical question, on which hung their individual fortunes and the\ndestinies of their country. What were the Jews to do? Which were they to\nbelieve? It is the standing difficulty of all appeals to external\nauthority. You inquire of this supposed divine oracle and there issues\nfrom it a babel of discordant voices, and each demands that you shall\nunhesitatingly submit to its dictates on peril of eternal damnation; and\nsome have the audacity to claim obedience, because their teaching is\n\"_quod semper_, _quod ubique_, _quod ab omnibus_.\"\n\nOne simple and practical test is indeed suggested--the prophet of evil\nis more likely to be truly inspired than the prophet of good; but\nJeremiah naturally does not claim that this is an invariable test.\nNor can he have meant that you can always believe prophecies of evil\nwithout any hesitation, but that you are to put no faith in promises\nuntil they are fulfilled. Yet it is not difficult to discern the truth\nunderlying Jeremiah's words. The prophet whose words are unpalatable\nto his hearers is more likely to have a true inspiration than the man\nwho kindles their fancy with glowing pictures of an imminent\nmillennium. The divine message to a congregation of country squires is\nmore likely to be an exhortation to be just to their tenants than a\nsermon on the duty of the labourer to his betters. A true prophet\naddressing an audience of working men would perhaps deal with the\nabuses of trades unions rather than with the sins of capitalists.\n\nBut this principle, which is necessarily of limited application, does\nnot go far to solve the great question of authority in religion, on\nwhich Jeremiah gives us no further help.\n\nThere is, however, one obvious moral. No system of external authority,\nwhatever pains may be taken to secure authentic legitimacy, can\naltogether release the individual from the responsibility of private\njudgment. Unreserved faith in the idea of a Catholic Church is quite\nconsistent with much hesitation between the Anglican, Roman, and Greek\ncommunions; and the most devoted Catholic may be called upon to choose\nbetween rival anti-popes.\n\nUltimately the inspired teacher is only discerned by the inspired\nhearer; it is the answer of the conscience that authenticates the\ndivine message.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[121] The close connection between xxvii. and xxviii. shows that the\ndate in xxviii. 1, \"the fourth year of Zedekiah,\" covers both\nchapters. \"Jehoiakim\" in xxvii. 1 is a misreading for \"Zedekiah\": see\nR.V. margin.\n\n[122] 1 Kings xxii. 11.\n\n[123] The rest of this verse has apparently been inserted from xxvii.\n6 by a scribe. It is omitted by the LXX.\n\n[124] xxii. 15-25.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n _CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EXILES_\n\n xxix.\n\n \"Jehovah make thee like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of\n Babylon roasted in the fire.\"--JER. xxix. 22.\n\n\nNothing further is said about the proposed revolt, so that Jeremiah's\nvigorous protest seems to have been successful. In any case, unless\nirrevocable steps had been taken, the enterprise could hardly have\nsurvived the death of its advocate, Hananiah. Accordingly Zedekiah\nsent an embassy to Babylon, charged doubtless with plausible\nexplanations and profuse professions of loyalty and devotion. The\nenvoys were Elasah ben Shaphan and Gemariah ben Hilkiah. Shaphan and\nHilkiah were almost certainly the scribe and high priest who\ndiscovered Deuteronomy in the eighteenth year of Josiah, and Elasah\nwas the brother of Ahikam ben Shaphan, who protected Jeremiah in the\nfourth year of Jehoiakim, and of Gemariah ben Shaphan, in whose\nchamber Baruch read the roll, and who protested against its\ndestruction. Probably Elasah and Gemariah were adherents of Jeremiah,\nand the fact of the embassy, as well as the choice of ambassadors,\nsuggests that, for the moment, Zedekiah was acting under the influence\nof the prophet. Jeremiah took the opportunity of sending a letter to\nthe exiles at Babylon. Hananiah had his allies in Chaldea: Ahab ben\nKolaiah, Zedekiah ben Maaseiah, and Shemaiah the Nehelamite, with\nother prophets, diviners, and dreamers, had imitated their brethren in\nJudah; they had prophesied without being sent and had caused the\npeople to believe a lie. We are not expressly told what they\nprophesied, but the narrative takes for granted that they, like\nHananiah, promised the exiles a speedy return to their native land.\nSuch teaching naturally met with much acceptance, the people\ncongratulating themselves because, as they supposed, \"Jehovah hath\nraised us up prophets in Babylon.\" The presence of prophets among them\nwas received as a welcome proof that Jehovah had not deserted His\npeople in their house of bondage.\n\nThus when Jeremiah had confounded his opponents in Jerusalem he had\nstill to deal with their friends in Babylon. Here again the issue was\none of immediate practical importance. In Chaldea as at Jerusalem the\nprediction that the exiles would immediately return was intended to\nkindle the proposed revolt. The Jews at Babylon were virtually warned to\nhold themselves in readiness to take advantage of any success of the\nSyrian rebels, and, if opportunity offered, to render them assistance.\nIn those days information travelled slowly, and there was some danger\nlest the captives should be betrayed into acts of disloyalty, even after\nthe Jewish government had given up any present intention of revolting\nagainst Nebuchadnezzar. Such disloyalty might have involved their entire\ndestruction. Both Zedekiah and Jeremiah would be anxious to inform them\nat once that they must refrain from any plots against their Chaldean\nmasters. Moreover the prospect of an immediate return had very much the\nsame effect upon these Jews as the expectation of Christ's Second Coming\nhad upon the primitive Church at Thessalonica. It made them restless and\ndisorderly. They could not settle to any regular work, but became\nbusybodies--wasting their time over the glowing promises of their\npopular preachers, and whispering to one another wild rumours of\nsuccessful revolts in Syria; or were even more dangerously occupied in\nplanning conspiracies against their conquerors.\n\nJeremiah's letter sought to bring about a better state of mind. It is\naddressed to the elders, priests, prophets, and people of the\nCaptivity. The enumeration reminds us how thoroughly the exiled\ncommunity reproduced the society of the ancient Jewish state--there\nwas already a miniature Judah in Chaldea, the first of those Israels\nof the Dispersion which have since covered the face of the earth.\n\nThis is Jehovah's message by His prophet:--\n\n \"Build houses and dwell in them;\n Plant gardens and eat the fruit thereof;\n Marry and beget sons and daughters;\n Marry your sons and daughters,\n That they may bear sons and daughters,\n That ye may multiply there and not grow few.\n Seek the peace of the city whither I have sent you into\n captivity:\n Pray for it unto Jehovah;\n For in its peace, ye shall have peace.\"\n\nThere was to be no immediate return; their captivity would last long\nenough to make it worth their while to build houses and plant gardens.\nFor the present they were to regard Babylon as their home. The\nprospect of restoration to Judah was too distant to make any practical\ndifference to their conduct of ordinary business. The concluding\ncommand to \"seek the peace of Babylon\" is a distinct warning against\nengaging in plots, which could only ruin the conspirators. There is an\ninteresting difference between these exhortations and those addressed\nby Paul to his converts in the first century. He never counsels them\nto marry, but rather recommends celibacy as more expedient for the\npresent necessity. Apparently life was more anxious and harassed for\nthe early Christians than for the Jews in Babylon. The return to\nCanaan was to these exiles what the millennium and the Second Advent\nwere to the primitive Church. Jeremiah having bidden his\nfellow-countrymen not to be agitated by supposing that this\nmuch-longed event might come at any moment, fortifies their faith and\npatience by a promise that it should not be delayed indefinitely.\n\n \"When ye have fulfilled seventy years in Babylon I will visit\n you,\n And will perform for you My gracious promise to bring you\n back to this place.\"[125]\n\nSeventy is obviously a round number. Moreover the constant use of\nseven and its multiples in sacred symbolism forbids us to understand\nthe prophecy as an exact chronological statement.\n\nWe should adequately express the prophet's meaning by translating \"in\nabout two generations.\" We need not waste time and trouble in\ndiscovering or inventing two dates exactly separated by seventy years,\none of which will serve for the beginning and the other for the end of\nthe Captivity. The interval between the destruction of Jerusalem and the\nReturn was fifty years (B.C. 586-536), but as our passage refers more\nimmediately to the prospects of those already in exile, we should obtain\nan interval of sixty-five years from the deportation of Jehoiachin and\nhis companions in B.C. 601. But there can be no question of\napproximation, however close. Either the \"seventy years\" merely stands\nfor a comparatively long period, or it is exact. We do not save the\ninspiration of a date by showing that it is only five years wrong, and\nnot twenty. For an inspired date must be absolutely accurate; a mistake\nof a second in such a case would be as fatal as a mistake of a century.\n\nIsrael's hope is guaranteed by God's self-knowledge of His gracious\ncounsel:--\n\n \"I know the purposes which I purpose concerning you, is the\n utterance of Jehovah,\n Purposes of peace and not of evil, to give you hope for the\n days to come.\"\n\nIn the former clause \"I\" is emphatic in both places, and the phrase is\nparallel to the familiar formula \"by Myself have I sworn, saith\nJehovah.\" The future of Israel was guaranteed by the divine\nconsistency. Jehovah, to use a colloquial phrase, knew His own mind.\nHis everlasting purpose for the Chosen People could not be set aside.\n\"Did God cast off His people? God forbid.\"\n\nYet this persistent purpose is not fulfilled without reference to\ncharacter and conduct:--\n\n \"Ye shall call upon Me, and come and pray unto Me,\n And I will hearken unto you.\n Ye shall seek Me, and find Me,\n Because ye seek Me with all your heart.\n I will be found of you--it is the utterance of Jehovah.\n\n I will bring back your captivity, and will gather you from\n all nations and places whither I have scattered\n you--it is the utterance of Jehovah.\n I will bring you back to this place whence I sent you away to\n captivity.\"[126]\n\nAs in the previous chapter, Jeremiah concludes with a personal\njudgment upon those prophets who had been so acceptable to the exiles.\nIf verse 23 is to be understood literally, Ahab and Zedekiah had not\nonly spoken without authority in the name of Jehovah, but had also\nbeen guilty of gross immorality. Their punishment was to be more\nterrible than that of Hananiah. They had incited the exiles to revolt\nby predicting the imminent ruin of Nebuchadnezzar. Possibly the Jewish\nking proposed to make his own peace by betraying his agents, after the\nmanner of our own Elizabeth and other sovereigns.\n\nThey were to be given over to the terrible vengeance which a Chaldean\nking would naturally take on such offenders, and would be publicly\nroasted alive, so that the malice of him who desired to curse his\nenemy might find vent in such words as:--\n\n\"Jehovah make thee like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon\nroasted alive.\"\n\nWe are not told whether this prophecy was fulfilled, but it is by no\nmeans unlikely. The Assyrian king Assurbanipal says, in one of his\ninscriptions concerning a viceroy of Babylon who had revolted, that\nAssur and the other gods \"in the fierce burning fire they threw him\nand destroyed his life\"--possibly through the agency of Assurbanipal's\nservants.[127] One of the seven brethren who were tortured to death in\nthe persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have been \"fried in\nthe pan.\"[128] Christian hagiology commemorates St. Lawrence and many\nother martyrs, who suffered similar torments. Such punishments\nremained part of criminal procedure until a comparatively recent date;\nthey are still sometimes inflicted by lynch law in the United States,\nand have been defended even by Christian ministers.\n\nJeremiah's letter caused great excitement and indignation among the\nexiles. We have no rejoinder from Ahab and Zedekiah; probably they\nwere not in a position to make any. But Shemaiah the Nehelamite tried\nto make trouble for Jeremiah at Jerusalem. He, in his turn, wrote\nletters to \"all the people at Jerusalem and to the priest Zephaniah\nben Maaseiah and to all the priests\" to this effect:--\n\n\"Jehovah hath made thee priest in the room of Jehoiada the priest, to\nexercise supervision over the Temple, and to deal with any mad fanatic\nwho puts himself forward to prophesy, by placing him in the stocks and\nthe collar. Why then hast thou not rebuked Jeremiah of Anathoth, who\nputs himself forward to prophesy unto you? Consequently he has sent\nunto us at Babylon: It (your captivity) will be long; build houses and\ndwell in them, plant gardens and eat the fruit thereof.\"\n\nConfidence in a speedy return had already been exalted into a cardinal\narticle of the exiles' faith, and Shemaiah claims that any one who\ndenied this comfortable doctrine must be _ipso facto_ a dangerous and\ndeluded fanatic, needing to be placed under strict restraint. This\nletter travelled to Jerusalem with the returning embassy, and was duly\ndelivered to Zephaniah. Zephaniah is spoken of in the historical\nsection common to Kings and Jeremiah as \"the second priest,\"[129]\nSeraiah being the High Priest; like Pashhur ben Immer, he seems to\nhave been the governor of the Temple. He was evidently well disposed\nto Jeremiah, to whom Zedekiah twice sent him on important missions. On\nthe present occasion, instead of acting upon the suggestions made by\nShemaiah, he read the letter to Jeremiah, in order that the latter\nmight have an opportunity of dealing with it.\n\nJeremiah was divinely instructed to reply to Shemaiah, charging him,\nin his turn, with being a man who put himself forward to prophesy\nwithout any commission from Jehovah, and who thus deluded his hearers\ninto belief in falsehoods. Personal sentence is passed upon him, as\nupon Hananiah, Ahab, and Zedekiah; no son of his shall be reckoned\namongst God's people or see the prosperity which they shall hereafter\nenjoy. The words are obscure: it is said that Jehovah will \"visit\nShemaiah and his seed,\" so that it cannot mean that he will be\nchildless; but it is further said that \"he shall not have a man to\nabide amongst this people.\" It is apparently a sentence of\nexcommunication against Shemaiah and his family.\n\nHere the episode abruptly ends. We are not told whether the letter was\nsent, or how it was received, or whether it was answered. We gather\nthat, here also, the last word rested with Jeremiah, and that at this\npoint his influence became dominant both at Jerusalem and at Babylon,\nand that King Zedekiah himself submitted to his guidance.\n\nChapters xxviii., xxix., deepen the impression made by other sections\nof Jeremiah's intolerance and personal bitterness towards his\nopponents. He seems to speak of the roasting alive of the prophets at\nBabylon with something like grim satisfaction, and we are tempted to\nthink of Torquemada and Bishop Bonner. But we must remember that the\nstake, as we have already said, has scarcely yet ceased to be an\nordinary criminal punishment, and that, after centuries of\nChristianity, More and Cranmer, Luther and Calvin, had hardly any more\ntenderness for their ecclesiastical opponents than Jeremiah.\n\nIndeed the Church is only beginning to be ashamed of the complacency\nwith which she has contemplated the fiery torments of hell as the\neternal destiny of unrepentant sinners. One of the most tolerant and\ncatholic of our religious teachers has written: \"If the unlucky\nmalefactor, who in mere brutality of ignorance or narrowness of nature\nor of culture has wronged his neighbour, excite our anger, how much\ndeeper should be our indignation when intellect and eloquence are\nabused to selfish purposes, when studious leisure and learning and\nthought turn traitors to the cause of human well-being and the wells\nof a nation's moral life are poisoned.\"[130] The deduction is obvious:\nsociety feels constrained to hang or burn \"the unlucky malefactor\";\nconsequently such punishments are, if anything, too merciful for the\nfalse prophet. Moreover the teaching which Jeremiah denounced was no\nmere dogmatism about abstruse philosophical and theological\nabstractions. Like the Jesuit propaganda under Elizabeth, it was more\nimmediately concerned with politics than with religion. We are bound\nto be indignant with a man, gifted in exploiting the emotions of his\ndocile audience, who wins the confidence and arouses the enthusiasm of\nhis hearers, only to entice them into hopeless and foolhardy ventures.\n\nAnd yet we are brought back to the old difficulty, how are we to know\nthe false prophet? He has neither horns nor hoofs, his tie may be as\nwhite and his coat as long as those of the true messenger of God.\nAgain, Jeremiah's method affords us some practical guidance. He does\nnot himself order and superintend the punishment of false prophets; he\nmerely announces a divine judgment, which Jehovah Himself is to\nexecute. He does not condemn men by the code of any Church, but each\nsentence is a direct and special revelation from Jehovah. How many\nsentences would have been passed upon heretics, if their accusers and\njudges had waited for a similar sanction?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[125] Doubts have been expressed as to whether this verse originally\nformed part of Jeremiah's letter, or was ever written by him; but in\nview of his numerous references to a coming restoration those doubts\nare unnecessary.\n\n[126] The Hebrew Text inserts a paragraph (vv. 16-20) substantially\nidentical with other portions of the book, especially xxiv. 8-10,\nannouncing the approaching ruin and captivity of Zedekiah and the Jews\nstill remaining in Judah. This section is omitted by the LXX., and\nbreaks the obvious connection between verses 15 and 21.\n\n[127] Smith's _Assurbanipal_, p. 163.\n\n[128] 2 Macc. vii. 5.\n\n[129] lii. 24; 2 Kings xxv. 18.\n\n[130] _Ecce Homo_, xxi.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n _A BROKEN COVENANT_\n\n xxi. 1-10, xxxiv., xxxvii. 1-10.\n\n \"All the princes and people ... changed their minds and reduced to\n bondage again all the slaves whom they had set free.\"--JER. xxxiv.\n 10, 11.\n\n\nIn our previous chapter we saw that, at the point where the fragmentary\nrecord of the abortive conspiracy in the fourth year of Zedekiah came to\nan abrupt conclusion, Jeremiah seemed to have regained the ascendency he\nenjoyed under Josiah. The Jewish government had relinquished their\nschemes of rebellion and acquiesced once more in the supremacy of\nBabylon. We may possibly gather from a later chapter[131] that Zedekiah\nhimself paid a visit to Nebuchadnezzar to assure him of his loyalty. If\nso, the embassy of Elasah ben Shaphan and Gemariah ben Hilkiah was\nintended to assure a favourable reception for their master.\n\nThe history of the next few years is lost in obscurity, but when the\ncurtain again rises everything is changed and Judah is once more in\nrevolt against the Chaldeans. No doubt one cause of this fresh change\nof policy was the renewed activity of Egypt. In the account of the\nconspiracy in Zedekiah's fourth year, there is a significant absence\nof any reference to Egypt. Jeremiah succeeded in baffling his\nopponents partly because their fears of Babylon were not quieted by\nany assurance of Egyptian support. Now there seemed a better prospect\nof a successful insurrection.\n\nAbout the seventh year of Zedekiah, Psammetichus II. of Egypt was\nsucceeded by his brother Pharaoh Hophra, the son of Josiah's\nconqueror, Pharaoh Necho. When Hophra--the Apries of Herodotus--had\ncompleted the reconquest of Ethiopia, he made a fresh attempt to carry\nout his father's policy and to re-establish the ancient Egyptian\nsupremacy in Western Asia; and, as of old, Egypt began by tampering\nwith the allegiance of the Syrian vassals of Babylon. According to\nEzekiel,[132] Zedekiah took the initiative: \"he rebelled against him\n(Nebuchadnezzar) by sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they\nmight give him horses and much people.\"\n\nThe knowledge that an able and victorious general was seated on the\nEgyptian throne, along with the secret intrigues of his agents and\npartisans, was too much for Zedekiah's discretion. Jeremiah's advice\nwas disregarded. The king surrendered himself to the guidance--we\nmight almost say, the control--of the Egyptian party in Jerusalem; he\nviolated his oath of allegiance to his suzerain, and the frail and\nbattered ship of state was once more embarked on the stormy waters of\nrebellion. Nebuchadnezzar promptly prepared to grapple with the\nreviving strength of Egypt in a renewed contest for the lordship of\nSyria. Probably Egypt and Judah had other allies, but they are not\nexpressly mentioned. A little later Tyre was besieged by\nNebuchadnezzar; but as Ezekiel[133] represents Tyre as exulting over\nthe fall of Jerusalem, she can hardly have been a benevolent neutral,\nmuch less a faithful ally. Moreover, when Nebuchadnezzar began his\nmarch into Syria, he hesitated whether he should first attack\nJerusalem or Rabbath Ammon:--\n\n\"The king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, ... to use\ndivination: he shook the arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim,\nhe looked in the liver.\"[134]\n\nLater on Baalis, king of Ammon, received the Jewish refugees and\nsupported those who were most irreconcilable in their hostility to\nNebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless the Ammonites were denounced by Jeremiah\nfor occupying the territory of Gad, and by Ezekiel[135] for sharing\nthe exultation of Tyre over the ruin of Judah. Probably Baalis played\na double part. He may have promised support to Zedekiah, and then\npurchased his own pardon by betraying his ally.\n\nNevertheless the hearty support of Egypt was worth more than the\nalliance of any number of the petty neighbouring states, and\nNebuchadnezzar levied a great army to meet this ancient and formidable\nenemy of Assyria and Babylon. He marched into Judah with \"all his\narmy, and all the kingdoms of the earth that were under his dominion,\nand all the peoples,\" and \"fought against Jerusalem and all the cities\nthereof.\"[136]\n\nAt the beginning of the siege Zedekiah's heart began to fail him. The\ncourse of events seemed to confirm Jeremiah's threats, and the king,\nwith pathetic inconsistency, sought to be reassured by the prophet\nhimself. He sent Pashhur ben Malchiah and Zephaniah ben Maaseiah to\nJeremiah with the message:--\n\n\"Inquire, I pray thee, of Jehovah for us, for Nebuchadnezzar king of\nBabylon maketh war against us: peradventure Jehovah will deal with us\naccording to all His wondrous works, that he may go up from us.\"\n\nThe memories of the great deliverance from Sennacherib were fresh and\nvivid in men's minds. Isaiah's denunciations had been as\nuncompromising as Jeremiah's, and yet Hezekiah had been spared.\n\"Peradventure,\" thought his anxious descendant, \"the prophet may yet\nbe charged with gracious messages that Jehovah repents Him of the evil\nand will even now rescue His Holy City.\" But the timid appeal only\ncalled forth a yet sterner sentence of doom. Formidable as were the\nenemies against whom Zedekiah craved protection, they were to be\nreinforced by more terrible allies; man and beast should die of a\ngreat pestilence, and Jehovah Himself should be their enemy:--\n\n\"I will turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands, wherewith\nye fight against the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans.... I Myself\nwill fight against you with an outstretched hand and a strong arm, in\nanger and fury and great wrath.\"\n\nThe city should be taken and burnt with fire, and the king and all\nothers who survived should be carried away captive. Only on one\ncondition might better terms be obtained:--\n\n\"Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. He\nthat abideth in this city shall die by the sword, the famine, and the\npestilence; but he that goeth out, and falleth to the besieging\nChaldeans, shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a\nprey.\"[137]\n\nOn another occasion Zephaniah ben Maaseiah with a certain Tehucal ben\nShelemiah was sent by the king to the prophet with the entreaty, \"Pray\nnow unto Jehovah our God for us.\" We are not told the sequel to this\nmission, but it is probably represented by the opening verses of chapter\nxxxiv. This section has the direct and personal note which characterises\nthe dealings of Hebrew prophets with their sovereigns. Doubtless the\npartisans of Egypt had had a severe struggle with Jeremiah before they\ncaptured the ear of the Jewish king, and Zedekiah was possessed to the\nvery last with a half-superstitious anxiety to keep on good terms with\nthe prophet. Jehovah's \"iron pillar and brasen wall\" would make no\nconcession to these royal blandishments: his message had been rejected,\nhis Master had been slighted and defied, the Chosen People and the Holy\nCity were being betrayed to their ruin; Jeremiah would not refrain from\ndenouncing this iniquity because the king who had sanctioned it tried to\nflatter his vanity by sending deferential deputations of important\nnotables. This is the Divine sentence:--\n\n \"I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon,\n And he shall burn it with fire.\n Thou shalt not escape out of his hand;\n Thou shalt assuredly be taken prisoner;\n Thou shalt be delivered into his hand.\n Thou shalt see the king of Babylon, face to face;\n He shall speak to thee, mouth to mouth,\n And thou shalt go to Babylon.\"\n\nYet there should be one doubtful mitigation of his punishment:--\n\n \"Thou shalt not die by the sword;\n Thou shalt die in peace:\n With the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were\n before thee,\n So shall they make a burning for thee;\n And they shall lament thee, saying, Alas lord!\n For it is I that have spoken the word--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah.\"\n\nKing and people were not proof against the combined terrors of the\nprophetic rebukes and the besieging enemy. Jeremiah regained his\ninfluence, and Jerusalem gave an earnest of the sincerity of her\nrepentance by entering into a covenant for the emancipation of all\nHebrew slaves. Deuteronomy had re-enacted the ancient law that their\nbondage should terminate at the end of six years,[138] but this had\nnot been observed: \"Your fathers hearkened not unto Me, neither\ninclined their ear.\"[139] A large proportion of those then in slavery\nmust have served more than six years;[140] and partly because of the\ndifficulty of discrimination at such a crisis, partly by way of\natonement, the Jews undertook to liberate all their slaves. This\nsolemn reparation was made because the limitation of servitude was\npart of the national Torah, \"the covenant that Jehovah made with their\nfathers in the day that He brought them forth out of the land of\nEgypt\"--_i.e._ the Deuteronomic Code. Hence it implied the renewed\nrecognition of Deuteronomy, and the restoration of the ecclesiastical\norder established by Josiah's reforms.\n\nEven Josiah's methods were imitated. He had assembled the people at\nthe Temple and made them enter into \"a covenant before Jehovah, to\nwalk after Jehovah, to keep His commandments and testimonies and\nstatutes with all their heart and soul, to perform the words of this\ncovenant that were written in this book. And all the people entered\ninto the covenant.\"[141] So now Zedekiah in turn caused the people to\nmake a covenant before Jehovah, \"in the house which was called by His\nname,\"[142] \"that every one should release his Hebrew slaves, male and\nfemale, and that no one should enslave a brother Jew.\"[143] A further\nsanction had been given to this vow by the observance of an ancient\nand significant rite. When Jehovah promised to Abraham a seed\ncountless as the stars of heaven, He condescended to ratify His\npromise by causing the symbols of His presence--a smoking furnace and\na burning lamp--to pass between the divided halves of a heifer, a\nshe-goat, a ram, and between a turtle-dove and a young pigeon.[144]\nNow, in like manner, a calf was cut in twain, the two halves laid\nopposite each other, and \"the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, the\neunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land, ... passed\nbetween the parts of the calf.\"[145] Similarly, after the death of\nAlexander the Great, the contending factions in the Macedonian army\nratified a compromise by passing between the two halves of a dog. Such\nsymbols spoke for themselves: those who used them laid themselves\nunder a curse; they prayed that if they violated the covenant they\nmight be slain and mutilated like the divided animals.\n\nThis covenant was forthwith carried into effect, the princes and\npeople liberating their Hebrew slaves according to their vow. We\ncannot, however, compare this event with the abolition of slavery in\nBritish colonies or with Abraham Lincoln's Decree of Emancipation. The\nscale is altogether different: Hebrew bondage had no horrors to\ncompare with those of the American plantations; and moreover, even at\nthe moment, the practical results cannot have been great. Shut up in a\nbeleaguered city, harassed by the miseries and terrors of a siege, the\nfreedmen would see little to rejoice over in their new-found freedom.\nUnless their friends were in Jerusalem they could not rejoin them, and\nin most cases they could only obtain sustenance by remaining in the\nhouseholds of their former masters, or by serving in the defending\narmy. Probably this special ordinance of Deuteronomy was selected as\nthe subject of a solemn covenant, because it not only afforded an\nopportunity of atoning for past sin, but also provided the means of\nstrengthening the national defence. Such expedients were common in\nancient states in moments of extreme peril.\n\nIn view of Jeremiah's persistent efforts, both before and after this\nincident, to make his countrymen loyally accept the Chaldean supremacy,\nwe cannot doubt that he hoped to make terms between Zedekiah and\nNebuchadnezzar. Apparently no tidings of Pharaoh Hophra's advance had\nreached Jerusalem; and the non-appearance of his \"horses and much\npeople\" had discredited the Egyptian party, and enabled Jeremiah to\noverthrow their influence with the king and people. Egypt, after all her\npromises, had once more proved herself a broken reed; there was nothing\nleft but to throw themselves on Nebuchadnezzar's mercy.\n\nBut the situation was once more entirely changed by the news that\nPharaoh Hophra had come forth out of Egypt \"with a mighty army and a\ngreat company.\"[146] The sentinels on the walls of Jerusalem saw the\nbesiegers break up their encampment, and march away to meet the\nrelieving army. All thought of submitting to Babylon was given up.\nIndeed, if Pharaoh Hophra were to be victorious, the Jews must of\nnecessity accept his supremacy. Meanwhile they revelled in their respite\nfrom present distress and imminent danger. Surely the new covenant was\nbearing fruit. Jehovah had been propitiated by their promise to observe\nthe Torah; Pharaoh was the instrument by which God would deliver His\npeople; or even if the Egyptians were defeated, the Divine resources\nwere not exhausted. When Tirhakah advanced to the relief of Hezekiah, he\nwas defeated at Eltekeh, yet Sennacherib had returned home baffled and\ndisgraced. Naturally the partisans of Egypt, the opponents of Jeremiah,\nrecovered their control of the king and the government. The king sent,\nperhaps at the first news of the Egyptian advance, to inquire of\nJeremiah concerning their prospects of success. What seemed to every one\nelse a Divine deliverance was to him a national misfortune; the hopes he\nhad once more indulged of averting the ruin of Judah were again dashed\nto the ground. His answer is bitter and gloomy:--\n\n \"Behold, Pharaoh's army, which is come forth to help you,\n Shall return to Egypt into their own land.\n The Chaldeans shall come again, and fight against this city;\n They shall take it, and burn it with fire.\n Thus saith Jehovah:\n Do not deceive yourselves, saying,\n The Chaldeans shall surely depart from us:\n They shall not depart.\n Though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldeans that\n fight against you,\n And there remained none but wounded men among them,\n Yet should they rise up every man in his tent,\n And burn this city with fire.\"\n\nJeremiah's protest was unavailing, and only confirmed the king and\nprinces in their adherence to Egypt. Moreover Jeremiah had now formally\ndisclaimed any sympathy with this great deliverance, which Pharaoh--and\npresumably Jehovah--had wrought for Judah. Hence it was clear that the\npeople did not owe this blessing to the covenant to which they had\nsubmitted themselves by Jeremiah's guidance. As at Megiddo, Jehovah had\nshown once more that He was with Pharaoh and against Jeremiah. Probably\nthey would best please God by renouncing Jeremiah and all his works--the\ncovenant included. Moreover they could take back their slaves with a\nclear conscience, to their own great comfort and satisfaction. True,\nthey had sworn in the Temple with solemn and striking ceremonies, but\nthen Jehovah Himself had manifestly released them from their oath. \"All\nthe princes and people changed their mind, and reduced to bondage again\nall the slaves whom they had set free.\" The freedmen had been rejoicing\nwith their former masters in the prospect of national deliverance; the\ndate of their emancipation was to mark the beginning of a new era of\nJewish happiness and prosperity. When the siege was raised and the\nChaldeans driven away, they could use their freedom in rebuilding the\nruined cities and cultivating the wasted lands. To all such dreams there\ncame a sudden and rough awakening: they were dragged back to their\nformer hopeless bondage--a happy augury for the new dispensation of\nDivine protection and blessing!\n\nJeremiah turned upon them in fierce wrath, like that of Elijah against\nAhab when he met him taking possession of Naboth's vineyard. They had\nprofaned the name of Jehovah, and--\n\n \"Therefore thus saith Jehovah:\n Ye have not hearkened unto Me to proclaim a release every one\n to his brother and his neighbour:\n Behold, I proclaim a release for you--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah--unto the sword, the pestilence, and the\n famine;\n And I will make you a terror among all the kingdoms of the\n earth.\"\n\nThe prophet plays upon the word \"release\" with grim irony. The Jews\nhad repudiated the \"release\" which they had promised under solemn oath\nto their brethren, but Jehovah would not allow them to be so easily\nquit of their covenant. There should be a \"release\" after all, and\nthey themselves should have the benefit of it--a \"release\" from\nhappiness and prosperity, from the sacred bounds of the Temple, the\nHoly City, and the Land of Promise--a \"release\" unto \"the sword, the\npestilence, and the famine.\"\n\n \"I will give the men that have transgressed My covenant into\n the hands of their enemies....\n Their dead bodies shall be meat for the fowls of heaven and\n for the beasts of the earth.\n Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the\n hand of ... the host of the king of Babylon, which\n are gone up from you.\n Behold, I will command--it is the utterance of Jehovah--and\n will bring them back unto this city:\n They shall fight against it, and take it, and burn it with\n fire.\n I will lay the cities of Judah waste, without inhabitant.\"\n\nAnother broken covenant was added to the list of Judah's sins,\nanother promise of amendment speedily lost in disappointment and\ncondemnation. Jeremiah might well say with his favourite Hosea:--\n\n \"O Judah, what shall I do unto thee?\n Your goodness is as a morning cloud,\n And as the dew that goeth early away.\"[147]\n\nThis incident has many morals; one of the most obvious is the futility\nof the most stringent oaths and the most solemn symbolic ritual.\nWhatever influence oaths may have in causing a would-be liar to speak\nthe truth, they are very poor guarantees for the performance of\ncontracts. William the Conqueror profited little by Harold's oath to\nhelp him to the crown of England, though it was sworn over the relics\nof holy saints. Wulfnoth's whisper in Tennyson's drama--\n\n \"Swear thou to-day, to-morrow is thine own\"--\n\nstates the principle on which many oaths have been taken. The famous\n\"blush of Sigismund\" over the violation of his safe-conduct to Huss\nwas rather a token of unusual sensitiveness than a confession of\nexceptional guilt. The Christian Church has exalted perfidy into a\nsacred obligation. As Milman says[148]:--\n\n\"The fatal doctrine, confirmed by long usage, by the decrees of\nPontiffs, by the assent of all ecclesiastics, and the acquiescence of\nthe Christian world, that no promise, no oath, was binding to a\nheretic, had hardly been questioned, never repudiated.\"\n\nAt first sight an oath seems to give firm assurance to a promise; what\nwas merely a promise to man is made into a promise to God. What can\nbe more binding upon the conscience than a promise to God? True; but\nHe to whom the promise is made may always release from its\nperformance. To persist in what God neither requires nor desires\nbecause of a promise to God seems absurd and even wicked. It has been\nsaid that men \"have a way of calling everything they want to do a\ndispensation of Providence.\" Similarly, there are many ways by which a\nman may persuade himself that God has cancelled his vows, especially\nif he belongs to an infallible Church with a Divine commission to\ngrant dispensations. No doubt these Jewish slaveholders had full\nsacerdotal absolution from their pledge. The priests had slaves of\ntheir own. Failing ecclesiastical aid, Satan himself will play the\ncasuist--it is one of his favourite parts--and will find the traitor\nfull justification for breaking the most solemn contract with Heaven.\nIf a man's whole soul and purpose go with his promise, oaths are\nsuperfluous; otherwise, they are useless.\n\nHowever, the main lesson of the incident lies in its added testimony\nto the supreme importance which the prophets attached to social\nrighteousness. When Jeremiah wished to knit together again the bonds\nof fellowship between Judah and its God, he did not make them enter\ninto a covenant to observe ritual or to cultivate pious sentiments,\nbut to release their slaves. It has been said that a gentleman may be\nknown by the way in which he treats his servants; a man's religion is\nbetter tested by his behaviour to his helpless dependents than by his\nattendance on the means of grace or his predilection for pious\nconversation. If we were right in supposing that the government\nsupported Jeremiah because the act of emancipation would furnish\nrecruits to man the walls, this illustrates the ultimate dependence of\nsociety upon the working classes. In emergencies, desperate efforts\nare made to coerce or cajole them into supporting governments by which\nthey have been neglected or oppressed. The sequel to this covenant\nshows how barren and transient are concessions begotten by the terror\nof imminent ruin. The social covenant between all classes of the\ncommunity needs to be woven strand by strand through long years of\nmutual helpfulness and goodwill, of peace and prosperity, if it is to\nendure the strain of national peril and disaster.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[131] li. 59, Hebrew Text. According to the LXX., Zedekiah sent\nanother embassy and did not go himself to Babylon. The section is\napparently a late addition.\n\n[132] xvii. 15.\n\n[133] xxvi. 2.\n\n[134] Ezek. xxi. 21.\n\n[135] xxv. 1-7.\n\n[136] xxi. 1-10. The exact date of this section is not given, but it is\nclosely parallel to xxxiv. 1-7, and seems to belong to the same period.\n\n[137] xxi. 1-10.\n\n[138] Deut. xv. 12. Cf. Exod. xxi. 2, xxiii. 10.\n\n[139] xxxiv. 14.\n\n[140] xxxiv. 13.\n\n[141] 2 Kings xxiii. 3.\n\n[142] xxxiv. 15.\n\n[143] xxxiv. 9.\n\n[144] Gen. xv.\n\n[145] xxxiv. 19.\n\n[146] Ezek. xvii. 17.\n\n[147] Hosea vi. 4.\n\n[148] Milman's _Latin Christianity_, viii. 255.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n _JEREMIAH'S IMPRISONMENT_\n\n xxxvii. 11-21, xxxviii., xxxix. 15-18.\n\n \"Jeremiah abode in the court of the guard until the day that\n Jerusalem was taken.\"--JER. xxxviii. 28.\n\n\n\"When the Chaldean army was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of\nPharaoh's army, Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land\nof Benjamin\" to transact certain family business at Anathoth.[149]\n\nHe had announced that all who remained in the city should perish, and\nthat only those who deserted to the Chaldeans should escape. In these\ntroubled times all who sought to enter or leave Jerusalem were\nsubjected to close scrutiny, and when Jeremiah wished to pass through\nthe gate of Benjamin he was stopped by the officer in charge--Irijah\nben Shelemiah ben Hananiah--and accused of being about to practise\nhimself what he had preached to the people: \"Thou fallest away to the\nChaldeans.\" The suspicion was natural enough; for, although the\nChaldeans had raised the siege and marched away to the south-west,\nwhile the gate of Benjamin was on the north of the city, Irijah might\nreasonably suppose that they had left detachments in the\nneighbourhood, and that this zealous advocate of submission to\nBabylon had special information on the subject. Jeremiah indeed had\nthe strongest motives for seeking safety in flight. The party whom he\nhad consistently denounced had full control of the government, and\neven if they spared him for the present any decisive victory over the\nenemy would be the signal for his execution. When once Pharaoh Hophra\nwas in full march upon Jerusalem at the head of a victorious army, his\nfriends would show no mercy to Jeremiah. Probably Irijah was eager to\nbelieve in the prophet's treachery, and ready to snatch at any pretext\nfor arresting him. The name of the captain's grandfather--Hananiah--is\ntoo common to suggest any connection with the prophet who withstood\nJeremiah; but we may be sure that at this crisis the gates were in\ncharge of trusty adherents of the princes of the Egyptian party.\nJeremiah would be suspected and detested by such men as these. His\nvehement denial of the charge was received with real or feigned\nincredulity; Irijah \"hearkened not unto him.\"\n\nThe arrest took place \"in the midst of the people.\"[150] The gate was\ncrowded with other Jews hurrying out of Jerusalem: citizens eager to\nbreathe more freely after being cooped up in the overcrowded city;\ncountrymen anxious to find out what their farms and homesteads had\nsuffered at the hands of the invaders; not a few, perhaps, bound on\nthe very errand of which Jeremiah was accused, friends of Babylon,\nconvinced that Nebuchadnezzar would ultimately triumph, and hoping to\nfind favour and security in his camp. Critical events of Jeremiah's\nlife had often been transacted before a great assembly; for instance,\nhis own address and trial in the Temple, and the reading of the roll.\nHe knew the practical value of a dramatic situation. This time he had\nsought the crowd, rather to avoid than attract attention; but when he\nwas challenged by Irijah, the accusation and denial must have been\nheard by all around. The soldiers of the guard, necessarily hostile to\nthe man who had counselled submission, gathered round to secure their\nprisoner; for a time the gate was blocked by the guards and\nspectators. The latter do not seem to have interfered. Formerly the\npriests and prophets and all the people had laid hold on Jeremiah, and\nafterwards all the people had acquitted him by acclamation. Now his\nenemies were content to leave him in the hands of the soldiers, and\nhis friends, if he had any, were afraid to attempt a rescue. Moreover\nmen's minds were not at leisure and craving for new excitement, as at\nTemple festivals; they were preoccupied, and eager to get out of the\ncity. While the news quickly spread that Jeremiah had been arrested as\nhe was trying to desert, his guards cleared a way through the crowd,\nand brought the prisoner before the princes. The latter seem to have\nacted as a Committee of National Defence; they may either have been\nsitting at the time, or a meeting, as on a previous occasion,[151] may\nhave been called when it was known that Jeremiah had been arrested.\nAmong them were probably those enumerated later on:[152] Shephatiah\nben Mattan, Gedaliah ben Pashhur, Jucal ben Shelemiah, and Pashhur ben\nMalchiah. Shephatiah and Gedaliah are named only here; possibly\nGedaliah's father was Pashhur ben Immer, who beat Jeremiah and put him\nin the stocks. Both Jucal and Pashhur ben Malchiah had been sent by\nthe king to consult Jeremiah. Jucal may have been the son of the\nShelemiah who was sent to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch after the reading\nof the roll. We note the absence of the princes who then formed\nBaruch's audience, some of whom tried to dissuade Jehoiakim from\nburning the roll; and we especially miss the prophet's former friend\nand protector, Ahikam ben Shaphan. Fifteen or sixteen years had\nelapsed since these earlier events; some of Jeremiah's adherents were\ndead, others in exile, others powerless to help him. We may safely\nconclude that his judges were his personal and political enemies.\nJeremiah was now their discomfited rival: a few weeks before he had\nbeen master of the city and the court. Pharaoh Hophra's advance had\nenabled them to overthrow him. We can understand that they would at\nonce take Irijah's view of the case. They treated their fallen\nantagonist as a criminal taken in the act: \"they were wroth with him,\"\n_i.e._ they overwhelmed him with a torrent of abuse; \"they beat him,\nand put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the secretary.\" But\nthis imprisonment in a private house was not mild and honourable\nconfinement under the care of a distinguished noble, who was rather\ncourteous host than harsh gaoler. \"They had made that the prison,\"\nduly provided with a dungeon and cells, to which Jeremiah was\nconsigned and where he remained \"many days.\" Prison accommodation at\nJerusalem was limited; the Jewish government preferred more summary\nmethods of dealing with malefactors. The revolution which had placed\nthe present government in power had given them special occasion for a\nprison. They had defeated rivals whom they did not venture to execute\npublicly, but who might be more safely starved and tortured to death\nin secret. For such a fate they destined Jeremiah. We shall not do\ninjustice to Jonathan the secretary if we compare the hospitality\nwhich he extended to his unwilling guests with the treatment of modern\nArmenians in Turkish prisons. Yet the prophet remained alive \"for many\ndays\"; probably his enemies reflected that even if he did not succumb\nearlier to the hardships of his imprisonment, his execution would\nsuitably adorn the looked-for triumph of Pharaoh Hophra.\n\nFew however of the \"many days\" had passed, before men's exultant\nanticipations of victory and deliverance began to give place to anxious\nforebodings. They had hoped to hear that Nebuchadnezzar had been\ndefeated and was in headlong retreat to Chaldea; they had been prepared\nto join in the pursuit of the routed army, to gratify their revenge by\nmassacring the fugitives and to share the plunder with their Egyptian\nallies. The fortunes of war belied their hopes; Pharaoh retreated,\neither after a battle or perhaps even without fighting. The return of\nthe enemy was announced by the renewed influx of the country people to\nseek the shelter of the fortifications, and soon the Jews crowded to the\nwalls as Nebuchadnezzar's vanguard appeared in sight and the Chaldeans\noccupied their old lines and re-formed the siege of the doomed city.\n\nThere was no longer any doubt that prudence dictated immediate\nsurrender. It was the only course by which the people might be spared\nsome of the horrors of a prolonged siege, followed by the sack of the\ncity. But the princes who controlled the government were too deeply\ncompromised with Egypt to dare to hope for mercy. With Jeremiah out of\nthe way, they were able to induce the king and the people to maintain\ntheir resistance, and the siege went on.\n\nBut though Zedekiah was, for the most part, powerless in the hands of\nthe princes, he ventured now and then to assert himself in minor\nmatters, and, like other feeble sovereigns, derived some consolation\namidst his many troubles from intriguing with the opposition against\nhis own ministers. His feeling and behaviour towards Jeremiah were\nsimilar to those of Charles IX. towards Coligny, only circumstances\nmade the Jewish king a more efficient protector of Jeremiah.\n\nAt this new and disastrous turn of affairs, which was an exact\nfulfilment of Jeremiah's warnings, the king was naturally inclined to\nrevert to his former faith in the prophet--if indeed he had ever really\nbeen able to shake himself free from his influence. Left to himself he\nwould have done his best to make terms with Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehoiakim\nand Jehoiachin had done before him. The only trustworthy channel of\nhelp, human or divine, was Jeremiah. Accordingly he sent secretly to the\nprison and had the prophet brought into the palace. There in some inner\nchamber, carefully guarded from intrusion by the slaves of the palace,\nZedekiah received the man who now for more than forty years had been the\nchief counsellor of the kings of Judah, often in spite of themselves.\nLike Saul on the eve of Gilboa, he was too impatient to let disaster be\nits own herald; the silence of Heaven seemed more terrible than any\nspoken doom, and again like Saul he turned in his perplexity and despair\nto the prophet who had rebuked and condemned him. \"Is there any word\nfrom Jehovah? And Jeremiah said, There is: ... thou shalt be delivered\ninto the hand of the king of Babylon.\"\n\nThe Church is rightly proud of Ambrose rebuking Theodosius at the\nheight of his power and glory, and of Thomas \u00e0 Becket, unarmed and\nyet defiant before his murderers; but the Jewish prophet showed\nhimself capable of a simpler and grander heroism. For \"many days\" he\nhad endured squalor, confinement, and semi-starvation. His body must\nhave been enfeebled and his spirit depressed. Weak and contemptible as\nZedekiah was, yet he was the prophet's only earthly protector from the\nmalice of his enemies. He intended to utilise this interview for an\nappeal for release from his present prison. Thus he had every motive\nfor conciliating the man who asked him for a word from Jehovah. He was\nprobably alone with Zedekiah, and was not nerved to self-sacrifice by\nany opportunity of making public testimony to the truth, and yet he\nwas faithful alike to God and to the poor helpless king--\"Thou shalt\nbe delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.\"\n\nAnd then he proceeds, with what seems to us inconsequent audacity, to\nask a favour. Did ever petitioner to a king preface his supplication\nwith so strange a preamble? This was the request:--\n\n\"Now hear, I pray thee, O my lord the king: let my supplication, I\npray thee, be accepted before thee; that thou do not cause me to\nreturn to the house of Jonathan the secretary, lest I die there.\n\n\"Then Zedekiah the king commanded, and they committed Jeremiah into\nthe court of the guard, and they gave him daily a loaf of bread out of\nthe bakers' street.\"\n\nA loaf of bread is not sumptuous fare, but it is evidently mentioned as\nan improvement upon his prison diet: it is not difficult to understand\nwhy Jeremiah was afraid he would die in the house of Jonathan.\n\nDuring this milder imprisonment in the court of the guard occurred\nthe incident of the purchase of the field at Anathoth, which we have\ndealt with in another chapter. This low ebb of the prophet's fortunes\nwas the occasion of Divine revelation of a glorious future in store\nfor Judah. But this future was still remote, and does not seem to have\nbeen conspicuous in his public teaching. On the contrary Jeremiah\navailed himself of the comparative publicity of his new place of\ndetention to reiterate in the ears of all the people the gloomy\npredictions with which they had so long been familiar: \"This city\nshall assuredly be given into the hand of the army of the king of\nBabylon.\" He again urged his hearers to desert to the enemy: \"He that\nabideth in this city shall die by the sword, the famine, and the\npestilence; but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live.\" We\ncannot but admire the splendid courage of the solitary prisoner,\nhelpless in the hands of his enemies and yet openly defying them. He\nleft his opponents only two alternatives, either to give up the\ngovernment into his hands or else to silence him. Jeremiah in the\ncourt of the guard was really carrying on a struggle in which neither\nside either would or could give quarter. He was trying to revive the\nenergies of the partisans of Babylon, that they might overpower the\ngovernment and surrender the city to Nebuchadnezzar. If he had\nsucceeded, the princes would have had a short shrift. They struck back\nwith the prompt energy of men fighting for their lives. No government\nconducting the defence of a besieged fortress could have tolerated\nJeremiah for a moment. What would have been the fate of a French\npolitician who should have urged Parisians to desert to the Germans\nduring the siege of 1870?[153] The princes' former attempt to deal\nwith Jeremiah had been thwarted by the king; this time they tried to\nprovide beforehand against any officious intermeddling on the part of\nZedekiah. They extorted from him a sanction of their proceedings.\n\n\"Then the princes said unto the king, Let this man, we pray thee, be put\nto death: for he weakeneth the hands of the soldiers that are left in\nthis city, and of all the people, by speaking such words unto them: for\nthis man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.\"\nCertainly Jeremiah's word was enough to take the heart out of the\nbravest soldiers; his preaching would soon have rendered further\nresistance impossible. But the concluding sentence about the \"welfare of\nthe people\" was merely cheap cant, not without parallel in the sayings\nof many \"princes\" in later times. \"The welfare of the people\" would have\nbeen best promoted by the surrender which Jeremiah advocated. The king\ndoes not pretend to sympathise with the princes; he acknowledges himself\na mere tool in their hands. \"Behold,\" he answers, \"he is in your power,\nfor the king can do nothing against you.\"\n\n\"Then they took Jeremiah, and cast him into the cistern of Malchiah\nben Hammelech, that was in the court of the guard; and they let\nJeremiah down with cords. And there was no water in the cistern, only\nmud, and Jeremiah sank in the mud.\"\n\nThe depth of this improvised oubliette is shown by the use of cords to\nlet the prisoner down into it. How was it, however, that, after the\nrelease of Jeremiah from the cells in the house of Jonathan, the\nprinces did not at once execute him? Probably, in spite of all that\nhad happened, they still felt a superstitious dread of actually\nshedding the blood of a prophet. In some mysterious way they felt that\nthey would be less guilty if they left him in the empty cistern to\nstarve to death or be suffocated in the mud, than if they had his head\ncut off. They acted in the spirit of Reuben's advice concerning\nJoseph, who also was cast into an empty pit, with no water in it:\n\"Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit in the wilderness, and lay\nno hand upon him.\"[154] By a similar blending of hypocrisy and\nsuperstition, the medi\u00e6val Church thought to keep herself unstained by\nthe blood of heretics, by handing them over to the secular arm; and\nMacbeth having hired some one else to kill Banquo was emboldened to\nconfront his ghost with the words:--\n\n \"Thou canst not say I did it. Never shake\n Thy gory locks at me.\"\n\nBut the princes were again baffled; the prophet had friends in the\nroyal household who were bolder than their master: Ebed-melech the\nEthiopian, an eunuch, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the cistern.\nHe went to the king, who was then sitting in the gate of Benjamin,\nwhere he would be accessible to any petitioner for favour or justice,\nand interceded for the prisoner:--\n\n\"My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done\nto Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the cistern; and he\nis like to die in the place where he is because of the famine, for\nthere is no more bread in the city.\"\n\nApparently the princes, busied with the defence of the city and in\ntheir pride \"too much despising\" their royal master, had left him for\na while to himself. Emboldened by this public appeal to act according\nto the dictates of his own heart and conscience, and possibly by the\npresence of other friends of Jeremiah, the king acts with unwonted\ncourage and decision.\n\n\"The king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying, Take with thee\nhence thirty men, and draw up Jeremiah the prophet out of the cistern,\nbefore he die. So Ebed-melech took the men with him, and went into the\npalace under the treasury, and took thence old cast clouts and rotten\nrags, and let them down by cords into the cistern to Jeremiah. And he\nsaid to Jeremiah, Put these old cast clouts and rotten rags under\nthine armholes under the cords. And Jeremiah did so. So they drew him\nup with the cords, and took him up out of the cistern: and he remained\nin the court of the guard.\"\n\nJeremiah's gratitude to his deliverer is recorded in a short paragraph\nin which Ebed-melech, like Baruch, is promised that \"his life shall be\ngiven him for a prey.\" He should escape with his life from the sack of\nthe city--\"because he trusted\" in Jehovah. As of the ten lepers whom\nJesus cleansed only the Samaritan returned to give glory to God, so\nwhen none of God's people were found to rescue His prophet, the\ndangerous honour was accepted by an Ethiopian proselyte.[155]\n\nMeanwhile the king was craving for yet another \"word of Jehovah.\"\nTrue, the last \"word\" given him by the prophet had been, \"Thou shalt\nbe delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.\" But now that he\nhad just rescued Jehovah's prophet from a miserable death (he forgot\nthat Jeremiah had been consigned to the cistern by his own authority),\npossibly there might be some more encouraging message from God.\nAccordingly he sent and took Jeremiah unto him for another secret\ninterview, this time in the \"corridor of the bodyguard,\"[156] a\npassage between the palace and the Temple.\n\nHere he implored the prophet to give him a faithful answer to his\nquestions concerning his own fate and that of the city: \"Hide nothing\nfrom me.\" But Jeremiah did not respond with his former prompt frankness.\nHe had had too recent a warning not to put his trust in princes. \"If I\ndeclare it unto thee,\" said he, \"wilt thou not surely put me to death?\nand if I give thee counsel, thou wilt not hearken unto me. So Zedekiah\nthe king sware secretly to Jeremiah, As Jehovah liveth, who is the\nsource and giver of our life, I will not put thee to death, neither will\nI give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life.\n\n\"Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts,\nthe God of Israel: If thou wilt go forth unto the king of Babylon's\nprinces, thy life shall be spared, and this city shall not be burned,\nand thou and thine house shall live; but if thou wilt not go forth, then\nshall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall\nburn it, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand.\n\n\"Zedekiah said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that have\ndeserted to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and\nthey mock me.\"\n\nHe does not, however, urge that the princes will hinder any such\nsurrender; he believed himself sufficiently master of his own actions\nto be able to escape to the Chaldeans if he chose.\n\nBut evidently, when he first revolted against Babylon, and more\nrecently when the siege was raised, he had been induced to behave\nharshly towards her partisans: they had taken refuge in considerable\nnumbers in the enemy's camp, and now he was afraid of their vengeance.\nSimilarly, in _Quentin Durward_, Scott represents Louis XI. on his\nvisit to Charles the Bold as startled by the sight of the banners of\nsome of his own vassals, who had taken service with Burgundy, and as\nseeking protection from Charles against the rebel subjects of France.\n\nZedekiah is a perfect monument of the miseries that wait upon weakness:\nhe was everybody's friend in turn--now a docile pupil of Jeremiah and\ngratifying the Chaldean party by his professions of loyalty to\nNebuchadnezzar, and now a pliant tool in the hands of the Egyptian party\npersecuting his former friends. At the last he was afraid alike of the\nprinces in the city, of the exiles in the enemy's camp, and of the\nChaldeans. The mariner who had to pass between Scylla and Charybdis was\nfortunate compared to Zedekiah. To the end he clung with a pathetic\nblending of trust and fearfulness to Jeremiah. He believed him, and yet\nhe seldom had courage to act according to his counsel.\n\nJeremiah made a final effort to induce this timid soul to act with\nfirmness and decision. He tried to reassure him: \"They shall not\ndeliver thee into the hands of thy revolted subjects. Obey, I beseech\nthee, the voice of Jehovah, in that which I speak unto thee: so it\nshall be well with thee, and thy life shall be spared.\" He appealed to\nthat very dread of ridicule which the king had just betrayed. If he\nrefused to surrender, he would be taunted for his weakness and folly\nby the women of his own harem:--\n\n\"If thou refuse to go forth, this is the word that Jehovah hath showed\nme: Behold, all the women left in the palace shall be brought forth to\nthe king of Babylon's princes, and those women shall say, Thy familiar\nfriends have duped thee and got the better of thee; thy feet are sunk in\nthe mire, and they have left thee in the lurch.\" He would be in worse\nplight than that from which Jeremiah had only just been rescued, and\nthere would no Ebed-melech to draw him out. He would be humiliated by\nthe suffering and shame of his own family: \"They shall bring out all thy\nwives and children to the Chaldeans.\" He himself would share with them\nthe last extremity of suffering: \"Thou shalt not escape out of their\nhand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon.\"\n\nAnd as Tennyson makes it the climax of Geraint's degeneracy that he\nwas not only--\n\n \"Forgetful of his glory and his name,\"\n\nbut also--\n\n \"Forgetful of his princedom and its cares,\"\n\nso Jeremiah appeals last of all to the king's sense of responsibility\nfor his people: \"Thou wilt be the cause of the burning of the city.\"\n\nIn spite of the dominance of the Egyptian party, and their desperate\ndetermination, not only to sell their own lives dearly, but also to\ninvolve king and people, city and temple, in their own ruin, the power\nof decisive action still rested with Zedekiah; if he failed to use it,\nhe would be responsible for the consequences.\n\nThus Jeremiah strove to possess the king with some breath of his own\ndauntless spirit and iron will.\n\nZedekiah paused irresolute. A vision of possible deliverance passed\nthrough his mind. His guards and the domestics of the palace were\nwithin call. The princes were unprepared; they would never dream that\nhe was capable of anything so bold. It would be easy to seize the\nnearest gate, and hold it long enough to admit the Chaldeans. But no!\nhe had not nerve enough. Then his predecessors Joash, Amaziah, and\nAmon had been assassinated, and for the moment the daggers of the\nprinces and their followers seemed more terrible than Chaldean\ninstruments of torture. He lost all thought of his own honour and his\nduty to his people in his anxiety to provide against this more\nimmediate danger. Never was the fate of a nation decided by a meaner\nutterance. \"Then said Zedekiah to Jeremiah, No one must know about our\nmeeting, and thou shalt not die. If the princes hear that I have\ntalked with thee, and come and say unto thee, Declare unto us now what\nthou hast said unto the king; hide it not from us, and we will not put\nthee to death: declare unto us what the king said unto thee: then thou\nshalt say unto them, I presented my supplication unto the king, that\nhe would not cause me to return to Jonathan's house, to die there.\n\n\"Then all the princes came to Jeremiah, and asked him; and he told them\njust what the king had commanded. So they let him alone, for no report\nof the matter had got abroad.\" We are a little surprised that the\nprinces so easily abandoned their purpose of putting Jeremiah to death,\nand did not at once consign him afresh to the empty cistern. Probably\nthey were too disheartened for vigorous action; the garrison were\nstarving, and it was clear that the city could not hold out much longer.\nMoreover the superstition that had shrunk from using actual violence to\nthe prophet would suspect a token of Divine displeasure in his release.\n\nAnother question raised by this incident is that of the prophet's\nveracity, which, at first sight, does not seem superior to that of the\npatriarchs. It is very probable that the prophet, as at the earlier\ninterview, had entreated the king not to allow him to be confined in\nthe cells in Jonathan's house, but the narrative rather suggests that\nthe king constructed this pretext on the basis of the former\ninterview. Moreover, if the princes let Jeremiah escape with nothing\nless innocent than a _suppressio veri_, if they were satisfied with\nanything less than an explicit statement that the place of the\nprophet's confinement was the sole topic of conversation, they must\nhave been more guileless that we can easily imagine. But, at any rate,\nif Jeremiah did stoop to dissimulation, it was to protect Zedekiah,\nnot to save himself.\n\nZedekiah is a conspicuous example of the strange irony with which\nProvidence entrusts incapable persons with the decision of most\nmomentous issues; It sets Laud and Charles I. to adjust the Tudor\nMonarchy to the sturdy self-assertion of Puritan England, and Louis\nXVI. to cope with the French Revolution. Such histories are after all\ncalculated to increase the self-respect of those who are weak and\ntimid. Moments come, even to the feeblest, when their action must have\nthe most serious results for all connected with them. It is one of the\ncrowning glories of Christianity that it preaches a strength that is\nmade perfect in weakness.\n\nPerhaps the most significant feature in this narrative is the\nconclusion of Jeremiah's first interview with the king. Almost in the\nsame breath the prophet announces to Zedekiah his approaching ruin and\nbegs from him a favour. He thus defines the true attitude of the\nbeliever towards the prophet.\n\nUnwelcome teaching must not be allowed to interfere with wonted respect\nand deference, or to provoke resentment. Possibly if this truth were\nless obvious men would be more willing to give it a hearing and it might\nbe less persistently ignored. But the prophet's behaviour is even more\nstriking and interesting as a revelation of his own character and of the\ntrue prophetic spirit. His faithful answer to the king involved much\ncourage, but that he should proceed from such an answer to such a\npetition shows a simple and sober dignity not always associated with\ncourage. When men are wrought up to the pitch of uttering disagreeable\ntruths at the risk of their lives, they often develop a spirit of\ndefiance, which causes personal bitterness and animosity between\nthemselves and their hearers, and renders impossible any asking or\ngranting of favours. Many men would have felt that a petition\ncompromised their own dignity and weakened the authority of the divine\nmessage. The exaltation of self-sacrifice which inspired them would have\nsuggested that they ought not to risk the crown of martyrdom by any such\nappeal, but rather welcome torture and death. Thus some amongst the\nearly Christians would present themselves before the Roman tribunals and\ntry to provoke the magistrates into condemning them. But Jeremiah, like\nPolycarp and Cyprian, neither courted nor shunned martyrdom; he was as\nincapable of bravado as he was of fear. He was too intent upon serving\nhis country and glorifying God, too possessed with his mission and his\nmessage, to fall a prey to the self-consciousness which betrays men,\nsometimes even martyrs, into theatrical ostentation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[149] Cf. xxxii. 6-8.\n\n[150] xxxvii. 12; so R.V., Streane (Camb. Bible), Kautzsch, etc.\n\n[151] xxvi. 10.\n\n[152] xxxviii. 1.\n\n[153] Cf. Renan, iii. 333.\n\n[154] Gen. xxxvii. 22-24.\n\n[155] xxxix. 15-18.\n\n[156] So Giesebrecht, _in loco_; A.V., R.V., \"third entry.\" In any\ncase it will naturally be a passage from the palace to the Temple.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n _GEDALIAH_\n\n xxxix.-xli., lii.[157]\n\n \"Then arose Ishmael ben Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with\n him, and smote with the sword and slew Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben\n Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon had made king over the\n land.\"--JER. xli. 2.\n\n\nWe now pass to the concluding period of Jeremiah's ministry. His last\ninterview with Zedekiah was speedily followed by the capture of\nJerusalem. With that catastrophe the curtain falls upon another act in\nthe tragedy of the prophet's life. Most of the chief _dramatis person\u00e6_\nmake their final exit; only Jeremiah and Baruch remain. King and\nprinces, priests and prophets, pass to death or captivity, and new\ncharacters appear to play their part for a while upon the vacant stage.\n\nWe would gladly know how Jeremiah fared on that night when the city\nwas stormed, and Zedekiah and his army stole out in a vain attempt to\nescape beyond Jordan. Our book preserves two brief but inconsistent\nnarratives of his fortunes.\n\nOne is contained in xxxix. 11-14. Nebuchadnezzar, we must remember, was\nnot present in person with the besieging army. His headquarters were at\nRiblah, far away in the north. He had, however, given special\ninstructions concerning Jeremiah to Nebuzaradan, the general commanding\nthe forces before Jerusalem: \"Take him, and look well to him, and do him\nno harm; but do with him even as he shall say unto thee.\"\n\nAccordingly Nebuzaradan and all the king of Babylon's princes sent and\ntook Jeremiah out of the court of the guard, and committed him to\nGedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan, to take him to his house.[158] And\nJeremiah dwelt among the people.\n\nThis account is not only inconsistent with that given in the next\nchapter, but it also represents Nebuzaradan as present when the city\nwas taken, whereas later on[159] we are told that he did not come upon\nthe scene till a month later. For these and similar reasons, this\nversion of the story is generally considered the less trustworthy. It\napparently grew up at a time when the other characters and interests\nof the period had been thrown into the shade by the reverent\nrecollection of Jeremiah and his ministry. It seemed natural to\nsuppose that Nebuchadnezzar was equally preoccupied with the fortunes\nof the great prophet who had consistently preached obedience to his\nauthority. The section records the intense reverence which the Jews of\nthe Captivity felt for Jeremiah. We are more likely, however, to get a\ntrue idea of what happened by following the narrative in chapter xl.\n\nAccording to this account, Jeremiah was not at once singled out for\nany exceptionally favourable treatment. When Zedekiah and the soldiers\nhad left the city, there can have been no question of further\nresistance. The history does not mention any massacre by the\nconquerors, but we may probably accept Lamentations ii. 20, 21, as a\ndescription of the sack of Jerusalem:--\n\n \"Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of\n the Lord?\n The youth and the old man lie on the ground in the streets;\n My virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword:\n Thou hast slain them in the day of Thine anger;\n Thou hast slaughtered, and not pitied.\"\n\nYet the silence of Kings and Jeremiah as to all this, combined with\ntheir express statements as to captives, indicates that the Chaldean\ngenerals did not order a massacre, but rather sought to take\nprisoners. The soldiers would not be restrained from a certain\nslaughter in the heat of their first breaking into the city; but\nprisoners had a market value, and were provided for by the practice of\ndeportation which Babylon had inherited from Nineveh. Accordingly the\nsoldiers' lust for blood was satiated or bridled before they reached\nJeremiah's prison. The court of the guard probably formed part of the\nprecincts of the palace, and the Chaldean commanders would at once\nsecure its occupants for Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah was taken with other\ncaptives and put in chains. If the dates in lii. 6, 12, be correct, he\nmust have remained a prisoner till the arrival of Nebuzaradan, a month\nlater on. He was then a witness of the burning of the city and the\ndestruction of the fortifications, and was carried with the other\ncaptives to Ramah. Here the Chaldean general found leisure to inquire\ninto the deserts of individual prisoners and to decide how they should\nbe treated. He would be aided in this task by the Jewish refugees from\nwhose ridicule Zedekiah had shrunk, and they would at once inform him\nof the distinguished sanctity of the prophet and of the conspicuous\nservices he had rendered to the Chaldean cause.\n\nNebuzaradan at once acted upon their representations. He ordered\nJeremiah's chains to be removed, gave him full liberty to go where he\npleased, and assured him of the favour and protection of the Chaldean\ngovernment:--\n\n\"If it seem good unto thee to come with me into Babylon, come, and I\nwill look well unto thee; but if it seem ill unto thee to come with me\ninto Babylon, forbear: behold, all the land is before thee; go\nwhithersoever it seemeth to thee good and right.\"\n\nThese words are, however, preceded by two remarkable verses. For the\nnonce, the prophet's mantle seems to have fallen upon the Chaldean\nsoldier. He speaks to his auditor just as Jeremiah himself had been\nwont to address his erring fellow-countrymen:--\n\n\"Thy God Jehovah pronounced this evil upon this place: and Jehovah\nhath brought it, and done according as He spake; because ye have\nsinned against Jehovah, and have not obeyed His voice, therefore this\nthing is come unto you.\"\n\nPossibly Nebuzaradan did not include Jeremiah personally in the \"ye\" and\n\"you\"; and yet a prophet's message is often turned upon himself in this\nfashion. Even in our day outsiders will not be at the trouble to\ndistinguish between one Christian and another, and will often denounce a\nman for his supposed share in Church abuses he has strenuously combated.\n\nWe need not be surprised that a heathen noble can talk like a pious Jew.\nThe Chaldeans were eminently religious, and their worship of Bel and\nMerodach may often have been as spiritual and sincere as the homage paid\nby most Jews to Jehovah. The Babylonian creed could recognise that a\nforeign state might have its own legitimate deity and would suffer for\ndisloyalty to him. Assyrian and Chaldean kings were quite willing to\naccept the prophetic doctrine that Jehovah had commissioned them to\npunish this disobedient people. Still Jeremiah must have been a little\ntaken aback when one of the cardinal points of his own teaching was\nexpounded to him by so strange a preacher; but he was too prudent to\nraise any discussion on the matter, and too chivalrous to wish to\nestablish his own rectitude at the expense of his brethren. Moreover he\nhad to decide between the two alternatives offered him by Nebuzaradan.\nShould he go to Babylon or remain in Judah?\n\nAccording to a suggestion of Gratz, accepted by Cheyne,[160] xv. 10-21\nis a record of the inner struggle through which Jeremiah came to a\ndecision on this matter. The section is not very clear, but it\nsuggests that at one time it seemed Jehovah's will that he should go\nto Babylon, and that it was only after much hesitation that he was\nconvinced that God required him to remain in Judah. Powerful motives\ndrew him in either direction. At Babylon he would reap the full\nadvantage of Nebuchadnezzar's favour, and would enjoy the order and\nculture of a great capital. He would meet with old friends and\ndisciples, amongst the rest Ezekiel. He would find an important\nsphere for ministry amongst the large Jewish community in Chaldea,\nwhere the flower of the whole nation was now in exile. In Judah he\nwould have to share the fortunes of a feeble and suffering remnant,\nand would be exposed to all the dangers and disorder consequent on the\nbreak-up of the national government--brigandage on the part of native\nguerilla bands and raids by the neighbouring tribes. These guerilla\nbands were the final effort of Jewish resistance, and would seek to\npunish as traitors those who accepted the dominion of Babylon.\n\nOn the other hand, Jeremiah's surviving enemies, priests, prophets,\nand princes, had been taken _en masse_ to Babylon. On his arrival he\nwould find himself again plunged into the old controversies. Many if\nnot the majority of his countrymen there would regard him as a\ntraitor. The _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ of Nebuchadnezzar was sure to be disliked and\ndistrusted by his less fortunate brethren. And Jeremiah was not a born\ncourtier like Josephus. In Judah, moreover, he would be amongst\nfriends of his own way of thinking; the remnant left behind had been\nplaced under the authority of his friend Gedaliah, the son of his\nformer protector Ahikam, the grandson of his ancient ally Shaphan. He\nwould be free from the anathemas of corrupt priests and the\ncontradiction of false prophets. The advocacy of true religion amongst\nthe exiles might safely be left to Ezekiel and his school.\n\nBut probably the motives that decided Jeremiah's course of action\nwere, firstly, that devoted attachment to the sacred soil which was a\npassion with every earnest Jew; and, secondly, the inspired conviction\nthat Palestine was to be the scene of the future development of\nrevealed religion. This conviction was coupled with the hope that the\nscattered refugees who were rapidly gathering at Mizpah under Gedaliah\nmight lay the foundations of a new community, which should become the\ninstrument of the divine purpose. Jeremiah was no deluded visionary,\nwho would suppose that the destruction of Jerusalem had exhausted\nGod's judgments, and that the millennium would forthwith begin for the\nspecial and exclusive benefit of his surviving companions in Judah.\nNevertheless, while there was an organised Jewish community left on\nnative soil, it would be regarded as the heir of the national\nreligious hopes and aspirations, and a prophet, with liberty of\nchoice, would feel it his duty to remain.\n\nAccordingly Jeremiah decided to join Gedaliah.[161] Nebuzaradan gave\nhim food and a present, and let him go.\n\nGedaliah's headquarters were at Mizpah, a town not certainly\nidentified, but lying somewhere to the north-west of Jerusalem, and\nplaying an important part in the history of Samuel and Saul. Men would\nremember the ancient record which told how the first Hebrew king had\nbeen divinely appointed at Mizpah, and might regard the coincidence as\na happy omen that Gedaliah would found a kingdom more prosperous and\npermanent than that which traced its origin to Saul.\n\nNebuzaradan had left with the new governor \"men, women, and children,\n... of them that were not carried away captive to Babylon.\" These were\nchiefly of the poorer sort, but not altogether, for among them were\n\"royal princesses\" and doubtless others belonging to the ruling classes.\nApparently after these arrangements had been made the Chaldean forces\nwere almost entirely withdrawn, and Gedaliah was left to cope with the\nmany difficulties of the situation by his own unaided resources. For a\ntime all went well. It seemed at first as if the scattered bands of\nJewish soldiers still in the field would submit to the Chaldean\ngovernment and acknowledge Gedaliah's authority. Various captains with\ntheir bands came to him at Mizpah, amongst them Ishmael ben Nethaniah,\nJohanan ben Kareah and his brother Jonathan. Gedaliah swore to them that\nthey should be pardoned and protected by the Chaldeans. He confirmed\nthem in their possession of the towns and districts they had occupied\nafter the departure of the enemy. They accepted his assurance, and their\nalliance with him seemed to guarantee the safety and prosperity of the\nsettlement. Refugees from Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, and all the\nneighbouring countries flocked to Mizpah, and busied themselves in\ngathering in the produce of the oliveyards and vineyards which had been\nleft ownerless when the nobles were slain or carried away captive. Many\nof the poorer Jews revelled in such unwonted plenty, and felt that even\nnational ruin had its compensations.\n\nTradition has supplemented what the sacred record tells us of this\nperiod in Jeremiah's history. We are told[162] that \"it is also found\nin the records that the prophet Jeremiah\" commanded the exiles to take\nwith them fire from the altar of the Temple, and further exhorted them\nto observe the law and to abstain from idolatry; and that \"it was\nalso contained in the same writing, that the prophet, being warned of\nGod, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him, as he went\nforth unto the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage\nof God. And when Jeremiah came thither, he found an hollow cave,\nwherein he laid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense,\nand so stopped the door. And some of those that followed him came to\nmark the way, but they could not find it: which when Jeremiah\nperceived he blamed them, saying, As for that place, it shall be\nunknown until the time that God gather His people again together and\nreceive them to His mercy.\"\n\nA less improbable tradition is that which narrates that Jeremiah\ncomposed the Book of Lamentations shortly after the capture of the\ncity. This is first stated by the Septuagint; it has been adopted by\nthe Vulgate and various Rabbinical authorities, and has received\nconsiderable support from Christian scholars.[163] Moreover as the\ntraveller leaves Jerusalem by the Damascus Gate, he passes great stone\nquarries, where Jeremiah's Grotto is still pointed out as the place\nwhere the prophet composed his elegy.\n\nWithout entering into the general question of the authorship of\nLamentations, we may venture to doubt whether it can be referred to any\nperiod of Jeremiah's life which is dealt with in our book; and even\nwhether it accurately represents his feelings at any such period. During\nthe first month that followed the capture of Jerusalem the Chaldean\ngenerals held the city and its inhabitants at the disposal of their\nking. His decision was uncertain; it was by no means a matter of course\nthat he would destroy the city. Jerusalem had been spared by Pharaoh\nNecho after the defeat of Josiah, and by Nebuchadnezzar after the revolt\nof Jehoiakim. Jeremiah and the other Jews must have been in a state of\nextreme suspense as to their own fate and that of their city, very\ndifferent from the attitude of Lamentations. This suspense was ended\nwhen Nebuzaradan arrived and proceeded to burn the city. Jeremiah\nwitnessed the fulfilment of his own prophecies when Jerusalem was thus\novertaken by the ruin he had so often predicted. As he stood there\nchained amongst the other captives, many of his neighbours must have\nfelt towards him as we should feel towards an anarchist gloating over\nthe spectacle of a successful dynamite explosion; and Jeremiah could not\nbe ignorant of their sentiments. His own emotions would be sufficiently\nvivid, but they would not be so simple as those of the great elegy.\nProbably they were too poignant to be capable of articulate expression;\nand the occasion was not likely to be fertile in acrostics.\n\nDoubtless when the venerable priest and prophet looked from Ramah or\nMizpah towards the blackened ruins of the Temple and the Holy City, he\nwas possessed by something of the spirit of Lamentations. But from the\nmoment when he went to Mizpah he would be busily occupied in assisting\nGedaliah in his gallant effort to gather the nucleus of a new Israel\nout of the flotsam and jetsam of the shipwreck of Judah. Busy with\nthis work of practical beneficence, his unconquerable spirit already\npossessed with visions of a brighter future, Jeremiah could not lose\nhimself in mere regrets for the past.\n\nHe was doomed to experience yet another disappointment. Gedaliah had\nonly held his office for about two months,[164] when he was warned by\nJohanan ben Kareah and the other captains that Ishmael ben Nethaniah\nhad been sent by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, to assassinate him.\nGedaliah refused to believe them. Johanan, perhaps surmising that the\ngovernor's incredulity was assumed, came to him privately and proposed\nto anticipate Ishmael: \"Let me go, I pray thee, and slay Ishmael ben\nNethaniah, and no one shall know it: wherefore should he slay thee,\nthat all the Jews which are gathered unto thee should be scattered,\nand the remnant of Judah perish? But Gedaliah ben Ahikam said unto\nJohanan ben Kareah, Thou shalt not do this thing: for thou speakest\nfalsely of Ishmael.\"\n\nGedaliah's misplaced confidence soon had fatal consequences. In the\nsecond month, about October, the Jews in the ordinary course of events\nwould have celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles, to return thanks for\ntheir plentiful ingathering of grapes, olives, and summer fruit.\nPossibly this occasion gave Ishmael a pretext for visiting Mizpah. He\ncame thither with ten nobles who, like himself, were connected with\nthe royal family and probably were among the princes who persecuted\nJeremiah. This small and distinguished company could not be suspected\nof intending to use violence. Ishmael seemed to be reciprocating\nGedaliah's confidence by putting himself in the governor's power.\nGedaliah feasted his guests. Johanan and the other captains were not\npresent; they had done what they could to save him, but they did not\nwait to share the fate which he was bringing on himself.\n\n\"Then arose Ishmael ben Nethaniah and his ten companions and smote\nGedaliah ben Ahikam ... and all the Jewish and Chaldean soldiers that\nwere with him at Mizpah.\"\n\nProbably the eleven assassins were supported by a larger body of\nfollowers, who waited outside the city and made their way in amidst\nthe confusion consequent on the murder; doubtless, too, they had\nfriends amongst Gedaliah's _entourage_. These accomplices had first\nlulled any suspicions that he might feel as to Ishmael, and had then\nhelped to betray their master.\n\nNot contented with the slaughter which he had already perpetrated,\nIshmael took measures to prevent the news getting abroad, and lay in\nwait for any other adherents of Gedaliah who might come to visit him.\nHe succeeded in entrapping a company of eighty men from Northern\nIsrael: ten were allowed to purchase their lives by revealing hidden\nstores of wheat, barley, oil, and honey; the rest were slain and\nthrown into an ancient pit, \"which King Asa had made for fear of\nBaasha king of Israel.\"\n\nThese men were pilgrims, who came with shaven chins and torn clothes,\n\"and having cut themselves, bringing meal offerings and frankincense\nto the house of Jehovah.\" The pilgrims were doubtless on their way to\ncelebrate the Feast of Tabernacles: with the destruction of Jerusalem\nand the Temple, all the joy of that festival would be changed to\nmourning and its songs to wailing. Possibly they were going to lament\non the site of the ruined temple. But Mizpah itself had an ancient\nsanctuary. Hosea speaks of the priests, princes, and people of Israel\nas having been \"a snare on Mizpah.\" Jeremiah may have sanctioned the\nuse of this local temple thinking that Jehovah would \"set His name\nthere\" till Jerusalem was restored, even as He had dwelt at Shiloh\nbefore He chose the City of David. But to whatever shrine these\npilgrims were journeying, their errand should have made them\nsacrosanct to all Jews. Ishmael's hypocrisy, treachery, and cruelty in\nthis matter go far to justify Jeremiah's bitterest invectives against\nthe princes of Judah.\n\nBut after this bloody deed it was high time for Ishmael to be gone and\nbetake himself back to his heathen patron, Baalis the Ammonite. These\nmassacres could not long be kept a secret. And yet Ishmael seems to\nhave made a final effort to suppress the evidence of his crimes. In\nhis retreat he carried with him all the people left in Mizpah,\n\"soldiers, women, children, and eunuchs,\" including the royal\nprincesses, and apparently Jeremiah and Baruch. No doubt he hoped to\nmake money out of his prisoners by selling them as slaves or holding\nthem to ransom. He had not ventured to slay Jeremiah: the prophet had\nnot been present at the banquet and had thus escaped the first fierce\nslaughter, and Ishmael shrank from killing in cold blood the man whose\npredictions of ruin had been so exactly and awfully fulfilled by the\nrecent destruction of Jerusalem.\n\nWhen Johanan ben Kareah and the other captains heard how entirely\nIshmael had justified their warning, they assembled their forces and\nstarted in pursuit. Ishmael's band seems to have been comparatively\nsmall, and was moreover encumbered by the disproportionate number of\ncaptives with which they had burdened themselves. They were overtaken\n\"by the great waters that are in Gibeon,\" only a very short distance\nfrom Mizpah.\n\nHowever Ishmael's original following of ten may have been reinforced,\nhis band cannot have been very numerous and was manifestly inferior to\nJohanan's forces. In face of an enemy of superior strength, Ishmael's\nonly chance of escape was to leave his prisoners to their own\ndevices--he had not even time for another massacre. The captives at\nonce turned round and made their way to their deliverer. Ishmael's\nfollowers seem to have been scattered, taken captive, or slain, but he\nhimself escaped with eight men--possibly eight of the original\nten--and found refuge with the Ammonites.\n\nJohanan and his companions with the recovered captives made no attempt\nto return to Mizpah. The Chaldeans would exact a severe penalty for the\nmurder of their governor Gedaliah, and their own fellow-countryman:\ntheir vengeance was not likely to be scrupulously discriminating. The\nmassacre would be regarded as an act of rebellion on the part of the\nJewish community in Judah, and the community would be punished\naccordingly. Johanan and his whole company determined that when the day\nof retribution came the Chaldeans should find no one to punish. They set\nout for Egypt, the natural asylum of the enemies of Babylon. On the way\nthey halted in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem at a caravanserai[165]\nwhich bore the name of Chimham,[166] the son of David's generous friend\nBarzillai. So far the fugitives had acted on their first impulse of\ndismay; now they paused to take breath, to make a more deliberate survey\nof their situation, and to mature their plans for the future.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[157] Chapter lii. = 2 Kings xxiv. 18-xxv. 30, and xxxix. 1-10 = lii.\n4-16, in each case with minor variations which do not specially bear\nupon our subject. Cf. Driver, _Introduction, in loco_. The detailed\ntreatment of this section belongs to the exposition of the Book of\nKings.\n\n[158] Literally \"the house\"--either Jeremiah's or Gedaliah's, or\npossibly the royal palace.\n\n[159] lii. 6, 12.\n\n[160] _Pulpit Commentary, in loco._ Cf. the previous volume on\nJeremiah in this series.\n\n[161] The sequence of verses 4 and 5 has been spoilt by some\ncorruption of the text. The versions diverge variously from the\nHebrew. Possibly the original text told how Jeremiah found himself\nunable to give an immediate answer, and Nebuzaradan, observing his\nhesitation, bade him return to Gedaliah and decide at his leisure.\n\n[162] 2 Macc. ii. 1-8.\n\n[163] Cf. Professor Adeney's _Canticles and Lamentations_ in this\nseries.\n\n[164] Cf. lii. 12, \"fifth month,\" and xli. 1, \"seventh month.\" Cheyne\nhowever points out that no year is specified in xli. 1, and holds that\nGedaliah's governorship lasted for over four years, and that the\ndeportation four years (lii. 30) after the destruction of the city was\nthe prompt punishment of his murder.\n\n[165] The reading is doubtful; possibly the word (geruth) translated\n\"caravanserai,\" or some similar word to be read instead of it, merely\nforms a compound proper name with Chimham.\n\n[166] 2 Sam. xix. 31-40.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n _THE DESCENT INTO EGYPT_\n\n xlii., xliii.\n\n \"They came into the land of Egypt, for they obeyed not the voice\n of Jehovah.\"--JER. xliii. 7.\n\n\nThus within a few days Jeremiah had experienced one of those sudden\nand extreme changes of fortune which are as common in his career as in\na sensational novel. Yesterday the guide, philosopher, and friend of\nthe governor of Judah, to-day sees him once more a helpless prisoner\nin the hands of his old enemies. To-morrow he is restored to liberty\nand authority, and appealed to by the remnant of Israel as the\nmouthpiece of Jehovah. Johanan ben Kareah and all the captains of the\nforces, \"from the least even unto the greatest, came near\" and\nbesought Jeremiah to pray unto \"Jehovah thy God,\" \"that Jehovah thy\nGod may show us the way wherein we may walk, and the thing we may do.\"\nJeremiah promised to make intercession and to declare faithfully unto\nthem whatsoever Jehovah should reveal unto him.\n\nAnd they on their part said unto Jeremiah: \"Jehovah be a true and\nfaithful witness against us, if we do not according to every word that\nJehovah thy God shall send unto us by thee. We will obey the voice of\nJehovah our God, to whom we send thee, whether it be good or evil, that\nit may be well with us, when we obey the voice of Jehovah our God.\"\n\nThe prophet returned no hasty answer to this solemn appeal. As in his\ncontroversy with Hananiah, he refrained from at once announcing his\nown judgment as the Divine decision, but waited for the express\nconfirmation of the Spirit. For ten days prophet and people were alike\nkept in suspense. The patience of Johanan and his followers is\nstriking testimony to their sincere reverence for Jeremiah.\n\nOn the tenth day the message came, and Jeremiah called the people\ntogether to hear God's answer to their question, and to learn that\nDivine will to which they had promised unreserved obedience. It ran\nthus:--\n\n \"If you will still abide in this land,\n I will build you and not pull you down,\n I will plant you and not pluck you up.\"\n\nThe words of Jeremiah's original commission seem ever present to his\nmind:--\n\n \"For I repent Me of the evil I have done unto you.\"\n\nThey need not flee from Judah as an accursed land; Jehovah had a new\nand gracious purpose concerning them, and therefore:--\n\n \"Be not afraid of the king of Babylon,\n Of whom ye are afraid;\n Be not afraid of him--it is the utterance of Jehovah--\n For I am with you,\n To save you and deliver you out of his hand.\n I will put kindness in his heart toward you,\n And he shall deal kindly with you,\n And restore you to your lands.\"\n\nIt was premature to conclude that Ishmael's crime finally disposed of\nthe attempt to shape the remnant into the nucleus of a new Israel.\nHitherto Nebuchadnezzar had shown himself willing to discriminate;\nwhen he condemned the princes, he spared and honoured Jeremiah, and\nthe Chaldeans might still be trusted to deal fairly and even\ngenerously with the prophet's friends and deliverers. Moreover the\nheart of Nebuchadnezzar, like that of all earthly potentates, was in\nthe hands of the King of Kings.\n\nBut Jeremiah knew too well what mingled hopes and fears drew his\nhearers towards the fertile valley and rich cities of the Nile. He\nsets before them the reverse of the picture: they might refuse to obey\nGod's command to remain in Judah; they might say, \"No, we will go into\nthe land of Egypt, where we shall see no war, nor hear the sound of\nthe trumpet, nor hunger for bread, and there will we dwell.\" As of\nold, they craved for the flesh-pots of Egypt; and with more excuse\nthan their forefathers. They were worn out with suffering and toil,\nsome of them had wives and children; the childless prophet was\ninviting them to make sacrifices and incur risks which he could\nneither share nor understand. Can we wonder if they fell short of his\ninspired heroism, and hesitated to forego the ease and plenty of Egypt\nin order to try social experiments in Judah?\n\n \"Let what is broken so remain.\n The Gods are hard to reconcile:\n 'Tis hard to settle order once again.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Sore task to hearts worn out by many wars.\"\n\nBut Jeremiah had neither sympathy nor patience with such weakness.\nMoreover, now as often, valour was the better part of discretion, and\nthe boldest course was the safest. The peace and security of Egypt\nhad been broken in upon again and again by Asiatic invaders; only\nrecently it had been tributary to Nineveh, till the failing strength\nof Assyria enabled the Pharaohs to recover their independence. Now\nthat Palestine had ceased to be the seat of war the sound of Chaldean\ntrumpets would soon be heard in the valley of the Nile. By going down\ninto Egypt, they were leaving Judah where they might be safe under the\nbroad shield of Babylonian power, for a country that would soon be\nafflicted by the very evils they sought to escape:--\n\n \"If ye finally determine to go to Egypt to sojourn there,\n The sword, which ye fear, shall overtake you there in the\n land of Egypt,\n The famine, whereof ye are afraid, shall follow hard after\n you there in Egypt,\n And there shall ye die.\"\n\nThe old familiar curses, so often uttered against Jerusalem and its\ninhabitants, are pronounced against any of his hearers who should take\nrefuge in Egypt:--\n\n \"As Mine anger and fury hath been poured forth upon the\n inhabitants of Jerusalem,\n So shall My fury be poured forth upon you, when ye shall\n enter in Egypt.\"\n\nThey would die \"by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence\"; they\nwould be \"an execration and an astonishment, a curse and a reproach.\"\n\nHe had set before them two alternative courses, and the Divine judgment\nupon each: he had known beforehand that, contrary to his own choice and\njudgment, their hearts were set upon going down into Egypt; hence, as\nwhen confronted and contradicted by Hananiah, he had been careful to\nsecure divine confirmation before he gave his decision. Already he\ncould see the faces of his hearers hardening into obstinate resistance\nor kindling into hot defiance; probably they broke out into\ninterruptions which left no doubt as to their purpose. With his usual\npromptness, he turned upon them with fierce reproof and denunciation:--\n\n \"Ye have been traitors to yourselves.\n Ye sent me unto Jehovah your God, saying,\n Pray for us unto Jehovah our God;\n According unto all that Jehovah our God shall say,\n Declare unto us, and we will do it.\n I have this day declared it unto you,\n But ye have in no wise obeyed the voice of Jehovah your God.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Ye shall die by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence,\n In the place whither ye desire to go to sojourn.\"\n\nHis hearers were equally prompt with their rejoinder; Johanan ben\nKareah and \"all the proud men\" answered him:--\n\n\"Thou liest! It is not Jehovah our God who hath sent thee to say, Ye\nshall not go into Egypt to sojourn there; but Baruch ben Neriah\nsetteth thee on against us, to deliver us into the hand of the\nChaldeans, that they may slay us or carry us away captive to Babylon.\"\n\nJeremiah had experienced many strange vicissitudes, but this was not\nthe least striking. Ten days ago the people and their leaders had\napproached him in reverent submission, and had solemnly promised to\naccept and obey his decision as the word of God. Now they called him a\nliar; they asserted that he did not speak by any Divine inspiration,\nbut was a feeble impostor, an oracular puppet, whose strings were\npulled by his own disciple.[167]\n\nSuch scenes are, unfortunately, only too common in Church history.\nReligious professors are still ready to abuse and to impute unworthy\nmotives to prophets whose messages they dislike, in a spirit not less\nsecular than that which is shown when some modern football team tries\nto mob the referee who has given a decision against its hopes.\n\nMoreover we must not unduly emphasise the solemn engagement given by\nthe Jews to abide Jeremiah's decision. They were probably sincere, but\nnot very much in earnest. The proceedings and the strong formul\u00e6 used\nwere largely conventional. Ancient kings and generals regularly sought\nthe approval of their prophets or augurs before taking any important\nstep, but they did not always act upon their advice. The final breach\nbetween Saul and the prophet Samuel seems to have been due to the fact\nthat the king did not wait for his presence and counsel before\nengaging the Philistines.[168] Before the disastrous expedition to\nRamoth Gilead, Jehoshaphat insisted on consulting a prophet of\nJehovah, and then acted in the teeth of his inspired warning.[169]\n\nJohanan and his company felt it essential to consult some divine\noracle; and Jeremiah was not only the greatest prophet of Jehovah, he\nwas also the only prophet available. They must have known from his\nconsistent denunciation of all alliance with Egypt that his views were\nlikely to be at variance with their own. But they were consulting\nJehovah--Jeremiah was only His mouthpiece; hitherto He had set His\nface against any dealings with Egypt, but circumstances were entirely\nchanged, and Jehovah's purpose might change with them, He might\n\"repent.\" They promised to obey, because there was at any rate a\nchance that God's commands would coincide with their own intentions.\nButler's remark that men may be expected to act \"not only upon an even\nchance, but upon much less,\" specially applies to such promises as the\nJews made to Jeremiah. Certain tacit conditions may always be\nconsidered attached to a profession of willingness to be guided by a\nfriend's advice. Our newspapers frequently record breaches of\nengagements that should be as binding as that entered into by Johanan\nand his friends, and they do so without any special comment. For\ninstance, the verdicts of arbitrators in trade disputes have been too\noften ignored by the unsuccessful parties; and--to take a very\ndifferent illustration--the most unlimited professions of faith in the\ninfallibility of the Bible have sometimes gone along with a denial of\nits plain teaching and a disregard of its imperative commands. While\nShylock expected a favourable decision, Portia was \"a Daniel come to\njudgment\": his subsequent opinion of her judicial qualities has not\nbeen recorded. Those who have never refused or evaded unwelcome\ndemands made by an authority whom they have promised to obey may cast\nthe first stone at Johanan.\n\nAfter the scene we have been describing, the refugees set out for Egypt,\ncarrying with them the princesses and Jeremiah and Baruch. They were\nfollowing in the footsteps of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Jeroboam and\nmany another Jew who had sought protection under the shadow of Pharaoh.\nThey were the forerunners of that later Israel in Egypt which, through\nPhilo and his disciples, exercised so powerful an influence on the\ndoctrine, criticism, and exegesis of the early Christian Church.\n\nYet this exodus in the wrong direction was by no means complete. Four\nyears later Nebuzaradan could still find seven hundred and forty-five\nJews to carry away to Babylon.[170] Johanan's movements had been too\nhurried to admit of his gathering in the inhabitants of outlying\ndistricts.\n\nWhen Johanan's company reached the frontier, they would find the\nEgyptian officials prepared to receive them. During the last few months\nthere must have been constant arrivals of Jewish refugees, and rumour\nmust have announced the approach of so large a company, consisting of\nalmost all the Jews left in Palestine. The very circumstances that made\nthem dread the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar would ensure them a hearty\nwelcome in Egypt. Their presence was an unmistakable proof of the entire\nfailure of the attempt to create in Judah a docile and contented\ndependency and outpost of the Chaldean Empire. They were accordingly\nsettled at Tahpanhes and in the surrounding district.\n\nBut no welcome could conciliate Jeremiah's implacable temper, nor could\nall the splendour of Egypt tame his indomitable spirit. Amongst his\nfellow-countrymen at Bethlehem, he had foretold the coming tribulations\nof Egypt. He now renewed his predictions within the very precincts of\nPharaoh's palace, and enforced them by a striking symbol. At\nTahpanhes--the modern Tell Defenneh--which was the ancient Egyptian\nfrontier fortress and settlement on the more westerly route from Syria,\n\"the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah, saying, Take great stones in\nthine hand, and hide them in mortar in the brick pavement, at the entry\nof Pharaoh's palace in Tahpanhes, in the presence of the men of Judah;\nand say unto them, Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel:--\n\n \"Behold, I will send and take My servant Nebuchadnezzar king\n of Babylon:\n I will set his throne upon these stones which I have hid,\n And he shall spread his state pavilion over them.\"\n\nHe would set up his royal tribunal, and decide the fate of the\nconquered city and its inhabitants.\n\n \"He shall come and smite the land of Egypt;\n Such as are for death shall be put to death,\n Such as are for captivity shall be sent into captivity,\n Such as are for the sword shall be slain by the sword.\n I will kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt;\n He shall burn their temples, and carry them away captive:\n He shall array himself with the land of Egypt,\n As a shepherd putteth on his garment.\"\n\nThe whole country would become a mere mantle for his dignity, a\ncomparatively insignificant part of his vast possessions.\n\n \"He shall go forth from thence in peace.\"\n\nA campaign that promised well at the beginning has often ended in\ndespair, like Sennacherib's attack on Judah, and Pharaoh Necho's\nexpedition to Carchemish. The invading army has been exhausted by its\nvictories, or wasted by disease and compelled to beat an inglorious\nretreat. No such misfortunes should overtake the Chaldean king. He\nwould depart with all his spoil, leaving Egypt behind him subdued into\na loyal province of his empire.\n\nThen the prophet adds, apparently as a kind of afterthought:--\n\n \"He also shall break the obelisks of Heliopolis, in the land\n of Egypt.\"\n\n(so styled to distinguish this Beth-Shemesh from Beth-Shemesh in\nPalestine),\n\n \"And shall burn with fire the temples of the gods of Egypt.\"\n\nThe performance of this symbolic act and the delivery of its\naccompanying message are not recorded, but Jeremiah would not fail to\nmake known the divine word to his fellow-countrymen. It is difficult\nto understand how the exiled prophet would be allowed to assemble the\nJews in front of the main entrance of the palace, and hide \"great\nstones\" in the pavement. Possibly the palace was being repaired,[171]\nor the stones might be inserted under the front or side of a raised\nplatform, or possibly the symbolic act was only to be described and\nnot performed. Mr. Flinders Petrie recently discovered at Tell\nDefenneh a large brickwork pavement, with great stones buried\nunderneath, which he supposed might be those mentioned in our\nnarrative. He also found there another possible relic of these Jewish\n_\u00e9migr\u00e9s_ in the shape of the ruins of a large brick building of the\ntwenty-sixth dynasty--to which Pharaoh Hophra belonged--still known as\nthe \"Palace of the Jew's Daughter.\" It is a natural and attractive\nconjecture that this was the residence assigned to the Jewish\nprincesses whom Johanan carried with him into Egypt.\n\nBut while the ruined palace may testify to Pharaoh's generosity to the\nRoyal House that had suffered through its alliance with him, the\n\"great stones\" remind us that, after a brief interval of sympathy and\nco-operation, Jeremiah again found himself in bitter antagonism to his\nfellow-countrymen. In our next chapter we shall describe one final\nscene of mutual recrimination.[172]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[167] Cf. chapter on \"Baruch.\"\n\n[168] 1 Sam. xiii.\n\n[169] 1 Kings xxii.\n\n[170] lii. 30.\n\n[171] So Orelli, _in loco_.\n\n[172] For the prophecy against Egypt and its fulfilment see further\nchapter XVII.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n _THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN_\n\n xliv.\n\n \"Since we left off burning incense and offering libations to the\n Queen of Heaven, we have been in want of everything, and have been\n consumed by the sword and the famine.\"--JER. xliv. 18.\n\n\nThe Jewish exiles in Egypt still retained a semblance of national life,\nand were bound together by old religious ties. Accordingly we read that\nthey came together from their different settlements--from Migdol and\nTahpanhes on the north-eastern frontier, from Noph or Memphis on the\nNile south of the site of Cairo, and from Pathros or Upper Egypt--to a\n\"great assembly,\" no doubt a religious festival. The list of cities\nshows how widely the Jews were scattered throughout Egypt.\n\nNothing is said as to where and when this \"great assembly\" met; but\nfor Jeremiah, such a gathering at all times and anywhere, in Egypt as\nat Jerusalem, became an opportunity for fulfilling his Divine\ncommission. He once again confronted his fellow-countrymen with the\nfamiliar threats and exhortations. A new climate had not created in\nthem either clean hearts or a right spirit.\n\nRecent history had added force to his warnings. He begins therefore by\nappealing to the direful consequences which had come upon the Holy\nLand, through the sins of its inhabitants:--\n\n \"Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem,\n and upon all the cities of Judah.\n Behold, this day they are an uninhabited waste,\n Because of their wickedness which they wrought to provoke Me\n to anger,\n By going to burn incense and to serve other gods whom neither\n they nor their fathers knew.\"\n\nThe Israelites had enjoyed for centuries intimate personal relations\nwith Jehovah, and knew Him by this ancient and close fellowship and by\nall His dealings with them. They had no such knowledge of the gods of\nsurrounding nations. They were like foolish children who prefer the\nenticing blandishments of a stranger to the affection and discipline\nof their home. Such children do not intend to forsake their home or to\nbreak the bonds of filial affection, and yet the new friendship may\nwean their hearts from their father. So these exiles still considered\nthemselves worshippers of Jehovah, and yet their superstition led them\nto disobey and dishonour Him.\n\nBefore its ruin, Judah had sinned against light and leading:--\n\n \"Howbeit I sent unto you all My servants the prophets,\n Rising up early and sending them, saying,\n Oh do not this abominable thing that I hate.\n But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ears, so as to\n turn from their evil,\n That they should not burn incense to other gods.\n Wherefore My fury and My anger was poured forth.\"\n\nPolitical and social questions, the controversies with the prophets\nwho contradicted Jeremiah in the name of Jehovah, have fallen into the\nbackground; the poor pretence of loyalty to Jehovah which permitted\nHis worshippers to degrade Him to the level of Baal and Moloch is\nignored as worthless: and Jeremiah, like Ezekiel, finds the root of\nthe people's sin in their desertion of Jehovah. Their real religion\nwas revealed by their heathenish superstitions. Every religious life\nis woven of many diverse strands; if the web as a whole is rotten, the\nGreat Taskmaster can take no account of a few threads that have a form\nand profession of soundness. Our Lord declared that He would utterly\nignore and repudiate men upon whose lips His name was a too familiar\nword, who had preached and cast out devils and done many mighty works\nin that Holy Name. These were men who had worked iniquity, who had\ncombined promising externals with the worship of \"other gods,\" Mammon\nor Belial or some other of those evil powers, who place\n\n \"Within His sanctuary itself their shrines,\n Abominations; and with cursed things\n His holy rites and solemn feasts profane;\n And with their darkness dare affront His light.\"\n\nThis profane blending of idolatry with a profession of zeal for Jehovah\nhad provoked the divine wrath against Judah: and yet the exiles had not\nprofited by their terrible experience of the consequences of sin; they\nstill burnt incense unto other gods. Therefore Jeremiah remonstrates\nwith them afresh, and sets before their eyes the utter ruin which will\npunish persistent sin. This discourse repeats and enlarges the threats\nuttered at Bethlehem. The penalties then denounced on disobedience are\nnow attributed to idolatry. We have here yet another example of the\ntacit understanding attaching to all the prophet's predictions. The most\npositive declarations of doom are often warnings and not final\nsentences. Jehovah does not turn a deaf ear to the penitent, and the\ndoom is executed not because He exacts the uttermost farthing, but\nbecause the culprit perseveres in his uttermost wrong. Lack of faith and\nloyalty at Bethlehem and idolatry in Egypt were both symptoms of the\nsame deep-rooted disease.\n\nOn this occasion there was no rival prophet to beard Jeremiah and\nrelieve his hearers from their fears and scruples. Probably indeed no\nprofessed prophet of Jehovah would have cared to defend the worship of\nother gods. But, as at Bethlehem, the people themselves ventured to\ndefy their aged mentor. They seem to have been provoked to such\nhardihood by a stimulus which often prompts timorous men to bold\nwords. Their wives were specially devoted to the superstitious burning\nof incense, and these women were present in large numbers. Probably,\nlike Lady Macbeth, they had already in private\n\n \"Poured their spirits in their husbands' ears,\n And chastised, with the valour of their tongues,\n All that impeded\"\n\nthose husbands from speaking their minds to Jeremiah. In their\npresence, the men dared not shirk an obvious duty, for fear of more\ndomestic chastisement. The prophet's reproaches would be less\nintolerable than such inflictions. Moreover the fair devotees did not\nhesitate to mingle their own shrill voices in the wordy strife.\n\nThese idolatrous Jews--male and female--carried things with a very\nhigh hand indeed:--\n\n\"We will not obey thee in that which thou hast spoken unto us in the\nname of Jehovah. We are determined to perform all the vows we have made\nto burn incense and other libations to the Queen of Heaven, exactly as\nwe have said and as we and our fathers and kings and princes did in the\ncities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem.\"[173]\n\nMoreover they were quite prepared to meet Jeremiah on his own ground\nand argue with him according to his own principles and methods. He had\nappealed to the ruin of Judah as a proof of Jehovah's condemnation of\ntheir idolatry and of His power to punish: they argued that these\nmisfortunes were a divine _spret\u00e6 injuria form\u00e6_, the vengeance of the\nQueen of Heaven, whose worship they had neglected. When they duly\nhonoured her,--\n\n\"Then had we plenty of victuals, and were prosperous and saw no evil;\nbut since we left off burning incense and offering libations to the\nQueen of Heaven, we have been in want of everything, and have been\nconsumed by the sword and the famine.\"\n\nMoreover the women had a special plea of their own:--\n\n\"When we burned incense and offered libations to the Queen of Heaven,\ndid we not make cakes to symbolise her and offer libations to her with\nour husbands' permission?\"\n\nA wife's vows were not valid without her husband's sanction, and the\nwomen avail themselves of this principle to shift the responsibility for\ntheir superstition on the men's shoulders. Possibly too the unfortunate\nBenedicts were not displaying sufficient zeal in the good cause, and\nthese words were intended to goad them into greater energy. Doubtless\nthey cannot be entirely exonerated of blame for tolerating their wives'\nsins, probably they were guilty of participation as well as connivance.\nNothing however but the utmost determination and moral courage would\nhave curbed the exuberant religiosity of these devout ladies. The prompt\nsuggestion that, if they have done wrong, their husbands are to blame\nfor letting them have their own way, is an instance of the meanness\nwhich results from the worship of \"other gods.\"\n\nBut these defiant speeches raise a more important question. There is an\nessential difference between regarding a national catastrophe as a\ndivine judgment and the crude superstition to which an eclipse expresses\nthe resentment of an angry god. But both involve the same practical\nuncertainty. The sufferers or the spectators ask what god wrought these\nmarvels and what sins they are intended to punish, and to these\nquestions neither catastrophe nor eclipse gives any certain answer.\n\nDoubtless the altars of the Queen of Heaven had been destroyed by\nJosiah in his crusade against heathen cults; but her outraged majesty\nhad been speedily avenged by the defeat and death of the iconoclast,\nand since then the history of Judah had been one long series of\ndisasters. Jeremiah declared that these were the just retribution\ninflicted by Jehovah because Judah had been disloyal to Him; in the\nreign of Manasseh their sin had reached its climax:--\n\n\"I will cause them to be tossed to and fro among all the nations of\nthe earth, because of Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that\nwhich he did in Jerusalem.\"[174]\n\nHis audience were equally positive that the national ruin was the\nvengeance of the Queen of Heaven. Josiah had destroyed her altars, and\nnow the worshippers of Istar had retaliated by razing the Temple to\nthe ground. A Jew, with the vague impression that Istar was as real as\nJehovah, might find it difficult to decide between these conflicting\ntheories.\n\nTo us, as to Jeremiah, it seems sheer nonsense to speak of the\nvengeance of the Queen of Heaven, not because of what we deduce from\nthe circumstances of the fall of Jerusalem, but because we do not\nbelieve in any such deity. But the fallacy is repeated when, in\nsomewhat similar fashion, Protestants find proof of the superiority of\ntheir faith in the contrast between England and Catholic Spain, while\nRomanists draw the opposite conclusion from a comparison of Holland\nand Belgium. In all such cases the assured truth of the disputant's\ndoctrine, which is set forth as the result of his argument, is in\nreality the premise upon which his reasoning rests. Faith is not\ndeduced from, but dictates an interpretation of history. In an\nindividual the material penalties of sin may arouse a sleeping\nconscience, but they cannot create a moral sense: apart from a moral\nsense the discipline of rewards and punishments would be futile:--\n\n \"Were no inner eye in us to tell,\n Instructed by no inner sense,\n The light of heaven from the dark of hell,\n That light would want its evidence.\"\n\nJeremiah, therefore, is quite consistent in refraining from argument\nand replying to his opponents by reiterating his former statements\nthat sin against Jehovah had ruined Judah and would yet ruin the\nexiles. He spoke on the authority of the \"inner sense,\" itself\ninstructed by Revelation. But, after the manner of the prophets, he\ngave them a sign--Pharaoh Hophra should be delivered into the hand of\nhis enemies as Zedekiah had been. Such an event would indeed be an\nunmistakable sign of imminent calamity to the fugitives who had sought\nthe protection of the Egyptian king against Nebuchadnezzar.[175]\n\nWe have reserved for separate treatment the questions suggested by the\nreferences to the Queen of Heaven.[176] This divine name only occurs\nagain in the Old Testament in vii. 18, and we are startled, at first\nsight, to discover that a cult about which all other historians and\nprophets have been entirely silent is described in these passages as an\nancient and national worship. It is even possible that the \"great\nassembly\" was a festival in her honour. We have again to remind\nourselves that the Old Testament is an account of the progress of\nRevelation and not a History of Israel. Probably the true explanation is\nthat given by Kuenen. The prophets do not, as a rule, speak of the\ndetails of false worship; they use the generic \"Baal\" and the collective\n\"other gods.\" Even in this chapter Jeremiah begins by speaking of \"other\ngods,\" and only uses the term \"Queen of Heaven\" when he quotes the reply\nmade to him by the Jews. Similarly when Ezekiel goes into detail\nconcerning idolatry[177] he mentions cults and ritual[178] which do not\noccur elsewhere in the Old Testament. The prophets were little inclined\nto discriminate between different forms of idolatry, just as the average\nchurchman is quite indifferent to the distinctions of the various\nNonconformist bodies, which are to him simply \"dissenters.\" One might\nread many volumes of Anglican sermons and even some English Church\nHistory without meeting with the term Unitarian.\n\nIt is easy to find modern parallels--Christian and heathen--to the\nname of this goddess. The Virgin Mary is honoured with the title\n_Regina C\u0153li_, and at Mukden, the Sacred City of China, there is a\ntemple to the Queen of Heaven. But it is not easy to identify the\nancient deity who bore this name. The Jews are accused elsewhere of\nworshipping \"the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven,\" and one\nor other of these heavenly bodies--mostly either the moon or the\nplanet Venus--has been supposed to have been the Queen of Heaven.\n\nNeither do the symbolic cakes help us. Such emblems are found in the\nritual of many ancient cults: at Athens cakes called \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and\nshaped like a full-moon were offered to the moon-goddess Artemis; a\nsimilar usage seems to have prevailed in the worship of the Arabian\ngoddess Al-Uzza, whose star was Venus, and also of connection with the\nworship of the sun.[179]\n\nMoreover we do not find the title \"Queen of Heaven\" as an ordinary and\nwell-established name of any neighbouring divinity. \"Queen\" is a\nnatural title for any goddess, and was actually given to many ancient\ndeities. Schrader[180] finds our goddess in the Atar-samain\n(Athar-Astarte) who is mentioned in the Assyrian ascriptions as\nworshipped by a North Arabian tribe of Kedarenes. Possibly too the\nAssyrian Istar is called Queen of Heaven.[181]\n\nIstar, however, is connected with the moon as well as with the planet\nVenus.[182] For the present therefore we must be content to leave the\nmatter an open question,[183] but any day some new discovery may solve\nthe problem. Meanwhile it is interesting to notice how little\nreligious ideas and practices are affected by differences in\nprofession. St. Isaac the Great, of Antioch, who died about A.D. 460,\ntells us that the Christian ladies of Syria--whom he speaks of very\nungallantly as \"fools\"--used to worship the planet Venus from the\nroofs of their houses, in the hope that she would bestow upon them\nsome portion of her own brightness and beauty. His experience\nnaturally led St. Isaac to interpret the Queen of Heaven as the\nluminary which his countrywomen venerated.[184]\n\nThe episode of the \"great assembly\" closes the history of Jeremiah's\nlife. We leave him (as we so often met with him before) hurling\nineffective denunciations at a recalcitrant audience. Vagrant fancy,\nholding this to be a lame and impotent conclusion, has woven romantic\nstories to continue and complete the narrative. There are traditions\nthat he was stoned to death at Tahpanhes, and that his bones were\nremoved to Alexandria by Alexander the Great; that he and Baruch\nreturned to Judea or went to Babylon and died in peace; that he\nreturned to Jerusalem and lived there three hundred years,--and other\nsuch legends. As has been said concerning the Apocryphal Gospels,\nthese narratives serve as a foil to the history they are meant to\nsupplement: they remind us of the sequels of great novels written by\ninferior pens, or of attempts made by clumsy mechanics to convert a\nbust by some inspired sculptor into a full-length statue.\n\nFor this story of Jeremiah's life is not a torso. Sacred biography\nconstantly disappoints our curiosity as to the last days of holy men.\nWe are scarcely ever told how prophets and apostles died. It is\ncurious too that the great exceptions--Elijah in his chariot of fire\nand Elisha dying quietly in his bed--occur before the period of\nwritten prophecy. The deaths of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Peter,\nPaul, and John, are passed over in the Sacred Record, and when we seek\nto follow them beyond its pages, we are taught afresh the unique\nwisdom of inspiration. If we may understand Deuteronomy xxxiv. to\nimply that no eye was permitted to behold Moses in the hour of death,\nwe have in this incident a type of the reticence of Scripture on such\nmatters. Moreover a moment's reflection reminds us that the inspired\nmethod is in accordance with the better instincts of our nature. A\ndeath in opening manhood, or the death of a soldier in battle or of a\nmartyr at the stake, rivets our attention; but when men die in a good\nold age, we dwell less on their declining years than on the\nachievements of their prime. We all remember the martyrdoms of Huss\nand Latimer, but how many of those in whose mouths Calvin and Luther\nare familiar as household words know how those great Reformers died?\n\nThere comes a time when we may apply to the aged saint the words of\nBrowning's _Death in the Desert_:--\n\n \"So is myself withdrawn into my depths,\n The soul retreated from the perished brain\n Whence it was wont to feel and use the world\n Through these dull members, done with long ago.\"\n\nAnd the poet's comparison of this soul to\n\n \"A stick once fire from end to end;\n Now, ashes save the tip that holds a spark.\"\n\nLove craves to watch to the last, because the spark may\n\n \"Run back, spread itself\n A little where the fire was....\n And we would not lose\n The last of what might happen on his face.\"\n\nSuch privileges may be granted to a few chosen disciples, probably\nthey were in this case granted to Baruch; but they are mostly withheld\nfrom the world, lest blind irreverence should see in the aged saint\nnothing but\n\n \"Second childishness, and mere oblivion;\n Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[173] Combined from verses 16, 17, and 25.\n\n[174] xv. 4.\n\n[175] As to the fulfilment of this prophecy see Chap. XVII.\n\n[176] MELEKHETH HASHSHAMAYIM. The Masoretic pointing seems to indicate\na rendering \"service\" or work of heaven, probably in the sense of\n\"host of heaven,\" _i.e._ the stars, \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05ea being written defectively\nfor \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05d0\u05db\u05b6\u05ea, but this translation is now pretty generally abandoned.\nCf. C. J. Ball, Giesebrecht, Orelli, Cheyne, etc., on vii. 18, and\nespecially Kuenen's treatise on the Queen of Heaven--in the\n_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde--to which this section\nis largely indebted.\n\n[177] Ezek. viii.\n\n[178] The worship of Tammuz and of \"creeping things and abominable\nbeasts\" etc.\n\n[179] Kuenen, 208.\n\n[180] Schrader (Whitehouse's translation), ii. 207.\n\n[181] Kuenen, 206.\n\n[182] Sayce, _Higher Criticism_, etc., 80.\n\n[183] So Giesebrecht on vii. 18. Kuenen argues for the identification\nof the Queen of Heaven with the planet Venus.\n\n[184] Kuenen, 211.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II\n\n _PROPHECIES CONCERNING FOREIGN\n NATIONS_\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n _JEHOVAH AND THE NATIONS_\n\n xxv. 15-38.\n\n \"Jehovah hath a controversy with the nations.\"--JER. xxv. 31.\n\n\nAs the son of a king only learns very gradually that his father's\nauthority and activity extend beyond the family and the household, so\nIsrael in its childhood thought of Jehovah as exclusively concerned\nwith itself.\n\nSuch ideas as omnipotence and universal Providence did not exist;\ntherefore they could not be denied; and the limitations of the national\nfaith were not essentially inconsistent with later Revelation. But when\nwe reach the period of recorded prophecy we find that, under the\nguidance of the Holy Spirit, the prophets had begun to recognise\nJehovah's dominion over surrounding peoples. There was, as yet, no\ndeliberate and formal doctrine of omnipotence, but, as Israel became\ninvolved in the fortunes first of one foreign power and then of another,\nthe prophets asserted that the doings of these heathen states were\noverruled by the God of Israel. The idea of Jehovah's Lordship of the\nNations enlarged with the extension of international relations, as our\nconception of the God of Nature has expanded with the successive\ndiscoveries of science. Hence, for the most part, the prophets devote\nspecial attention to the concerns of Gentile peoples. Hosea, Micah,\nHaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are partial exceptions. Some of the minor\nprophets have for their main subject the doom of a heathen empire. Jonah\nand Nahum deal with Nineveh, Habbakuk with Chaldea, and Edom is\nspecially honoured by being almost the sole object of the denunciations\nof Obadiah. Daniel also deals with the fate of the kingdoms of the\nworld, but in the Apocalyptic fashion of the Pseudepigrapha. Jewish\ncriticism rightly declined to recognise this book as prophetic, and\nrelegated it to the latest collection of canonical scriptures.\n\nEach of the other prophetical books contains a longer or shorter\nseries of utterances concerning the neighbours of Israel, its friends\nand foes, its enemies and allies. The fashion was apparently set by\nAmos, who shows God's judgment upon Damascus, the Philistines, Tyre,\nEdom, Ammon, and Moab. This list suggests the range of the prophet's\nreligious interest in the Gentiles. Assyria and Egypt were, for the\npresent, beyond the sphere of Revelation, just as China and India were\nto the average Protestant of the seventeenth century. When we come to\nthe Book of Isaiah, the horizon widens in every direction. Jehovah is\nconcerned with Egypt and Ethiopia, Assyria and Babylon.[185] In very\nshort books like Joel and Zephaniah we could not expect exhaustive\ntreatment of this subject. Yet even these prophets deal with the\nfortunes of the Gentiles: Joel, variously held one of the latest or\none of the earliest of the canonical books, pronounces a divine\njudgment on Tyre and Sidon and the Philistines, on Egypt and Edom; and\nZephaniah, an elder contemporary of Jeremiah, devotes sections to the\nPhilistines, Moab and Ammon, Ethiopia and Assyria.\n\nThe fall of Nineveh revolutionised the international system of the\nEast. The judgment on Asshur was accomplished, and her name disappears\nfrom these catalogues of doom. In other particulars Jeremiah, as well\nas Ezekiel, follows closely in the footsteps of his predecessors. He\ndeals, like them, with the group of Syrian and Palestinian\nstates--Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Damascus.[186] He dwells\nwith repeated emphasis on Egypt, and Arabia is represented by Kedar\nand Hazor. In one section the prophet travels into what must have\nseemed to his contemporaries the very far East, as far as Elam. On the\nother hand, he is comparatively silent about Tyre, in which Joel,\nAmos, the Book of Isaiah,[187] and above all Ezekiel display a lively\ninterest. Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns were directed against Tyre as\nmuch as against Jerusalem; and Ezekiel, living in Chaldea, would have\nattention forcibly directed to the Ph\u0153nician capital, at a time when\nJeremiah was absorbed in the fortunes of Zion.\n\nBut in the passage which we have chosen as the subject for this\nintroduction to the prophecies of the nations, Jeremiah takes a\nsomewhat wider range:--\n\n \"Thus saith unto me Jehovah, the God of Israel:\n Take at My hand this cup of the wine of fury,\n And make all the nations, to whom I send thee, drink it.\n They shall drink, and reel to and fro, and be mad,\n Because of the sword that I will send among them.\"\n\nFirst and foremost of these nations, pre-eminent in punishment as in\nprivilege, stand \"Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with its kings\nand princes.\"\n\nThis bad eminence is a necessary application of the principle laid\ndown by Amos[188]:--\n\n \"You only have I known of all the families of the earth:\n Therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities.\"\n\nBut as Jeremiah says later on, addressing the Gentile nations,--\n\n \"I begin to work evil at the city which is called by My name.\n Should ye go scot-free? Ye shall not go scot-free.\"\n\nAnd the prophet puts the cup of God's fury to their lips also, and\namongst them, Egypt, the _b\u00eate noir_ of Hebrew seers, is most\nconspicuously marked out for destruction: \"Pharaoh king of Egypt, and\nhis servants and princes and all his people, and all the mixed\npopulation of Egypt.\"[189] Then follows, in epic fashion, a catalogue of\n\"all the nations\" as Jeremiah knew them: \"All the kings of the land of\nUz, all the kings of the land of the Philistines; Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron,\nand the remnant of Ashdod;[190] Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites; all the\nkings[191] of Tyre, all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of their\ncolonies[192] beyond the sea; Dedan and Tema and Buz, and all that have\nthe corners of their hair polled;[193] and all the kings of Arabia, and\nall the kings of the mixed populations that dwell in the desert; all the\nkings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes.\"\nJeremiah's definite geographical information is apparently exhausted,\nbut he adds by way of summary and conclusion: \"And all the kings of the\nnorth, far and near, one after the other; and all the kingdoms of the\nworld, which are on the face of the earth.\"\n\nThere is one notable omission in the list. Nebuchadnezzar, the servant\nof Jehovah,[194] was the divinely appointed scourge of Judah and its\nneighbours and allies. Elsewhere[195] the nations are exhorted to\nsubmit to him, and here apparently Chaldea is exempted from the\ngeneral doom, just as Ezekiel passes no formal sentence on Babylon. It\nis true that \"all the kingdoms of the earth\" would naturally include\nBabylon, possibly were even intended to do so. But the Jews were not\nlong content with so veiled a reference to their conquerors and\noppressors. Some patriotic scribe added the explanatory note, \"And the\nking of Sheshach (_i.e._ Babylon) shall drink after them.\"[196]\nSheshach is obtained from Babel by the cypher 'Athbash, according to\nwhich an alphabet is written out and a reversed alphabet written out\nunderneath it, and the letters of the lower row used for those of the\nupper and _vice vers\u00e2_. Thus\n\n Aleph B K L\n T SH L K\n\nThe use of cypher seems to indicate that the note was added in\nChaldea during the Exile, when it was not safe to circulate documents\nwhich openly denounced Babylon. Jeremiah's enumeration of the peoples\nand rulers of his world is naturally more detailed and more exhaustive\nthan the list of the nations against which he prophesied. It includes\nthe Ph\u0153nician states, details the Philistine cities, associates with\nElam the neighbouring nations of Zimri and the Medes, and substitutes\nfor Kedar and Hazor Arabia and a number of semi-Arab states, Uz,\nDedan, Tema, and Buz.[197] Thus Jeremiah's world is the district\nconstantly shown in Scripture atlases in a map comprising the scenes\nof Old Testament history, Egypt, Arabia, and Western Asia, south of a\nline from the north-east corner of the Mediterranean to the southern\nend of the Caspian Sea, and west of a line from the latter point to\nthe northern end of the Persian Gulf. How much of history has been\ncrowded into this narrow area! Here science, art, and literature won\nthose primitive triumphs which no subsequent achievements could\nsurpass or even equal. Here, perhaps for the first time, men tasted\nthe Dead Sea apples of civilisation, and learnt how little accumulated\nwealth and national splendour can do for the welfare of the masses.\nHere was Eden, where God walked in the cool of the day to commune with\nman; and here also were many Mount Moriahs, where man gave his\nfirstborn for his transgression, the fruit of his body for the sin of\nhis soul, and no angel voice stayed his hand.\n\nAnd now glance at any modern map and see for how little Jeremiah's\nworld counts among the great Powers of the nineteenth century. Egypt\nindeed is a bone of contention between European states, but how often\ndoes a daily paper remind its readers of the existence of Syria or\nMesopotamia? We may apply to this ancient world the title that Byron\ngave to Rome, \"Lone mother of dead empires,\" and call it:--\n\n \"The desert, where we steer\n Stumbling o'er recollections.\"\n\nIt is said that Scipio's exultation over the fall of Carthage was\nmarred by forebodings that Time had a like destiny in store for Rome.\nWhere Cromwell might have quoted a text from the Bible, the Roman\nsoldier applied to his native city the Homeric lines:--\n\n \"Troy shall sink in fire,\n And Priam's city with himself expire.\"\n\nThe epitaphs of ancient civilisations are no mere matters of\narch\u00e6ology; like the inscriptions on common graves, they carry a\n_Memento mori_ for their successors.\n\nBut to return from epitaphs to prophecy: in the list which we have just\ngiven, the kings of many of the nations are required to drink the cup of\nwrath, and the section concludes with a universal judgment upon the\nprinces and rulers of this ancient world under the familiar figure of\nshepherds, supplemented here by another, that of the \"principal of the\nflock,\" or, as we should say, \"bell-wethers.\" Jehovah would break out\nupon them to rend and scatter like a lion from his covert. Therefore:--\n\n \"Howl, ye shepherds, and cry!\n Roll yourselves in the dust, ye bell-wethers!\n The time has fully come for you to be slaughtered.\n I will cast you down with a crash, like a vase of\n porcelain.[198]\n Ruin hath overtaken the refuge of the shepherds,\n And the way of escape of the bell-wethers.\"\n\nThus Jeremiah announces the coming ruin of an ancient world, with all\nits states and sovereigns, and we have seen that the prediction has\nbeen amply fulfilled. We can only notice two other points with regard\nto this section.\n\nFirst, then, we have no right to accuse the prophet of speaking from a\nnarrow national standpoint. His words are not the expression of the\nJewish _adversus omnes alios hostile odium_;[199] if they were, we\nshould not hear so much of Judah's sin and Judah's punishment. He\napplied to heathen states as he did to his own the divine standard of\nnational righteousness, and they too were found wanting. All history\nconfirms Jeremiah's judgment. This brings us to our second point.\nChristian thinkers have been engrossed in the evidential aspect of\nthese national catastrophes. They served to fulfil prophecy, and\ntherefore the squalor of Egypt and the ruins of Assyria to-day have\nseemed to make our way of salvation more safe and certain. But God did\nnot merely sacrifice these holocausts of men and nations to the\nperennial craving of feeble faith for signs. Their fate must of\nnecessity illustrate His justice and wisdom and love. Jeremiah tells\nus plainly that Judah and its neighbours had filled up the measure of\ntheir iniquity before they were called upon to drink the cup of wrath;\nnational sin justifies God's judgments. Yet these very facts of the\nmoral failure and decadence of human societies perplex and startle us.\nIndividuals grow old and feeble and die, but saints and heroes do not\nbecome slaves of vice and sin in their last days. The glory of their\nprime is not buried in a dishonoured grave. Nay rather, when all else\nfails, the beauty of holiness grows more pure and radiant. But of what\nnation could we say:--\n\n \"Let me die the death of the righteous,\n Let my last end be like his\"?\n\nApparently the collective conscience is a plant of very slow growth;\nand hitherto no society has been worthy to endure honourably or even\nto perish nobly. In Christendom itself the ideals of common action are\nstill avowedly meaner than those of individual conduct. International\nand collective morality is still in its infancy, and as a matter of\nhabit and system modern states are often wantonly cruel and unjust\ntowards obscure individuals and helpless minorities. Yet surely it\nshall not always be so; the daily prayer of countless millions for the\ncoming of the Kingdom of God cannot remain unanswered.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[185] Doubts however have been raised as to whether any of the\nsections about Babylon are by Isaiah himself.\n\n[186] Doubts have been expressed as to the genuineness of the Damascus\nprophecy.\n\n[187] The Isaianic authorship of this prophecy (Isa. xxiii.) is\nrejected by very many critics.\n\n[188] Amos iii. 2.\n\n[189] So Giesebrecht, Orelli, etc.\n\n[190] Psammetichus had recently taken Ashdod, after a continuous siege\nof twenty-nine years.\n\n[191] The plural may refer to dependent chiefs or may be used for the\nsake of symmetry.\n\n[192] Lit. \"the coasts\" (_i.e._ islands and coastland) where the\nPh\u0153nicians had planted their colonies.\n\n[193] See on xlix. 28-32.\n\n[194] xxv. 9.\n\n[195] xxvii. 8.\n\n[196] Sheshach (Sheshakh) for Babel also occurs in li. 41. This\nexplanatory note is omitted by LXX.\n\n[197] As to Damascus cf. note on p. 213.\n\n[198] This line is somewhat paraphrased. Lit. \"I will shatter you, and\nye shall fall like an ornamental vessel\" (KELI HEMDA).\n\n[199] Tacitus, _History_, v. 5.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n _EGYPT_\n\n xliii. 8-13, xliv. 30, xlvi.\n\n \"I will visit Amon of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods\n and their kings; even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in\n him.\"--JER. xlvi. 25.\n\n\nThe kings of Egypt with whom Jeremiah was contemporary--Psammetichus\nII., Pharaoh Necho, and Pharaoh Hophra--belonged to the twenty-sixth\ndynasty. When growing distress at home compelled Assyria to loose her\nhold on her distant dependencies, Egypt still retained something of\nher former vigorous elasticity. In the rebound from subjection under\nthe heavy hand of Sennacherib, she resumed her ancient forms of life\nand government. She regained her unity and independence, and posed\nafresh as an equal rival with Chaldea for the supremacy of Western\nAsia. At home there was a renascence of art and literature, and, as of\nold, the wealth and devotion of powerful monarchs restored the ancient\ntemples and erected new shrines of their own.\n\nBut this revival was no new growth springing up with a fresh and\noriginal life from the seeds of the past; it cannot rank with the\nEuropean Renascence of the fifteenth century. It is rather to be\ncompared with the reorganisations by which Diocletian and Constantine\nprolonged the decline of the Roman Empire, the rally of a strong\nconstitution in the grip of mortal disease. These latter-day Pharaohs\nfailed ignominiously in their attempts to recover the Syrian dominion of\nthe Thothmes and Rameses; and, like the Roman Empire in its last\ncenturies, the Egypt of the twenty-sixth dynasty surrendered itself to\nGreek influence and hired foreign mercenaries to fight its battles. The\nnew art and literature were tainted by pedantic archaism. According to\nBrugsch,[200] \"Even to the newly created dignities and titles, the\nreturn to ancient times had become the general watchword.... The stone\ndoor-posts of this age reveal the old Memphian style of art, mirrored in\nits modern reflection after the lapse of four thousand years.\" Similarly\nMeyer[201] tells us that apparently the Egyptian state was reconstituted\non the basis of a religious revival, somewhat in the fashion of the\nestablishment of Deuteronomy by Josiah.\n\nInscriptions after the time of Psammetichus are written in archaic\nEgyptian of a very ancient past; it is often difficult to determine at\nfirst sight whether inscriptions belong to the earliest or latest\nperiod of Egyptian history.\n\nThe superstition that sought safety in an exact reproduction of a remote\nantiquity could not, however, resist the fascination of Eastern\ndemonology. According to Brugsch,[202] in the age called the Egyptian\nRenascence the old Egyptian theology was adulterated with Gr\u00e6co-Asiatic\nelements--demons and genii of whom the older faith and its purer\ndoctrine had scarcely an idea; exorcisms became a special science, and\nare favourite themes for the inscriptions of this period. Thus, amid\nmany differences, there are also to be found striking resemblances\nbetween the religious movements of the period in Egypt and amongst the\nJews, and corresponding difficulties in determining the dates of\nEgyptian inscriptions and of sections of the Old Testament.\n\nThis enthusiasm for ancient custom and tradition was not likely to\ncommend the Egypt of Jeremiah's age to any student of Hebrew history. He\nwould be reminded that the dealings of the Pharaohs with Israel had\nalmost always been to its hurt; he would remember the Oppression and the\nExodus--how, in the time of Solomon, friendly intercourse with Egypt\ntaught that monarch lessons in magnificent tyranny, how Shishak\nplundered the Temple, how Isaiah had denounced the Egyptian alliance as\na continual snare to Judah. A Jewish prophet would be prompt to discern\nthe omens of coming ruin in the midst of renewed prosperity on the Nile.\n\nAccordingly at the first great crisis of the new international system,\nin the fourth year of Jehoiakim, either just before or just after the\nbattle of Carchemish--it matters little which--Jeremiah takes up his\nprophecy against Egypt. First of all, with an ostensible friendliness\nwhich only masks his bitter sarcasm, he invites the Egyptians to take\nthe field:--\n\n \"Prepare buckler and shield, and draw near to battle.\n Harness the horses to the chariots, mount the chargers, stand\n forth armed cap-\u00e0-pie for battle;\n Furbish the spears, put on the coats of mail.\"\n\nThis great host with its splendid equipment must surely conquer. The\nprophet professes to await its triumphant return; but he sees instead\na breathless mob of panic-stricken fugitives, and pours upon them the\ntorrent of his irony:--\n\n \"How is it that I behold this? These heroes are dismayed and\n have turned their backs;\n Their warriors have been beaten down;\n They flee apace, and do not look behind them:\n Terror on every side--is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nThen irony passes into explicit malediction:--\n\n \"Let not the swift flee away, nor the warrior escape;\n Away northward, they stumble and fall by the river\n Euphrates.\"\n\nThen, in a new strophe, Jeremiah again recurs in imagination to the\nproud march of the countless hosts of Egypt:--\n\n \"Who is this that riseth up like the Nile,\n Whose waters toss themselves like the rivers?\n Egypt riseth up like the Nile,\n His waters toss themselves like the rivers.\n And he saith, I will go up and cover the land\"\n\n(like the Nile in flood);\n\n \"I will destroy the cities and their inhabitants\"\n\n(and, above all other cities, Babylon).\n\nAgain the prophet urges them on with ironical encouragement:--\n\n \"Go up, ye horses; rage, ye chariots;\n Ethiopians and Libyans that handle the shield,\n Lydians that handle and bend the bow\"\n\n(the tributaries and mercenaries of Egypt).\n\nThen, as before, he speaks plainly of coming disaster:\n\n \"That day is a day of vengeance for the Lord Jehovah Sabaoth,\n whereon He will avenge Him of His adversaries\"\n\n(a day of vengeance upon Pharaoh Necho for Megiddo and Josiah).\n\n \"The sword shall devour and be sated, and drink its fill of\n their blood:\n For the Lord Jehovah Sabaoth hath a sacrifice in the northern\n land, by the river Euphrates.\"\n\nIn a final strophe, the prophet turns to the land left bereaved and\ndefenceless by the defeat at Carchemish:--\n\n \"Go up to Gilead and get thee balm, O virgin daughter of\n Egypt:\n In vain dost thou multiply medicines; thou canst not be\n healed.\n The nations have heard of thy shame, the earth is full of thy\n cry:\n For warrior stumbles against warrior; they fall both\n together.\"\n\nNevertheless the end was not yet. Egypt was wounded to death, but she\nwas to linger on for many a long year to be a snare to Judah and to\nvex the righteous soul of Jeremiah. The reed was broken, but it still\nretained an appearance of soundness, which more than once tempted the\nJewish princes to lean upon it and find their hands pierced for their\npains. Hence, as we have seen already, Jeremiah repeatedly found\noccasion to reiterate the doom of Egypt, of Necho's successor, Pharaoh\nHophra, and of the Jewish refugees who had sought safety under his\nprotection. In the concluding part of chapter xlvi., a prophecy of\nuncertain date sets forth the ruin of Egypt with rather more literary\nfinish than in the parallel passages.\n\nThis word of Jehovah was to be proclaimed in Egypt, and especially in\nthe frontier cities, which would have to bear the first brunt of\ninvasion:--\n\n \"Declare in Egypt, proclaim in Migdol, proclaim in Noph and\n Tahpanhes:\n Say ye, Take thy stand and be ready, for the sword hath\n devoured round about thee.\n Why hath Apis[203] fled and thy calf not stood? Because\n Jehovah overthrew it.\"\n\nMemphis was devoted to the worship of Apis, incarnate in the sacred\nbull; but now Apis must succumb to the mightier divinity of Jehovah,\nand his sacred city become a prey to the invaders.\n\n \"He maketh many to stumble; they fall one against another.\n Then they say, Arise, and let us return to our own people and\n to our native land, before the oppressing sword.\"\n\nWe must remember that the Egyptian armies were largely composed of\nforeign mercenaries. In the hour of disaster and defeat these\nhirelings would desert their employers and go home.\n\n \"Give unto Pharaoh king of Egypt the name[204] Crash; he hath\n let the appointed time pass by.\"\n\nThe form of this enigmatic sentence is probably due to a play upon\nEgyptian names and titles. When the allusions are forgotten, such\nparonomasia naturally results in hopeless obscurity. The \"appointed\ntime\" has been explained as the period during which Jehovah gave\nPharaoh the opportunity of repentance, or as that within which he\nmight have submitted to Nebuchadnezzar on favourable terms.\n\n \"As I live, is the utterance of the King, whose name is\n Jehovah Sabaoth,\n One shall come like Tabor among the mountains and like Carmel\n by the sea.\"\n\nIt was not necessary to name this terrible invader; it could be no\nother than Nebuchadnezzar.\n\n \"Get thee gear for captivity, O daughter of Egypt, that\n dwellest in thine own land:\n For Noph shall become a desolation, and shall be burnt up and\n left without inhabitants.\n Egypt is a very fair heifer, but destruction is come upon her\n from the north.\"\n\nThis tempest shattered the Greek phalanx in which Pharaoh trusted:--\n\n \"Even her mercenaries in the midst of her are like calves of\n the stall;\n Even they have turned and fled together, they have not stood:\n For their day of calamity hath come upon them, their day of\n reckoning.\"\n\nWe do not look for chronological sequence in such a poem, so that this\npicture of the flight and destruction of the mercenaries is not\nnecessarily later in time than their overthrow and contemplated\ndesertion in verse 15. The prophet is depicting a scene of bewildered\nconfusion; the disasters that fell thick upon Egypt crowd into his\nvision without order or even coherence. Now he turns again to Egypt\nherself:--\n\n \"Her voice goeth forth like the (low hissing of) the serpent;\n For they come upon her with a mighty army, and with axes like\n woodcutters.\"\n\nA like fate is predicted in Isaiah xxix. 4 for \"Ariel, the city where\nDavid dwelt\":--\n\n \"Thou shalt be brought low and speak from the ground;\n Thou shalt speak with a low voice out of the dust;\n Thy voice shall come from the ground, like that of a familiar\n spirit,\n And thou shalt speak in a whisper from the dust.\"\n\nThus too Egypt would seek to writhe herself from under the heel of the\ninvader; hissing out the while her impotent fury, she would seek to\nglide away into some safe refuge amongst the underwood. Her\ndominions, stretching far up the Nile, were surely vast enough to\nafford her shelter somewhere; but no! the \"woodcutters\" are too many\nand too mighty for her:--\n\n \"They cut down her forest--it is the utterance of Jehovah--for\n it is impenetrable;\n For they are more than the locusts, and are innumerable.\"\n\nThe whole of Egypt is overrun and subjugated; no district holds out\nagainst the invader, and remains unsubjugated to form the nucleus of a\nnew and independent empire.\n\n \"The daughter of Egypt is put to shame; she is delivered into\n the hand of the northern people.\"\n\nHer gods share her fate; Apis had succumbed at Memphis, but Egypt had\ncountless other stately shrines whose denizens must own the\novermastering might of Jehovah:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel:\n Behold, I will visit Amon of No,\n And Pharaoh, and Egypt, and all her gods and kings,\n Even Pharaoh and all who trust in him.\"\n\nAmon of No, or Thebes, known to the Greeks as Ammon and called by his\nown worshippers Amen, or \"the hidden one,\" is apparently mentioned\nwith Apis as sharing the primacy of the Egyptian divine hierarchy. On\nthe fall of the twentieth dynasty, the high priest of the Theban Amen\nbecame king of Egypt, and centuries afterwards Alexander the Great\nmade a special pilgrimage to the temple in the oasis of Ammon and was\nmuch gratified at being there hailed son of the deity.\n\nProbably the prophecy originally ended with this general threat of\n\"visitation\" of Egypt and its human and divine rulers. An editor,\nhowever, has added,[205] from parallel passages, the more definite\nbut sufficiently obvious statement that Nebuchadnezzar and his\nservants were to be the instruments of the Divine visitation.\n\nA further addition is in striking contrast to the sweeping statements\nof Jeremiah:--\n\n \"Afterward it shall be inhabited, as in the days of old.\"\n\nSimilarly, Ezekiel foretold a restoration for Egypt:--\n\n\"At the end of forty years, I will gather the Egyptians, and will\ncause them to return ... to their native land; and they shall be there\na base kingdom: it shall be the basest of the kingdoms.\"[206]\n\nAnd elsewhere we read yet more gracious promises to Egypt:--\n\n\"Israel shall be a third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the\nmidst of the land: whom Jehovah Sabaoth shall bless, saying, Blessed\nbe Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine\ninheritance.\"[207]\n\nProbably few would claim to discover in history any literal fulfilment\nof this last prophecy. Perhaps it might have been appropriated for the\nChristian Church in the days of Clement and Origen. We may take Egypt\nand Assyria as types of heathendom, which shall one day receive the\nblessings of the Lord's people and of the work of His hands. Of\npolitical revivals and restorations Egypt has had her share. But less\ninterest attaches to these general prophecies than to more definite\nand detailed predictions; and there is much curiosity as to any\nevidence which monuments and other profane witnesses may furnish as to\na conquest of Egypt and capture of Pharaoh Hophra by Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nAccording to Herodotus,[208] Apries (Hophra) was defeated and\nimprisoned by his successor Amasis, afterwards delivered up by him to\nthe people of Egypt, who forthwith strangled their former king. This\nevent would be an exact fulfilment of the words, \"I will give Pharaoh\nHophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of\nthem that seek his life,\"[209] if it were not evident from parallel\npassages[210] that the Book of Jeremiah intends Nebuchadnezzar to be the\nenemy into whose hands Pharaoh is to be delivered. But Herodotus is\nentirely silent as to the relations of Egypt and Babylon during this\nperiod; for instance, he mentions the victory of Pharaoh Necho at\nMegiddo--which he miscalls Magdolium--but not his defeat at Carchemish.\nHence his silence as to Chaldean conquests in Egypt has little weight.\nEven the historian's explicit statement as to the death of Apries might\nbe reconciled with his defeat and capture by Nebuchadnezzar, if we knew\nall the facts. At present, however, the inscriptions do little to fill\nthe gap left by the Greek historian; there are, however, references\nwhich seem to establish two invasions of Egypt by the Chaldean king, one\nof which fell in the reign of Pharaoh Hophra. But the spiritual lessons\nof this and the following prophecies concerning the nations are not\ndependent on the spade of the excavator or the skill of the decipherers\nof hieroglyphics and cuneiform script; whatever their relation may be to\nthe details of subsequent historical events, they remain as monuments of\nthe inspired insight of the prophet into the character and destiny alike\nof great empires and petty states. They assert the Divine government of\nthe nations, and the subordination of all history to the coming of the\nKingdom of God.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[200] Second edition, ii. 291, 292.\n\n[201] Meyer, _Geschichte des alten \u00c4gypten_, 371, 373.\n\n[202] ii. 293.\n\n[203] Giesebrecht, with LXX.\n\n[204] Giesebrecht, Orelli, Kautzsch, with LXX., Syr., and Vulg., by an\nalteration of the pointing.\n\n[205] LXX. omits verse 26. Verses 27, 28 = xxx. 10, 11, and probably\nare an insertion here.\n\n[206] Ezek. xxix. 13-15.\n\n[207] Isa. xix. 25.\n\n[208] Herodotus, II. clxix.\n\n[209] xliv. 30.\n\n[210] xlvi. 25.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n _THE PHILISTINES_\n\n xlvii.\n\n \"O sword of Jehovah, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up\n thyself into thy scabbard; rest, and be still.\"--JER. xlvii. 6.\n\n\nAccording to the title placed at the head of this prophecy, it was\nuttered \"before Pharaoh smote Gaza.\" The Pharaoh is evidently Pharaoh\nNecho, and this capture of Gaza was one of the incidents of the\ncampaign which opened with the victory at Megiddo and concluded so\ndisastrously at Carchemish. Our first impulse is to look for some\nconnection between this incident and the contents of the prophecy:\npossibly the editor who prefixed the heading may have understood by\nthe northern enemy Pharaoh Necho on his return from Carchemish; but\nwould Jeremiah have described a defeated army thus?\n\n \"Behold, waters rise out of the north, and become an\n overflowing torrent;\n They overflow the land, and all that is therein, the city and\n its inhabitants.\n Men cry out, and all the inhabitants of the land howl,\n At the sound of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions,\n At the rattling of his chariots and the rumbling of his\n wheels.\"\n\nHere as elsewhere the enemy from the north is Nebuchadnezzar. Pharaohs\nmight come and go, winning victories and taking cities, but these\nbroken reeds count for little; not they, but the king of Babylon is\nthe instrument of Jehovah's supreme purpose. The utter terror caused\nby the Chaldean advance is expressed by a striking figure:--\n\n \"The fathers look not back to their children for slackness of\n hands.\"\n\nTheir very bodies are possessed and crippled with fear, their palsied\nmuscles cannot respond to the impulses of natural affection; they can\ndo nothing but hurry on in headlong flight, unable to look round or\nstretch out a helping hand to their children:--\n\n \"Because of the day that cometh for the spoiling of all the\n Philistines,\n For cutting off every ally that remaineth unto Tyre and\n Zidon:\n For Jehovah spoileth the Philistines, the remnant of the\n coast of Caphtor.[211]\n Baldness cometh upon Gaza; Ashkelon is destroyed:\n O remnant of the Anakim,[212] how long wilt thou cut\n thyself?\"\n\nThis list is remarkable both for what it includes and what it omits.\nIn order to understand the reference to Tyre and Zidon, we must\nremember that Nebuchadnezzar's expedition was partly directed against\nthese cities, with which the Philistines had evidently been allied.\nThe Chaldean king would hasten the submission of the Ph\u0153nicians, by\ncutting off all hope of succour from without. There are various\npossible reasons why out of the five Philistine cities only\ntwo--Ashkelon and Gaza--are mentioned; Ekron, Gath, and Ashdod may\nhave been reduced to comparative insignificance. Ashdod had recently\nbeen taken by Psammetichus after a twenty-nine years' siege. Or the\nnames of two of these cities may be given by way of paronomasia in the\ntext: Ashdod may be suggested by the double reference to the\n_spoiling_ and the _spoiler_, _Shdod_ and _Shoded_; Gath may be hinted\nat by the word used for the mutilation practised by mourners,\n_Tithgoddadi_, and by the mention of the Anakim, who are connected\nwith Gath, Ashdod, and Gaza in Joshua xi. 22.\n\nAs Jeremiah contemplates this fresh array of victims of Chaldean\ncruelty, he is moved to protest against the weary monotony of ruin:--\n\n \"O sword of Jehovah, how long will it be ere thou be quiet?\n Put up thyself into thy scabbard; rest, and be still.\"\n\nThe prophet ceases to be the mouthpiece of God, and breaks out into\nthe cry of human anguish. How often since, amid the barbarian inroads\nthat overwhelmed the Roman Empire, amid the prolonged horrors of the\nThirty Years' War, amid the carnage of the French Revolution, men have\nuttered a like appeal to an unanswering and relentless Providence!\nIndeed, not in war only, but even in peace, the tide of human misery\nand sin often seems to flow, century after century, with undiminished\nvolume, and ever and again a vain \"How long\" is wrung from pallid and\ndespairing lips. For the Divine purpose may not be hindered, and the\nsword of Jehovah must still strike home.\n\n \"How can it be quiet, seeing that Jehovah hath given it a\n charge?\n Against Ashkelon and against the sea-shore, there hath He\n appointed it.\"\n\nYet Ashkelon survived to be a stronghold of the Crusaders, and Gaza to\nbe captured by Alexander and even by Napoleon. Jehovah has other\ninstruments besides His devastating sword; the victorious endurance\nand recuperative vitality of men and nations also come from Him.\n\n \"Come, and let us return unto Jehovah:\n For He hath torn, and He will heal us;\n He hath smitten, and He will bind us up.\"[213]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[211] Referring to their ancient immigration from Caphtor, probably\nCrete.\n\n[212] Kautzsch, Giesebrecht, with LXX., reading 'Nqm for the Masoretic\n'Mqm; Eng. Vers., \"their valley.\"\n\n[213] Hosea vi. 1.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n _MOAB_\n\n xlviii.\n\n \"Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath\n magnified himself against Jehovah.\"--JER. xlviii. 42.\n\n \"Chemosh said to me, Go, take Nebo against Israel ... and I took\n it ... and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them\n before Chemosh.\"--MOABITE STONE.\n\n \"Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter\n days.\"--JER. xlviii. 47.\n\n\nThe prophets show a very keen interest in Moab. With the exception of\nthe very short Book of Joel, all the prophets who deal in detail with\nforeign nations devote sections to Moab. The unusual length of such\nsections in Isaiah and Jeremiah is not the only resemblance between the\nutterances of these two prophets concerning Moab. There are many\nparallels[214] of idea and expression, which probably indicate the\ninfluence of the elder prophet upon his successor; unless indeed both of\nthem adapted some popular poem which was early current in Judah.[215]\n\nIt is easy to understand why the Jewish Scriptures should have much\nto say about Moab, just as the sole surviving fragment of Moabite\nliterature is chiefly occupied with Israel. These two Terahite\ntribes--the children of Jacob and the children of Lot--had dwelt side\nby side for centuries, like the Scotch and English borderers before\nthe accession of James I. They had experienced many alternations of\nenmity and friendship, and had shared complex interests, common and\nconflicting, after the manner of neighbours who are also kinsmen. Each\nin its turn had oppressed the other; and Moab had been the tributary\nof the Israelite monarchy till the victorious arms of Mesha had\nachieved independence for his people and firmly established their\ndominion over the debatable frontier lands. There are traces, too, of\nmore kindly relations: the House of David reckoned Ruth the Moabitess\namongst its ancestors, and Jesse, like Elimelech and Naomi, had taken\nrefuge in Moab.\n\nAccordingly this prophecy concerning Moab, in both its editions,\nfrequently strikes a note of sympathetic lamentation and almost\nbecomes a dirge.\n\n \"Therefore will I howl for Moab;\n Yea, for all Moab will I cry out.\n For the men of Kir-heres shall they mourn.\n With more than the weeping of Jazer\n Will I weep for thee, O vine of Sibmah.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Therefore mine heart soundeth like pipes for Moab,\n Mine heart soundeth like pipes for the men of Kir-heres.\"\n\nBut this pity could not avail to avert the doom of Moab; it only\nenabled the Jewish prophet to fully appreciate its terrors. The\npicture of coming ruin is drawn with the colouring and outlines\nfamiliar to us in the utterances of Jeremiah--spoiling and\ndestruction, fire and sword and captivity, dismay and wild\nabandonment of wailing.\n\n \"Chemosh shall go forth into captivity, his priests and his\n princes together.\n Every head is bald, and every beard clipped;\n Upon all the hands are cuttings, and upon the loins\n sackcloth.\n On all the housetops and in all the streets of Moab there is\n everywhere lamentation;\n For I have broken Moab like a useless vessel--it is the\n utterance of Jehovah.\n How is it broken down! Howl ye! Be thou ashamed!\n How hath Moab turned the back!\n All the neighbours shall laugh and shudder at Moab.\n\n * * * * *\n\n The heart of the mighty men of Moab at that day\n Shall be like the heart of a woman in her pangs.\"\n\nThis section of Jeremiah illustrates the dramatic versatility of the\nprophet's method. He identifies himself now with the blood-thirsty\ninvader, now with his wretched victims, and now with the\nterror-stricken spectators; and sets forth the emotions of each in\nturn with vivid realism. Hence at one moment we have the pathos and\npity of such verses as we have just quoted, and at another such stern\nand savage words as these:--\n\n \"Cursed be he that doeth the work of Jehovah negligently,\n Cursed be he that stinteth his sword of blood.\"\n\nThese lines might have served as a motto for Cromwell at the massacre\nof Drogheda, for Tilly's army at the sack of Magdeburg, or for Danton\nand Robespierre during the Reign of Terror. Jeremiah's words were the\nmore terrible because they were uttered with the full consciousness\nthat in the dread Chaldean king[216] a servant of Jehovah was at hand\nwho would be careful not to incur any curse for stinting his sword of\nblood. We shrink from what seems to us the prophet's brutal assertion\nthat relentless and indiscriminate slaughter is sometimes the service\nwhich man is called upon to render to God. Such sentiment is for the\nmost part worthless and unreal; it does not save us from epidemics of\nwar fever, and is at once ignored under the stress of horrors like the\nIndian Mutiny. There is no true comfort in trying to persuade\nourselves that the most awful events of history lie outside of the\nDivine purpose, or in forgetting that the human scourges of their kind\ndo the work that God has assigned to them.\n\nIn this inventory, as it were, of the ruin of Moab our attention is\narrested by the constant and detailed references to the cities. This\nfeature is partly borrowed from Isaiah. Ezekiel too speaks of the\nMoabite cities which are the glory of the country;[217] but Jeremiah's\nprophecy is a veritable Domesday Book of Moab. With his epic fondness\nfor lists of sonorous names--after the manner of Homer's catalogue of\nthe ships--he enumerates Nebo, Kiriathaim, Heshbon, and Horonaim, city\nafter city, till he completes a tale of no fewer than twenty-six,[218]\nand then summarises the rest as \"all the cities of the land of Moab,\nfar and near.\" Eight of these cities are mentioned in Joshua[219] as\npart of the inheritance of Reuben and Gad. Another, Bozrah, is usually\nspoken of as a city of Edom.[220]\n\nThe Moabite Stone explains the occurrence of Reubenite cities in\nthese lists. It tells us how Mesha took Nebo, Jahaz, and Horonaim from\nIsrael. Possibly in this period of conquest Bozrah became tributary to\nMoab, without ceasing to be an Edomite city. This extension of\nterritory and multiplication of towns points to an era of power and\nprosperity, of which there are other indications in this chapter. \"We\nare mighty and valiant for war,\" said the Moabites. When Moab fell\n\"there was broken a mighty sceptre and a glorious staff.\" Other verses\nimply the fertility of the land and the abundance of its vintage.\n\nMoab in fact had profited by the misfortunes of its more powerful and\nambitious neighbours. The pressure of Damascus, Assyria, and Chaldea\nprevented Israel and Judah from maintaining their dominion over their\nancient tributary. Moab lay less directly in the track of the\ninvaders; it was too insignificant to attract their special attention,\nperhaps too prudent to provoke a contest with the lords of the East.\nHence, while Judah was declining, Moab had enlarged her borders and\ngrown in wealth and power.\n\nAnd even as Jeshurun kicked, when he was waxen fat,[221] so Moab in\nits prosperity was puffed up with unholy pride. Even in Isaiah's time\nthis was the besetting sin of Moab; he says in an indictment which\nJeremiah repeats almost word for word:--\n\n \"We have heard of the pride of Moab, that he is very proud,\n Even of his arrogancy and his pride and his wrath.\"[222]\n\nThis verse is a striking example of the Hebrew method of gaining\nemphasis by accumulating derivatives of the same and similar roots.\nThe verse in Jeremiah runs thus: \"We have heard of the pride (Ge'ON)\nof Moab, that he is very proud (GE'EH); his loftiness (GABHeHO), and\nhis pride (Ge'ONO), and his proudfulness (GA'aWATHO).\"\n\nJeremiah dwells upon this theme:--\n\n \"Moab shall be destroyed from being a people,\n Because he hath magnified himself against Jehovah.\"\n\nZephaniah bears like testimony[223]:--\n\n \"This shall they have for their pride,\n Because they have been insolent, and have magnified\n themselves\n Against the people of Jehovah Sabaoth.\"\n\nHere again the Moabite Stone bears abundant testimony to the justice\nof the prophet's accusations; for there Mesha tells how in the name\nand by the grace of Chemosh he conquered the cities of Israel; and\nhow, anticipating Belshazzar's sacrilege, he took the sacred vessels\nof Jehovah from His temple at Nebo and consecrated them to Chemosh.\nTruly Moab had \"magnified himself against Jehovah.\"\n\nProsperity had produced other baleful effects beside a haughty spirit,\nand pride was not the only cause of the ruin of Moab. Jeremiah applies\nto nations the dictum of Polonius--\n\n \"Home-keeping youths have ever homely wits,\"\n\nand apparently suggests that ruin and captivity were necessary\nelements in the national discipline of Moab:--\n\n \"Moab hath been undisturbed from his youth;\n He hath settled on his lees;\n He hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel;\n He hath not gone into captivity:\n Therefore his taste remaineth in him,\n His scent is not changed.\n\n Wherefore, behold, the days come--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah--\n That I will send men unto him that shall tilt him up;\n They shall empty his vessels and break his[224] bottles.\"\n\nAs the chapter, in its present form, concludes with a note--\n\n \"I will bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter\n days--it is the utterance of Jehovah\"--\n\nwe gather that even this rough handling was disciplinary; at any rate,\nthe former lack of such vicissitudes had been to the serious detriment\nof Moab. It is strange that Jeremiah did not apply this principle to\nJudah. For, indeed, the religion of Israel and of mankind owes an\nincalculable debt to the captivity of Judah, a debt which later writers\nare not slow to recognise. \"Behold,\" says the prophet of the Exile,--\n\n \"I have refined thee, but not as silver;\n I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.\"[225]\n\nHistory constantly illustrates how when Christians were undisturbed\nand prosperous the wine of truth settled on the lees and came to taste\nof the cask; and--to change the figure--how affliction and persecution\nproved most effectual tonics for a debilitated Church. Continental\ncritics of modern England speak severely of the ill-effects which our\nprolonged freedom from invasion and civil war, and the unbroken\ncontinuity of our social life have had on our national character and\nmanners. In their eyes England is a perfect Moab, concerning which\nthey are ever ready to prophesy after the manner of Jeremiah. The\nHebrew Chronicler blamed Josiah because he would not listen to the\nadvice and criticism of Pharaoh Necho. There may be warnings which we\nshould do well to heed, even in the acrimony of foreign journalists.\n\nBut any such suggestion raises wider and more difficult issues; for\nordinary individuals and nations the discipline of calamity seems\nnecessary. What degree of moral development exempts from such\ndiscipline, and how may it be attained? Christians cannot seek to\ncompound for such discipline by self-inflicted loss or pain, like\nPolycrates casting away his ring or Browning's Caliban, who in his\nhour of terror,\n\n \"Lo! 'Lieth flat and loveth Setebos!\n 'Maketh his teeth meet through his upper lip,\n Will let those quails fly, will not eat this month\n One little mess of whelks, so he may 'scape.\"\n\nBut though it is easy to counsel resignation and the recognition of a\nwise loving Providence in national as in personal suffering, yet\nmankind longs for an end to the period of pupilage and chastisement\nand would fain know how it may be hastened.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[214] _E.g._ xlviii. 5, \"For by the ascent of Luhith with continual\nweeping shall they go up; for in going down of Horonaim they have\nheard the distress of the cry of destruction,\" is almost identical\nwith Isa. xv. 5. Cf. also xlviii. 29-34 with Isa. xv. 4, xvi. 6-11.\n\n[215] Verse 47 with the subscription, \"Thus far is the judgment of\nMoab,\" is wanting in the LXX.\n\n[216] The exact date of the prophecy is uncertain, but it must have\nbeen written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.\n\n[217] Ezek. xxv. 9.\n\n[218] Some of the names, however, may be variants.\n\n[219] Josh. xiii. 15-28 (possibly on JE. basis).\n\n[220] xlix. 13, possibly this is not the Edomite Bozrah.\n\n[221] Deut. xxxii. 15.\n\n[222] Isa. xvi. 6.\n\n[223] ii. 10.\n\n[224] Kautzsch, Giesebrecht, with LXX.; A.V., R.V., with Hebrew Text,\n\"their bottles.\"\n\n[225] Isa. xlviii. 10.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n _AMMON_\n\n xlix. 1-6.\n\n \"Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth Moloch\n possess Gad, and his people dwell in the cities thereof?\"--JER.\n xlix. 1\n\n\nThe relations of Israel with Ammon were similar but less intimate than\nthey were with his twin-brother Moab. Hence this prophecy is, _mutatis\nmutandis_, an abridgment of that concerning Moab. As Moab was charged\nwith magnifying himself against Jehovah, and was found to be occupying\ncities which Reuben claimed as its inheritance, so Ammon had presumed\nto take possession of the Gadite cities, whose inhabitants had been\ncarried away captive by the Assyrians. Here again the prophet\nenumerates Heshbon, Ai, Rabbah, and the dependent towns, \"the\ndaughters of Rabbah.\" Only in the territory of this half-nomadic\npeople the cities are naturally not so numerous as in Moab; and\nJeremiah mentions also the fertile valleys wherein the Ammonites\ngloried. The familiar doom of ruin and captivity is pronounced against\ncity and country and all the treasures of Ammon; Moloch,[226] like\nChemosh, must go into captivity with his priests and princes. This\nprophecy also concludes with a promise of restoration:--\n\n \"Afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of\n Ammon--it is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[226] xlix. 3: A.V., \"their king\"; R.V., \"Malcam,\" which here and in\nverse 1 is a form of Moloch.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n _EDOM_\n\n xlix. 7-22.\n\n \"Bozrah shall become an astonishment, a reproach, a waste, and a\n curse.\"--JER. xlix. 13.\n\n\nThe prophecy concerning Edom is not formulated along the same line as\nthose which deal with the twin children of Lot, Moab and Ammon. Edom was\nnot merely the cousin, but the brother of Israel. His history, his\ncharacter and conduct, had marked peculiarities, which received special\ntreatment. Edom had not only intimate relations with Israel as a whole,\nbut was also bound by exceptionally close ties to the Southern Kingdom.\nThe Edomite clan Kenaz had been incorporated in the tribe of Judah;[227]\nand when Israel broke up into two states, Edom was the one tributary\nwhich was retained or reconquered by the House of David, and continued\nsubject to Judah till the reign of Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat.[228]\n\nMuch virtuous indignation is often expressed at the wickedness of\nIrishmen in contemplating rebellion against the dominion of England: we\ncannot therefore be surprised that the Jews resented the successful\nrevolt of Edom, and regarded the hostility of Mount Seir to its former\nmasters as ingratitude and treachery. In moments of hot indignation\nagainst the manifold sins of Judah Jeremiah might have announced with\ngreat vehemence that Judah should be made a \"reproach and a proverb\";\nbut when, as Obadiah tells us, the Edomites stood gazing with eager\ncuriosity on the destruction of Jerusalem, and rejoiced and exulted in\nthe distress of the Jews, and even laid hands on their substance in the\nday of their calamity, and occupied the roads to catch fugitives and\ndeliver them up to the Chaldeans,[229] then the patriotic fervour of the\nprophet broke out against Edom. Like Moab and Ammon, he was puffed up\nwith pride, and deluded by baseless confidence into a false security.\nThese hardy mountaineers trusted in their reckless courage and in the\nstrength of their inaccessible mountain fastnesses.\n\n \"Men shall shudder at thy fate,[230] the pride of thy heart\n hath deceived thee,\n O thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest\n the height of the hill:\n Though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the\n eagle,[231]\n I will bring thee down from thence--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah.\"\n\nPliny speaks of the Edomite capital as \"oppidum circumdatum montibus\ninaccessis,\"[232] and doubtless the children of Esau had often watched\nfrom their eyrie Assyrian and Chaldean armies on the march to plunder\nmore defenceless victims, and trusted that their strength, their good\nfortune, and their ancient and proverbial wisdom would still hold them\nscatheless. Their neighbours--the Jews amongst the rest--might be\nplundered, massacred, and carried away captive, but Edom could look on\nin careless security, and find its account in the calamities of\nkindred tribes. If Jerusalem was shattered by the Chaldean tempest,\nthe Edomites would play the part of wreckers. But all this shrewdness\nwas mere folly: how could these Solons of Mount Seir prove so unworthy\nof their reputation?\n\n \"Is wisdom no more in Teman?\n Has counsel perished from the prudent?\n Has their wisdom vanished?\"\n\nThey thought that Jehovah would punish Jacob whom He loved, and yet\nspare Esau whom He hated. But:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah:\n Behold, they to whom it pertained not to drink of the cup\n shall assuredly drink.\n Art thou he that shall go altogether unpunished?\n Thou shalt not go unpunished, but thou shalt assuredly drink\"\n (12).\n\nAy, and drink to the dregs:--\n\n \"If grape-gatherers come to thee, would they not leave\n gleanings?\n If thieves came by night, they would only destroy till they\n had enough.\n But I have made Esau bare, I have stripped him stark naked;\n he shall not be able to hide himself.\n His children, and his brethren, and his neighbours are given\n up to plunder, and there is an end of him\" (9, 10).\n \"I have sworn by Myself--is the utterance of Jehovah--\n That Bozrah shall become an astonishment, a reproach, a\n desolation, and a curse;\n All her cities shall become perpetual wastes.\n I have heard tidings from Jehovah, and an ambassador is sent\n among the nations, saying,\n Gather yourselves together and come against her, arise to\n battle\" (13, 14).\n\nThere was obviously but one leader who could lead the nations to achieve\nthe overthrow of Edom and lead her little ones away captive, who could\ncome up like a lion from the thickets of Jordan, or \"flying like an\neagle and spreading his wings against Bozrah\" (22)--Nebuchadnezzar, king\nof Babylon, who had come up against Judah with all the kingdoms and\npeoples of his dominions.[233]\n\nIn this picture of chastisement and calamity, there is one apparent\ntouch of pitifulness:--\n\n \"Leave thine orphans, I will preserve their lives;\n Let thy widows put their trust in Me\" (11).\n\nAt first sight, at any rate, these seem to be the words of Jehovah.\nAll the adult males of Edom would perish, yet the helpless widows and\norphans would not be without a protector. The God of Israel would\nwatch over the lambs of Edom,[234] when they were dragged away into\ncaptivity. We are reluctant to surrender this beautiful and touching\ndescription of a God, who, though He may visit the iniquity of the\nfathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, yet\neven in such judgment ever remembers mercy. It is impossible, however,\nto ignore the fact that such ideas are widely different from the tone\nand sentiment of the rest of the section. These words may be an\nimmediate sequel to the previous verse, \"No Edomite survives to say to\nhis dying brethren, Leave thine orphans to me,\" or possibly they may\nbe quoted, in bitter irony, from some message from Edom to Jerusalem,\ninviting the Jews to send their wives and children for safety to Mount\nSeir. Edom, ungrateful and treacherous Edom, shall utterly\nperish--Edom that offered an asylum to Jewish refugees, and yet shared\nthe plunder of Jerusalem and betrayed her fugitives to the Chaldeans.\n\nThere is no word of restoration. Moab and Ammon and Elam might revive\nand flourish again, but for Esau, as of old, there should be no place of\nrepentance. For Edom, in the days of the Captivity, trespassed upon the\ninheritance of Israel more grievously than Ammon and Moab upon Reuben\nand Gad. The Edomites possessed themselves of the rich pastures of the\nsouth of Judah, and the land was thenceforth called Idumea. Thus they\nearned the undying hatred of the Jews, in whose mouths Edom became a\ncurse and a reproach, a term of opprobrium. Like Babylon, Edom was used\nas a secret name for Rome, and later on for the Christian Church.\n\nNevertheless, even in this prophecy, there is a hint that these\npredictions of utter ruin must not be taken too literally:--\n\n \"For, behold, I will make thee small among the nations,\n Despised among men\" (15).\n\nThese words are scarcely consistent with the other verses, which imply\nthat, as a people, Edom would utterly perish from off the face of the\nearth. As a matter of fact, Edom flourished in her new territory till\nthe time of the Maccabees, and when the Messiah came to establish the\nKingdom of God, instead of \"saviours standing on Mount Zion to judge\nthe Mount of Esau,\"[235] an Edomite dynasty was reigning in Jerusalem.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[227] Cf. the designation of Caleb \"ben Jephunneh the Kenizzite,\" Num.\nxxxii. 12, etc., with the genealogies which trace the descent of Kenaz\nto Esau, Gen. xxxvi. 11, etc. Cf. also _Expositor's Bible, Chronicles_.\n\n[228] Cf. 1 Kings xxii. 47 with 2 Kings viii. 20.\n\n[229] Obadiah 11-15. The difference between A.V. and R.V. is more\napparent than real. The prohibition which R.V. gives must have been\nbased on experience. The short prophecy of Obadiah has very much in\ncommon with this section of Jeremiah: Obad. 1-6, 8, are almost\nidentical with Jer. xlix. 14-16, 9, 10_a_, 7. The relation of the two\npassages is a matter of controversy, but probably both use a common\noriginal. Cf. Driver's _Introduction_ on Obadiah.\n\n[230] Lit. \"thy terror,\" _i.e._ the terror inspired by thy fate. A.V.,\nR.V., \"thy terribleness,\" suggests that Edom trusted in the terror\nfelt for him by his enemies, but we can scarcely suppose that even the\nfiercest highlanders expected Nebuchadnezzar to be terrified at them.\n\n[231] Obad. 4: \"Though thou set thy nest among the stars.\"\n\n[232] _Hist. Nat._, vi. 28. Orelli.\n\n[233] xxxiv. 1.\n\n[234] Verse 20.\n\n[235] Obadiah 21.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n _DAMASCUS_\n\n xlix. 23-27.\n\n \"I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall devour\n the palaces of Benhadad.\"--JER. xlix. 27.\n\n\nWe are a little surprised to meet with a prophecy of Jeremiah\nconcerning Damascus and the palaces of Benhadad. The names carry our\nminds back for more than a couple of centuries. During Elisha's\nministry, Damascus and Samaria were engaged in their long, fierce duel\nfor the supremacy over Syria and Palestine. In the reign of Ahaz these\nancient rivals combined to attack Judah, so that Isaiah is keenly\ninterested in Damascus and its fortunes. But about B.C. 745, about a\nhundred and fifty years before Jeremiah's time, the Assyrian king\nTiglath-Pileser[236] overthrew the Syrian kingdom and carried its\npeople into captivity. We know from Ezekiel,[237] what we might have\nsurmised from the position and later history of Damascus, that this\nancient city continued a wealthy commercial centre; but Ezekiel has no\noracle concerning Damascus, and the other documents of the period and\nof later times do not mention the capital of Benhadad. Its name does\nnot even occur in Jeremiah's exhaustive list of the countries of his\nworld in xxv. 15-26. Religious interest in alien races depended on\ntheir political relations with Israel; when the latter ceased, the\nprophets had no word from Jehovah concerning foreign nations. Such\nconsiderations have suggested doubts as to the authenticity of this\nsection, and it has been supposed that it may be a late echo of\nIsaiah's utterances concerning Damascus.\n\nWe know, however, too little of the history of the period to warrant\nsuch a conclusion. Damascus would continue to exist as a tributary\nstate, and might furnish auxiliary forces to the enemies of Judah or\njoin with her to conspire against Babylon, and would in either case\nattract Jeremiah's attention. Moreover, in ancient as in modern times,\ncommerce played its part in international politics. Doubtless slaves\nwere part of the merchandise of Damascus, just as they were among the\nwares of the Apocalyptic Babylon. Joel[238] denounces Tyre and Zidon\nfor selling Jews to the Greeks, and the Damascenes may have served as\nslave-agents to Nebuchadnezzar and his captains, and thus provoked the\nresentment of patriot Jews. So many picturesque and romantic\nassociations cluster around Damascus, that this section of Jeremiah\nalmost strikes a jarring note. We love to think of this fairest of\nOriental cities, \"half as old as time,\" as the \"Eye of the East\" which\nMohammed refused to enter--because \"Man,\" he said, \"can have but one\nparadise, and my paradise is fixed above\"--and as the capital of\nNoureddin and his still more famous successor Saladin. And so we\nregret that, when it emerges from the obscurity of centuries into the\nlight of Biblical narrative, the brief reference should suggest a\ndisaster such as it endured in later days at the hands of the\ntreacherous and ruthless Tamerlane.\n\n \"Damascus hath grown feeble:\n She turneth herself to flee;\n Trembling hath seized on her.\n\n * * * * *\n\n How is the city of praise forsaken,[239]\n The city of joy!\n Her young men shall fall in the streets,\n All the warriors shall be put to silence in that day.\"\n\nWe are moved to sympathy with the feelings of Hamath and Arpad, when\nthey heard the evil tidings, and were filled with sorrow, \"like the\nsea that cannot rest.\"\n\nYet even here this most uncompromising of prophets may teach us, after\nhis fashion, wholesome though perhaps unwelcome truths. We are reminded\nhow often the mystic glamour of romance has served to veil cruelty and\ncorruption, and how little picturesque scenery and interesting\nassociations can do of themselves to promote a noble life. Feudal\ncastles, with their massive grandeur, were the strongholds of avarice\nand cruelty; and ancient abbeys which, even in decay, are like a dream\nof fairyland, were sometimes the home of abominable corruption.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[236] 2 Kings xvi. 9.\n\n[237] Ezek. xxvii. 18.\n\n[238] Joel iii. 4.\n\n[239] So Giesebrecht, with most of the ancient versions. A.V., R.V.,\nwith Masoretic Text, \"not forsaken ... my joy,\" possibly meaning, \"Why\ndid not the inhabitants forsake the doomed city?\"\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n _KEDAR AND HAZOR_\n\n xlix. 28-33.\n\n \"Concerning Kedar, and the kingdoms of Hazor which Nebuchadnezzar\n king of Babylon smote.\"--JER. xlix. 28.\n\n\nFrom an immemorial seat of human culture, an \"eternal city\" which\nantedates Rome by centuries, if not millenniums, we turn to those Arab\ntribes whose national life and habits were as ancient and have been as\npersistent as the streets of Damascus. While Damascus has almost\nalways been in the forefront of history, the Arab tribes--except in\nthe time of Mohammed and the early Caliphs--have seldom played a more\nimportant part than that of frontier marauders. Hence, apart from a\nfew casual references, the only other passage in the Old Testament\nwhich deals, at any length, with Kedar is the parallel prophecy of\nIsaiah. And yet Kedar was the great northern tribe, which ranged the\ndeserts between Palestine and the Euphrates, and which must have had\ncloser relations with Judah than most Arab peoples.\n\n\"The kingdoms of Hazor\" are still more unknown to history. There were\nseveral \"Hazors\" in Palestine, besides sundry towns whose names are\nalso derived from _H\u0101\u00e7\u0113r_, a village; and some of these are on or\nbeyond the southern frontier of Judah, in the wilderness of the\nExodus, where we might expect to find nomad Arabs. But even these\nlatter cities can scarcely be the \"Hazor\" of Jeremiah, and the more\nnorthern are quite out of the question. It is generally supposed that\nHazor here is either some Arabian town, or, more probably, a\ncollective term for the district inhabited by Arabs, who lived not in\ntents, but in _H\u0101\u00e7\u0113r\u00eem_, or villages. This district would be in Arabia\nitself, and more distant from Palestine than the deserts over which\nKedar roamed. Possibly Isaiah's \"villages (_H\u0101\u00e7\u0113r\u00eem_) that Kedar doth\ninhabit\" were to be found in the Hazor of Jeremiah, and the same\npeople were called Kedar and Hazor respectively according as they\nlived a nomad life or settled in more permanent dwellings.\n\nThe great warlike enterprises of Egypt, Assyria, and Chaldea during\nthe last centuries of the Jewish monarchy would bring these desert\nhorsemen into special prominence. They could either further or hinder\nthe advance of armies marching westward from Mesopotamia, and could\ncommand their lines of communication. Kedar, and possibly Hazor too,\nwould not be slack to use the opportunities of plunder presented by\nthe calamities of the Palestinian states. Hence their conspicuous\nposition in the pages of Isaiah and Jeremiah.\n\nAs the Assyrians, when their power was at its height, had chastised\nthe aggressions of the Arabs, so now Nebuchadnezzar \"smote Kedar and\nthe kingdoms of Hazor.\" Even the wandering nomads and dwellers by\ndistant oases in trackless deserts could not escape the sweeping\nactivity of this scourge of God. Doubtless the ravages of Chaldean\narmies might serve to punish many sins besides the wrongs they were\nsent to revenge. The Bedouin always had their virtues, but the wild\nliberty of the desert easily degenerated into unbridled licence. Judah\nand every state bordering on the wilderness knew by painful experience\nhow large a measure of rapine and cruelty might coexist with primitive\ncustoms, and the Jewish prophet gives Nebuchadnezzar a Divine\ncommission as for a holy war:--\n\n \"Arise, go up to Kedar;\n Spoil the men of the east.\n They (the Chaldeans) shall take away their tents and flocks;\n They shall take for themselves their tent-coverings,\n And all their gear and their camels:\n Men shall cry concerning them,\n Terror on every side.\"[240]\n\nThen the prophet turns to the more distant Hazor with words of\nwarning:--\n\n \"Flee, get you far off, dwell in hidden recesses of the land,\n O inhabitants of Hazor--\n It is the utterance of Jehovah--\n For Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon hath counselled a counsel\n and purposed a purpose against you.\"\n\nBut then, as if this warning were a mere taunt, he renews his address\nto the Chaldeans and directs their attack against Hazor:--\n\n \"Arise, go up against a nation that is at ease, that dwelleth\n without fear--it is the utterance of Jehovah--\n Which abide alone, without gates or bars\"--\n\nlike the people of Laish before the Danites came, and like Sparta\nbefore the days of Epaminondas.\n\nPossibly we are to combine these successive \"utterances,\" and to\nunderstand that it was alike Jehovah's will that the Chaldeans should\ninvade and lay waste Hazor, and that the unfortunate inhabitants\nshould escape--but escape plundered and impoverished: for\n\n \"Their camels shall become a spoil,\n The multitude of their cattle a prey:\n I will scatter to every wind them that have the corners of\n their hair polled;[241]\n I will bring their calamity upon them from all sides.\n Hazor shall be a haunt of jackals, a desolation for ever:\n No one shall dwell there,\n No soul shall sojourn therein.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[240] Magor-missabib: cf. xlvi. 5.\n\n[241] _I.e._ cut off.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n _ELAM_\n\n xlix. 34-39\n\n \"I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.\"--JER.\n xlix. 35.\n\n\nWe do not know what principle or absence of principle determined the\narrangement of these prophecies; but, in any case, these studies in\nancient geography and politics present a series of dramatic contrasts.\nFrom two ancient and enduring types of Eastern life, the city of\nDamascus and the Bedouin of the desert, we pass to a state of an\nentirely different order, only slightly connected with the\ninternational system of Western Asia. Elam contended for the palm of\nsupremacy with Assyria and Babylon in the farther east, as Egypt did\nto the south-west. Before the time of Abraham Elamite kings ruled over\nChaldea, and Genesis xiv. tells us how Chedorlaomer with his\nsubject-allies collected his tribute in Palestine. Many centuries\nlater, the Assyrian king Ashur-bani-pal (B.C. 668-626) conquered Elam,\nsacked the capital Shushan, and carried away many of the inhabitants\ninto captivity. According to Ezra iv. 9, 10, Elamites were among the\nmingled population whom \"the great and noble Asnapper\" (probably\nAshur-bani-pal) settled in Samaria.\n\nWhen we begin to recall even a few of the striking facts concerning\nElam discovered in the last fifty years, and remember that for\nmillenniums Elam had played the part of a first-class Asiatic power,\nwe are tempted to wonder that Jeremiah only devotes a few conventional\nsentences to this great nation. But the prophet's interest was simply\ndetermined by the relations of Elam with Judah; and, from this point\nof view, an opposite difficulty arises. How came the Jews in Palestine\nin the time of Jeremiah to have any concern with a people dwelling\nbeyond the Euphrates and Tigris, on the farther side of the Chaldean\ndominions? One answer to this question has already been suggested: the\nJews may have learnt from the Elamite colonists in Samaria something\nconcerning their native country; it is also probable that Elamite\nauxiliaries served in the Chaldean armies that invaded Judah.\n\nAccordingly the prophet sets forth, in terms already familiar to us, how\nElamite fugitives should be scattered to the four quarters of the earth\nand be found in every nation under heaven, how the sword should follow\nthem into their distant places of refuge and utterly consume them.\n\n \"I will set My throne in Elam;\n I will destroy out of it both king and princes--\n It is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nIn the prophecy concerning Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar was to set his throne\nat Tahpanhes to decide the fate of the captives; but here Jehovah\nHimself is pictured as the triumphant and inexorable conqueror, holding\nHis court as the arbiter of life and death. The vision of the \"great\nwhite throne\" was not first accorded to John in his Apocalypse.\nJeremiah's eyes were opened to see beside the tribunals of heathen\nconquerors the judgment-seat of a mightier Potentate; and his inspired\nutterances remind the believer that every battle may be an Armageddon,\nand that at every congress there is set a mystic throne from which the\nEternal King overrules the decisions of plenipotentiaries.\n\nBut this sentence of condemnation was not to be the final \"utterance\nof Jehovah\" with regard to Elam. A day of renewed prosperity was to\ndawn for Elam, as well as for Moab, Ammon, Egypt, and Judah:--\n\n \"In the latter days I will bring again the captivity of Elam--\n It is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nThe Apostle Peter[242] tells us that the prophets \"sought and searched\ndiligently\" concerning the application of their words, \"searching what\ntime and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them\ndid point unto.\" We gather from these verses that, as Newton could not\nhave foreseen all that was contained in the law of gravitation, so the\nprophets often understood little of what was involved in their own\ninspiration. We could scarcely have a better example than this\nprophecy affords of the knowledge of the principles of God's future\naction combined with ignorance of its circumstances and details. If we\nmay credit the current theory, Cyrus, the servant of Jehovah, the\ndeliverer of Judah, was a king of Elam. If Jeremiah had foreseen how\nhis prophecies of the restoration of Elam and of Judah would be\nfulfilled, we may be sure that this utterance would not have been so\nbrief, its hostile tone would have been mitigated, and the concluding\nsentence would not have been so cold and conventional.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[242] 1 Peter i. 10, 11.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n _BABYLON_\n\n l., li.\n\n \"Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in\n pieces.\"--JER. l., 2.\n\n\nThese chapters present phenomena analogous to those of Isaiah\nxl.-lxvi., and have been very commonly ascribed to an author writing\nat Babylon towards the close of the Exile, or even at some later date.\nThe conclusion has been arrived at in both cases by the application of\nthe same critical principles to similar data. In the present case the\nargument is complicated by the concluding paragraph of chapter li.,\nwhich states that \"Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should\ncome upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against\nBabylon,\" in the fourth year of Zedekiah, and gave the book to Seraiah\nben Neriah to take to Babylon and tie a stone to it and throw it into\nthe Euphrates.\n\nSuch a statement, however, cuts both ways. On the one hand, we seem to\nhave--what is wanting in the case of Isaiah xl.-lxvi.--a definite and\ncircumstantial testimony as to authorship. But, on the other hand,\nthis very testimony raises new difficulties. If l. and li. had been\nsimply assigned to Jeremiah, without any specification of date, we\nmight possibly have accepted the tradition according to which he spent\nhis last years at Babylon, and have supposed that altered,\ncircumstances and novel experiences account for the differences\nbetween these chapters and the rest of the book. But Zedekiah's fourth\nyear is a point in the prophet's ministry at which it is extremely\ndifficult to account for his having composed such a prophecy. If,\nhowever, li. 59-64 is mistaken in its exact and circumstantial account\nof the origin of the preceding section, we must hesitate to recognise\nits authority as to that section's authorship.\n\nA detailed discussion of the question would be out of place here,[243]\nbut we may notice a few passages which illustrate the arguments for an\nexilic date. We learn from Jeremiah xxvii.-xxix. that, in the fourth\nyear of Zedekiah,[244] the prophet was denouncing as false teachers\nthose who predicted that the Jewish captives in Babylon would speedily\nreturn to their native land. He himself asserted that judgment would not\nbe inflicted upon Babylon for seventy years, and exhorted the exiles to\nbuild houses and marry, and plant gardens, and to pray for the peace of\nBabylon.[245] We can hardly imagine that, in the same breath almost, he\ncalled upon these exiles to flee from the city of their captivity, and\nsummoned the neighbouring nations to execute Jehovah's judgment against\nthe oppressors of His people. And yet we read:--\n\n \"There shall come the Israelites, they and the Jews together:\n They shall weep continually, as they go to seek Jehovah their\n God;\n They shall ask their way to Zion, with their faces\n hitherward\"[246] (l. 4, 5).\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"Remove from the midst of Babylon, and be ye as he-goats\n before the flock\" (l. 8).\n\nThese verses imply that the Jews were already in Babylon, and\nthroughout the author assumes the circumstances of the Exile. \"The\nvengeance of the Temple,\" _i.e._ vengeance for the destruction of the\nTemple at the final capture of Jerusalem, is twice threatened.[247]\nThe ruin of Babylon is described as imminent:--\n\n \"Set up a standard on the earth,\n Blow the trumpet among the nations,\n Prepare the nations against her.\"\n\nIf these words were written by Jeremiah in the fourth year of\nZedekiah, he certainly was not practising his own precept to pray for\nthe peace of Babylon.\n\nVarious theories have been advanced to meet the difficulties which are\nraised by the ascription of this prophecy to Jeremiah. It may have\nbeen expanded from an authentic original. Or again, li. 59-64 may not\nreally refer to l. 1-li. 58; the two sections may once have existed\nseparately, and may owe their connection to an editor, who met with l.\n1-li. 58 as an anonymous document, and thought he recognised in it the\n\"book\" referred to in li. 59-64. Or again, l. 1-li. 58 may be a\nhypothetical reconstruction of a lost prophecy of Jeremiah; li. 59-64\nmentioned such a prophecy and none was extant, and some student and\ndisciple of Jeremiah's school utilised the material and ideas of\nextant writings to supply the gap. In any case, it must have been\nedited more than once, and each time with modifications. Some support\nmight be obtained for any one of these theories from the fact that l.\n1-li. 58 is _prim\u00e2 facie_ partly a cento of passages from the rest of\nthe book and from the Book of Isaiah.[248]\n\nIn view of the great uncertainty as to the origin and history of this\nprophecy, we do not intend to attempt any detailed exposition.\nElsewhere whatever non-Jeremianic matter occurs in the book is mostly\nby way of expansion and interpretation, and thus lies in the direct\nline of the prophet's teaching. But the section on Babylon attaches\nitself to the new departure in religious thought that is more fully\nexpressed in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Chapters l., li., may possibly be\nJeremiah's swan-song, called forth by one of those Pisgah visions of a\nnew dispensation sometimes granted to aged seers; but such visions of\na new era and a new order can scarcely be combined with earlier\nteaching. We will therefore only briefly indicate the character and\ncontents of this section.\n\nIt is apparently a mosaic, complied from lost as well as extant\nsources; and dwells upon a few themes with a persistent iteration of\nideas and phrases hardly to be paralleled elsewhere, even in the Book\nof Jeremiah. It has been reckoned[249] that the imminence of the\nattack on Babylon is introduced afresh eleven times, and its conquest\nand destruction nine times. The advent of an enemy from the north is\nannounced four times.[250]\n\nThe main theme is naturally that dwelt upon most frequently, the\nimminent invasion of Chaldea by victorious enemies who shall capture\nand destroy Babylon. Hereafter the great city and its territory will\nbe a waste, howling wilderness:--\n\n \"Your mother shall be sore ashamed,\n She that bare you shall be confounded;\n Behold, she shall be the hindmost of the nations,\n A wilderness, a parched land, and a desert.\n Because of the wrath of Jehovah, it shall be uninhabited;\n The whole land shall be a desolation.\n Every one that goeth by Babylon\n Shall hiss with astonishment because of all her\n plagues.\"[251]\n\nThe gods of Babylon, Bel and Merodach, and all her idols, are involved\nin her ruin, and reference is made to the vanity and folly of\nidolatry.[252] But the wrath of Jehovah has been chiefly excited, not\nby false religion, but by the wrongs inflicted by the Chaldeans on His\nChosen People. He is moved to avenge His Temple[253]:--\n\n \"I will recompense unto Babylon\n And all the inhabitants of Chaldea\n All the evil which they wrought in Zion,\n And ye shall see it--it is the utterance of Jehovah\"\n (li. 24).\n\nThough He thus avenge Judah, yet its former sins are not yet blotted\nout of the book of His remembrance:--\n\n \"Their adversaries said, We incur no guilt,\n Because they have sinned against Jehovah, the Pasture of\n Justice,\n Against the Hope of their fathers, even Jehovah\" (l. 7).\n\nYet now there is forgiveness:--\n\n \"The iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall\n be none;\n And the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found:\n For I will pardon the remnant that I preserve\" (l. 20).\n\nThe Jews are urged to flee from Babylon, lest they should be involved\nin its punishment, and are encouraged to return to Jerusalem and enter\nafresh into an everlasting covenant with Jehovah. As in Jeremiah\nxxxi., Israel is to be restored as well as Judah:--\n\n \"I will bring Israel again to his Pasture:\n He shall feed on Carmel and Bashan;\n His desires shall be satisfied on the hills of Ephraim and in\n Gilead\" (l. 19).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[243] See against the authenticity Driver's _Introduction, in loco_;\nand in support of it _Speaker's Commentary_, Streane (C.B.S.). Cf.\nalso Sayce, _Higher Criticism_, etc., pp. 484-486.\n\n[244] In xxvii. 1 we must read, \"In the beginning of the reign of\n_Zedekiah_,\" not Jehoiakim.\n\n[245] xxix. 4-14.\n\n[246] \"Hitherward\" seems to indicate that the writers local standpoint\nis that of Palestine.\n\n[247] l. 28, li. 11.\n\n[248] Cf. l. 8, li. 6, with Isa. xlviii. 20; l. 13 with xlix. 17; l.\n41-43 with vi. 22-24; l. 44-46 with xlix. 19-21; li. 15-19 with x.\n12-16.\n\n[249] Budde ap. Giesebrecht, _in loco_.\n\n[250] l. 3, 9, li. 41, 48.\n\n[251] l. 12, 13: cf. l. 39, 40, li. 26, 29, 37, 41-43.\n\n[252] li. 17, 18.\n\n[253] l. 28.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK III\n\n _JEREMIAH'S TEACHING CONCERNING\n ISRAEL AND JUDAH_\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n _INTRODUCTORY_\n\n \"I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall\n be My people.\"--JER. xxxi. 1.\n\n\nIn this third book an attempt is made to present a general view of\nJeremiah's teaching on the subject with which he was most\npreoccupied--the political and religious fortunes of Judah.\nCertain[254] chapters detach themselves from the rest, and stand in no\nobvious connection with any special incident of the prophet's life.\nThese are the main theme of this book, and have been dealt with in the\nordinary method of detailed exposition. They have been treated\nseparately, and not woven into the continuous narrative, partly\nbecause we thus obtain a more adequate emphasis upon important aspects\nof their teaching, but chiefly because their date and occasion cannot\nbe certainly determined. With them other sections have been\nassociated, on account of the connection of subject. Further material\nfor a synopsis of Jeremiah's teaching has been collected from chapters\nxxi.-xlix. generally, supplemented by brief[255] references to the\nprevious chapters. Inasmuch as the prophecies of our book do not form\nan ordered treatise on dogmatic theology, but were uttered with\nregard to individual conduct and critical events, topics are not\nexclusively dealt with in a single section, but are referred to at\nintervals throughout. Moreover, as both the individuals and the crises\nwere very much alike, ideas and phrases are constantly reappearing, so\nthat there is an exceptionally large amount of repetition in the Book\nof Jeremiah. The method we have adopted avoids some of the\ndifficulties which would arise if we attempted to deal with these\ndoctrines in our continuous exposition.\n\nOur general sketch of the prophet's teaching is naturally arranged under\ncategories suggested by the book itself, and not according to the\nsections of a modern treatise on Systematic Theology. No doubt much may\nlegitimately be extracted or deduced concerning Anthropology,\nSoteriology, and the like; but true proportion is as important in\nexposition as accurate interpretation. If we wish to understand\nJeremiah, we must be content to dwell longest upon what he emphasised\nmost, and to adopt the standpoint of time and race which was his own.\nAccordingly in our treatment we have followed the cycle of sin,\npunishment, and restoration, so familiar to students of Hebrew prophecy.\n\n * * * * *\n\n NOTE\n\n SOME CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS OF\n JEREMIAH\n\nThis note is added partly for convenience of reference, and partly to\nillustrate the repetition just mentioned as characteristic of\nJeremiah. The instances are chosen from expressions occurring in\nchapters xxi.-lii. The reader will find fuller lists dealing with the\nwhole book in the _Speaker's Commentary_ and the _Cambridge Bible for\nSchools and Colleges_. The Hebrew student is referred to the list in\nDriver's _Introduction_, upon which the following is partly based.\n\n1. _Rising up early_: vii. 13, 25; xi. 7; xxv. 3, 4; xxvi. 5; xxix. 19;\nxxxii. 33; xxxv. 14, 15; xliv. 4. This phrase, familiar to us in the\nnarratives of Genesis and in the historical books, is used here, as in 2\nChron. xxxvi. 15, of God addressing His people on sending the prophets.\n\n2. _Stubbornness of heart_ (A.V. imagination of heart): iii. 17; vii.\n24; ix. 14; xi. 8; xiii. 10; xvi. 12; xviii. 12; xxiii. 17; also found\nDeut. xxix. 19 and Ps. lxxxi. 15.\n\n3. _The evil of your doings_: iv. 4; xxi. 12; xxiii. 2, 22; xxv. 5;\nxxvi. 3; xliv. 22; also Deut. xxviii. 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 3; Isa. i. 16;\nHos. ix. 15; Ps. xxviii. 4; and in slightly different form in xi. 18\nand Zech. i. 4.\n\n_The fruit of your doings_: xvii. 10; xxi. 14; xxxii. 19; also found\nin Micah vii. 13.\n\n_Doings, your doings_, etc., are also found in Jeremiah and elsewhere.\n\n4. _The sword, the pestilence, and the famine_, in various orders, and\neither as a phrase or each word occurring in one of three successive\nclauses: xiv. 12; xv. 2; xxi. 7, 9; xxiv. 10; xxvii. 8, 13; xxix. 17,\n18; xxxii. 24, 36; xxxiv. 17; xxxviii. 2; xlii. 17, 22; xliv. 13.\n\n_The sword and the famine_, with similar variations: v. 12; xi. 22;\nxiv. 13, 15, 16, 18; xvi. 4; xviii. 21; xlii. 16; xliv. 12, 18, 27.\n\nCf. similar lists, etc., \"death ... sword ... captivity\" in xliii. 11;\n\"war ... evil ... pestilence,\" xxviii. 8.\n\n5. _Kings_ ... _princes_ ... _priests_ ... _prophets_, in various\norders and combinations: ii. 26; iv. 9; viii. 1; xiii. 13; xxiv. 8;\nxxxii. 32.\n\nCf. _Prophet_ ... _priest_ ... _people_, xxiii. 33, 34. _Prophets_ ...\n_divines_ ... _dreamers_ ... _enchanters_ ... _sorcerers_, xxvii. 9.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[254] xxx., xxxi., and, in part, xxxiii.\n\n[255] Brief, in order not to trespass more than is absolutely\nnecessary upon the ground covered by the previous _Expositor's Bible_\nvolume on Jeremiah.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n _SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CORRUPTION_\n\n \"Very bad figs, ... too bad to be eaten.\"--JER. xxiv. 2, 8, xxix.\n 17.\n\n\nProphets and preachers have taken the Israelites for God's helots, as\nif the Chosen People had been made drunk with the cup of the Lord's\nindignation, in order that they might be held up as a warning to His\nmore favoured children throughout after ages. They seem depicted as\n\"sinners above all men,\" that by this supreme warning the heirs of a\nbetter covenant may be kept in the path of righteousness. Their sin is\nno mere inference from the long tragedy of their national history,\n\"because they have suffered such things\"; their own prophets and their\nown Messiah testify continually against them. Religious thought has\nalways singled out Jeremiah as the most conspicuous and uncompromising\nwitness to the sins of his people. One chief feature of his mission\nwas to declare God's condemnation of ancient Judah. Jeremiah watched\nand shared the prolonged agony and overwhelming catastrophes of the\nlast days of the Jewish monarchy, and ever and anon raised his voice\nto declare that his fellow-countrymen suffered, not as martyrs, but as\ncriminals. He was like the herald who accompanies a condemned man on\nthe way to execution, and proclaims his crime to the spectators.\n\nWhat were these crimes? How was Jerusalem a sink of iniquity, an\nAugean stable, only to be cleansed by turning through it the floods of\nDivine chastisement? The annalists of Egypt and Chaldea show no\ninterest in the morality of Judah; but there is no reason to believe\nthat they regarded Jerusalem as more depraved than Tyre, or Babylon,\nor Memphis. If a citizen of one of these capitals of the East visited\nthe city of David he might miss something of accustomed culture, and\nmight have occasion to complain of the inferiority of local police\narrangements, but he would be as little conscious of any extraordinary\nwickedness in the city as a Parisian would in London. Indeed, if an\nEnglish Christian familiar with the East of the nineteenth century\ncould be transported to Jerusalem under King Zedekiah, in all\nprobability its moral condition would not affect him very differently\nfrom that of Cabul or Ispahan.\n\nWhen we seek to learn from Jeremiah wherein the guilt of Judah lay,\nhis answer is neither clear nor full: he does not gather up her sins\ninto any complete and detailed indictment; we are obliged to avail\nourselves of casual references scattered through his prophecies. For\nthe most part Jeremiah speaks in general terms; a precise and\nexhaustive catalogue of current vices would have seemed too familiar\nand commonplace for the written record.\n\nThe corruption of Judah is summed up by Jeremiah in the phrase \"the\nevil of your doings,\"[256] and her punishment is described in a\ncorresponding phrase as \"the fruit of your doings,\" or as coming upon\nher \"because of the evil of your doings.\" The original of \"doings\" is\na peculiar word[257] occurring most frequently in Jeremiah, and the\nphrases are very common in Jeremiah, and hardly occur at all\nelsewhere. The constant reiteration of this melancholy refrain is an\neloquent symbol of Jehovah's sweeping condemnation. In the total\ndepravity of Judah, no special sin, no one group of sins, stood out\nfrom the rest. Their \"doings\" were evil altogether.\n\nThe picture suggested by the scattered hints as to the character of\nthese evil doings is such as might be drawn of almost any Eastern\nstate in its darker days. The arbitrary hand of the government is\nillustrated by Jeremiah's own experience of the bastinado[258] and the\ndungeon,[259] and by the execution of Uriah ben Shemaiah.[260] The\nrights of less important personages were not likely to be more\nscrupulously respected. The reproach of shedding innocent blood is\nmore than once made against the people and their rulers;[261] and the\nmore general charge of oppression occurs still more frequently.[262]\n\nThe motive for both these crimes was naturally covetousness;[263] as\nusual, they were specially directed against the helpless, \"the\npoor,\"[264] \"the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow\"; and the\nmachinery of oppression was ready to hand in venal judges and rulers.\nUpon occasion, however, recourse was had to open violence--men could\n\"steal and murder,\" as well as \"swear falsely\";[265] they lived in an\natmosphere of falsehood, they \"walked in a lie.\"[266] Indeed the word\n\"lie\" is one of the keynotes of these prophecies.[267] The last days\nof the monarchy offered special temptations to such vices. Social\nwreckers reaped an unhallowed harvest in these stormy times.\nRevolutions were frequent, and each in its turn meant fresh plunder\nfor unscrupulous partisans. Flattery and treachery could always find a\nmarket in the court of the suzerain or the camp of the invader.\nNaturally, amidst this general demoralisation, the life of the family\ndid not remain untouched: \"the land was full of adulterers.\"[268]\nZedekiah and Ahab, the false prophets at Babylon, are accused of\nhaving committed adultery with their neighbours' wives.[269] In these\npassages \"adultery\" can scarcely be a figure for idolatry; and even if\nit is, idolatry always involved immoral ritual.\n\nIn accordance with the general teaching of the Old Testament, Jeremiah\ntraces the roots of the people's depravity to a certain moral stupidity;\nthey are \"a foolish people, without understanding,\" who, like the idols\nin Psalm cxv. 5, 6, \"have eyes and see not\" and \"have ears and hear\nnot.\"[270] In keeping with their stupidity was an unconsciousness of\nguilt which even rose into proud self-righteousness. They could still\ncome with pious fervour to worship in the temple of Jehovah and to claim\nthe protection of its inviolable sanctity. They could still assail\nJeremiah with righteous indignation because he announced the coming\ndestruction of the place where Jehovah had chosen to set His name.[271]\nThey said that they had no sin, and met the prophet's rebukes with\nprotests of conscious innocence: \"Wherefore hath Jehovah pronounced all\nthis great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin\nthat we have committed against Jehovah our God?\"[272]\n\nWhen the public conscience condoned alike the abuse of the forms of\nlaw and its direct violation, actual legal rights would be strained to\nthe utmost against debtors, hired labourers, and slaves. In their\nextremity, the princes and people of Judah sought to propitiate the\nanger of Jehovah by emancipating their Hebrew slaves; when the\nimmediate danger had passed away for a time, they revoked the\nemancipation.[273] The form of their submission to Jehovah reveals\ntheir consciousness that their deepest sin lay in their behaviour to\ntheir helpless dependents. This prompt repudiation of a most solemn\ncovenant illustrated afresh their callous indifference to the\nwell-being of their inferiors.\n\nThe depravity of Judah was not only total, it was also universal. In\nthe older histories we read how Achan's single act of covetousness\ninvolved the whole people in misfortune, and how the treachery of the\nbloody house of Saul brought three years' famine upon the land; but\nnow the sins of individuals and classes were merged in the general\ncorruption. Jeremiah dwells with characteristic reiteration of idea\nand phrase upon this melancholy truth. Again and again he enumerates\nthe different classes of the community: \"kings, princes, priests,\nprophets, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.\" They had all\ndone evil and provoked Jehovah to anger; they were all to share the\nsame punishment.[274] They were all arch-rebels, given to slander;\nnothing but base metal;[275] corrupters, every one of them.[276] The\nuniversal extent of total depravity is most forcibly expressed when\nZedekiah with his court and people are summarily described as a basket\nof \"very bad figs, too bad to be eaten.\"\n\nThe dark picture of Israel's corruption is not yet complete--Israel's\ncorruption, for now the prophet is no longer exclusively concerned\nwith Judah. The sin of these last days is no new thing; it is as old\nas the Israelite occupation of Jerusalem. \"This city hath been to Me a\nprovocation of My anger and of My fury from the day that they built it\neven unto this day\"; from the earliest days of Israel's national\nexistence, from the time of Moses and the Exodus, the people have been\ngiven over to iniquity. \"The children of Israel and the children of\nJudah have done nothing but evil before Me from their youth up.\"[277]\nThus we see at last that Jeremiah's teaching concerning the sin of\nJudah can be summed up in one brief and comprehensive proposition.\nThroughout their whole history all classes of the community have been\nwholly given over to every kind of wickedness.\n\nThis gloomy estimate of God's Chosen People is substantially confirmed\nby the prophets of the later monarchy, from Amos and Hosea onwards.\nHosea speaks of Israel in terms as sweeping as those of Jeremiah. \"Hear\nthe word of Jehovah, ye children of Israel; for Jehovah hath a\ncontroversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth,\nnor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. Swearing and lying and\nkilling and stealing and committing adultery, they cast off all\nrestraint, and blood toucheth blood.\"[278] As a prophet of the Northern\nKingdom, Hosea is mainly concerned with his own country, but his casual\nreferences to Judah include her in the same condemnation.[279] Amos\nagain condemns both Israel and Judah: Judah, \"because they have despised\nthe law of Jehovah, and have not kept His commandments, and their lies\ncaused them to err, after the which their fathers walked\"; Israel,\n\"because they sold the righteous for silver and the poor for a pair of\nshoes, and pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor and\nturn aside the way of the meek.\"[280] The first chapter of Isaiah is in\na similar strain: Israel is \"a sinful nation, a people laden with\niniquity, a seed of evil-doers\"; \"the whole head is sick, the whole\nheart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no\nsoundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores.\" According\nto Micah, \"Zion is built up with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. The\nheads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire,\nand the prophets thereof divine for money.\"[281]\n\nJeremiah's older and younger contemporaries, Zephaniah and Ezekiel,\nalike confirm his testimony. In the spirit and even the style afterwards\nused by Jeremiah, Zephaniah enumerates the sins of the nobles and\nteachers of Jerusalem. \"Her princes within her are roaring lions; her\njudges are evening wolves.... Her prophets are light and treacherous\npersons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done\nviolence to the law.\"[282] Ezekiel xx. traces the defections of Israel\nfrom the sojourn in Egypt to the Captivity. Elsewhere Ezekiel says that\n\"the land is full of bloody crimes, and the city is full of\nviolence\";[283] and in xxii. 23-31 he catalogues the sins of priests,\nprinces, prophets, and people, and proclaims that Jehovah \"sought for a\nman among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap\nbefore Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.\"\n\nWe have now fairly before us the teaching of Jeremiah and the other\nprophets as to the condition of Judah: the passages quoted or referred\nto represent its general tone and attitude; it remains to estimate its\nsignificance. We should naturally suppose that such sweeping\nstatements as to the total depravity of the whole people throughout\nall their history were not intended to be interpreted as exact\nmathematical formul\u00e6. And the prophets themselves state or imply\nqualifications. Isaiah insists upon the existence of a righteous\nremnant. When Jeremiah speaks of Zedekiah and his subjects as a basket\nof very bad figs, he also speaks of the Jews who had already gone into\ncaptivity as a basket of very good figs. The mere fact of going into\ncaptivity can hardly have accomplished an immediate and wholesale\nconversion. The \"good figs\" among the captives were presumably good\nbefore they went into exile. Jeremiah's general statements that \"they\nwere all arch-rebels\" do not therefore preclude the existence of\nrighteous men in the community. Similarly, when he tells us that the\ncity and people have always been given over to iniquity, Jeremiah is\nnot ignorant of Moses and Joshua, David and Solomon, and the kings\n\"who did right in the eyes of Jehovah\"; nor does he intend to\ncontradict the familiar accounts of ancient history. On the other\nhand, the universality which the prophets ascribe to the corruption of\ntheir people is no mere figure of rhetoric, and yet it is by no means\nincompatible with the view that Jerusalem, in its worst days, was not\nmore conspicuously wicked than Babylon or Tyre; or even, allowing for\nthe altered circumstances of the times, than London or Paris. It would\nnever have occurred to Jeremiah to apply the average morality of\nGentile cities as a standard by which to judge Jerusalem; and\nChristian readers of the Old Testament have caught something of the\nold prophetic spirit. The very introduction into the present context\nof any comparison between Jerusalem and Babylon may seem to have a\ncertain flavour of irreverence. We perceive with the prophets that the\nCity of Jehovah and the cities of the Gentiles must be placed in\ndifferent categories. The popular modern explanation is that\nheathenism was so utterly abominable that Jerusalem at its worst was\nstill vastly superior to Nineveh or Tyre. However exaggerated such\nviews may be, they still contain an element of truth; but Jeremiah's\nestimate of the moral condition of Judah was based on entirely\ndifferent ideas. His standards were not relative but absolute, not\npractical but ideal. His principles were the very antithesis of the\ntacit ignoring of difficult and unusual duties, the convenient and\nsomewhat shabby compromise represented by the modern word\n\"respectable.\" Israel was to be judged by its relation to Jehovah's\npurpose for His people. Jehovah had called them out of Egypt, and\ndelivered them from a thousand dangers. He had raised up for them\njudges and kings, Moses, David, and Isaiah. He had spoken to them by\nTorah and by prophecy. This peculiar munificence of Providence and\nRevelation was not meant to produce a people only better by some small\npercentage than their heathen neighbours.\n\nThe comparison between Israel and its neighbours would no doubt be\nmuch more favourable under David than under Zedekiah, but even then\nthe outcome of Mosaic religion as practically embodied in the national\nlife was utterly unworthy of the Divine ideal; to have described the\nIsrael of David or the Judah of Hezekiah as Jehovah's specially\ncherished possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,[284]\nwould have seemed a ghastly irony even to the sons of Zeruiah, far\nmore to Nathan, Gad, or Isaiah. Nor had any class, as a class, been\nwholly true to Jehovah at any period of the history. If for any\nconsiderable time the numerous order of professional prophets had had\na single eye to the glory of Jehovah, the fortunes of Israel would\nhave been altogether different, and where prophets failed, priests and\nprinces and common people were not likely to succeed.\n\nHence, judged as citizens of God's Kingdom on earth, the Israelites\nwere corrupt in every faculty of their nature: as masters and\nservants, as rulers and subjects, as priests, prophets, and\nworshippers of Jehovah, they succumbed to selfishness and cowardice,\nand perpetrated the ordinary crimes and vices of ancient Eastern life.\n\nThe reader is perhaps tempted to ask: Is this all that is meant by the\nfierce and impassioned denunciations of Jeremiah? Not quite all.\nJeremiah had had the mortification of seeing the great religious\nrevival under Josiah spend itself, apparently in vain, against the\ningrained corruption of the people. The reaction, as under Manasseh,\nhad accentuated the worst features of the national life. At the same\ntime the constant distress and dismay caused by disastrous invasions\ntended to general licence and anarchy. A long period of decadence\nreached its nadir.\n\nBut these are mere matters of degree and detail; the main thing for\nJeremiah was not that Judah had become worse, but that it had failed\nto become better. One great period of Israel's probation was finally\nclosed. The kingdom had served its purpose in the Divine Providence;\nbut it was impossible to hope any longer that the Jewish monarchy was\nto prove the earthly embodiment of the Kingdom of God. There was no\nprospect of Judah attaining a social order appreciably better than\nthat of the surrounding nations. Jehovah and His Revelation would be\ndisgraced by any further association with the Jewish state.\n\nCertain schools of socialists bring a similar charge against the\nmodern social order; that it is not a Kingdom of God upon earth is\nsufficiently obvious; and they assert that our social system has\nbecome stereotyped on lines that exclude and resist progress towards\nany higher ideal. Now it is certainly true that every great\ncivilisation hitherto has grown old and obsolete; if Christian society\nis to establish its right to abide permanently, it must show itself\nsomething more than an improved edition of the Athens of Pericles or\nthe Empire of the Antonines.\n\nAll will agree that Christendom falls sadly short of its ideal, and\ntherefore we may seek to gather instruction from Jeremiah's judgment\non the shortcomings of Judah. Jeremiah specially emphasises the\nuniversality of corruption in individual character, in all classes of\nsociety and throughout the whole duration of history. Similarly we\nhave to recognise that prevalent social and moral evils lower the\ngeneral tone of individual character. Moral faculties are not set\napart in watertight compartments. \"Whosoever shall keep the whole law,\nand yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,\" is no mere forensic\nprinciple. The one offence impairs the earnestness and sincerity with\nwhich a man keeps the rest of the law, even though there may be no\nobvious lapse. There are moral surrenders made to the practical\nexigencies of commercial, social, political, and ecclesiastical life.\nProbably we should be startled and dismayed if we understood the\nconsequent sacrifice of individual character.\n\nWe might also learn from the prophet that the responsibility for our\nsocial evils rests with all classes. Time was when the lower classes\nwere plentifully lectured as the chief authors of public troubles; now\nit is the turn of the capitalist, the parson, and the landlord. The\nformer policy had no very marked success, possibly the new method may\nnot fare better.\n\nWealth and influence imply opportunity and responsibility which do not\nbelong to the poor and feeble; but power is by no means confined to\nthe privileged classes; and the energy, ability, and self-denial\nembodied in the great Trades Unions have sometimes shown themselves as\ncruel and selfish towards the weak and destitute as any association of\ncapitalists. A necessary preliminary to social amendment is a General\nConfession by each class of its own sins.\n\nFinally, the Divine Spirit had taught Jeremiah that Israel had always\nbeen sadly imperfect. He did not deny Divine Providence and human\nhope by teaching that the Golden Age lay in the past, that the Kingdom\nof God had been realised and allowed to perish. He was under no\nfoolish delusion as to \"the good old times\"; in his most despondent\nmoods he was not given over to wistful reminiscence. His example may\nhelp us not to become discouraged through exaggerated ideas about the\nattainments of past generations.\n\nIn considering modern life it may seem that we pass to an altogether\ndifferent quality of evil to that denounced by Jeremiah, that we have\nlost sight of anything that could justify his fierce indignation, and\nthus that we fail in appreciating his character and message. Any such\nillusion may be corrected by a glance at the statistics of congested\ntown districts, sweated industries, and prostitution. A social\nreformer, living in contact with these evils, may be apt to think\nJeremiah's denunciations specially adapted to the society which\ntolerates them with almost unruffled complacency.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[256] Characteristic Expressions (1), p. 269.\n\n[257] \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05dc.\n\n[258] xx. 2, xxxvii. 15.\n\n[259] xxxvii., xxxviii.\n\n[260] xxvi. 20-24.\n\n[261] ii. 34, xix. 4, xxii. 17.\n\n[262] v. 25, vi. 6, vii. 5.\n\n[263] vi. 13.\n\n[264] ii. 34.\n\n[265] vii. 5-9.\n\n[266] xxiii. 14.\n\n[267] Characteristic Expressions (2), p. 269.\n\n[268] xxiii. 10, 14.\n\n[269] xxix. 23.\n\n[270] v. 21, quoted by Ezekiel, xii. 2. The verse is also the\nfoundation of the description of Israel as \"the blind people that have\neyes, and the deaf that have ears,\" in Isa. xlii. 18 ff., xliii. 8.\nCf. Giesebrecht on Jer. v. 21.\n\n[271] vii., xxvi.\n\n[272] xvi. 10.\n\n[273] xxxiv.\n\n[274] xxxii. 26-35: cf. p. 269, Characteristic Expressions (3).\n\n[275] Literally \"copper and iron.\"\n\n[276] vi. 28.\n\n[277] xxxii. 26-35.\n\n[278] Hosea iv. 1, 2; also Hosea's general picture of the kingdom of\nSamaria.\n\n[279] The A.V. translation of xi. 12 (\"Judah yet ruleth with God, and\nis faithful with the saints\") must be set aside. The sense is obscure\nand the text doubtful.\n\n[280] Amos ii. 4-8.\n\n[281] Micah iii. 10, 11.\n\n[282] Zeph. iii. 3, 4.\n\n[283] Ezek. vii. 23: cf. vii. 9, xxii. 1-12.\n\n[284] Exod. xix. 6.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n _PERSISTENT APOSTASY_\n\n \"They have forsaken the covenant of Jehovah their God, and\n worshipped other gods, and served them.\"--JER. xxii. 9.\n\n \"Every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his heart.\"--JER.\n xxiii. 17.\n\n\nThe previous chapter has been intentionally confined, as far as\npossible, to Jeremiah's teaching upon the moral condition of Judah.\nReligion, in the narrower sense, was kept in the background, and\nmainly referred to as a social and political influence. In the same\nway the priests and prophets were mentioned chiefly as classes of\nnotables--estates of the realm. This method corresponds with a stage\nin the process of Revelation; it is that of the older prophets. Hosea,\nas a native of the Northern Kingdom, may have had a fuller experience\nand clearer understanding of religious corruption than his\ncontemporaries in Judah. But, in spite of the stress that he lays upon\nidolatry and the various corruptions of worship, many sections of his\nbook simply deal with social evils. We are not explicitly told why the\nprophet was \"a fool\" and \"a snare of a fowler,\" but the immediate\ncontext refers to the abominable immorality of Gibeah.[285] The\npriests are not reproached with incorrect ritual, but with conspiracy\nto murder.[286] In Amos, the land is not so much punished on account\nof corrupt worship, as the sanctuaries are destroyed because the\npeople are given over to murder, oppression, and every form of vice.\nIn Isaiah again the main stress is constantly upon international\npolitics and public and private morality.[287] For instance, none of\nthe woes in v. 8-24 are directed against idolatry or corrupt worship,\nand in xxviii. 7 the charge brought against Ephraim does not refer to\necclesiastical matters; they have erred through strong drink.\n\nIn Jeremiah's treatment of the ruin of Judah, he insists, as Hosea had\ndone as regards Israel, on the fatal consequences of apostasy from\nJehovah to other gods. This very phrase \"other gods\" is one of\nJeremiah's favourite expressions, and in the writings of the other\nprophets only occurs in Hosea iii. 1. On the other hand, references to\nidols are extremely rare in Jeremiah. These facts suggest a special\ndifficulty in discussing the apostasy of Judah. The Jews often combined\nthe worship of other gods with that of Jehovah. According to the analogy\nof other nations, it was quite possible to worship Baal and Ashtaroth,\nand the whole heathen Pantheon, without intending to show any special\ndisrespect to the national Deity. Even devout worshippers, who confined\ntheir adorations to the one true God, sometimes thought they did honour\nto Him by introducing into His services the images and all the\nparaphernalia of the splendid cults of the great heathen empires. It is\nnot always easy to determine whether statements about idolatry imply\nformal apostasy from Jehovah, or merely a debased worship. When the\nearly Mohammedans spoke with lofty contempt of image-worshippers, they\nwere referring to the Eastern Christians; the iconoclast heretics\ndenounced the idolatry of the Orthodox Church, and the Covenanters used\nsimilar terms as to prelacy. Ignorant modern Jews are sometimes taught\nthat Christians worship idols.\n\nHence when we read of the Jews, \"They set their abominations in the\nhouse which is called by My name, to defile it,\" we are not to\nunderstand that the Temple was transferred from Jehovah to some other\ndeities, but that the corrupt practices and symbols of heathen worship\nwere combined with the Mosaic ritual. Even the high places of Baal, in\nthe Valley of Ben-Hinnom, where children were passed through the fire\nunto Moloch, professed to offer an opportunity of supreme devotion to\nthe God of Israel. Baal and Melech, Lord and King, had in ancient\ntimes been amongst His titles; and when they became associated with\nthe more heathenish modes of worship, their misguided devotees still\nclaimed that they were doing homage to the national Deity. The inhuman\nsacrifices to Moloch were offered in obedience to sacred tradition and\nDivine oracles, which were supposed to emanate from Jehovah. In three\ndifferent places, Jeremiah explicitly and emphatically denies that\nJehovah had required or sanctioned these sacrifices: \"I commanded them\nnot, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this\nabomination, to cause Judah to sin.\"[288] The Pentateuch preserves an\nancient ordinance which the Moloch-worshippers probably interpreted\nin support of their unholy rites, and Jeremiah's protests are partly\ndirected against the misinterpretation of the command \"the first-born\nof thy sons shalt thou give Me.\" The immediate context also commanded\nthat the firstlings of sheep and oxen should be given to Jehovah. The\nbeasts were killed; must it not be intended that the children should\nbe killed too?[289] A similar blind literalism has been responsible\nfor many of the follies and crimes perpetrated in the name of Christ.\nThe Church is apt to justify its most flagrant enormities by appealing\nto a misused and misinterpreted Old Testament. \"Thou shalt not suffer\na witch to live\" and \"Cursed be Canaan\" have been proof-texts for\nwitch-hunting and negro-slavery; and the book of Joshua has been\nregarded as a Divine charter, authorising the unrestrained indulgence\nof the passion for revenge and blood.\n\nWhen it was thus necessary to put on record reiterated denials that\ninhuman rites of Baal and Moloch were a divinely sanctioned adoration\nof Jehovah, we can understand that the Baal-worship constantly\nreferred to by Hosea, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah[290] was not generally\nunderstood to be apostasy. The worship of \"other gods,\" \"the sun, the\nmoon, and all the host of heaven,\"[291] and of the \"Queen of Heaven,\"\nwould be more difficult to explain as mere syncretism, but the\nassimilation of Jewish worship to heathen ritual and the confusion of\nthe Divine Name with the titles of heathen deities masked the\ntransition from the religion of Moses and Isaiah to utter apostasy.\n\nSuch assimilation and confusion perplexed and baffled the\nprophets.[292] Social and moral wrongdoing were easily exposed and\ndenounced; and the evils thus brought to light were obvious symptoms\nof serious spiritual disease. The Divine Spirit taught the prophets\nthat sin was often most rampant in those who professed the greatest\ndevotion to Jehovah and were most punctual and munificent in the\ndischarge of external religious duties. When the prophecy in Isaiah i.\nwas uttered it almost seemed as if the whole system of Mosaic ritual\nwould have to be sacrificed, in order to preserve the religion of\nJehovah. But the further development of the disease suggested a less\nheroic remedy. The passion for external rites did not confine itself\nto the traditional forms of ancient Israelite worship. The practices\nof unspiritual and immoral ritualism were associated specially with\nthe names of Baal and Moloch and with the adoration of the host of\nheaven; and the departure from the true worship became obvious when\nthe deities of foreign nations were openly worshipped.\n\nJeremiah clearly and constantly insisted on the distinction between\nthe true and the corrupt worship. The worship paid to Baal and Moloch\nwas altogether unacceptable to Jehovah. These and other objects of\nadoration were not to be regarded as forms, titles, or manifestations\nof the one God, but were \"other gods,\" distinct and opposed in nature\nand attributes; in serving them the Jews were forsaking Him. So far\nfrom recognising such rites as homage paid to Jehovah, Jeremiah\nfollows Hosea in calling them \"backsliding,\"[293] a falling away from\ntrue loyalty. When they addressed themselves to their idols, even if\nthey consecrated them in the Temple and to the glory of the Most High,\nthey were not really looking to Him in reverent supplication, but with\nimpious profanity were turning their backs upon Him: \"They have turned\nunto Me the back, and not the face.\"[294] These proceedings were a\nviolation of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel.[295]\n\nThe same anxiety to discriminate the true religion from spurious\nimitations and adulterations underlies the stress which Jeremiah lays\nupon the Divine Name. His favourite formula, \"Jehovah Sabaoth is His\nname,\"[296] may be borrowed from Amos, or may be an ancient liturgical\nsentence; in any case, its use would be a convenient protest against\nthe doctrine that Jehovah could be worshipped under the names of and\nafter the manner of Baal and Moloch. When Jehovah speaks of the people\nforgetting \"My name,\" He does not mean either that the people would\nforget all about Him, or would cease to use the name Jehovah; but that\nthey would forget the character and attributes, the purposes and\nordinances, which were properly expressed by His Name. The prophets\nwho \"prophesy lies in My name\" \"cause My people to forget My\nname.\"[297] Baal and Moloch had sunk into fit titles for a god who\ncould be worshipped with cruel, obscene, and idolatrous rites, but the\nreligion of Revelation had been for ever associated with the one\nsacred Name, when \"Elohim said unto Moses, Thou shalt say unto the\nIsraelites: Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the\nGod of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is My\nname for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.\" All\nreligious life and practice inconsistent with this Revelation given\nthrough Moses and the prophets--all such worship, even if offered to\nbeings which, as Jehovah, sat in the Temple of Jehovah, professing to\nbe Jehovah--were nevertheless service and obedience paid to other and\nfalse gods. Jeremiah's mission was to hammer these truths into dull\nand unwilling minds.\n\nHis work seems to have been successful. Ezekiel, who is in a measure\nhis disciple,[298] drops the phrase \"other gods,\" and mentions \"idols\"\nvery frequently.[299] Argument and explanation were no longer\nnecessary to show that idolatry was sin against Jehovah; the word\n\"idol\" could be freely used and universally understood as indicating\nwhat was wholly alien to the religion of Israel.[300] Jeremiah was too\nanxious to convince the Jews that all syncretism was apostasy to\ndistinguish it carefully from the avowed neglect of Jehovah for other\ngods. It is not even clear that such neglect existed in his day. In\nchap. xliv. we have one detailed account of false worship to the Queen\nof Heaven. It was offered by the Jewish refugees in Egypt; shortly\nbefore, these refugees had unanimously entreated Jeremiah to pray for\nthem to Jehovah, and had promised to obey His commands. The punishment\nof their false worship was that they should no longer be permitted to\nname the Holy Name. Clearly, therefore, they had supposed that\noffering incense to the Queen of Heaven was not inconsistent with\nworshipping Jehovah. We need not dwell on a distinction which is\nlargely ignored by Jeremiah; the apostasy of Judah was real and\nwidespread, it matters little how far the delinquents ventured to\nthrow off the cloak of orthodox profession.[301] The most lapsed\nmasses in a Christian country do not utterly break their connection\nwith the Church; they consider themselves legitimate recipients of its\nalms, and dimly contemplate as a vague and distant possibility the\nreformation of their life and character through Christianity. So the\nblindest worshippers of stocks and stones claimed a vested interest in\nthe national Deity, and in the time of their trouble they turned to\nJehovah with the appeal \"Arise and save us.\"[302]\n\nJeremiah also dwells on the deliberate and persistent character of the\napostasy of Judah. Nations have often experienced a sort of satanic\nrevival when the fountains of the nether deep seemed broken up, and\nflood-tides of evil influence swept all before them. Such, in a\nmeasure, was the reaction from the Puritan Commonwealth, when so much\nof English society lapsed into reckless dissipation. Such too was the\ncarnival of wickedness into which the First French Republic was\nplunged in the Reign of Terror. But these periods were transient, and\nthe domination of lust and cruelty soon broke down before the\nreassertion of an outraged national conscience. But we noticed, in the\nprevious chapter, that Israel and Judah alike steadily failed to\nattain the high social ideal of the Mosaic dispensation. Naturally,\nthis continuous failure is associated with persistent apostasy from\ntrue religious teaching of the Mosaic and prophetic Revelation.\nExodus, Deuteronomy and the Chronicler agree with Jeremiah that the\nIsraelites were a stiff-necked people;[303] and, in the Chronicler's\ntime at any rate, Israel had played a part in the world long enough\nfor its character to be accurately ascertained; and subsequent history\nhas shown that, for good or for evil, the Jews have never lacked\ntenacity. Syncretism, the tendency to adulterate true teaching and\nworship with elements from heathen sources, had been all along a\nmorbid affection of Israelite religion. The Pentateuch and the\nhistorical books are full of rebukes of the Israelite passion for\nidolatry, which must for the most part be understood as introduced\ninto or associated with the worship of Jehovah. Jeremiah constantly\nrefers to \"the stubbornness of their evil heart\":[304] \"they ... have\nwalked after the stubbornness of their own heart and after the\nBaalim.\" This stubbornness was shown in their resistance to all the\nmeans which Jehovah employed to wean them from their sin. Again and\nagain, in our book, Jehovah speaks of Himself as \"rising up\nearly\"[305] to speak to the Jews, to teach them, to send prophets to\nthem, to solemnly adjure them to submit themselves to Him; but they\nwould not hearken either to Jehovah or to His prophets, they would not\naccept His teaching or obey His commands, they made themselves\nstiff-necked and would not bow to His will. He had subjected them to\nthe discipline of affliction, instruction had become correction;\nJehovah had wounded them \"with the wound of an enemy, with the\nchastisement of a cruel one\"; but as they had been deaf to\nexhortation, so they were proof against chastisement--\"they refused to\nreceive correction.\" Only the ruin of the state and the captivity of\nthe people could purge out this evil leaven.\n\nApostasy from the Mosaic and prophetic religion was naturally\naccompanied by social corruption. It has recently been maintained that\nthe universal instinct which inclines man to be religious is not\nnecessarily moral, and that it is the distinguishing note of the true\nfaith, or of religion proper, that it enlists this somewhat neutral\ninstinct in the cause of a pure morality. The Ph\u0153nician and Syrian\ncults, with which Israel was most closely in contact, sufficiently\nillustrated the combination of fanatical religious feeling with gross\nimpurity. On the other hand, the teaching of Revelation to Israel\nconsistently inculcated a high morality and an unselfish benevolence.\nThe prophets vehemently affirmed the worthlessness of religious\nobservances by men who oppressed the poor and helpless. Apostasy from\nJehovah to Baal and Moloch involved the same moral lapse as a change\nfrom loyal service of Christ to a pietistic antinomianism. Widespread\napostasy meant general social corruption. The most insidious form of\napostasy was that specially denounced by Jeremiah, in which the\nauthority of Jehovah was more or less explicitly claimed for practices\nand principles which defied His law. The Reformer loves a clear issue,\nand it was more difficult to come to close quarters with the enemy\nwhen both sides professed to be fighting in the King's name. Moreover\nthe syncretism which still recognised Jehovah was able without any\nviolent revolution to control the established institutions and orders\nof the state--palace and temple, king and princes, priests and\nprophets. For a moment the Reformation of Josiah, and the covenant\nentered into by king and people to observe the law as laid down in the\nnewly discovered Book of Deuteronomy, seemed to have raised Judah from\nits low estate. But the defeat and death of Josiah and the deposition\nof Jehoahaz followed to discredit Jeremiah and his friends. In the\nconsequent reaction it seemed as if the religion of Jehovah and the\nlife of His people had become hopelessly corrupt.\n\nWe are too much accustomed to think of the idolatry of Israel as\nsomething openly and avowedly distinct from and opposed to the worship\nof Jehovah. Modern Christians often suppose that the true worshipper\nand the ancient idolater were as contrasted as a pious Englishman and\na devotee of one of the hideous images seen on missionary platforms;\nor, at any rate, that they were as easily distinguishable as a native\nIndian evangelist from his unconverted fellow-countrymen.\n\nThis mistake deprives us of the most instructive lessons to be derived\nfrom the record. The sin which Jeremiah denounced is by no means outside\nChristian experience; it is much nearer to us than conversion to\nBuddhism--it is possible to the Church in every stage of its history.\nThe missionary finds that the lives of his converts continually threaten\nto revert to a nominal profession which cloaks the immorality and\nsuperstition of their old heathenism. The Church of the Roman Empire\ngave the sanction of Christ's name and authority to many of the most\nunchristian features of Judaism and Paganism; once more the rites of\nstrange gods were associated with the worship of Jehovah, and a new\nQueen of Heaven was honoured with unlimited incense. The Reformed\nChurches in their turn, after the first \"kindness of their youth,\" the\nfirst \"love of their espousals,\" have often fallen into the very abuses\nagainst which their great leaders protested; they have given way to the\nritualistic spirit, have put the Church in the place of Christ, and have\nclaimed for human formul\u00e6 the authority that can only belong to the\ninspired Word of God. They have immolated their victims to the Baals and\nMolochs of creeds and confessions, and thought that they were doing\nhonour to Jehovah thereby.\n\nMoreover we have still to contend like Jeremiah with the continual\nstruggle of corrupt human nature to indulge in the luxury of religious\nsentiment and emotion without submitting to the moral demands of\nChrist. The Church suffers far less by losing the allegiance of the\nlapsed masses than it does by those who associate with the service of\nChrist those malignant and selfish vices which are often canonised as\nRespectability and Convention.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[285] Hosea ix. 7-9: cf. Judges xix. 22.\n\n[286] Hosea vi. 9.\n\n[287] Isaiah xl.-lxvi. is excluded from this statement.\n\n[288] xxxii. 34, 35, repeating vii. 30, 31, with slight variations. A\nsimilar statement occurs in xix. 4, 5. Cf. 2 Kings xvi. 3, xxi. 6,\nxxiii. 10; also Giesebrecht and Orelli _in loco_.\n\n[289] Exod. xxii. 29 (JE.). Exod. xxxiv. 20 is probably a later\ninterpretation intended to guard against misunderstandings.\n\n[290] Baal is not mentioned in the other prophetical books.\n\n[291] vii. 2.\n\n[292] Here and elsewhere, \"prophet,\" unless specially qualified by the\ncontext, is used of the true prophet, the messenger of Divine\nRevelation, and does not include the mere professional prophets. Cf.\nChap. VIII.\n\n[293] ii. 19, etc.\n\n[294] xxxii. 33, etc.\n\n[295] xxii. 9: cf. xi. 10, xxxi. 32, and Hosea vi. 7, viii. 1.\n\n[296] x. 16: cf. Amos iv. 13.\n\n[297] xxiii. 25-27: cf. Giesebrecht, _in loco_.\n\n[298] Cheyne, _Jeremiah: Life and Times_, p. 150.\n\n[299] Jeremiah hardly mentions idols.\n\n[300] Cf. on this whole subject, Cheyne, _Jeremiah: Life and Times_,\np. 319.\n\n[301] The strongest expressions are in chap. ii., for which see\nprevious volume on Jeremiah.\n\n[302] ii. 27.\n\n[303] xvii. 23: cf. Exod. xxxii. 9, etc. (JE.); Deut. ix. 6; 2 Chron.\nxxx. 8.\n\n[304] Characteristic Expressions, p. 269.\n\n[305] _Ibid._, p. 269.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIX\n\n _RUIN_\n\n xxii. 1-9, xxvi. 14.\n\n \"The sword, the pestilence, and the famine.\"--JER. xxi. 9 _and\n passim_.[306]\n\n \"Terror on every side.\"--JER. vi. 25, xx. 10, xlvi. 5, xlix. 29;\n _also as proper name_, MAGOR-MISSABIB, xx. 3.\n\n\nWe have seen, in the two previous chapters, that the moral and\nreligious state of Judah not only excluded any hope of further\nprogress towards the realisation of the Kingdom of God, but also\nthreatened to involve Revelation itself in the corruption of His\npeople. The Spirit that opened Jeremiah's eyes to the fatal\ndegradation of his country showed him that ruin must follow as its\nswift result. He was elect from the first to be a herald of doom, to\nbe set \"over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to\nbreak down, and to destroy and to overthrow.\"[307] In his earliest\nvision he saw the thrones of the northern conquerors set over against\nthe walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah.[308]\n\nBut Jeremiah was called in the full vigour of early manhood;[309] he\ncombined with the uncompromising severity of youth its ardent\naffection and irrepressible hope. The most unqualified threats of\nDivine wrath always carried the implied condition that repentance\nmight avert the coming judgment;[310] and Jeremiah recurred again and\nagain to the possibility that, even in these last days, amendment\nmight win pardon. Like Moses at Sinai and Samuel at Ebenezer, he\npoured out his whole soul in intercession for Judah, only to receive\nthe answer, \"Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind\ncould not be toward this people: cast them out of My sight and let\nthem go forth.\"[311] The record of these early hopes and prayers is\nchiefly found in chapters i.-xx., and is dealt with in the previous\nvolume on Jeremiah. The prophecies in xiv. 1-xvii. 18 seem to\nrecognise the destiny of Judah as finally decided, and to belong to\nthe latter part of the reign of Jehoiakim,[312] and there is little in\nthe later chapters of an earlier date. In xxii. 1-5 the king of Judah\nis promised that if he and his ministers and officers will refrain\nfrom oppression, faithfully administer justice, and protect the\nhelpless, kings of the elect dynasty shall still pass with magnificent\nretinues in chariots and on horses through the palace gates to sit\nupon the throne of David. Possibly this section belongs to the earlier\npart of Jeremiah's career. But there were pauses and recoils in the\nadvancing tide of ruin, alternations of hope and despair; and these\nvarying experiences were reflected in the changing moods of the court,\nthe people, and the prophet himself. We may well believe that Jeremiah\nhastened to greet any apparent zeal for reformation with a renewed\ndeclaration that sincere and radical amendment would be accepted by\nJehovah. The proffer of mercy did not avert the ruin of the state, but\nit compelled the people to recognise that Jehovah was neither harsh\nnor vindictive. His sentence was only irrevocable because the obduracy\nof Israel left no other way open for the progress of Revelation,\nexcept that which led through fire and blood. The Holy Spirit has\ntaught mankind in many ways that when any government or church, any\nschool of thought or doctrine, ossifies so as to limit the expansion\nof the soul, that society or system must be shattered by the forces it\nseeks to restrain. The decadence of Spain and the distractions of\nFrance sufficiently illustrate the fruits of persistent refusal to\nabide in the liberty of the Spirit.\n\nBut, until the catastrophe is clearly inevitable, the Christian, both\nas patriot and as churchman,[313] will be quick to cherish all those\nsymptoms of higher life which indicate that society is still a living\norganism. He will zealously believe and teach that even a small leaven\nmay leaven the whole mass. He will remember that ten righteous men\nmight have saved Sodom; that, so long as it is possible, God will work\nby encouraging and rewarding willing obedience rather than by\nchastising and coercing sin.\n\nThus Jeremiah, even when he teaches that the day of grace is over,\nrecurs wistfully to the possibilities of salvation once offered to\nrepentance.[314] Was not this the message of all the prophets: \"Return\nye now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings,\nand dwell in the land that Jehovah hath given unto your fathers\"?[315]\nEven at the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign Jehovah entrusted Jeremiah\nwith a message of mercy, saying: \"It may be they will hearken, and\nturn every man from his evil way; that I may repent Me of the evil,\nwhich I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their\ndoings.\"[316] When the prophet multiplied the dark and lurid features\nof his picture, he was not gloating with morbid enjoyment over the\nnational misery, but rather hoped that the awful vision of judgment\nmight lead them to pause, and reflect and repent. In his age history\nhad not accumulated her now abundant proofs that the guilty conscience\nis panoplied in triple brass against most visions of judgment. The\nsequel of Jeremiah's own mission was added evidence for this truth.\n\nYet it dawned but slowly on the prophet's mind. The covenant of\nemancipation[317] in the last days of Zedekiah was doubtless proposed\nby Jeremiah as a possible beginning of better things, an omen of\nsalvation, even at the eleventh hour. To the very last the prophet\noffered the king his life and promised that Jerusalem should not be\nburnt, if only he would submit to the Chaldeans, and thus accept the\nDivine judgment and acknowledge its justice.\n\nFaithful friends have sometimes stood by the drunkard or the gambler,\nand striven for his deliverance through all the vicissitudes of his\ndownward career; to the very last they have hoped against hope, have\nwelcomed and encouraged every feeble stand against evil habit, every\ntransient flash of high resolve. But, long before the end, they have\nowned, with sinking heart, that the only way to salvation lay through\nthe ruin of health, fortune, and reputation. So, when the edge of\nyouthful hopefulness had quickly worn itself away, Jeremiah knew in\nhis inmost heart that, in spite of prayers and promises and\nexhortations, the fate of Judah was sealed. Let us therefore try to\nreproduce the picture of coming ruin which Jeremiah kept persistently\nbefore the eyes of his fellow-countrymen. The pith and power of his\nprophecies lay in the prospect of their speedy fulfilment. With him,\nas with Savonarola, a cardinal doctrine was that \"before the\nregeneration must come the scourge,\" and that \"these things will come\nquickly.\" Here again, Jeremiah took up the burden of Hosea's\nutterances. The elder prophet said of Israel, \"The days of visitation\nare come\";[318] and his successor announced to Judah the coming of\n\"the year of visitation.\"[319] The long-deferred assize was at hand,\nwhen the Judge would reckon with Judah for her manifold infidelities,\nwould pronounce sentence and execute judgment.\n\nIf the hour of doom had struck, it was not difficult to surmise whence\ndestruction would come or the man who would prove its instrument. The\nNorth (named in Hebrew the hidden quarter) was to the Jews the mother of\nthings unforeseen and terrible. Isaiah menaced the Philistines with \"a\nsmoke out of the north,\"[320] _i.e._ the Assyrians. Jeremiah and Ezekiel\nboth speak very frequently of the destroyers of Judah as coming from the\nnorth. Probably the early references in our book to northern enemies\ndenote the Scythians, who invaded Syria towards the beginning of\nJosiah's reign; but later on the danger from the north is the restored\nChaldean Empire, under its king Nebuchadnezzar. \"North\" is even less\naccurate geographically for Chaldea than for Assyria. Probably it was\naccepted in a somewhat symbolic sense for Assyria, and then transferred\nto Chaldea as her successor in the hegemony of Western Asia.\n\nNebuchadnezzar is first[321] introduced in the fourth year of\nJehoiakim; after the decisive defeat of Pharaoh Necho by\nNebuchadnezzar at Carchemish, Jeremiah prophesied the devastation of\nJudah by the victor; it is also prophesied that he is to carry\nJehoiachin away captive,[322] and similar prophecies were repeated\nduring the reign of Zedekiah.[323] Nebuchadnezzar and his Chaldeans\nvery closely resembled the Assyrians, with whose invasions the Jews\nhad long been only too familiar; indeed, as Chaldea had long been\ntributary to Assyria, it is morally certain that Chaldean princes must\nhave been present with auxiliary forces at more than one of the many\nAssyrian invasions of Palestine. Under Hezekiah, on the other hand,\nJudah had been allied with Merodach-baladan of Babylon against his\nAssyrian suzerain. So that the circumstances of Chaldean invasions and\nconquests were familiar to the Jews before the forces of the restored\nempire first attacked them; their imagination could readily picture\nthe horrors of such experiences.\n\nBut Jeremiah does not leave them to their unaided imagination, which\nthey might preferably have employed upon more agreeable subjects. He\nmakes them see the future reign of terror, as Jehovah had revealed it\nto his shuddering and reluctant vision. With his usual frequency of\niteration, he keeps the phrase \"the sword, the famine, and the\npestilence\" ringing in their ears. The sword was the symbol of the\ninvading hosts, \"the splendid and awful military parade\" of the\n\"bitter and hasty nation\" that were \"dreadful and terrible.\"[324] \"The\nfamine\" inevitably followed from the ravages of the invaders, and the\nimpossibility of ploughing, sowing, and reaping. It became most\ngruesome in the last desperate agonies of besieged garrisons, when, as\nin Elisha's time and the last siege of Jerusalem, \"men ate the flesh\nof their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and ate every one the\nflesh of his friend.\"[325] Among such miseries and horrors, the stench\nof unburied corpses naturally bred a pestilence, which raged amongst\nthe multitudes of refugees huddled together in Jerusalem and the\nfortified towns. We are reminded how the great plague of Athens struck\ndown its victims from among the crowds driven within its walls during\nthe long siege of the Peloponnesian war.\n\nAn ordinary Englishman can scarcely do justice to such prophecies; his\ncomprehension is limited by a happy inexperience. The constant\nrepetition of general phrases seems meagre and cold, because they carry\nfew associations and awaken no memories. Those who have studied French\nand Russian realistic art, and have read Erckmann-Chatrain, Zola, and\nTolsto\u00ef, may be stirred somewhat more by Jeremiah's grim rhetoric. It\nwill not be wanting in suggestiveness to those who have known battles\nand sieges. For students of missionary literature we may roughly\ncompare the Jews, when exposed to the full fury of a Chaldean attack, to\nthe inhabitants of African villages raided by slave-hunters.\n\nThe Jews, therefore, with their extensive, first-hand knowledge of the\nmiseries denounced against them, could not help filling in for\nthemselves the rough outline drawn by Jeremiah. Very probably, too,\nhis speeches were more detailed and realistic than the written\nreports. As time went on, the inroads of the Chaldeans and their\nallies provided graphic and ghastly illustrations of the prophecies\nthat Jeremiah still reiterated. In a prophecy, possibly originally\nreferring to the Scythian inroads and afterwards adapted to the\nChaldean invasions, Jeremiah speaks of himself: \"I am pained at my\nvery heart; my heart is disquieted in me; I cannot hold my peace; for\nmy soul heareth[326] the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war....\nHow long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the\ntrumpet?\"[327] Here, for once, Jeremiah expressed emotions that\nthrobbed in every heart. There was \"terror on every hand\"; men seemed\nto be walking \"through slippery places in darkness,\"[328] or to\nstumble along rough paths in a dreary twilight. Wormwood was their\ndaily food, and their drink maddening draughts of poison.[329]\n\nJeremiah and his prophecies were no mean part of the terror. To the\ndevotees of Baal and Moloch Jeremiah must have appeared in much the\nsame light as the fanatic whose ravings added to the horrors of the\nPlague of London, while the very sanity and sobriety of his utterances\ncarried a conviction of their fatal truth.\n\nWhen the people and their leaders succeeded in collecting any force of\nsoldiers or store of military equipment, and ventured on a sally,\nJeremiah was at once at hand to quench any reviving hope of effective\nresistance. How could soldiers and weapons preserve the city which\nJehovah had abandoned to its fate? \"Thus saith Jehovah, the God of\nIsrael: Behold, I will turn back the weapons in your hands, with which\nye fight without the walls against your besiegers, the king of Babylon\nand the Chaldeans, and will gather them into the midst of this city. I\nMyself will fight against you in furious anger and in great wrath, with\noutstretched hand and strong arm. I will smite the inhabitants of this\ncity, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence.\"[330]\n\nWhen Jerusalem was relieved for a time by the advance of an Egyptian\narmy, and the people allowed themselves to dream of another\ndeliverance like that from Sennacherib, the relentless prophet only\nturned upon them with renewed scorn: \"Though ye had smitten the whole\nhostile army of the Chaldeans, and all that were left of them were\ndesperately wounded, yet should they rise up every man in his tent and\nburn this city.\"[331] Not even the most complete victory could avail\nto save the city.\n\nThe final result of invasions and sieges was to be the overthrow of\nthe Jewish state, the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, and the\ncaptivity of the people. This unhappy generation were to reap the\nharvest of centuries of sin and failure. As in the last siege of\nJerusalem there came upon the Jews \"all the righteous blood shed on\nthe earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of\nZachariah son of Barachiah,\"[332] so now Jehovah was about to bring\nupon His Chosen People all the evil that He had spoken against\nthem[333]--all that had been threatened by Isaiah and his\nbrother-prophets, all the curses written in Deuteronomy. But these\nthreats were to be fully carried out, not because predictions must be\nfulfilled, nor even merely because Jehovah had spoken and His word\nmust not return to Him void, but because the people had not hearkened\nand obeyed. His threats were never meant to exclude the penitent from\nthe possibility of pardon.\n\nAs Jeremiah had insisted upon the guilt of every class of the community,\nso he is also careful to enumerate all the classes as about to suffer\nfrom the coming judgment: \"Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes\";[334]\n\"the people, the prophet, and the priest.\"[335] This Last Judgment of\nJudah, as it took the form of the complete overthrow of the State,\nnecessarily included all under its sentence of doom. One of the\nmysteries of Providence is that those who are most responsible for\nnational sins seem to suffer least by public misfortunes. Ambitious\nstatesmen and bellicose journalists do not generally fall in battle and\nleave destitute widows and children. When the captains of commerce and\nmanufacture err in their industrial policy, one great result is the\npauperism of hundreds of families who had no voice in the matter. A\nspendthrift landlord may cripple the agriculture of half a county. And\nyet, when factories are closed and farmers ruined, the manufacturer and\nthe landlord are the last to see want. In former invasions of Judah,\nthe princes and priests had some share of suffering; but wealthy nobles\nmight incur losses and yet weather the storm by which poorer men were\noverwhelmed. Fines and tribute levied by the invaders would, after the\nmanner of the East, be wrung from the weak and helpless. But now ruin\nwas to fall on all alike. The nobles had been flagrant in sin, they were\nnow to be marked out for most condign punishment--\"To whomsoever much is\ngiven, of him shall much be required.\"\n\nPart of the burden of Jeremiah's prophecy, one of the sayings constantly\non his lips, was that the city would be taken and destroyed by\nfire.[336] The Temple would be laid in ruins like the ancient sanctuary\nof Israel at Shiloh.[337] The palaces[338] of the king and princes would\nbe special marks for the destructive fury of the enemy, and their\ntreasures and all the wealth of the city would be for a spoil; those who\nsurvived the sack of the city would be carried captive to Babylon.[339]\n\nIn this general ruin the miseries of the people would not end with\ndeath. All nations have attached much importance to the burial of the\ndead and the due performance of funeral rites. In the touching Greek\nstory Antigone sacrificed her life in order to bury the remains of her\nbrother. Later Judaism attached exceptional importance to the burial\nof the dead, and the Book of Tobit lays great stress on this sacred\nduty. The angel Raphael declares that one special reason why the Lord\nhad been merciful to Tobias was that he had buried dead bodies, and\nhad not delayed to rise up and leave his meal to go and bury the\ncorpse of a murdered Jew, at the risk of his own life.[340]\n\nJeremiah prophesied of the slain in this last overthrow: \"They shall\nnot be lamented, neither shall they be buried; they shall be as dung\non the face of the ground; ... their carcases shall be meat for the\nfowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.\"\n\nWhen these last had done their ghastly work, the site of the Temple, the\ncity, the whole land would be left silent and desolate. The stranger,\nwandering amidst the ruins, would hear no cheerful domestic sounds; when\nnight fell, no light gleaming through chink or lattice would give the\nsense of human neighbourhood. Jehovah \"would take away the sound of the\nmillstones and the light of the candle.\"[341] The only sign of life\namidst the desolate ruins of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah would be\nthe melancholy cry of the jackals round the traveller's tent.[342]\n\nThe Hebrew prophets and our Lord Himself often borrowed their symbols\nfrom the scenes of common life, as they passed before their eyes. As\nin the days of Noah, as in the days of Lot, as in the days of the Son\nof Man, so in the last agony of Judah there was marrying and giving in\nmarriage. Some such festive occasion suggested to Jeremiah one of his\nfavourite formul\u00e6; it occurs four times in the Book of Jeremiah, and\nwas probably uttered much oftener. Again and again it may have\nhappened that, as a marriage procession passed through the streets,\nthe gay company were startled by the grim presence of the prophet, and\nshrank back in dismay as they found themselves made the text for a\nstern homily of ruin: \"Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, I will take away\nfrom them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of\nthe bridegroom and the voice of the bride.\" At any rate, however, and\nwhenever used, the figure could not fail to arrest attention, and to\nserve as an emphatic declaration that the ordinary social routine\nwould be broken up and lost in the coming calamity.\n\nHenceforth the land would be as some guilty habitation of sinners,\ndevoted to eternal destruction, an astonishment and a hissing and a\nperpetual desolation.[343] When the heathen sought some curse to\nexpress the extreme of malignant hatred, they would use the formula,\n\"God make thee like Jerusalem.\"[344] Jehovah's Chosen People would\nbecome an everlasting reproach, a perpetual shame, which should not be\nforgotten.[345] The wrath of Jehovah pursued even captives and\nfugitives. In chapter xxix. Jeremiah predicts the punishment of the\nJewish prophets at Babylon. When we last hear of him, in Egypt, he is\ndenouncing ruin against \"the remnant of Judah that have set their\nfaces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there.\" He still\nreiterates the same familiar phrases: \"Ye shall die by the sword, by\nthe famine, and by the pestilence\"; they shall be \"an execration, and\nan astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach.\"\n\nWe have now traced the details of the prophet's message of doom.\nFulfilment followed fast upon the heels of prediction, till Jeremiah\nrather interpreted than foretold the thick-coming disasters. When his\nbook was compiled, the prophecies were already, as they are now, part\nof the history of the last days of Judah. The book became the record\nof this great tragedy, in which these prophecies take the place of the\nchoric odes in a Greek drama.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[306] Characteristic Expressions, p. 269.\n\n[307] i. 10.\n\n[308] i. 15.\n\n[309] i. 7. The word for \"child\" (na'ar) is an elastic term, equalling\n\"boy\" or \"young man,\" with all the range of meaning possible in\nEnglish to the latter phrase.\n\n[310] Cf. the Book of Jonah.\n\n[311] xv. 1.\n\n[312] Driver, _Introduction_, p. 242.\n\n[313] \"Church\" is used, in the true Catholic sense, to embrace all\nChristians.\n\n[314] xxvii. 18.\n\n[315] xxv. 5, xxxv. 15.\n\n[316] xxvi. 3, xxxvi. 2.\n\n[317] Chap. XI.\n\n[318] Hosea ix. 7.\n\n[319] xxiii. 12.\n\n[320] Isa. xiv. 31.\n\n[321] xxv. 1-14: \"first,\" _i.e._, in time, not in the order of\nchapters in our Book of Jeremiah.\n\n[322] xxii. 25. Jehoiachin (Kings, Chronicles, and Jer. lii. 31) is\nalso called Coniah (Jer. xxii. 24, 28, xxxvii. 1) and Jeconiah\n(Chronicles, Esther, Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20, xxviii. 4, xxix. 2).\nThey are virtually forms of the same name, the \"Yah\" of the Divine\nName being prefixed in the first and affixed in the last two.\n\n[323] xxi. 7, xxviii. 14.\n\n[324] Habakkuk i. 6, 7.\n\n[325] xix. 9.\n\n[326] R.V. margin.\n\n[327] iv. 21.\n\n[328] xxiii. 12.\n\n[329] xxiii. 15.\n\n[330] xxi. 3-6.\n\n[331] xxxvii. 10.\n\n[332] Matt. xxiii. 35.\n\n[333] xxxv. 17: cf. xix. 15, xxxvi. 31.\n\n[334] xxxiv. 21.\n\n[335] xxiii. 33, 34.\n\n[336] xxxiv. 2, 22, xxxvii. 8.\n\n[337] vii. and xxvi.\n\n[338] vi. 5.\n\n[339] xx. 5.\n\n[340] Tobit xii. 13: cf. ii.\n\n[341] xxv. 10.\n\n[342] ix. 11, x. 22.\n\n[343] xxv. 9, 10.\n\n[344] xxvi. 6.\n\n[345] xxiii. 40.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXX\n\n _RESTORATION--I. THE SYMBOL_\n\n xxxii\n\n \"And I bought the field of Hanameel.\"--JER. xxxii. 9.\n\n\nWhen Jeremiah was first called to his prophetic mission, after the\ncharge \"to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy and to\noverthrow,\" there were added--almost as if they were an\nafterthought--the words \"to build and to plant.\"[346] Throughout a\nlarge part of the book little or nothing is said about building and\nplanting; but, at last, four consecutive chapters, xxx.-xxxiii., are\nalmost entirely devoted to this subject. Jeremiah's characteristic\nphrases are not all denunciatory; we owe to him the description of\nJehovah as \"the Hope of Israel.\"[347] Sin and ruin, guilt and\npunishment, could not quench the hope that centred in Him. Though the\nday of Jehovah might be darkness and not light,[348] yet, through the\nblackness of this day turned into night, the prophets beheld a radiant\ndawn. When all other building and planting were over for Jeremiah,\nwhen it might seem that much that he had planted was being rooted up\nagain in the overthrow of Judah, he was yet permitted to plant shoots\nin the garden of the Lord, which have since become trees whose leaves\nare for the healing of the nations.\n\nThe symbolic act dealt with in this chapter is a convenient\nintroduction to the prophecies of restoration, especially as chapters\nxxx., xxxi., have no title and are of uncertain date.\n\nThe incident of the purchase of Hanameel's field is referred by the\ntitle to the year 587 B.C., when Jeremiah was in prison and the\ncapture of the city was imminent. Verses 2-6 are an introduction by\nsome editor, who was anxious that his readers should fully understand\nthe narrative that follows. They are compiled from the rest of the\nbook, and contain nothing that need detain us.\n\nWhen Jeremiah was arrested and thrown into prison, he was on his way\nto Anathoth \"to receive his portion there,\"[349] _i.e._, as we gather\nfrom this chapter, to take possession of an inheritance that devolved\nupon him. As he was now unable to attend to this business at Anathoth,\nhis cousin Hanameel came to him in the prison, to give him the\nopportunity of observing the necessary formalities. In his enforced\nleisure Jeremiah would often recur to the matter on which he had been\nengaged when he was arrested. An interrupted piece of work is apt to\nintrude itself upon the mind with tiresome importunity; moreover his\ndismal surroundings would remind him of his business--it had been the\ncause of his imprisonment. The bond between an Israelite and the\nfamily inheritance was almost as close and sacred as that between\nJehovah and the Land of Promise. Naboth had died a martyr to the duty\nhe owed to the land. \"Jehovah forbid that I should give thee the\ninheritance of my fathers,\"[350] said he to Ahab. And now, in the\nfinal crisis of the fortunes of Judah, the prophet whose heart was\ncrushed by the awful task laid upon him had done what he could to\nsecure the rights of his family in the \"field\" at Anathoth.\n\nApparently he had failed. The oppression of his spirits would suggest\nthat Jehovah had disapproved and frustrated his purpose. His failure\nwas another sign of the utter ruin of the nation. The solemn grant of\nthe Land of Promise to the Chosen People was finally revoked; and\nJehovah no longer sanctioned the ancient ceremonies which bound the\nhouseholds and clans of Israel to the soil of their inheritance.\n\nIn some such mood, Jeremiah received the intimation that his cousin\nHanameel was on his way to see him about this very business. \"The word\nof Jehovah came unto him: Behold, thine uncle Shallum's son Hanameel\nis coming to thee, to say unto thee, Buy my field in Anathoth, for it\nis thy duty to buy it by way of redemption.\" The prophet was roused to\nfresh perplexity. The opportunity might be a Divine command to proceed\nwith the redemption. And yet he was a childless man doomed to die in\nexile. What had he to do with a field at Anathoth in that great and\nterrible day of the Lord? Death or captivity was staring every one in\nthe face; land was worthless. The transaction would put money into\nHanameel's pocket. The eagerness of a Jew to make sure of a good\nbargain seemed no very safe indication of the will of Jehovah.\n\nIn this uncertain frame of mind Hanameel found his cousin, when he\ncame to demand that Jeremiah should buy his field. Perhaps the\nprisoner found his kinsman's presence a temporary mitigation of his\ngloomy surroundings, and was inspired with more cheerful and kindly\nfeelings. The solemn and formal appeal to fulfil a kinsman's duty\ntowards the family inheritance came to him as a Divine command: \"I\nknew that this was the word of Jehovah.\"\n\nThe cousins proceeded with their business, which was in no way\nhindered by the arrangements of the prison. We must be careful to\ndismiss from our minds all the associations of the routine and\ndiscipline of a modern English gaol. The \"court of the guard\" in which\nthey were was not properly a prison; it was a place of detention, not\nof punishment. The prisoners may have been fettered, but they were\ntogether and could communicate with each other and with their friends.\nThe conditions were not unlike those of a debtors' prison such as the\nold Marshalsea, as described in _Little Dorrit_.\n\nOur information as to this right or duty of the next-of-kin to buy or\nbuy back land is of the scantiest.[351] The leading case is that in\nthe Book of Ruth, where, however, the purchase of land is altogether\nsecondary to the levirate marriage. The land custom assumes that an\nIsraelite will only part with his land in case of absolute necessity,\nand it was evidently supposed that some member of the clan would feel\nbound to purchase. On the other hand, in Ruth, the next-of-kin is\nreadily allowed to transfer the obligation to Boaz. Why Hanameel sold\nhis field we cannot tell; in these days of constant invasion, most of\nthe small landowners must have been reduced to great distress, and\nwould gladly have found purchasers for their property. The kinsman to\nwhom land was offered would pretty generally refuse to pay anything\nbut a nominal price. Formerly the demand that the next-of-kin should\nbuy an inheritance was seldom made, but the exceptional feature in\nthis case was Jeremiah's willingness to conform to ancient custom.\n\nThe price paid for the field was seventeen shekels of silver, but,\nhowever precise this information may seem, it really tells us very\nlittle. A curious illustration is furnished by modern currency\ndifficulties. The shekel, in the time of the Maccabees, when we are\nfirst able to determine its value with some certainty, contained about\nhalf an ounce of silver, _i.e._ about the amount of metal in an\nEnglish half-crown. The commentaries accordingly continue to reckon\nthe shekel as worth half-a-crown, whereas its value by weight\naccording to the present price of silver would be about fourteenpence.\nProbably the purchasing power of silver was not more stable in ancient\nPalestine than it is now. Fifty shekels seemed to David and Araunah a\nliberal price for a threshing-floor and its oxen, but the Chronicler\nthought it quite inadequate.[352] We know neither the size of\nHanameel's field nor the quality of the land, nor yet the value of the\nshekels;[353] but the symbolic use made of the incident implies that\nJeremiah paid a fair and not a panic price.\n\nThe silver was duly weighed in the presence of witnesses and of all\nthe Jews that were in the court of the guard, apparently including the\nprisoners; their position as respectable members of society was not\naffected by their imprisonment. A deed or deeds were drawn up, signed\nby Jeremiah and the witnesses, and publicly delivered to Baruch to be\nkept safely in an earthen vessel. The legal formalities are described\nwith some detail; possibly they were observed with exceptional\npunctiliousness; at any rate, great stress is laid upon the exact\nfulfilment of all that law and custom demanded. Unfortunately, in the\ncourse of so many centuries, much of the detail has become\nunintelligible. For instance, Jeremiah the purchaser signs the record\nof the purchase, but nothing is said about Hanameel signing. When\nAbraham bought the field of Machpelah of Ephron the Hittite there was\nno written deed, the land was simply transferred in public at the gate\nof the city.[354] Here the written record becomes valid by being\npublicly delivered to Baruch in the presence of Hanameel and the\nwitnesses. The details with regard to the deeds are very obscure, and\nthe text is doubtful. The Hebrew apparently refers to two deeds, but\nthe Septuagint for the most part to one only. The R.V. of verse 11\nruns: \"So I took the deed of the purchase, both that which was sealed,\naccording to the law and the custom, and that which was open.\" The\nSeptuagint omits everything after \"that which was sealed\"; and, in any\ncase, the words \"the law and the custom\"--better, as R.V. margin,\n\"_containing_ the terms and the conditions\"--are a gloss. In verse 14\nthe R.V. has: \"Take these deeds, this deed of the purchase, both that\nwhich is sealed, and this deed which is open, and put _them_ in an\nearthen vessel.\" The Septuagint reads: \"Take this book of the purchase\nand this book that has been read,[355] and thou shalt put _it_ in an\nearthen vessel.\"[356] It is possible that, as has been suggested, the\nreference to two deeds has arisen out of a misunderstanding of the\ndescription of a single deed. Scribes may have altered or added to the\ntext in order to make it state explicitly what they supposed to be\nimplied. No reason is given for having two deeds. We could have\nunderstood the double record if each party had retained one of the\ndocuments, or if one had been buried in the earthen vessel and the\nother kept for reference, but both are put into the earthen vessel.\nThe terms \"that which is sealed\" and \"that which is open\" may,\nhowever, be explained of either of one or two documents[357] somewhat\nas follows: the record was written, signed, and witnessed; it was then\nfolded up and sealed; part or the whole of the contents of this\nsealed-up record was then written again on the outside or on a\nseparate parchment, so that the purport of the deed could easily be\nascertained without exposing the original record. The Assyrian and\nChaldean contract-tablets were constructed on this principle; the\ncontract was first written on a clay tablet, which was further\nenclosed in an envelope of clay, and on the outside was engraved an\nexact copy of the writing within. If the outer writing became\nindistinct or was tampered with, the envelope could be broken and the\nexact terms of the contract ascertained from the first tablet.\nNumerous examples of this method can be seen in the British Museum.\nThe Jews had been vassals of Assyria and Babylon for about a century,\nand thus must have had ample opportunity to become acquainted with\ntheir legal procedure; and, in this instance, Jeremiah and his\nfriends may have imitated the Chaldeans. Such an imitation would be\nspecially significant in what was intended to symbolise the\ntransitoriness of the Chaldean conquest.\n\nThe earthen vessel would preserve the record from being spoilt by the\ndamp; similarly bottles are used nowadays to preserve the documents\nthat are built up into the memorial stones of public buildings. In\nboth cases the object is that \"they may continue many days.\"\n\nSo far the prophet had proceeded in simple obedience to a Divine\ncommand to fulfil an obligation which otherwise might excusably have\nbeen neglected. He felt that his action was a parable which suggested\nthat Judah might retain its ancient inheritance,[358] but Jeremiah\nhesitated to accept an interpretation seemingly at variance with the\njudgments he had pronounced upon the guilty people. When he had handed\nover the deed to Baruch, and his mind was no longer occupied with\nlegal minuti\u00e6, he could ponder at leisure on the significance of his\npurchase. The prophet's meditations naturally shaped themselves into a\nprayer; he laid his perplexity before Jehovah.[359] Possibly, even\nfrom the court of the guard, he could see something of the works of\nthe besiegers; and certainly men would talk constantly of the progress\nof the siege. Outside the Chaldeans were pushing their mounds and\nengines nearer and nearer to the walls, within famine and pestilence\ndecimated and enfeebled the defenders; the city was virtually in the\nenemy's hands. All this was in accordance with the will of Jehovah and\nthe mission entrusted to His prophet. \"What thou hast spoken of is\ncome to pass, and, behold, thou seest it.\" And yet, in spite of all\nthis, \"Thou hast said unto me, O Lord Jehovah, Buy the field for money\nand take witnesses--and the city is in the hands of the Chaldeans!\"\n\nJeremiah had already predicted the ruin of Babylon and the return of\nthe captives at the end of seventy years.[360] It is clear, therefore,\nthat he did not at first understand the sign of the purchase as\nreferring to restoration from the Captivity. His mind, at the moment,\nwas preoccupied with the approaching capture of Jerusalem; apparently\nhis first thought was that his prophecies of doom were to be set\naside, and at the last moment some wonderful deliverance might be\nwrought out for Zion. In the Book of Jonah, Nineveh is spared in spite\nof the prophet's unconditional and vehement declaration: \"Yet forty\ndays and Nineveh shall be overthrown.\" Was it possible, thought\nJeremiah, that after all that had been said and done, buying and\nselling, building and planting, marrying and giving in marriage, were\nto go on as if nothing had happened? He was bewildered and confounded\nby the idea of such a revolution in the Divine purposes.\n\nJehovah in His answer at once repudiates this idea. He asserts His\nuniversal sovereignty and omnipotence; these are to be manifested,\nfirst in judgment and then in mercy. He declares afresh that all the\njudgments predicted by Jeremiah shall speedily come to pass. Then He\nunfolds His gracious purpose of redemption and deliverance. He will\ngather the exiles from all lands and bring them back to Judah, and\nthey shall dwell there securely. They shall be His people and He will\nbe their God. Henceforth He will make an everlasting covenant with\nthem, that He will never again abandon them to misery and destruction,\nbut will always do them good. By Divine grace they shall be united in\npurpose and action to serve Jehovah; He Himself will put His fear in\ntheir hearts.\n\nAnd then returning to the symbol of the purchased field, Jehovah\ndeclares that fields shall be bought, with all the legal formalities\nusual in settled and orderly societies, deeds shall be signed, sealed,\nand delivered in the presence of witnesses. This restored social order\nshall extend throughout the territory of the Southern Kingdom,\nBenjamin, the environs of Jerusalem, the cities of Judah, of the hill\ncountry, of the Shephelah and the Negeb. The exhaustive enumeration\npartakes of the legal character of the purchase of Hanameel's field.\n\nThus the symbol is expounded: Israel's tenure of the Promised Land\nwill survive the Captivity; the Jews will return to resume their\ninheritance, and will again deal with the old fields and vineyards and\noliveyards, according to the solemn forms of ancient custom.\n\nThe familiar classical parallel to this incident is found in Livy,\nxxvi. 11, where we are told that when Hannibal was encamped three\nmiles from Rome, the ground he occupied was sold in the Forum by\npublic auction, and fetched a good price.\n\nBoth at Rome and at Jerusalem the sale of land was a symbol that the\ncontrol of the land would remain with or return to its original\ninhabitants. The symbol recognised that access to land is essential to\nall industry, and that whoever controls this access can determine the\nconditions of national life. This obvious and often forgotten truth\nwas constantly present to the minds of the inspired writers: to them\nthe Holy Land was almost as sacred as the Chosen People; its right use\nwas a matter of religious obligation, and the prophets and legislators\nalways sought to secure for every Israelite family some rights in\ntheir native soil.\n\nThe selection of a legal ceremony and the stress laid upon its forms\nemphasise the truth that social order is the necessary basis of morality\nand religion. The opportunity to live healthily, honestly, and purely is\nan antecedent condition of the spiritual life. This opportunity was\ndenied to slaves in the great heathen empires, just as it is denied to\nthe children in our slums. Both here and more fully in the sections we\nshall deal with in the following chapters, Jeremiah shows that he was\nchiefly interested in the restoration of the Jews because they could\nonly fulfil the Divine purpose as a separate community in Judah.\n\nMoreover, to use a modern term, he was no anarchist; spiritual\nregeneration might come through material ruin, but the prophet did not\nlook for salvation either in anarchy or through anarchy. While any\nfragment of the State held together, its laws were to be observed; as\nsoon as the exiles were re-established in Judah, they would resume the\nforms and habits of an organised community. The discipline of society,\nlike that of an army, is most necessary in times of difficulty and\ndanger, and, above all, in the crisis of defeat.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[346] i. 10.\n\n[347] xiv. 8, xvii. 13.\n\n[348] Amos v. 18, 20.\n\n[349] xxxvii. 12 (R.V.).\n\n[350] 1 Kings xxi. 3.\n\n[351] Lev. xxv. 25, Law of Holiness; Ruth iv.\n\n[352] 2 Sam. xxiv. 24: cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 25, where the price is six\nhundred shekels of _gold_. It is scarcely necessary to point out that\n\"threshing-floor\" (Sam.) and \"place of the threshing-floor\" (Chron.)\nare synonymous.\n\n[353] By _value_ here is meant purchasing power, to which the weight\ndenoted by the term shekel is now no clue.\n\n[354] Gen. xxiii. (_P._).\n\n[355] \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd probably a corruption of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[356] The text varies in different MSS. of the LXX.\n\n[357] Cf. Cheyne, etc., _in loco_.\n\n[358] Verse 15 anticipates by way of summary verses 42-44, and is\napparently ignored in verse 25. It probably represents Jeremiah's\ninterpretation of God's command at the time when he wrote the chapter.\nIn the actual development of the incident, the conviction of the\nDivine promise of restoration came to him somewhat later.\n\n[359] What was said of verse 15 partly applies to verses 17-23 (with\nthe exception of the introductory words: \"Ah, Lord Jehovah!\"). These\nverses are not dealt with in the text, because they largely anticipate\nthe ideas and language of the following Divine utterance. Kautzsch and\nCornill, following Stade, mark these verses as a later addition;\nGiesebrecht is doubtful. Cf. v. 20 ff. and xxvii. 5 f.\n\n[360] xxv. 12, xxix. 10.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXI\n\n _RESTORATION--II. THE NEW ISRAEL_\n\n xxiii. 3-8, xxiv. 6, 7, xxx., xxxi., xxxiii.[361]\n\n \"In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell\n safely: and this is the name whereby she shall be called.\"--JER.\n xxxiii. 16.\n\n\nThe Divine utterances in chapter xxxiii. were given to Jeremiah when\nhe was shut up in the \"court of the guard\" during the last days of the\nsiege. It may, however, have been committed to writing at a later\ndate, possibly in connection with chapters xxx. and xxxi., when the\ndestruction of Jerusalem was already past. It is in accordance with\nall analogy that the final record of a \"word of Jehovah\" should\ninclude any further light which had come to the prophet through his\ninspired meditations on the original message. Chapters xxx., xxxi.,\nand xxxiii. mostly expound and enforce leading ideas contained in\nxxxii. 37-44 and in earlier utterances of Jeremiah. They have much in\ncommon with II. Isaiah. The ruin of Judah and the captivity of the\npeople were accomplished facts to both writers, and they were both\nlooking forward to the return of the exiles and the restoration of the\nkingdom of Jehovah. We shall have occasion to notice individual points\nof resemblance later on.\n\nIn xxx. 2 Jeremiah is commanded to write in a book all that Jehovah\nhas spoken to him; and according to the present context the \"all,\" in\nthis case, refers merely to the following four chapters. These\nprophecies of restoration would be specially precious to the exiles;\nand now that the Jews were scattered through many distant lands, they\ncould only be transmitted and preserved in writing. After the command\n\"to write in a book\" there follows, by way of title, a repetition of\nthe statement that Jehovah would bring back His people to their\nfatherland. Here, in the very forefront of the Book of Promise, Israel\nand Judah are named as being recalled together from exile. As we read\ntwice[362] elsewhere in Jeremiah, the promised deliverance from\nAssyria and Babylon was to surpass all earlier manifestations of the\nDivine power and mercy. The Exodus would not be named in the same\nbreath with it: \"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that it shall\nno more be said, As Jehovah liveth, that brought up the Israelites out\nof the land of Egypt; but, As Jehovah liveth, that brought up the\nIsraelites from the land of the north, and from all the countries\nwhither He had driven them.\" This prediction has waited for fulfilment\nto our own times: hitherto the Exodus has occupied men's minds much\nmore than the Return; we are now coming to estimate the supreme\nreligious importance of the latter event.\n\nElsewhere again Jeremiah connects his promise with the clause in his\noriginal commission \"to build and to plant\":[363] \"I will set My eyes\nupon them (the captives) for good, and I will bring them again to this\nland; and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant\nthem, and not pluck them up.\"[364] As in xxxii. 28-35, the picture of\nrestoration is rendered more vivid by contrast with Judah's present\nstate of wretchedness; the marvellousness of Jehovah's mercy is made\napparent by reminding Israel of the multitude of its iniquities. The\nagony of Jacob is like that of a woman in travail. But travail shall be\nfollowed by deliverance and triumph. In the second Psalm the subject\nnations took counsel against Jehovah and against His Anointed:--\n\n \"Let us break their bands asunder,\n And cast away their cords from us\";\n\nbut now this is the counsel of Jehovah concerning His people and their\nBabylonian conqueror:--\n\n \"I will break his yoke from off thy neck,\n And break thy bands asunder.\"[365]\n\nJudah's lovers, her foreign allies, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and all\nthe other states with whom she had intrigued, had betrayed her; they\nhad cruelly chastised her, so that her wounds were grievous and her\nbruises incurable. She was left without a champion to plead her cause,\nwithout a friend to bind up her wounds, without balm to allay the pain\nof her bruises. \"Because thy sins were increased, I have done these\nthings unto thee, saith Jehovah.\" Jerusalem was an outcast, of whom\nmen said contemptuously: \"This is Zion, whom no man seeketh\nafter.\"[366] But man's extremity was God's opportunity; because Judah\nwas helpless and despised, therefore Jehovah said, \"I will restore\nhealth unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds.\"[367]\n\nWhile Jeremiah was still watching from his prison the progress of the\nsiege, he had seen the houses and palaces beyond the walls destroyed by\nthe Chaldeans to be used for their mounds; and had known that every\nsally of the besieged was but another opportunity for the enemy to\nsatiate themselves with slaughter, as they executed Jehovah's judgments\nupon the guilty city. Even at this extremity He announced solemnly and\nemphatically the restoration and pardon of His people. \"Thus saith\nJehovah, who established the earth, when He made and fashioned\nit--Jehovah is His name: Call upon Me, and I will answer thee, and will\nshow thee great mysteries, which thou knowest not.\"[368]\n\n\"I will bring to this city healing and cure, and will cause them to\nknow all the fulness of steadfast peace.... I will cleanse them from\nall their iniquities, and will pardon all their iniquities, whereby\nthey have sinned and transgressed against Me.\"[369]\n\nThe healing of Zion naturally involved the punishment of her cruel and\ntreacherous lovers.[370] The Return, like other revolutions, was not\nwrought by rose-water; the yokes were broken and the bands rent\nasunder by main force. Jehovah would make a full end of all the\nnations whither He had scattered them. Their devourers should be\ndevoured, all their adversaries should go into captivity, those who\nhad spoiled and preyed upon them should become a spoil and a prey.\nJeremiah had been commissioned from the beginning to pull down foreign\nnations and kingdoms as well as his native Judah.[371] Judah was only\none of Israel's evil neighbours who were to be plucked up out of their\nland.[372] And at the Return, as at the Exodus, the waves at one and\nthe same time opened a path of safety for Israel and overwhelmed her\noppressors.\n\nIsrael, pardoned and restored, would again be governed by legitimate\nkings of the House of David. In the dying days of the monarchy Israel\nand Judah had received their rulers from the hands of foreigners.\nMenahem and Hoshea bought the confirmation of their usurped authority\nfrom Assyria. Jehoiakim was appointed by Pharaoh Necho, and Zedekiah\nby Nebuchadnezzar. We cannot doubt that the kings of Egypt and Babylon\nwere also careful to surround their nominees with ministers who were\ndevoted to the interests of their suzerains. But now \"their nobles\nwere to be of themselves, and their ruler was to proceed out of their\nmidst,\"[373] _i.e._ nobles and rulers were to hold their offices\naccording to national custom and tradition.\n\nJeremiah was fond of speaking of the leaders of Judah as shepherds. We\nhave had occasion already[374] to consider his controversy with the\n\"shepherds\" of his own time. In his picture of the New Israel he uses\nthe same figure. In denouncing the evil shepherds, he predicts that,\nwhen the remnant of Jehovah's flock is brought again to their folds,\nHe will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them,[375]\nshepherds according to Jehovah's own heart, who should feed them with\nknowledge and understanding.[376]\n\nOver them Jehovah would establish as Chief Shepherd a Prince of the\nHouse of David. Isaiah had already included in his picture of\nMessianic times the fertility of Palestine; its vegetation,[377] by\nthe blessing of Jehovah, should be beautiful and glorious: he had also\ndescribed the Messianic King as a fruitful Branch[378] out of the root\nof Jesse. Jeremiah takes the idea of the latter passage, but uses the\nlanguage of the former. For him the King of the New Israel is, as it\nwere, a Growth (\u00e7ema\u1e25) out of the sacred soil, or perhaps more\ndefinitely from the roots of the House of David, that ancient tree\nwhose trunk had been hewn down and burnt. Both the Growth (\u00e7ema\u1e25) and\nthe Branch (ne\u00e7er) had the same vital connection with the soil of\nPalestine and the root of David. Our English versions exercised a wise\ndiscretion when they sacrificed literal accuracy and indicated the\nidentity of idea by translating both \"\u00e7ema\u1e25\" and \"ne\u00e7er\" by \"Branch.\"\n\n\"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise up unto David a\nrighteous Branch; and He shall be a wise and prudent King, and He shall\nexecute justice and maintain the right. In His days Judah shall be saved\nand Israel shall dwell securely, and His name shall be Jehovah\n'\u00c7idqenu,' Jehovah is our righteousness.\"[379] Jehovah \u00c7idqenu might\nvery well be the personal name of a Jewish king, though the form would\nbe unusual; but what is chiefly intended is that His character shall be\nsuch as the \"name\" describes. The \"name\" is a brief and pointed censure\nupon a king whose character was the opposite of that described in these\nverses, yet who bore a name of almost identical meaning--Zedekiah,\nJehovah is my righteousness. The name of the last reigning Prince of the\nHouse of David had been a standing condemnation of his unworthy life,\nbut the King of the New Israel, Jehovah's true Messiah, would realise in\nHis administration all that such a name promised. Sovereigns delight to\naccumulate sonorous epithets in their official designations--Highness,\nHigh and Mighty, Majesty, Serene, Gracious. The glaring contrast between\ncharacter and titles often only serves to advertise the worthlessness of\nthose who are labelled with such epithets: the Majesty of James I., the\nGraciousness of Richard III. Yet these titles point to a standard of\ntrue royalty, whether the sovereign be an individual or a class or the\npeople; they describe that Divine Sovereignty which will be realised in\nthe Kingdom of God.[380]\n\nThe material prosperity of the restored community is set forth with\nwealth of glowing imagery. Cities and palaces are to be rebuilt on their\nformer sites with more than their ancient splendour. \"Out of them shall\nproceed thanksgiving, and the voice of them that make merry: and I will\nmultiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and\nthey shall not be small. And the children of Jacob shall be as of old,\nand their assembly shall be established before Me.\"[381] The figure\noften used of the utter desolation of the deserted country is now used\nto illustrate its complete restoration: \"Yet again there shall be heard\nin this place ... the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice\nof the bridegroom and the voice of the bride.\" Throughout all the land\n\"which is waste, without man and without beast, and in all the cities\nthereof,\" shepherds shall dwell and pasture and fold their flocks; and\nin the cities of all the districts of the Southern Kingdom (enumerated\nas exhaustively as in xxxii. 44) shall the flocks again pass under the\nshepherd's hands to be told.[382]\n\nJehovah's own peculiar flock, His Chosen People, shall be fruitful and\nmultiply according to the prim\u00e6val blessing; under their new shepherds\nthey shall no more fear nor be dismayed, neither shall any be\nlacking.[383] Jeremiah recurs again and again to the quiet, the\nrestfulness, the freedom from fear and dismay of the restored Israel. In\nthis, as in all else, the New Dispensation was to be an entire contrast\nto those long weary years of alternate suspense and panic, when men's\nhearts were shaken by the sound of the trumpet and the alarm of\nwar.[384] Israel is to dwell securely at rest from fear of harm.[385]\nWhen Jacob returns, he \"shall be quiet and at ease, and none shall make\nhim afraid.\"[386] Egyptian, Assyrian, and Chaldean shall all cease from\ntroubling; the memory of past misery shall become dim and shadowy.\n\nThe finest expansion of this idea is a passage which always fills the\nsoul with a sense of utter rest. \"He shall dwell on high: his refuge\nshall be the inaccessible rocks: his bread shall be given him; his\nwaters shall be sure. Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty:\nthey shall behold a far-stretching land. Thine heart shall muse on the\nterror: where is he that counted, where is he that weighed the\ntribute? where is he that counted the towers? Thou shalt not see the\nfierce people, a people of a deep speech that thou canst not perceive;\nof a strange tongue that thou canst not understand. Look upon Zion,\nthe city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet\nhabitation, a tent that shall not be removed, the stakes whereof shall\nnever be plucked up, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.\nThere Jehovah will be with us in majesty, a place of broad rivers and\nstreams; wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant\nship pass thereby.\"[387]\n\nFor Jeremiah too the presence of Jehovah in majesty was the only\npossible guarantee of the peace and prosperity of Israel. The voices of\njoy and gladness in the New Jerusalem were not only those of bride and\nbridegroom, but also of those that said, \"Give thanks to Jehovah\nSabaoth, for Jehovah is good, for His mercy endureth for ever,\" and of\nthose that \"came to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving in the house of\nJehovah.\"[388] This new David, as the Messianic King is called,[389] is\nto have the priestly right of immediate access to God: \"I will cause Him\nto draw near, and He shall approach unto Me: for else who would risk his\nlife by daring to approach Me?\"[390] Israel is liberated from foreign\nconquerors to serve Jehovah their God and David their King; and the Lord\nHimself rejoices in His restored and ransomed people.\n\nThe city that was once a desolation, an astonishment, a hissing, and a\ncurse among all nations shall now be to Jehovah \"a name of joy, a\npraise and a glory, before all the nations of the earth, which shall\nhear all the good that I do unto them, and shall tremble with fear for\nall the good and all the peace that I procure unto it.\"[391]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[361] Vatke and Stade reject chapters xxx., xxxi., xxxiii., but they\nare accepted by Driver, Cornill, Kautzsch (for the most part).\nGiesebrecht assigns them partly to Baruch and partly to a later\neditor. It is on this account that the full exposition of certain\npoints in xxxii. and elsewhere has been reserved for the present\nchapter. Moreover, if the cardinal ideas come from Jeremiah, we need\nnot be over-anxious to decide whether the expansion, illustration, and\nenforcing of them is due to the prophet himself, or to his disciple\nBaruch, or to some other editor. The question is somewhat parallel to\nthat relating to the discourses of our Lord in the Fourth Gospel.\n\n[362] xvi. 14, 15, xxiii. 7, 8.\n\n[363] i. 10.\n\n[364] xxiv. 6.\n\n[365] xxx. 5-8.\n\n[366] xxx. 12-17.\n\n[367] The two verses xxx. 10, 11, present some difficulty here.\nAccording to Kautzsch, and of course Giesebrecht, they are a later\naddition. The ideas can mostly be paralleled elsewhere in Jeremiah.\nVerse 11 _b_, \"I will correct thee with judgment, and will in no wise\nleave thee unpunished,\" seems inconsistent with the context, which\nrepresents the punishment as actually inflicted. Still, the verses\nmight be a genuine fragment misplaced. Driver (_Introduction_, 246)\nsays: \"The title of honour 'My servant' ... appears to have formed the\nbasis upon which II. Isaiah constructs his great conception of\nJehovah's ideal servant.\"\n\n[368] xxxiii. 2, 3; \"earth\" is inserted with the LXX. Many regard these\nverses as a later addition, based on II. Isaiah: cf. Isa. xlviii. 6. The\nphrase \"Jehovah is His name\" and the terms \"make\" and \"fashion\" are\nspecially common in II. Isaiah. xxxiii. so largely repeats the ideas of\nxxx. that it is most convenient to deal with them together.\n\n[369] xxxiii. 6-8, slightly paraphrased and condensed.\n\n[370] xxx. 8, 11, 16, 20. Cf. also the chapters on the prophecies\nconcerning foreign nations.\n\n[371] i. 10.\n\n[372] xii. 14. xxx. 23, 24, is apparently a gloss, added as a suitable\nillustration of this chapter, from xxiii. 19, 20, which are almost\nidentical with these two verses.\n\n[373] xxx. 21.\n\n[374] Cf. Chap. VIII.\n\n[375] xxiii. 3, 4.\n\n[376] iii. 15.\n\n[377] Isa. iv. 2, \u00e7ema\u1e25; A.V. and R.V. Branch, R.V. margin Shoot or Bud.\n\n[378] Isa. xi. 1.\n\n[379] xxv. 5, 6; repeated in xxxiii. 15, 16, with slight variations.\n\n[380] In xxxiii. 14-26 the permanence of the Davidic dynasty, the\nLevitical priests, and the people of Israel is solemnly assured by a\nDivine promise. These verses are not found in the LXX., and are\nconsidered by many to be a later addition; see Kautzsch, Giesebrecht,\nCheyne, etc. They are mostly of a secondary character--15, 16, =\nxxiii. 5, 6; here Jerusalem and not its king is called Jehovah\nC\u0326idqenu, possibly because the addition was made when there was no\nvisible prospect of the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. Verse 17\nis based on the original promise in 2 Sam. vii. 14-16, and is\nequivalent to Jer. xxii. 4, 30. The form and substance of the Divine\npromise imitate xxxi. 35-37.\n\n[381] xxx. 18-20.\n\n[382] xxxiii. 10-13.\n\n[383] xxiii. 3, 4.\n\n[384] iv. 19.\n\n[385] xxiii. 6.\n\n[386] xxx. 10.\n\n[387] Isa. xxxiii. 16-21: cf. xxxii. 15-18.\n\n[388] xxxiii. 11.\n\n[389] xxx. 9.\n\n[390] xxx. 21, as Kautzsch.\n\n[391] xxxiii. 9.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXII\n\n _RESTORATION--III. REUNION_\n\n xxxi.\n\n \"I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the\n seed of man, and with the seed of beast.\"--JER. xxxi. 27.\n\n\nIn his prophecies of restoration, Jeremiah continually couples\ntogether Judah and Israel.[392] Israel, it is true, often stands for\nthe whole elect nation, and is so used by Jeremiah. After the\ndisappearance of the Ten Tribes, the Jewish community is spoken of as\nIsrael. But Israel, in contrast to Judah, will naturally mean the\nNorthern Kingdom or its exiled inhabitants. In this chapter Jeremiah\nclearly refers to this Israel; he speaks of it under its distinctive\ntitle of Ephraim, and promises that vineyards shall again be planted\non the mountains of Samaria. Jehovah had declared that He would cast\nJudah out of His sight, as He had cast out the whole seed of\nEphraim.[393] In the days to come Jehovah would make His new covenant\nwith the House of Israel, as well as with the House of Judah.\nAmos,[394] who was sent to declare the captivity of Israel, also\nprophesied its return; and similar promises are found in Micah and\nIsaiah.[395] But, in his attitude towards Ephraim, Jeremiah, as in so\nmuch else, is a disciple of Hosea. Both prophets have the same\ntender, affectionate interest in this wayward child of God. Hosea\nmourns over Ephraim's sin and punishment: \"How shall I give thee up,\nEphraim? how shall I deliver thee to thine enemies, O Israel? how\nshall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim?\"[396]\nJeremiah exults in the glory of Ephraim's restoration. Hosea barely\nattains to the hope that Israel will return from captivity, or\npossibly that its doom may yet be averted. \"Mine heart is turned\nwithin Me, My compassions are kindled together. I will not execute the\nfierceness of Mine anger, I will not again any more destroy Ephraim:\nfor I am God, and not man; the Holy One of Israel in the midst of\nthee.\"[397] But Jehovah rather longs to pardon than finds any sign of\nthe repentance that makes pardon possible; and similarly the\npromise--\"I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall blossom as the\nlily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. His branches shall spread,\nand his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as\nLebanon\"--is conditioned upon the very doubtful response to the appeal\n\"O Israel, return unto Jehovah thy God.\"[398] But Jeremiah's\nconfidence in the glorious future of Ephraim is dimmed by no shade of\nmisgiving. \"They shall be My people, and I will be their God,\" is the\nrefrain of Jeremiah's prophecies of restoration; this chapter opens\nwith a special modification of the formula, which emphatically and\nexpressly includes both Ephraim and Judah--\"I will be the God of all\nthe clans of Israel, and they shall be My people.\"\n\nThe Assyrian and Chaldean captivities carried men's thoughts back to\nthe bondage in Egypt; and the experiences of the Exodus provided\nphrases and figures to describe the expected Return. The judges had\ndelivered individual tribes or groups of tribes. Jeroboam II. had been\nthe saviour of Samaria; and the overthrow of Sennacherib had rescued\nJerusalem. But the Exodus stood out from all later deliverances as the\nbirth of the whole people. Hence the prophets often speak of the\nReturn as a New Exodus.\n\nThis prophecy takes the form of a dialogue between Jehovah and the\nVirgin of Israel, _i.e._ the nation personified. Jehovah announces that\nthe Israelite exiles, the remnant left by the sword of Shalmaneser and\nSargon, were to be more highly favoured than the fugitives from the\nsword of Pharaoh, of whom Jehovah sware in His wrath \"that they should\nnot enter into My rest; whose carcases fell in the wilderness.\" \"A\npeople that hath survived the sword hath found favour in the wilderness;\nIsrael hath entered into his rest,\"[399]--_hath_ found favour--_hath_\nentered--because Jehovah regards His purpose as already accomplished.\n\nJehovah speaks from his ancient dwelling-place in Jerusalem, and, when\nthe Virgin of Israel hears Him in her distant exile, she answers:--\n\n \"From afar hath Jehovah appeared unto me (saying),\n With My ancient love do I love thee;\n Therefore My lovingkindness is enduring toward thee.\"[400]\n\nHis love is as old as the Exodus, His mercy has endured all through\nthe long, weary ages of Israel's sin and suffering.\n\nThen Jehovah replies:--\n\n \"Again will I build thee, and thou shalt be built, O Virgin of\n Israel;\n Again shalt thou take thy tabrets, and go forth in the dances\n of them that make merry;\n Again shalt thou plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria,\n while they that plant shall enjoy the fruit.\"\n\nThis contrasts with the times of invasion when the vintage was\ndestroyed or carried off by the enemy. Then follows the Divine\npurpose, the crowning mercy of Israel's renewed prosperity:--\n\n \"For the day cometh when the vintagers[401] shall cry in the\n hill-country of Ephraim,\n Arise, let us go up to Zion, to Jehovah our God.\"\n\nIsrael will no longer keep her vintage feasts in schism at Samaria and\nBethel and her countless high places, but will join with Judah in the\nworship of the Temple, which Josiah's covenant had accepted as the one\nsanctuary of Jehovah.\n\nThe exultant strain continues stanza after stanza:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah:\n Exult joyously for Jacob, and shout for the chief of the\n nations;\n Make your praises heard, and say, Jehovah hath saved His\n people,[402] even the remnant of Israel.\n Behold, I bring them from the land of the north, and gather\n them from the uttermost ends of the earth;\n Among them blind and lame, pregnant women and women in\n travail together.\"\n\nNone are left behind, not even those least fit for the journey.\n\n \"A great company shall return hither.\n They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I\n lead them.\"\n\nOf old, weeping and supplication had been heard upon the heights of\nIsrael because of her waywardness and apostasy;[403] but now the\nreturning exiles offer prayers and thanksgiving mingled with tears,\nweeping partly for joy, partly for pathetic memories.\n\n \"I will bring them to streams of water, by a plain path,\n wherein they cannot stumble:\n For I am become once more a father to Israel, and Ephraim is\n My first-born son.\"\n\nOf the two Israelite states, Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom, had long\nbeen superior in power, wealth, and religion. Judah was often little\nmore than a vassal of Samaria, and owed her prosperity and even her\nexistence to the barrier which Samaria interposed between Jerusalem\nand invaders from Assyria or Damascus. Until the latter days of\nSamaria, Judah had no prophets that could compare with Elijah and\nElisha. The Jewish prophet is tenacious of the rights of Zion, but he\ndoes not base any claim for the ascendency of Judah on the\ngeographical position of the Temple; he does not even mention the\nsacerdotal tribe of Levi. Jew and priest as he was, he acknowledges\nthe political and religious hegemony of Ephraim. The fact is a\nstriking illustration of the stress laid by the prophets on the unity\nof Israel, to which all sectional interests were to be sacrificed. If\nEphraim was required to forsake his ancient shrines, Jeremiah was\nequally ready to forego any pride of tribe or caste. Did we, in all\nour different Churches, possess the same generous spirit, Christian\nreunion would no longer be a vain and distant dream. But, passing on\nto the next stanza,--\n\n \"Hear the word of Jehovah, O ye nations, and make it known in\n the distant islands.\n Say, He that scattered Israel doth gather him, and watcheth\n over him as a shepherd over his flock.\n For Jehovah hath ransomed Jacob and redeemed him from the\n hand of him that was too strong for him.\n They shall come and sing for joy in the height of Zion;\n They shall come in streams to the bounty of Jehovah, for corn\n and new wine and oil and lambs and calves.\"\n\nJeremiah does not dwell, in any grasping sacerdotal spirit, on the\ncontributions which these reconciled schismatics would pay to the\nTemple revenues, but rather delights to make mention of their share in\nthe common blessings of God's obedient children.\n\n \"They shall be like a well-watered garden; they shall no more\n be faint and weary:\n Then shall they rejoice--the damsels in the dance--the young\n men and the old together.\n I will turn their mourning into gladness, and will comfort\n them, and will bring joy out of their wretchedness.\n I will fill the priests with plenty, and My people shall be\n satisfied with My bounty--\n It is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nIt is not quite clear how far, in this chapter, Israel is to be\nunderstood exclusively of Ephraim. If the foregoing stanza is, as it\nseems, perfectly general, the priests are simply those of the restored\ncommunity, ministering at the Temple; but if the reference is\nspecially to Ephraim, the priests belong to families involved in the\ncaptivity of the ten tribes, and we have further evidence of the\ncatholic spirit of the Jewish prophet.\n\nAnother stanza:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah:\n A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping,\n Rachel weeping for her children.\n She refuseth to be comforted for her children, for they are\n not.\"\n\nRachel, as the mother of Benjamin and Joseph, claimed an interest in\nboth the Israelite kingdoms. Jeremiah shows special concern for\nBenjamin, in whose territory his native Anathoth was situated.[404]\n\n\"Her children\" would be chiefly the Ephraimites and Manassites, who\nformed the bulk of the Northern Kingdom; but the phrase was doubtless\nintended to include other Jews, that Rachel might be a symbol of\nnational unity.\n\nThe connection of Rachel with Ramah is not obvious; there is no\nprecedent for it. Possibly Ramah is not intended for a proper name,\nand we might translate \"A voice is heard upon the heights.\" In Gen.\nxxxv. 19, Rachel's grave is placed between Bethel and Ephrath,[405]\nand in 1 Sam. x. 2, in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; only here has\nRachel anything to do with Ramah. The name, however, in its various\nforms, was not uncommon. Ramah, to the north of Jerusalem, seems to\nhave been a frontier town, and debatable territory[406] between the\ntwo kingdoms; and Rachel's appearance there might symbolise her\nrelation to both. This Ramah was also a slave depot for the\nChaldeans[407] after the fall of Jerusalem, and Rachel might well\nrevisit the glimpses of the moon at a spot where her descendants had\ndrunk the first bitter draught of the cup of exile. In any case, the\nlines are a fresh appeal to the spirit of national unity. The prophet\nseems to say: \"Children of the same mother, sharers in the same fate,\nwhether of ruin or restoration, remember the ties that bind you and\nforget your ancient feuds.\" Rachel, wailing in ghostly fashion, was\nyet a name to conjure with, and the prophet hoped that her symbolic\ntears could water the renewed growth of Israel's national life.\nChrist, present in His living Spirit, lacerated at heart by the bitter\nfeuds of those who call Him Lord, should temper the harsh judgments\nthat Christians pass on servants of their One Master. The Jewish\nprophet lamenting the miseries of schismatic Israel contrasts with the\nPope singing _Te Deums_ over the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\n\nThen comes the answer:--\n\n \"Thus saith Jehovah:\n Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears.\n Thou shalt have wages for thy labour--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah--they shall return from the enemy's land.\n There is hope for thee in the days to come--it is the\n utterance of Jehovah--thy children shall return to\n their own border.\"[408]\n\nThe Niobe of the nation is comforted, but now is heard another voice:--\n\n \"Surely I hear Ephraim bemoaning himself: Thou hast chastised\n me; I am chastised like a calf not yet broken to the\n yoke.\n Restore me to Thy favour, that I may return unto Thee, for\n Thou art Jehovah my God.\n In returning unto Thee, I repent; when I come to myself, I\n smite upon my thigh in penitence.\"[409]\n\nThe image of the calf is another reminiscence of Hosea, with whom\nIsrael figures as a \"backsliding heifer\" and Ephraim as a \"heifer that\nhas been broken in and loveth to tread out the corn\"; though\napparently in Hosea Ephraim is broken in to wickedness. Possibly this\nfigure was suggested by the calves at Bethel and Dan.\n\nThe moaning of Ephraim, like the wailing of Rachel, is met and\nanswered by the Divine compassion. By a bold and touching figure,\nJehovah is represented as surprised at the depth of His passionate\naffection for His prodigal son:--\n\n \"Can it be that Ephraim is indeed a son that is precious to\n Me? is he indeed a darling child?\n As often as I speak against him, I cannot cease to remember\n him,[410]\n Wherefore My tender compassion is moved towards him: verily I\n will have mercy on him--\n It is the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nAs with Hosea, Israel is still the child whom Jehovah loved, the son\nwhom He called out of Egypt. But now Israel is called with a more\neffectual calling:--\n\n \"Set thee up pillars of stone,[411] to mark the way; make thee\n guide-posts: set thy heart toward the highway\n whereby thou wentest.\n Return, O Virgin of Israel, return unto these thy cities.\"\n\nThe following verse strikes a note of discord, that suggests the\nrevulsion of feeling, the sudden access of doubt, that sometimes\nfollows the most ecstatic moods:--\n\n \"How long wilt thou wander to and fro, O backsliding daughter?\n Jehovah hath created a new thing in the earth--a woman shall\n compass a man.\"\n\nIt is just possible that this verse is not intended to express doubt\nof Israel's cordial response, but is merely an affectionate urgency\nthat presses the immediate appropriation of the promised blessings.\nBut such an exegesis seems forced, and the verse is a strange\ntermination to the glowing stanzas that precede. It may have been\nadded when all hope of the return of the ten tribes was over.[412]\n\nThe meaning of the concluding enigma is as profound a mystery as the\nfate of the lost tribes, and the solutions rather more unsatisfactory.\nThe words apparently denote that the male and the female shall\ninterchange functions, and an explanation often given is that, in the\nprofound peace of the New Dispensation, the women will protect the men.\nThis portent seems to be the sign which is to win the Virgin of Israel\nfrom her vacillation and induce her to return at once to Palestine.\n\nIn Isaiah xliii. 19 the \"new thing\" which Jehovah does is to make a\nway in the untrodden desert and rivers in the parched wilderness. A\nparallel interpretation, suggested for our passage, is that women\nshould develop manly strength and courage, as abnormal to them as\nroads and rivers to a wilderness. When women were thus endowed, men\ncould not for shame shrink from the perils of the Return.\n\nIn Isaiah iv. 1 seven women court one man, and it has been\nsuggested[413] that the sense here is \"women shall court men,\" but it\nis difficult to see how this would be relevant. Another parallel has\nbeen sought for in the Immanuel and other prophecies of Isaiah, in\nwhich the birth of a child is set forth as a sign. Our passage would\nthen assume a Messianic character; the return of the Virgin of Israel\nwould be postponed till her doubts and difficulties should be solved\nby the appearance of a new Moses.[414] This view has much to commend\nit, but does not very readily follow from the usage of the word\ntranslated \"compass.\" Still less can we regard these words as a\nprediction of the miraculous conception of our Lord.\n\nThe next stanza connects the restoration of Judah with that of\nEphraim, and, for the most part, goes over ground already traversed in\nour previous chapters; one or two points only need be noticed here. It\nis in accordance with the catholic and gracious spirit which\ncharacterises this chapter that the restoration of Judah is expressly\nconnected with that of Ephraim. The combination of the future fortunes\nof both in a single prophecy emphasises their reunion. The heading of\nthis stanza, \"Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel,\" is\ndifferent from that hitherto used, and has a special significance in\nits present context. It is \"the God of Israel\" to whom Ephraim is a\ndarling child and a first-born son, the God of that Israel which for\ncenturies stood before the world as Ephraim; it is this God who\nblesses and redeems Judah. Her faint and weary soul is also to be\nsatisfied with His plenty; Zion is to be honoured as the habitation of\njustice and the mountain of holiness.\n\n\"Hereupon,\" saith the prophet, \"I awaked and looked about me, and felt\nthat my sleep had been pleasant to me.\" The vision had come to him, in\nsome sense, as a dream. Zechariah[415] had to be aroused, like a man\nwakened out of his sleep, in order to receive the Divine message; and\npossibly Zechariah's sleep was the ecstatic trance in which he had\nbeheld previous visions. Jeremiah, however, shows scant\nconfidence[416] in the inspiration of those who dream dreams, and it\ndoes not seem likely that this is a unique exception to his ordinary\nexperience. Perhaps we may say with Orelli that the prophet had become\nlost in the vision of future blessedness as in some sweet dream.\n\nIn the following stanza Jehovah promises to recruit the dwindled\nnumbers of Israel and Judah; with a sowing more gracious and fortunate\nthan that of Cadmus, He will scatter[417] over the land, not dragons'\nteeth, but the seed of man and beast. Recurring[418] to Jeremiah's\noriginal commission, He promises that as He watched over Judah to\npluck up and to break down, to overthrow and to destroy and to\nafflict, so now He will watch over them to build and to plant.\n\nThe next verse is directed against a lingering dread, by which men's\nminds were still possessed. More than half a century elapsed between\nthe death of Manasseh and the fall of Jerusalem. He was succeeded by\nJosiah, who \"turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his\nsoul, and with all his might.\"[419] Yet Jehovah declared to Jeremiah\nthat Manasseh's sins had irrevocably fixed the doom of Judah, so that\nnot even the intercession of Moses and Samuel could procure her\npardon.[420] Men might well doubt whether the guilt of that wicked\nreign was even yet fully expiated, whether their teeth might not still\nbe set on edge because of the sour grapes which Manasseh had eaten.\nTherefore the prophet continues: \"In those days men shall no longer\nsay, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are\nset on edge; but every man shall die for his own transgression, all\nwho eat sour grapes shall have their own teeth set on edge.\" Or to use\nthe explicit words of Ezekiel, in the great chapter in which he\ndiscusses this permanent theological difficulty: \"The soul that\nsinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the\nfather, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the\nrighteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness\nof the wicked shall be upon him.\"[421] With the fall of Jerusalem, a\nchapter in the history of Israel was concluded for ever; Jehovah\nblotted out the damning record of the past, and turned over a new leaf\nin the annals of His people. The account between Jehovah and the\nIsrael of the monarchy was finally closed, and no penal balance was\ncarried over to stand against the restored community.\n\nThe last portion of this chapter is so important that we must reserve\nit for separate treatment, but we may pause for a moment to consider\nthe prophecy of the restoration of Ephraim from two points of\nview--the unity of Israel and the return of the ten tribes.\n\nIn the first place, this chapter is an eirenicon, intended to consign\nto oblivion the divisions and feuds of the Chosen People. After the\nfall of Samaria, the remnant of Israel had naturally looked to Judah\nfor support and protection, and the growing weakness of Assyria had\nallowed the Jewish kings to exercise a certain authority over the\nterritory of northern tribes. The same fate--the sack of the capital\nand the deportation of most of the inhabitants--had successively\nbefallen Ephraim and Judah. His sense of the unity of the race was too\nstrong to allow the prophet to be satisfied with the return of Judah\nand Benjamin, apart from the other tribes. Yet it would have been\nmonstrous to suppose that Jehovah would bring back Ephraim from\nAssyria, and Judah from Babylon, only that they might resume their\nmutual hatred and suspicion. Even wild beasts are said not to rend one\nanother when they are driven by floods to the same hill-top.\n\nThus various causes contributed to produce a kindlier feeling between\nthe survivors of the catastrophes of Samaria and Jerusalem; and from\nhenceforth those of the ten tribes who found their way back to Palestine\nlived in brotherly union with the other Jews. And, on the whole, the\nJews have since remained united both as a race and a religious\ncommunity. It is true that the relations of the later Jews to Samaria\nwere somewhat at variance both with the letter and spirit of this\nprophecy, but that Samaria had only the slightest claim to be included\nin Israel. Otherwise the divisions between Hillel and Shammai, Sadducees\nand Pharisees, Karaites, Sephardim and Ashkenazim, Reformed and\nUnreformed Jews, have rather been legitimate varieties of opinion and\npractice within Judaism than a rending asunder of the Israel of God.\n\nMatters stand very differently with regard to the restoration of\nEphraim. We know that individual members and families of the ten\ntribes were included in the new Jewish community, and that the Jews\nreoccupied Galilee and portions of Eastern Palestine. But the\nhusbandmen who had planted vineyards on the hills of Samaria were\nviolently repulsed by Ezra and Nehemiah, and were denied any part or\nlot in the restored Israel. The tribal inheritance of Ephraim and\nManasseh was never reoccupied by Ephraimites and Manassites who came\nto worship Jehovah in His Temple at Jerusalem. There was no return of\nthe ten tribes that in any way corresponded to the terms of this\nprophecy or that could rank with the return of their brethren. Our\ngrowing acquaintance with the races of the world seems likely to\nexclude even the possibility of any such restoration of Ephraim. Of\nthe two divisions of Israel, so long united in common experiences of\ngrace and chastisement, the one has been taken and the other left.\n\nChristendom is the true heir of the ideals of Israel, but she is\nmostly content to inherit them as counsels of perfection. Isaiah[422]\nstruck the keynote of this chapter when he prophesied that Ephraim\nshould not envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim. Our prophet, in the\nsame generous spirit, propounds a programme of reconciliation. It\nmight serve for a model to those who construct schemes for Christian\nReunion. When two denominations are able to unite on such terms that\nthe one admits the other to be the first-born of God, His darling\nchild and precious in His sight, and the latter is willing to accept\nthe former's central sanctuary as the headquarters of the united body,\nwe shall have come some way towards realising this ancient Jewish\nideal. Meanwhile Ephraim remains consumed with envy of Judah; and\nJudah apparently considers it her most sacred duty to vex Ephraim.\n\nMoreover the disappearance of what was at one time the most\nflourishing branch of the Hebrew Church has many parallels in Church\nHistory. Again and again religious dissension has been one of the\ncauses of political ruin, and the overthrow of a Christian state has\nsometimes involved the extinction of its religion. Christian thought\nand doctrine owe an immense debt to the great Churches of Northern\nAfrica and Egypt. But these provinces were torn by the dissensions of\necclesiastical parties; and the quarrels of Donatists, Arians, and\nCatholics in North Africa, the endless controversies over the Person\nof Christ in Egypt, left them helpless before the Saracen invader.\nTo-day the Church of Tertullian and Augustine is blotted out, and the\nChurch of Origen and Clement is a miserable remnant. Similarly the\necclesiastical strife between Rome and Constantinople lost to\nChristendom some of the fairest provinces of Europe and Asia, and\nplaced Christian races under the rule of the Turk.\n\nEven now the cause of Christians in heathen and Mohammedan countries\nsuffers from the jealousy of Christian states, and modern Churches\nsometimes avail themselves of this jealousy to try and oust their\nrivals from promising fields for mission work.\n\nIt is a melancholy reflection that Jeremiah's effort at reconciliation\ncame too late, when the tribes whom it sought to reunite were hopelessly\nset asunder. Reconciliation, which involves a kind of mutual repentance,\ncan ill afford to be deferred to the eleventh hour. In the last agonies\nof the Greek Empire, there was more than one formal reconciliation\nbetween the Eastern and Western Churches; but they also came too late,\nand could not survive the Empire which they failed to preserve.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[392] xxxiii., 7, etc.\n\n[393] vii. 15.\n\n[394] Amos ix. 14.\n\n[395] Micah ii. 12; Isa. xi. 10-16.\n\n[396] Hosea xi. 8.\n\n[397] Hosea xi. 9.\n\n[398] Hosea xiv.\n\n[399] So _Giesebrecht_, reading with Jerome and Targum _l'marg\u00f4'\u00f4_ for\nthe obscure and obviously corrupt _l'harg\u00ee'\u00f4_. The other versions vary\nwidely in their readings.\n\n[400] R.V. \"with lovingkindness have I drawn thee,\" R.V. margin \"have\nI continued lovingkindness unto thee\"; the word for \"drawn\" occurs\nalso in Hosea xi. 4, \"I drew them ... with bands of love.\"\n\n[401] So Giesebrecht's conjecture of _bocerim_ (vintages), for the\n_nocerim_ (watchmen, R.V.). The latter is usually explained of the\nwatcher who looked for the appearance of the new moon, in order to\ndetermine the time of the feasts. The practice is stated on negative\ngrounds to be post-exilic, but seems likely to be ancient. On the other\nhand \"vintagers\" seems a natural sequel to the preceding clauses.\n\n[402] According to the reading of the LXX. and the Targum, the Hebrew\nText has (as R.V.) \"O Jehovah, save Thy people.\"\n\n[403] iii. 21.\n\n[404] Isaiah does not mention Benjamin.\n\n[405] \"Which is Bethlehem,\" in Genesis, is probably a later\nexplanatory addition; and the explanation is not necessarily a\nmistake. Cf. Matt. ii. 18.\n\n[406] 1 Kings xv. 17.\n\n[407] xl. 1.\n\n[408] LXX. omits verse 17 _b_, _i.e._ from \"Jehovah\" to \"border.\"\n\n[409] Slightly paraphrased.\n\n[410] More literally as R.V., \"I do earnestly remember him still.\"\n\n[411] The Hebrew Text has the same word, \"tamrurim,\" here that is used\nin verse 15 in the phrase \"bekhi tamrurim,\" \"weeping of bitternesses\" or\n\"bitter weeping.\" It is difficult to believe that the coincidence is\naccidental, and Hebrew literature is given to paronomasia; at the same\ntime the distance of the words and the complete absence of point in this\nparticular instance are remarkable. The LXX., not understanding the\nword, represented it _more suo_ by the similar Greek word \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\nwhich may indicate that the original reading was \"timorim,\" and the\nassimilation to \"tamrurim\" may be a scribe's caprice. In any case, the\nword here connects with \"tamar,\" a palm, the post being made of or like\na palm tree. Cf. Giesebrecht, Orelli, Cheyne, etc.\n\n[412] Giesebrecht treats verses 21-26 as a later addition, but this\nseems unnecessary.\n\n[413] So Kautzsch.\n\n[414] Cf. Streane, Cambridge Bible.\n\n[415] Zech. iv. 1.\n\n[416] xxiii, 25-32, xxvii. 9, xxix. 8: cf. Deut. xiii. 1-5.\n\n[417] Cf. Hosea ii. 23, \"I will sow her unto Me in the earth\" (or\nland), in reference to _Jezreel_, understood as \"Whom God soweth\"\n(R.V. margin).\n\n[418] i. 10-12.\n\n[419] 2 Kings xxiii. 25.\n\n[420] xv. 1-4.\n\n[421] Ezek. xviii. 20: cf. Cheyne, _Jeremiah_ (Men of the Bible), p.\n150.\n\n[422] Isa. xi. 13.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII\n\n _RESTORATION--IV. THE NEW COVENANT_\n\n xxxi. 31-38: cf. Hebrews viii.\n\n \"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house\n of Judah.\"--JER. xxxi. 31.\n\n\nThe religious history of Israel in the Old Testament has for its\nepochs a series of covenants: Jehovah declared His gracious purposes\ntowards His people, and made known the conditions upon which they were\nto enjoy His promised blessings; they, on their part, undertook to\nobserve faithfully all that Jehovah commanded. We are told that\ncovenants were made with Noah, after the Flood; with Abraham, when he\nwas assured that his descendants should inherit the land of Canaan; at\nSinai, when Israel first became a nation; with Joshua, after the\nPromised Land was conquered; and, at the close of Old Testament\nhistory, when Ezra and Nehemiah established the Pentateuch as the Code\nand Canon of Judaism.\n\nOne of the oldest sections of the Pentateuch, Exodus xx. 20-xxiii. 33,\nis called the \"Book of the Covenant,\"[423] and Ewald named the\nPriestly Code the \"Book of the Four Covenants.\" Judges and Samuel\nrecord no covenants between Jehovah and Israel; but the promise of\npermanence to the Davidic dynasty is spoken of as an everlasting\ncovenant. Isaiah,[424] Amos, and Micah make no mention of the Divine\ncovenants. Jeremiah, however, imitates Hosea[425] in emphasising this\naspect of Jehovah's relation to Israel, and is followed in his turn by\nEzekiel and II. Isaiah.\n\nJeremiah had played his part in establishing covenants between Israel\nand its God. He is not, indeed, even so much as mentioned in the account\nof Josiah's reformation; and it is not clear that he himself makes any\nexpress reference to it; so that some doubt must still be felt as to his\nshare in that great movement. At the same time indirect evidence seems\nto afford proof of the common opinion that Jeremiah was active in the\nproceedings which resulted in the solemn engagement to observe the code\nof Deuteronomy. But yet another covenant occupies a chapter[426] in the\nBook of Jeremiah, and in this case there is no doubt that the prophet\nwas the prime mover in inducing the Jews to release their Hebrew slaves.\nThis act of emancipation was adopted in obedience to an ordinance of\nDeuteronomy,[427] so that Jeremiah's experience of former covenants was\nchiefly connected with the code of Deuteronomy and the older Book of the\nCovenant upon which it was based.\n\nThe Restoration to which Jeremiah looked forward was to throw the\nExodus into the shade, and to constitute a new epoch in the history of\nIsrael more remarkable than the first settlement in Canaan. The nation\nwas to be founded anew, and its regeneration would necessarily rest\nupon a New Covenant, which would supersede the Covenant of Sinai.\n\n\"Behold, the days come--it is the utterance of Jehovah--when I will\nenter into a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of\nJudah: not according to the covenant into which I entered with your\nfathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of\nEgypt.\"\n\nThe Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy had both been editions of the\nMosaic Covenant, and had neither been intended nor regarded as\nanything new. Whatever was fresh in them, either in form or substance,\nwas merely the adaptation of existing ordinances to altered\ncircumstances. But now the Mosaic Covenant was declared obsolete, the\nNew Covenant was not to be, like Deuteronomy, merely a fresh edition\nof the earliest code. The Return from Babylon, like the primitive\nMigration from Ur and like the Exodus from Egypt, was to be the\noccasion of a new Revelation, placing the relations of Jehovah and His\npeople on a new footing.\n\nWhen Ezra and Nehemiah established, as the Covenant of the\nRestoration, yet another edition of the Mosaic ordinances, they were\nacting in the teeth of this prophecy--not because Jehovah had changed\nHis purpose, but because the time of fulfilment had not yet come.[428]\n\nThe rendering of the next clause is uncertain, and, in any case, the\nreason given for setting aside the old covenant is not quite what\nmight have been expected. The Authorised and Revised Versions\ntranslate: \"Which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband\nunto them\";[429] thus introducing that Old Testament figure of\nmarriage between Jehovah and Israel which is transferred in Ephesians\nand the Apocalypse to Christ and the Church. The margin of the Revised\nVersion has: \"Forasmuch as they brake My covenant, although I was lord\nover them.\" There is little difference between these two translations,\nboth of which imply that in breaking the covenant Israel was setting\naside Jehovah's legitimate claim to obedience. A third translation, on\nmuch the same lines, would be \"although I was Baal unto _or_ over\nthem\";[430] Baal or ba'al being found for lord, husband, in ancient\ntimes as a name of Jehovah, and in Jeremiah's time as a name of\nheathen gods. Jeremiah is fond of paronomasia, and frequently refers\nto Baal, so that he may have been here deliberately ambiguous. The\nphrase might suggest to the Hebrew reader that Jehovah was the true\nlord or husband of Israel, and the true Baal or God, but that Israel\nhad come to regard Him as a mere Baal, like one of the Baals of the\nheathen. \"Forasmuch as they, on their part, set at nought My covenant;\nso that I, their true Lord, became to them as a mere heathen Baal.\"\nThe covenant and the God who gave it were alike treated with contempt.\n\nThe Septuagint, which is quoted in Hebrews viii. 9, has another\ntranslation: \"And I regarded them not.\"[431] Unless this represents a\ndifferent reading,[432] it is probably due to a feeling that the form\nof the Hebrew sentence required a close parallelism. Israel neglected\nto observe the covenant, and Jehovah ceased to feel any interest in\nIsrael. But the idea of the latter clause seems alien to the context.\n\nIn any case, the new and better covenant is offered to Israel, after\nit has failed to observe the first covenant. This Divine procedure is\nnot quite according to many of our theories. The law of ordinances is\noften spoken of as adapted to the childhood of the race. We set\nchildren easy tasks, and when these are successfully performed we\nrequire of them something more difficult. We grant them limited\nprivileges, and if they make a good use of them the children are\npromoted to higher opportunities. We might perhaps have expected that\nwhen the Israelites failed to observe the Mosaic ordinances, they\nwould have been placed under a narrower and harsher dispensation; yet\ntheir very failure leads to the promise of a better covenant still.\nSubsequent history, indeed, qualifies the strangeness of the Divine\ndealing. Only a remnant of Israel survived as the people of God. The\nCovenant of Ezra was very different from the New Covenant of Jeremiah;\nand the later Jews, as a community,[433] did not accept that\ndispensation of grace which ultimately realised Jeremiah's prophecy.\nIn a narrow and unspiritual fashion the Jews of the Restoration\nobserved the covenant of external ordinances; so that, in a certain\nsense, the Law was fulfilled before the new Kingdom of God was\ninaugurated. But if Isaiah and Jeremiah had reviewed the history of\nthe restored community, they would have declined to receive it as, in\nany sense, the fulfilling of a Divine covenant. The Law of Moses was\nnot fulfilled, but made void, by the traditions of the Pharisees. The\nfact therefore remains, that failure in the lower forms, so to speak,\nof God's school is still followed by promotion to higher privileges.\nHowever little we may be able to reconcile this truth with _a priori_\nviews of Providence, it has analogies in nature, and reveals new\ndepths of Divine love and greater resourcefulness of Divine grace.\nBoys whose early life is unsatisfactory nevertheless grow up into the\nresponsibilities and privileges of manhood; and the wilful,\ndisobedient child does not always make a bad man. We are apt to think\nthat the highest form of development is steady, continuous, and\nserene, from good to better, from better to best. The real order is\nmore awful and stupendous, combining good and evil, success and\nfailure, victory and defeat, in its continuous advance through the\nages. The wrath of man is not the only evil passion that praises God\nby its ultimate subservience to His purpose. We need not fear lest\nsuch Divine overruling of sin should prove any temptation to\nwrongdoing, seeing that it works, as in the exile of Israel, through\nthe anguish and humiliation of the sinner.\n\nThe next verse explains the character of the New Covenant; once\nJehovah wrote His law on tables of stone, but now:--\n\n \"This is the covenant which I will conclude with the House of\n Israel after those days--it is the utterance of\n Jehovah--\n I will put My law within them, and will write it upon their\n heart;\n And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.\"\n\nThese last words were an ancient formula for the immemorial relation\nof Jehovah and Israel, but they were to receive new fulness of\nmeaning. The inner law, written on the heart, is in contrast to Mosaic\nordinances. It has, therefore, two essential characteristics: first,\nit governs life, not by fixed external regulations, but by the\ncontinual control of heart and conscience by the Divine Spirit;\nsecondly, obedience is rendered to the Divine Will, not from external\ncompulsion, but because man's inmost nature is possessed by entire\nloyalty to God. The new law involves no alteration of the standards of\nmorality or of theological doctrine, but it lays stress on the\nspiritual character of man's relation to God, and therefore on the\nfact that God is a spiritual and moral being. When man's obedience is\nclaimed on the ground of God's irresistible power, and appeal is made\nto material rewards and punishments, God's personality is obscured and\nthe way is opened for the deification of political or material Force.\nThis doctrine of setting aside of ancient codes by the authority of\nthe Inner Law is implied in many passages of our book. The superseding\nof the Mosaic Law is set forth by a most expressive symbol,[434] \"When\nye are multiplied and increased in the land, 'The Ark of the Covenant\nof Jehovah' shall no longer be the watchword of Israel: men shall\nneither think of the ark nor remember it; they shall neither miss the\nark nor make another in its place.\" The Ark and the Mosaic Torah were\ninseparably connected; if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the\nLaw must also be annulled.\n\nJeremiah moreover discerned with Paul that there was a law in the\nmembers warring against the Law of Jehovah: \"The sin of Judah is written\nwith a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon\nthe table of their heart, and upon the horns of their altars.\"[435]\n\nHence the heart of the people had to be changed before they could\nenter into the blessings of the Restoration: \"I will give them an\nheart to know Me, that I am Jehovah: and they shall be My people, and\nI will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole\nheart.\"[436] In the exposition of the symbolic purchase of Hanameel's\nfield, Jehovah promises to make an everlasting covenant with His\npeople, that He will always do them good and never forsake them. Such\ncontinual blessings imply that Israel will always be faithful. Jehovah\nno longer seeks to ensure their fidelity by an external law, with its\nalternate threats and promises: He will rather control the inner life\nby His grace. \"I will give them one heart and one way, that they may\nfear Me for ever; ... I will put My fear in their hearts, that they\nmay not depart from Me.\"[437]\n\nWe must not, of course, suppose that these principles--of obedience from\nloyal enthusiasm, and of the guidance of heart and conscience by the\nSpirit of Jehovah--were new to the religion of Israel. They are implied\nin the idea of prophetic inspiration. When Saul went home to Gibeah,\n\"there went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched.\"[438]\nIn Deuteronomy, Israel is commanded to \"love Jehovah thy God with all\nthine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these\nwords, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.\"[439]\n\nThe novelty of Jeremiah's teaching is that these principles are made\ncentral in the New Covenant. Even Deuteronomy, which approaches so\nclosely to the teaching of Jeremiah, was a new edition of the Covenant\nof the Exodus, an attempt to secure a righteous life by exhaustive\nrules and by external sanctions. Jeremiah had witnessed and probably\nassisted the effort to reform Judah by the enforcement of the\nDeuteronomic Code. But when Josiah's religious policy collapsed after\nhis defeat and death at Megiddo, Jeremiah lost faith in elaborate\ncodes, and turned from the letter to the spirit.\n\nThe next feature of the New Covenant naturally follows from its being\nwritten upon men's hearts by the finger of Jehovah:--\n\n \"Men shall no longer teach one another and teach each other,\n saying, Know ye Jehovah!\n For all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest--it is\n the utterance of Jehovah.\"\n\nIn ancient times men could only \"know Jehovah\" and ascertain His will by\nresorting to some sanctuary, where the priests preserved and transmitted\nthe sacred tradition and delivered the Divine oracles. Written codes\nscarcely altered the situation; copies would be few and far between, and\nstill mostly in the custody of the priests. Whatever drawbacks arise\nfrom attaching supreme religious authority to a printed book were\nmultiplied a thousandfold when codes could only be copied. But, in the\nNew Israel, men's spiritual life would not be at the mercy of pen, ink,\nand paper, of scribe and priest. The man who had a book and could read\nwould no longer be able, with the self-importance of exclusive\nknowledge, to bid his less fortunate brethren to know Jehovah. He\nHimself would be the one teacher, and His instruction would fall, like\nthe sunshine and the rain, upon all hearts alike.\n\nAnd yet again Israel is assured that past sin shall not hinder the\nfulfilment of this glorious vision:--\n\n \"For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I\n remember no more.\"\n\nRecurring to the general topic of the Restoration of Israel, the\nprophet affixes the double seal of two solemn Divine asseverations. Of\nold, Jehovah had promised Noah: \"While the earth remaineth, seedtime\nand harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall\nnot cease.\"[440] Now He promises that while sun and moon and stars and\nsea continue in their appointed order, Israel shall not cease from\nbeing a nation. And, again, Jehovah will not cast off Israel on\naccount of its sin till the height of heaven can be measured and the\nfoundations of the earth searched out.[441]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[423] Exod. xxiv. 7.\n\n[424] _I.e._ in the sections generally acknowledged.\n\n[425] Hosea ii. 18, vi. 7, viii. 1.\n\n[426] xxxiv.\n\n[427] Cf. xxxiv. 14 with Deut. xv. 12 and Exod. xxi. 2.\n\n[428] Cf. Prof. Adeney's _Ezra_, _Nehemiah_, etc., in this series.\n\n[429] So also Kautzsch, Reuss, Sugfried, and Stade. The same phrase is\nthus translated in iii. 14.\n\n[430] \"I was Baal\" = \"ba'alti.\"\n\n[431] \u1f20\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n[432] \u05e0\u05e6\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9; \u05e0\u05e6\u05dc occurs in xiv. 19, and is translated by A.V. and R.V.\n\"loathed.\"\n\n[433] We usually underrate the proportion of Jews who embraced\nChristianity. Hellenistic Judaism disappeared as Christianity became\nwidely diffused, and was probably for the most part absorbed into the\nnew faith.\n\n[434] iii. 16, slightly paraphrased.\n\n[435] xvii. 1.\n\n[436] xxiv. 7.\n\n[437] xxxii. 39, 40.\n\n[438] 1 Sam. x. 26.\n\n[439] Deut. vi. 5, 6.\n\n[440] Gen. viii. 22 (J.).\n\n[441] Verses 35-37 occur in the LXX. in the order 37, 35, 36. They are\nconsidered by many critics to be a later addition. The most remarkable\nfeature of the paragraph is the clause translated by the Authorised\nVersion \"which divideth [Revised Version, text \"stirreth up,\" margin\n\"stilleth\"] the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of Hosts is\nHis name.\" This whole clause is taken word for word from Isa. li. 15,\n\"I am Jehovah thy God, which stirreth up,\" etc. It seems clear that\neither this clause or 35-37 as a whole were added by an editor\nacquainted with II. Isaiah. The prophecy, as it stands in the\nMasoretic text, is concluded by a detailed description of the site of\nthe restored Jerusalem. The contrast between the glorious vision of\nthe New Israel and these architectural specifications is almost\ngrotesque. Verses 38-40 are regarded by many as a later addition; and\neven if they are by Jeremiah, they form an independent prophecy and\nhave no connection with the rest of the chapter. Our knowledge of the\ngeographical points mentioned is not sufficient to enable us to define\nthe site assigned to the restored city. The point of verse 40 is that\nthe most unclean districts of the ancient city shall partake of the\nsanctity of the New Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV\n\n _RESTORATION--V. REVIEW_\n\n xxx.-xxxiii.\n\n\nIn reviewing these chapters we must be careful not to suppose that\nJeremiah knew all that would ultimately result from his teaching. When\nhe declared that the conditions of the New Covenant would be written,\nnot in a few parchments, but on every heart, he laid down a principle\nwhich involved the most characteristic teaching of the New Testament and\nthe Reformers, and which might seem to justify extreme mysticism. When\nwe read these prophecies in the light of history, they seem to lead by a\nshort and direct path to the Pauline doctrines of Faith and Grace.\nConstraining grace is described in the words: \"I will put My fear in\ntheir hearts, that they shall not depart from Me.\"[442] Justification by\nfaith instead of works substitutes the response of the soul to the\nSpirit of God for conformity to a set of external regulations--the\nwriting on the heart for the carving of ordinances on stone. Yet, as\nNewton's discovery of the law of gravitation did not make him aware of\nall that later astronomers have discovered, so Jeremiah did not\nanticipate Paul and Augustine, Luther and Calvin: he was only their\nforerunner. Still less did he intend to affirm all that has been taught\nby the Brothers of the Common Life or the Society of Friends. We have\nfollowed the Epistle to the Hebrews in interpreting his prophecy of the\nNew Covenant as abrogating the Mosaic code and inaugurating a new\ndeparture upon entirely different lines. This view is supported by his\nattitude towards the Temple, and especially the Ark. At the same time we\nmust not suppose that Jeremiah contemplated the summary and entire\nabolition of the previous dispensation. He simply delivers his latest\nmessage from Jehovah, without bringing its contents into relation with\nearlier truth, without indeed waiting to ascertain for himself how the\nold and the new were to be combined. But we may be sure that the Divine\nwriting on the heart would have included much that was already written\nin Deuteronomy, and that both books and teachers would have had their\nplace in helping men to recognise and interpret the inner leadings of\nthe Spirit.\n\nIn rising from the perusal of these chapters the reader is tempted to\nuse the prophet's words with a somewhat different meaning: \"I awaked\nand looked about me, and felt that I had had a pleasant dream.\"[443]\nRenan, with cynical frankness, heads a chapter on such prophecies with\nthe title \"Pious Dreams.\" While Jeremiah's glowing utterances rivet\nour attention, the gracious words fall like balm upon our aching\nhearts, and we seem, like the Apostle, caught up into Paradise. But as\nsoon as we try to connect our visions with any realities, past,\npresent, or in prospect, there comes a rude awakening. The restored\ncommunity attained to no New Covenant, but was only found worthy of a\nfresh edition of the written code. Instead of being committed to the\nguidance of the ever-present Spirit of Jehovah, they were placed under\na rigid and elaborate system of externals--\"carnal ordinances,\nconcerned with meats and drinks and divers washings, imposed until a\ntime of reformation.\"[444] They still remained under the covenant\n\"from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now\nthis Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem\nthat now is: for she is in bondage with her children.\"[445]\n\nFor these bondservants of the letter, there arose no David, no glorious\nScion of the ancient stock. For a moment the hopes of Zechariah rested\non Zerubbabel, but this Branch quickly withered away and was forgotten.\nWe need not underrate the merits and services of Ezra and Nehemiah, of\nSimon the Just and Judas Maccab\u00e6us; and yet we cannot find any one of\nthem who answers to the Priestly King of Jeremiah's visions. The new\nGrowth of Jewish royalty came to an ignominious end in Aristobulus,\nHyrcanus, and the Herods, Antichrists rather than Messiahs.\n\nThe Reunion of long-divided Israel is for the most part a misnomer;\nthere was no healing of the wound, and the offending member was cut off.\n\nEven now, when the leaven of the Kingdom has been working in the lump\nof humanity for nearly two thousand years, any suggestion that these\nchapters are realised in Modern Christianity would seem cruel irony.\nRenan accuses Christianity of having quickly forgotten the programme\nwhich its Founder borrowed from the prophets, and of having become a\nreligion like other religions, a religion of priests and sacrifices,\nof external observances and superstitions.[446] It is sometimes\nasserted that Protestants lack faith and courage to trust to any law\nwritten on the heart, and cling to a printed book, as if there were no\nHoly Spirit--as if the Branch of David had borne fruit once for all,\nand Christ were dead. The movement for Christian Reunion seems thus\nfar chiefly to emphasise the feuds that make the Church a kingdom\ndivided against itself.\n\nBut we must not allow the obvious shortcomings of Christendom to blind\nus to brighter aspects of truth. Both in the Jews of the Restoration\nand in the Church of Christ we have a real fulfilment of Jeremiah's\nprophecies. The fulfilment is no less real because it is utterly\ninadequate. Prophecy is a guide-post and not a mile-stone; it shows\nthe way to be trodden, not the duration of the journey. Jews and\nChristians have fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecies because they have\nadvanced by the road along which he pointed towards the spiritual city\nof his vision. The \"pious dreams\" of a little group of enthusiasts\nhave become the ideals and hopes of humanity. Even Renan ranks himself\namong the disciples of Jeremiah: \"The seed sown in religious tradition\nby inspired Israelites will not perish; all of us who seek a God\nwithout priests, a revelation without prophets, a covenant written in\nthe heart, are in many respects the disciples of these ancient\nfanatics (_ces vieux \u00e9gar\u00e9s_).\"[447]\n\nThe Judaism of the Return, with all its faults and shortcomings, was\nstill an advance in the direction Jeremiah had indicated. However\nritualistic the Pentateuch may seem to us, it was far removed from\nexclusive trust in ritual. Where the ancient Israelite had relied upon\ncorrect observance of the forms of his sanctuary, the Torah of Ezra\nintroduced a large moral and spiritual element, which served to bring\nthe soul into direct fellowship with Jehovah. \"Pity and humanity are\npushed to their utmost limits, always of course in the bosom of the\nfamily of Israel.\"[448] The Torah moreover included the great commands\nto love God and man, which once for all placed the religion of Israel\non a spiritual basis. If the Jews often attached more importance to\nthe letter and form of Revelation than to its substance, and were more\ncareful for ritual and external observances than for inner\nrighteousness, we have no right to cast a stone at them.\n\nIt is a curious phenomenon that after the time of Ezra the further\ndevelopments of the Torah were written no longer on parchment, but, in\na certain sense, on the heart. The decisions of the rabbis\ninterpreting the Pentateuch, \"the fence which they made round the\nlaw,\" were not committed to writing, but learnt by heart and handed\ndown by oral tradition. Possibly this custom was partly due to\nJeremiah's prophecy. It is a strange illustration of the way in which\ntheology sometimes wrests the Scriptures to its own destruction, that\nthe very prophecy of the triumph of the spirit over the letter was\nmade of none effect by a literal interpretation.\n\nNevertheless, though Judaism moved only a very little way towards\nJeremiah's ideal, yet it did move, its religion was distinctly more\nspiritual than that of ancient Israel. Although Judaism claimed finality\nand did its best to secure that no future generation should make further\nprogress, yet in spite of, nay, even by means of, Pharisee and Sadducee,\nthe Jews were prepared to receive and transmit that great resurrection\nof prophetic teaching which came through Christ.\n\nIf even Judaism did not altogether fail to conform itself to\nJeremiah's picture of the New Israel, clearly Christianity must have\nshaped itself still more fully according to his pattern. In the Old\nTestament both the idea and the name of a \"New Covenant,\"[449]\nsuperseding that of Moses, are peculiar to Jeremiah, and the New\nTestament consistently represents the Christian dispensation as a\nfulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Besides the express and detailed\napplication in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ instituted the\nLord's Supper as the Sacrament of His New Covenant--\"This cup is the\nNew Covenant in My blood\";[450] and St. Paul speaks of himself as \"a\nminister of the New Covenant.\"[451] Christianity has not been unworthy\nof the claim made on its behalf by its Founder, but has realised, at\nany rate in some measure, the visible peace, prosperity, and unity of\nJeremiah's New Israel, as well as the spirituality of his New\nCovenant. Christendom has its hideous blots of misery and sin, but, on\nthe whole, the standard of material comfort and intellectual culture\nhas been raised to a high average throughout the bulk of a vast\npopulation. Internal order and international concord have made\nenormous strides since the time of Jeremiah. If an ancient Israelite\ncould witness the happy security of a large proportion of English\nworkmen and French peasants, he would think that many of the\npredictions of his prophets had been fulfilled. But the advance of\nlarge classes to a prosperity once beyond the dreams of the most\nsanguine only brings out in darker relief the wretchedness of their\nless fortunate brethren. In view of the growing knowledge and enormous\nresources of modern society, any toleration of its cruel wrongs is an\nunpardonable sin. Social problems are doubtless urgent because a large\nminority are miserable, but they are rendered still more urgent by the\nluxury of many and the comfort of most. The high average of prosperity\nshows that we fail to right our social evils, not for want of power,\nbut for want of devotion. Our civilisation is a Dives, at whose gate\nLazarus often finds no crumbs.\n\nAgain Christ's Kingdom of the New Covenant has brought about a larger\nunity. We have said enough elsewhere on the divisions of the Church.\nDoubtless we are still far from realising the ideals of chapter xxxi.,\nbut, at any rate, they have been recognised as supreme, and have worked\nfor harmony and fellowship in the world. Ephraim and Judah are\nforgotten, but the New Covenant has united into brotherhood a worldwide\narray of races and nations. There are still divisions in the Church, and\na common religion will not always do away with national enmities; but in\nspite of all, the influence of our common Christianity has done much to\nknit the nations together and promote mutual amity and goodwill. The\nvanguard of the modern world has accepted Christ as its standard and\nideal, and has thus attained an essential unity, which is not destroyed\nby minor differences and external divisions.\n\nAnd, finally, the promise that the New Covenant should be written on\nthe heart is far on the way towards fulfilment. If Roman and Greek\northodoxy interposes the Church between the soul and Christ, yet the\ninspiration claimed for the Church to-day is, at any rate in some\nmeasure, that of the living Spirit of Christ speaking to the souls of\nliving men. On the other hand, a predilection for Rabbinical methods\nof exegesis sometimes interferes with the influence and authority of\nthe Bible. Yet in reality there is no serious attempt to take away the\nkey of knowledge or to forbid the individual soul to receive the\ndirect teaching of the Holy Ghost. The Reformers established the right\nof private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures; and the\ninterpretation of the Library of Sacred Literature, the spiritual\nharvest of a thousand years, affords ample scope for reverent\ndevelopment of our knowledge of God.\n\nOne group of Jeremiah's prophecies has indeed been entirely\nfulfilled.[452] In Christ, God has raised up a Branch of Righteousness\nunto David, and through Him judgment and righteousness are wrought in\nthe earth.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[442] xxxii. 40.\n\n[443] xxxi. 26.\n\n[444] Heb. ix. 10.\n\n[445] Gal. iv. 24, 25.\n\n[446] _Histoire du Peuple d'Israel_, iii., 340.\n\n[447] Renan, iii., 340.\n\n[448] Renan, iii., 425.\n\n[449] We have the idea of a spiritual covenant in Isa. lix. 21, \"This\nis My covenant with them: ... My spirit that is upon thee, and My\nwords which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy\nmouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy\nseed's seed, ... from henceforth and for ever\"; but nothing is said as\nto a _new_ covenant.\n\n[450] Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25. The word \"new\" is omitted by Codd.\nSin. and Vat. and the R.V. in Matt. xxvi. 28 and Mark xiv. 24.\n\n[451] 2 Cor. iii. 6.\n\n[452] xxxiii. 15.\n\n\n\n\n EPILOGUE\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXV\n\n _JEREMIAH AND CHRIST_\n\n \"Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from amongst\n thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye\n hearken.\"--DEUT. xviii. 15.\n\n \"Jesus ... asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that the\n Son of Man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some,\n Elijah: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.\"--MATT. xvi.\n 13, 14.\n\n\nEnglish feeling about Jeremiah has long ago been summed up and\nstereotyped in the single word \"jeremiad.\" The contempt and dislike\nwhich this word implies are partly due to his supposed authorship of\nLamentations; but, to say the least, the Book of Jeremiah is not\nsufficiently cheerful to remove the impression created by the linked\nwailing, long drawn out, which has been commonly regarded as an\nappendix to its prophecies. We can easily understand the unpopularity\nof the prophet of doom in modern Christendom. Such prophets are seldom\nacceptable, except to the enemies of the people whom they denounce;\nand even ardent modern advocates of Jew-baiting would not be entirely\nsatisfied with Jeremiah--they would resent his patriotic sympathy with\nsinful and suffering Judah. Most modern Christians have ceased to\nregard the Jews as monsters of iniquity, whose chastisement should\ngive profound satisfaction to every sincere believer. History has\nrecorded but few of the crimes which provoked and justified our\nprophet's fierce indignation, and those of which we do read repel our\ninterest by a certain lack of the picturesque, so that we do not take\nthe trouble to realise their actual and intense wickedness. Ahab is a\nby-word, but how many people know anything about Ishmael ben\nNethaniah? The cruelty of the nobles and the unctuous cant of their\nprophetic allies are forgotten in--nay, they seem almost atoned for\nby--the awful calamities that befell Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah's\nmemory may even be said to have suffered from the speedy and complete\nfulfilment of his prophecies. The national ruin was a triumphant\nvindication of his teaching, and his disciples were eager to record\nevery utterance in which he had foretold the coming doom. Probably the\nbook, in its present form, gives an exaggerated impression of the\nstress which Jeremiah laid upon this topic.\n\nMoreover, while the prophet's life is essentially tragic, its drama\nlacks an artistic close and climax. Again and again Jeremiah took his\nlife in his hand, but the good confession which he witnessed for so\nlong does not culminate in the crown of martyrdom. A final scene like\nthe death of John the Baptist would have won our sympathy and\nconciliated our criticism.\n\nWe thus gather that the popular attitude towards Jeremiah rests on a\nsuperficial appreciation of his character and work; it is not\ndifficult to discern that a careful examination of his history\nestablishes important claims on the veneration and gratitude of the\nChristian Church.\n\nFor Judaism was not slow to pay her tribute of admiration and\nreverence to Jeremiah as to a Patron Saint and Confessor. His prophecy\nof the Restoration of Israel is appealed to in Ezra and Daniel; and\nthe Hebrew Chronicler, who says as little as he can of Isaiah, adds\nto the references made by the Book of Kings to Jeremiah. We have\nalready seen that apocryphal legends clustered round his honoured\nname. He was credited with having concealed the Tabernacle and the Ark\nin the caves of Sinai.[453] On the eve of a great victory, he appeared\nto Judas Maccab\u00e6us, in a vision, as \"a man distinguished by grey\nhairs, and a majestic appearance; but something wonderful and\nexceedingly magnificent was the grandeur about him,\" and was made\nknown to Judas as a \"lover of the brethren, who prayeth much for the\npeople and for the holy city, to wit, Jeremiah the prophet of God. And\nJeremiah stretching forth his right hand delivered over to Judas a\nsword of gold.\"[454] The Son of Sirach does not fail to include\nJeremiah in his praise of famous men;[455] and there is an apocryphal\nepistle purporting to be written by our prophet.[456] It is noteworthy\nthat in the New Testament Jeremiah is only mentioned by name in the\nJudaistic Gospel of St. Matthew.\n\nIn the Christian Church, notwithstanding the lack of popular sympathy,\nearnest students of the prophet's life and words have ranked him with\nsome of the noblest characters of history. A modern writer enumerates\nas amongst those with whom he has been compared Cassandra, Phocion,\nDemosthenes, Dante, Milton, and Savonarola.[457] The list might easily\nbe enlarged, but another parallel has been drawn which has supreme\nclaims on our consideration. The Jews in New Testament times looked\nfor the return of Elijah or Jeremiah to usher in Messiah's reign; and\nit seemed to some among them that the character and teaching of Jesus\nof Nazareth identified him with the ancient prophet who had been\ncommissioned \"to root out, pull down, destroy and throw down, to build\nand to plant.\" The suggested comparison has often been developed, but\nundue stress has been laid on such accidental and external\ncircumstances as the prophet's celibacy and the statement that he was\n\"sanctified from the womb.\" The discussion of such details does not\ngreatly lend itself to edification. But it has also been pointed out\nthat there is an essential resemblance between the circumstances and\nmission of Jeremiah and his Divine Successor, and to this some little\nspace may be devoted.\n\nJeremiah and our Lord appeared at similar crises in the history of\nIsrael and of revealed religion. The prophet foretold the end of the\nJewish monarchy, the destruction of the First Temple and of ancient\nJerusalem; Christ, in like manner, announced the end of the restored\nIsrael, the destruction of the Second Temple and of the newer\nJerusalem. In both cases the doom of the city was followed by the\ndispersion and captivity of the people. At both eras the religion of\nJehovah was supposed to be indissolubly bound up with the Temple and\nits ritual; and, as we have seen, Jeremiah, like Stephen and Paul and\nour Lord Himself, was charged with blasphemy because he predicted its\ncoming ruin. The prophet, like Christ, was at variance with the\nprevalent religious sentiment of his time and with what claimed to be\northodoxy. Both were regarded and treated by the great body of\ncontemporary religious teachers as dangerous and intolerable heretics;\nand their heresy, as we have said, was practically one and the same.\nTo the champions of the Temple, their teaching seemed purely\ndestructive, an irreverent attack upon fundamental doctrines and\nindispensable institutions. But the very opposite was the truth; they\ndestroyed nothing but what deserved to perish. Both in Jeremiah's time\nand in our Lord's, men tried to assure themselves of the permanence of\nerroneous dogmas and obsolete rites by proclaiming that these were of\nthe essence of Divine Revelation. In either age to succeed in this\neffort would have been to plunge the world into spiritual darkness:\nthe light of Hebrew prophecy would have been extinguished by the\nCaptivity, or, again, the hope of the Messiah would have melted away\nlike a mirage, when the legions of Titus and Hadrian dispelled so many\nJewish dreams. But before the catastrophe came, Jeremiah had taught\nmen that Jehovah's Temple and city were destroyed of His own set\npurpose, because of the sins of His people; there was no excuse for\nsupposing that He was discredited by the ruin of the place where He\nhad once chosen to set His Name. Thus the Captivity was not the final\npage in the history of Hebrew religion, but the opening of a new\nchapter. In like manner Christ and His Apostles, more especially Paul,\nfinally dissociated Revelation from the Temple and its ritual, so that\nthe light of Divine truth was not hidden under the bushel of Judaism,\nbut shone forth upon the whole world from the many-branched\ncandlestick of the Universal Church.\n\nAgain, in both cases, not only was ancient faith rescued from the ruin\nof human corruption and commentary, but the purging away of the old\nleaven made room for a positive statement of new teaching. Jeremiah\nannounced a new covenant--that is, a formal and complete change in\nthe conditions and method of man's service to God and God's\nbeneficence to men. The ancient Church, with its sanctuary, its\nclergy, and its ritual, was to be superseded by a new order, without\nsanctuary, clergy, or ritual, wherein every man would enjoy immediate\nfellowship with his God. This great ideal was virtually ignored by the\nJews of the Restoration, but it was set forth afresh by Christ and His\nApostles. The \"New Covenant\" was declared to be ratified by His\nsacrifice, and was confirmed anew at every commemoration of His death.\nWe read in John iv. 21-23: \"The hour cometh, when neither in this\nmountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.... The hour\ncometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father\nin spirit and truth.\"\n\nThus when we confess that the Church is built upon the foundation of\nthe Prophets and Apostles, we have to recognise that to this\nfoundation Jeremiah's ministry supplied indispensable elements, alike\nby its positive and in its negative parts. This fact was manifest even\nto Renan, who fully shared the popular prejudices against Jeremiah.\nNothing short of Christianity, according to him, is the realisation of\nthe prophet's dream: \"Il ajoute un facteur essentiel \u00e0 l'\u0153uvre\nhumaine; J\u00e9r\u00e9mie est, avant Jean-Baptiste, l'homme qui a le plus\ncontribu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fondation du Christianisme; il doit compter, malgr\u00e9 la\ndistance des si\u00e8cles, entre les pr\u00e9curseurs imm\u00e9diats de J\u00e9sus.\"[458]\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[453] 2 Macc. ii. 1-8.\n\n[454] 2 Macc. xv. 12-16.\n\n[455] Ecclus. xlix. 6, 7.\n\n[456] Sometimes appended to the Book of Baruch as a sixth chapter.\n\n[457] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, art. \"Jeremiah.\"\n\n[458] _Hist._, iii., 251, 305.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\nObvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation left as in the original text.\n\nFootnote 101: Anchor was missing from original text, added anchor.\n\nFootnote 452: Anchor was missing from original text, added anchor.","title":"Expositor's Bible: The Book of Jeremiah, Chapters XXI.-LII.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":101107}