ix. 22. It evidently contemplates the speedy departure of the people
into banishment. _Away out of the land with thy pack_ (or _thy goods_;
LXX. ὑπόστασις, "property," Targ. "merchandise," the Heb. term, which
is related to "Canaan," occurs here only), _O thou that sittest in
distress!_ (or _abidest in the siege_: lii. 5; 2 Kings xxiv. 10).
Sion is addressed, and bidden to prepare her scanty bundle of bare
necessaries for the march into exile. So Egypt is bidden to "make for
herself vessels of exile," xlvi. 19. Some think that Sion is warned
to withdraw her goods from the open country to the protection of her
strong walls, before the siege begins, as in viii. 14; but we have
passed that stage in the development of the piece, and the next verse
seems to shew the meaning: _For thus hath Iahvah said, Lo, I am about
to sling forth the inhabitants of the land this time_--as opposed to
former occasions, when the enemy retired unsuccessful (2 Kings xvi.
5, xix. 36), or went off satisfied with plunder or an indemnity, like
the Scythians (see also 2 Kings xiv. 14)--_and I will distress them
that they may find out_ the truth, which now they refuse to see. The
aposiopesis _that they may find out!_ is very striking. The Vulgate
renders the verb in the passive: "Tribulabo eos ita ut inveniantur."
This, however, does not give so good a sense as the Masoretic
pointing, and Ewald's reference of the term to the goods of the
panic-stricken fugitives seems flat and tasteless ("the inhabitants
of the land will this time ... not be able to hide their goods from
the enemy!"). The best comment on the phrase is supplied by a later
oracle: _Lo, I am about to make them know this time--I will make them
know My hand and My might; that they may know that My name is Iahvah_
(xvi. 21). Cf. also xvii. 9; Eccles. viii. 17.
The last verse (17) resembles a poetical quotation; and this one looks
like the explication of it. There the population is personified as a
woman; here we have instead the plain prose expression, "inhabitants
of the land." The figurative, "I will sling them forth" or "cast
them out," explains the bidding of Sion to _pack up her bundle_ or
_belongings_--there seems to be a touch of contempt in this isolated
word, as much as to signify that the people must go forth into exile
with no more of their possessions than they can carry like a beggar in
a bundle. The expression, "I will distress them," seems to shew that
"thou that sittest in the distress" is proleptic, or to be rendered
"thou that art to sit in distress," which comes to the same thing.
* * * * *
And now the prophet imagines the distress and the remorse of this
forlorn mother, as it will manifest itself when her house is ruined
and her children are gone and she realizes the folly of the past (cf.
iv. 31):--
"_Woe's me for my wound!
Fatal is my stroke!_"
(perhaps quoted from a familiar elegy). _And yet I--I thought_
(chap. xxii. 21; Ps. xxx. 7), _Only this_--no more than this--_is my
sickness: I can bear it!_ (וה אך אשאנ חליי; LXX. σου, Vulg. _mea_).
The people had never fully realized the threatenings of the prophets,
until they began to be accomplished. When they heard them, they had
said, half-incredulously, half-mockingly, Is that all? Their false
guides, too, had treated apparent danger as a thing of little moment,
assuring them that their half reforms, and zealous outward worship,
were sufficient to turn away the Divine displeasure (vi. 14). And so
they said to themselves, as sinners are still in the habit of saying,
"If the worst come to the worst, I can bear it. Besides, God is
merciful, and things may turn out better for frail humanity than your
preachers of wrath and woe predict. Meanwhile--I shall do as I please,
and take my chance of the issue."
The lament of the mourning mother continues: _My tent is laid waste
and all my cords are broken; My sons went forth of me_ (to battle)
_and are not; There is none to spread my tent any more, And to
set up my curtains_ (cf. Amos ix. 11). Overhearing, as it were,
this sorrowful lamentation (_qinah_), the prophet interposes with
the reason of the calamity: _For the shepherds became brutish_ or
_behaved foolishly_, stulte egerunt (Vulg.)--the leaders of the nation
shewed themselves as insensate and silly as cattle--_and Iahvah they
sought not_ (ii. 8); _Therefore_--as they had no regard for Divine
counsel--_they dealt not wisely_ (iii. 15, ix. 23, xx. 11), _and all
their flock was scattered abroad_.
Once more, and for the last time, the prophet sounds the alarm: _Hark!
a rumour! lo, it cometh! and a great uproar from the land of the north;
to make the_ _cities of Judah a desolation, a haunt of jackals!_ It is
not likely that the verse is to be regarded as spoken by the mourning
country; she contemplates the evil as already done, whereas here it is
only imminent (cf. iv. 6, vi. 22, i. 15). The piece concludes with a
prayer (vv. 23-25), which may be considered either as an intercession
by the prophet on behalf of the nation (cf. xviii. 20), or as a form of
supplication which he suggests as suitable to the existing crisis. _I
know, Iahvah, that man's way is not his own; That it pertaineth not to
a man to walk and direct his own steps: Correct me, Iahvah, but with
justice; Not in Thine anger, lest Thou make me small!_ (Partly quoted,
Ps. vi. 1, xxxviii. 1.) _Pour out Thy fury upon the nations that know
Thee not, And upon tribes that have not called upon Thy name; For they
have devoured Jacob_ [_and will devour him_], [_and consumed him_], _and
his pasture they have desolated!_ (Ps. lxxix. 6, 7, quoted from this
place. In Jer. the LXX. omits "and will devour him;" while the psalm
omits both of the bracketed expressions.)
The Vulgate renders ver. 23: "Scio, Domine, quia non est hominis via
ejus; nec viri est ut ambulet, et dirigat gressus suos." I think this
indicates the correct reading of the Hebrew text (וְהָכֵין הָלךְ; cf.
ix. 23, where two infinitives absolute are used in a similar way). The
Septuagint also must have had the same text, for it translates, "nor
will (= can) a man walk and direct his own walking." The Masoretic
punctuation is certainly incorrect; and the best that can be made of it
is Hitzig's version, which, however, disregards the accents, although
their authority is the same as that of the vowel points: _I know Iahvah
that not to man belongeth his way, not to a perishing_ (lit. "going,"
"departing") _man--and_ _to direct his steps_. Any reader of Hebrew may
see at once that this is a very unusual form of expression. (For the
thought, cf. Prov. xvi. 9, xix. 21; Ps. xxxvii. 23.)
The words express humble submission to the impending chastisement. The
penitent people does not deprecate the penalty of its sins, but only
prays that the measure of it may be determined by right rather than by
wrath (cf. xlvi. 27, 28). The very idea of right and justice implies a
limit, whereas wrath, like all passions, is without limit, blind and
insatiable. "In the Old Testament, justice is opposed, not to mercy,
but to high-handed violence and oppression, which recognise no law but
subjective appetite and desire. The just man owns the claims of an
objective law of right."
_Non est hominis via ejus._ Neither individuals nor nations are
masters of their own fortunes in this world. Man has not his fate
in his own hands; it is controlled and directed by a higher Power.
By sincere submission, by a glad, unswerving loyalty, which honours
himself as well as its Object, man may co-operate with that Power, to
the furtherance of ends which are of all possible ends the wisest, the
loftiest, the most beneficial to his kind. Self-will may oppose those
ends, it cannot thwart them; at the most it can but momentarily retard
their accomplishment, and exclude itself from a share in the universal
blessing.
Israel now confesses, by the mouth of his best and truest
representative, that he has hitherto loved to choose his own path, and
to walk in his own strength, without reference to the will and way of
God. Now, the overwhelming shock of irresistible calamity has brought
him to his senses, has revealed to him his powerlessness in the hands
of the Unseen Arbiter of events, has made him see, as he never saw,
that mortal man can determine neither the vicissitudes nor the goal of
his journey. Now he sees the folly of the mighty man glorying in his
might, and the rich man glorying in his riches; now he sees that the
_how_ and the _whither_ of his earthly course are not matters within
his own control; that all human resources are nothing _against_ God,
and are only helpful when used _for_ and _with_ God. Now he sees that
the path of life is not one which we enter upon and traverse of our
own motion, but a path along which we are led; and so, resigning his
former pride of independent choice, he humbly prays, "Lead Thou me
on!" Lead me whither Thou wilt, in the way of trouble and disaster and
chastisement for my sins; but remember my human frailty and weakness,
and let not Thy wrath destroy me! Finally, the suppliant ventures to
remind God that others are guilty as well as he, and that the ruthless
destroyers of Israel are themselves fitted to be objects as well as
instruments of Divine justice. They are such (i) because they have not
"known" nor "called upon" Iahvah; and (ii) because they have "devoured
Jacob" who was a thing consecrated to Iahvah (ii. 3), and therefore
are guilty of sacrilege (cf. l. 28, 29).
It has never been our lot to see our own land overrun by a barbarous
invader, our villages burnt, our peasantry slaughtered, our towns
taken and sacked with all the horrors permitted or enjoined by a
non-Christian religion. We read of but hardly realize the atrocities
of ancient warfare. If we did realize them, we might even think a
saint justified in praying for vengeance upon the merciless destroyers
of his country. But apart from this, I see a deeper meaning in this
prayer. The justice of this terrible visitation upon Judah is admitted
by the prophet. Yet in Judah many righteous were involved in the
general calamity. On the other hand, Jeremiah knew something of the
vices of the Babylonians, against which his contemporary Habakkuk
inveighs so bitterly. They "knew not" nor "called upon" Iahvah; but
a base polytheism reflected and sanctioned the corruption of their
lives. A kind of moral dilemma, therefore, is proposed here. If the
purpose of this outpouring of Divine wrath be to bring Israel to
"find out" (ver. 18) and to acknowledge the truth of God and his own
guiltiness, can wrath persist, when that result is attained? Does not
justice demand that the torrent of destruction be diverted upon the
proud oppressor? So prayer, the forlorn hope of poor humanity, strives
to overcome and compel and prevail with God, and to wrest a blessing
even from the hand of Eternal Justice.
FOOTNOTES:
[30] The omissions of the Septuagint are not always intelligent. The
repetition of the "all" here intensifies the idea of the _totality_ of
the ruin of the northern kingdom. The two clauses balance each other:
_all your brethren--all the seed of Ephraim_. The objection that Edom
was also a "brother" of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 8; Amos i. 11) shews a
want of rhetorical sense.
In vii. 4 the Septuagint tastelessly omits the third "The Temple of
Iahvah!" upon which the rhetorical effect largely depends: cf. chap.
xxii. 29; Isa. vi. 3.
[31] NOTE ON vii. 25.--The word answering to "daily" in the Heb. simply
means "day," and ought to be omitted, as an accidental repetition either
from the previous line, or of the last two letters of the preceding
word "prophets." Cf. ver. 13, where a similar phrase, "rising early and
speaking," occurs in a similar context, but without "daily."
[32] _Wa'etten lahem_ can only mean "and I gave (in prophetic idiom
'and I will give') unto them," and this, of course, requires an
object. "I will give them to those who shall pass over them" is the
rendering proposed by several scholars. But _lahem_ does not mean
"to those," and the thought does not harmonize with what precedes,
and this use of עבר is doubtful, and the verb "to give" absolutely
requires an object. The Vulgate rendering is really more in accordance
with Hebrew syntax, as the masc. suffix of the verb might be used
in less accurate writing. Targum: "because I gave them My law from
Sinai, and they transgressed against it;" Peshito: "and I gave unto
them, and they transgressed them." So also the Syro-Hexaplar of Milan
(participle: "were transgressing") between asterisks.
[33] It seems to take the עלּי each time as עלּיהון־עלּי and to read
איתי מלעיגים for מבליגיתי: thus getting "Scoffers! I will bring upon
them sorrow; upon them my heart is faint."
[34] The irregular _Hiphil_ form of the verb--cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 22; Job
xix. 4--may be justified by Job xxviii. 8; we are not, therefore,
bound to render the Masoretic text: _and they make their tongue bend
their lying bow_. Probably, however, _Qal_ is right, the _Hiphil_
being due to a misunderstanding, like that of the Targum, "And they
taught their tongue words of lying."
[35] Ewald prefers the reading of the LXX., which divides the words
differently. If we suppose their version correct, they must have read:
"They have trained their tongue to speak falsehood, to distort. They
are weary of returning. Oppression in oppression, deceit in deceit!
They refuse to know Me, saith Iahvah." But I do not think this an
improvement on the present Masoretic text.
[36] If Jeremiah wrote Ps. lv., as Hitzig supposes, he may be alluding
to the treachery of a particular friend; cf. Ps. lv. 13, 14.
[37] _Shahadhta lisânaka `alaina._ In this case, we should follow the
Heb. margin or _Q'rê_.
[38] _Speak thou, Thus saith Iahweh_, is undoubtedly a spurious
addition, and does not appear in the LXX. Jeremiah never says _Koh
ne'um Iahvah_, and never uses the imperative _dabber_!
VI.
_THE IDOLS OF THE HEATHEN AND THE GOD
OF ISRAEL._
JEREMIAH x. 1-16.
This fine piece is altogether isolated from the surrounding context,
which it interrupts in a very surprising manner. Neither the style nor
the subject, neither the idioms nor the thoughts expressed in them,
agree with what we easily recognise as Jeremiah's work. A stronger
contrast can hardly be imagined than that which exists between the
leading motive of this oracle as it stands, and that of the long
discourse in which it is embedded with as little regard for continuity
as an aerolite exhibits when it buries itself in a plain. In what
precedes, the prophet's fellow-countrymen have been accused of flagrant
and defiant idolatry (vii. 17 _sqq._, 30 _sqq._); the opening words
of this piece imply a totally different situation. _To the way of the
nations become not accustomed, and of the signs of heaven be not afraid;
for the nations are afraid of them._[39] Jeremiah would not be likely
to warn inveterate apostates not to "accustom themselves" to idolatry.
The words presuppose, not a nation whose idolatry was notorious, and
had just been the subject of unsparing rebuke and threats of imminent
destruction; they presuppose a nation free from idolatry, but exposed
to temptation from surrounding heathenism. The entire piece contains
no syllable of reference to past or present unfaithfulness on the part
of Israel. Here at the outset, and throughout, Israel is implicitly
contrasted with "the nations" (τὰ ἔθνη) as the servant of Iahvah with
the foolish worshippers of lifeless gods. There is a tone of contempt
in the use of the term _goyim_--"To the way of the _goyim_ accustom
not yourselves ... for the _goyim_ are afraid of them" (of the signs
of heaven); or as the Septuagint puts it yet more strongly, "for
_they_ (the besotted _goyim_) are afraid (_i.e._, worship) before
them;" as though that alone--the sense of Israel's superiority--should
be sufficient to deter Israelites from any bowings in the house
of Rimmon.[40] Neither this contemptuous use of the term _goyim_,
"Gentiles," nor the scathing ridicule of the false gods and their
devotees, is in the manner of Jeremiah. Both are characteristic of a
later period. The biting scorn of image-worship, the intensely vivid
perception of the utter incommensurableness of Iahvah, the Creator of
all things, with the handiwork of the carpenter and the silversmith,
are well-known and distinctive features of the great prophets of the
Exile (see especially Isa. xl.-lxvi.). There are plenty of allusions
to idolatry in Jeremiah; but they are expressed in a tone of fervid
indignation, not of ridicule. It was the initial offence, which issued
in a hopeless degradation of public and private morality, and would
have for its certain consequence the rejection and ruin of the nation
(ii. 5-13, 20-28, iii. 1-9, 23 _sqq._). All the disasters, past and
present, which had befallen the country, were due to it (vii. 9, 17
_sqq._, 30 _sqq._, viii. 2 etc.). The people are urged to repent and
return to Iahvah with their whole heart (iii. 12 _sqq._, iv. 3 _sqq._,
v. 21 _sqq._, vi. 8), as the only means of escape from deadly peril. The
Baals are things that cannot help or save (ii. 8, 11); but the prophet
does not say, as here (x. 5), "Fear them not; they cannot harm you!"
The piece before us breathes not one word about Israel's apostasy, the
urgent need of repentance, the impending ruin. Taken as a whole, it
neither harmonizes with Jeremiah's usual method of argument, nor does it
suit the juncture of affairs implied by the language which precedes and
follows (vii. 1-ix. 26, x. 17-25). For let us suppose that this oracle
occupies its proper place here, and was actually written by Jeremiah at
the crisis which called forth the preceding and following utterances.
Then the warning cry, "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven!" can only
mean "Be not afraid of the Powers under whose auspices the Chaldeans are
invading your country; Iahvah, the true and living God, will protect
you!" But consolation of this kind would be diametrically opposed to the
doctrine which Jeremiah shares with all his predecessors; the doctrine
that Iahvah Himself is the prime cause of the coming trouble, and that
the heathen invaders are His instruments of wrath (v. 9 _sq._, vi. 6);
it would imply assent to that fallacious confidence in Iahvah, which the
prophet has already done his utmost to dissipate (vi. 14, vii. 4 _sq._).
The details of the idolatry satirized in the piece before us point
to Chaldea rather than to Canaan. We have here a zealous worship of
wooden images overlaid and otherwise adorned with silver and gold,
and robed in rich garments of violet and purple (cf. Josh. vii.
21). This does not agree with what we know of Judean practice in
Jeremiah's time, when, besides the worship of the Queen of Heaven, the
people adored "stocks and stones;" probably the wooden symbols of the
goddess Asherah and rude sun-pillars, but hardly works of the costly
kind described in the text, which indicate a wealthy people whose
religion reflected an advanced condition of the arts and commerce.
The designation of the objects of heathen worship as "the signs of
heaven," and the gibe at the custom of carrying the idol-statues in
procession (Isa. xlvi. 1, 7), also point us to Babylon, "the land of
graven images" (l. 38), and the home of star-worship and astrological
superstition (Isa. xlvii. 13).
From all these considerations, it would appear that not Israel in
Canaan but Israel in Chaldea is addressed in this piece by some
unknown prophet, whose leaflet has been inserted among the works of
Jeremiah. In that case, the much disputed eleventh verse, written in
Aramaic, and as such unique in the volume of the prophets proper, may
really have belonged to the original piece. Aramaic was the common
language of intercourse between East and West both before and during
the captivity (cf. 2 Kings xviii. 26); and the suggestion that the
tempted exiles should answer in this dialect the heathen who pressed
them to join in their worship, seems suitable enough. The verse
becomes very suspicious, if we suppose that the whole piece is really
part and parcel of Jeremiah's discourse, and as such addressed to the
Judeans in the reign of Jehoiakim. Ewald, who maintains this view upon
grounds that cannot be called convincing, thinks the Aramaic verse was
originally a marginal annotation on verse 15, and suggests that it is
a quotation from some early book similar to the book of Daniel. At
all events, it is improbable that the verse proceeded from the pen of
Jeremiah, who writes Aramaic nowhere else, not even in the letter to
the exiles of the first Judean captivity (chap. xxix.).
But might not the piece be an address which Jeremiah sent to the
exiles of the Ten Tribes, who were settled in Assyria, and with whom
it is otherwise probable that he cultivated some intercourse? The
expression "House of _Israel_" (ver. 1) has been supposed to indicate
this. That expression, however, occurs in the immediately preceding
context (ix. 26), as does also that of "the nations"; facts which
may partially explain why the passage we are discussing occupies its
present position. The unknown author of the Apocryphal Letter of
Jeremiah and the Chaldee Targumist appear to have held the opinion
that Jeremiah wrote the piece for the benefit of the exiles carried
away with Jehoiachin in the first Judean captivity. The Targum
introduces the eleventh verse thus: "This is a copy of the letter
which Jeremiah the prophet sent to the remnant of the elders of the
captivity which was in Babylon. And if the peoples among whom ye are
shall say unto you, Fear the Errors, O house of Israel! thus shall
ye answer and thus shall ye say unto them: The Errors whom ye fear
are (but) errors, in which there is no profit: they from the heavens
are not able to bring down rain, and from the earth they cannot make
fruits to spring: they and those who fear them will perish from the
earth, and will be brought to an end from under these heavens. And
thus shall ye say unto them: We fear Him that maketh the earth by His
power," etc. (ver. 12). The phrase "the _remnant of the elders of the
captivity which was_ (or _who were_) _in Babylon_" is derived from
Jer. xxix. 1. But how utterly different are the tone and substance
of that message from those of the one before us! Far from warning
his captive countrymen against the state-worship of Babylon, far
from satirizing its absurdity, Jeremiah bids the exiles be contented
in their new home, and to pray for the peace of the city. The false
prophets who appear at Babylon prophesy in Iahvah's name (vv. 15, 21),
and in denouncing them Jeremiah says not a word about idolatry. It is
evident from the whole context that he did not fear it in the case of
the exiles of Jehoiachin's captivity. (See also the simile of the Good
and Bad Figs, chap. xxiv., which further illustrates the prophet's
estimation of the earlier body of exiles.)