ובך. The uses of שִמט "to throw down," "let fall," resemble those of
the Greek ἵημι and its compounds. I corrected the passage thus, to
find afterwards that I had been anticipated by J. D. Michaelis, Graf,
and others.
[71] There is something strange about the phrase "by (upon, _`al_) the
evergreen tree." Twenty-five Heb. MSS., the Targ., and the Syriac,
read "every" (_kol_) for "upon" (_`al_). We still feel the want of a
preposition, and may confidently restore "under" (_taḫath_), from the
nine other passages in which "evergreen tree" (`_ec̰ ra`anan_) occurs
in connexion with idolatrous worship. In all these instances the
expression is "under every evergreen tree" (_taḫath kol `ec̰ ra`anan_);
from the Book of the Law (Deut. xii. 2), whence Jeremiah probably
drew the phrase, to 2 Chron. xxviii. 4. Jeremiah has already used the
phrase thrice (ii. 20, iii. 6, 13), in exactly the same form. The other
passages are Ezek. vi. 13; Isa. lvii. 5; 2 Kings xvi. 4, xvii. 10. The
corruption of _kol_ into _`al_ is found elsewhere. Probably _taḫath_ had
dropt out of the text, before the change took place here.
[72] A popular opinion of the time.
[73] Isa. xxii. 23.
[74] The Heb. term is probably written with omission of the final
_mem_, a common abbreviation; and the right reading may be וסורים "and
apostates."
[75] מלא for מרעה.
[76] מִרְעֵה for מֵרֹעִה.
[77] I have left this paragraph as I wrote it, although I feel great
doubts upon the subject. What I have remarked elsewhere on similar
passages, should be considered along with the present suggestions. We
have especially to remember, (i) the peculiar status of the speaker as
a true prophet; and (ii) the terrible invectives of Christ Himself on
certain occasions (St. Matt. xxiii. 33-35; St. Luke x. 15; St. John
viii. 44).
X.
_THE SABBATH--A WARNING._
JEREMIAH xvii. 19-27.
_"Thus said Iahvah unto me: Go and stand in the gate of Benjamin,
whereby the kings of Judah come in, and whereby they go out; and
in all the gates of Jerusalem. And say unto them, Hear ye the word
of Iahvah, O kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all inhabitants of
Jerusalem, who come in by these gates!
"Thus said Iahvah: Beware, on your lives, and bear ye not a burden
on the Day of Rest, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem! Nor
shall ye bring a burden forth out of your houses on the Day of Rest,
nor shall ye do any work; but ye shall hallow the Day of Rest, as I
commanded your fathers. (Albeit, they hearkened not, nor inclined
their ear, but stiffened their neck against hearkening, and against
receiving instruction.)
"And it shall come to pass, if ye will indeed hearken unto Me, saith
Iahvah, not to bring a burden in by the gates of this city on the
Day of Rest, but to hallow the Day of Rest, not to do therein any
work; then there shall come in by the gates of this city kings_
[_and princes_] _sitting upon the throne of David, riding on the
chariots and on the horses, they and their princes, O men of Judah
and inhabitants of Jerusalem! and this city shall be inhabited for
ever. And people shall come in from_ _the cities of Judah and from
the places round Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from
the lowlands, and from the hill-country, and from the south, bringing
in burnt-offering and thank-offering, and oblation and incense; and
bringing a thanksgiving into the house of Iahvah.
"And if ye hearken not unto Me to hallow the Day of Rest, and not
to bear a burden and come in by the gates of Jerusalem on the Day
of Rest: I will kindle a fire in her gates, and it shall devour the
palaces of Jerusalem, and shall not be quenched."_
The matter and manner of this brief oracle mark it off from those
which precede it as an independent utterance, and a whole complete
in itself. Its position may be accounted for by its probable date,
which may be fixed a little after the previous chapters, in the
three months' reign of the ill-starred Jehoiachin; and by the
writer's or his editor's desire to break the monotony of commination
by an occasional gleam of hope and promise. At the same time, the
introductory formula with which it opens is so similar to that of the
two following oracles (chaps. xviii., xix.), as to suggest the idea of
a connexion in time between the members of the group. Further, there
is an obvious connexion of thought between chaps. xviii., xix. In the
former, the house of Israel is represented as clay in the hand of the
Divine Potter; in the latter, Judah is a potter's vessel destined
to be broken in pieces. And if we assume the priority of the piece
before us, a logical progress is observable, from the alternative here
presented for the people's choice, to their decision for the worse
part (xviii. 12 _sqq._), and then to the corresponding decision on the
part of Iahvah (xix.). Or, as Hitzig puts it otherwise, in the piece
before us the scales are still in equipoise; in chap. xviii. one goes
down; Iahvah intends mischief (ver. 11), and the people are invited
to appease His anger. But the warning is fruitless; and therefore
the prophet announces their destruction, depicting it in the darkest
colours (chap. xix.). The immediate consequence to Jeremiah himself is
related in chap. xx. 1-6; and it is highly probable that the section,
chap. xxi. 11-xxii. 9, is the continuation of the oracle addressed
to Pashchur: so that we have before us a whole group of prophecies
belonging to the same eventful period of the prophet's activity (xvii.
20 agrees closely with xxii. 2, and xvii. 25 with xxii. 4).
The circumstances of the present oracle are these. Jeremiah is
inwardly bidden to station himself first in "the gate of the sons of
the people"--a gate of Jerusalem which we cannot further determine,
as it is not mentioned elsewhere under this designation, but which
appears to have been a special resort of the masses of the population,
because it was the one by which the kings were wont to enter and leave
the city, and where they doubtless were accustomed to hear petitions
and to administer justice; and afterwards, he is to take his stand in
all the gates in turn, so as not to miss the chance of delivering his
message to any of his countrymen. He is there to address the "kings
of Judah" (ver. 20); an expression which may denote the young king
Jehoiachin and his mother (xiii. 18), or the king and the princes of
the blood, the "House of David" of chap. xxi. 12. The promise "kings
shall come in by the gates of this city ... and this city shall be
inhabited for ever," and the threat "I will kindle a fire in her
gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem," may be taken
to imply a time when the public danger was generally recognised. The
first part of the promise may be intended to meet an apprehension,
such as might naturally be felt after the death of Jehoiakim, that
the incensed Chaldeans would come and take away the Jewish place and
nation. In raising the boy Jehoiachin to the throne of his fathers,
men may have sorrowfully foreboded that, as the event proved, he would
never keep his crown till manhood, nor beget a race of future kings.
The matter of the charge to rulers and people is the due observance of
the fourth commandment: "ye shall hallow the Day of Rest, as I commanded
your fathers" (see Ex. xx. 8, "Remember the Day of Rest, to hallow
it"--which is probably the original form of the precept. Jeremiah,
however, probably had in mind the form of the precept as it appears in
Deuteronomy: "Observe the Day of Rest to hallow it, as Iahvah thy God
commanded thee:" Deut. v. 12). The Hebrew term for "hallow" means _to
separate_ a thing from common things, and devote it to God.
To hallow the Day of Rest, therefore, is to make a marked distinction
between it and ordinary days, and to connect it in some way with
religion. What is here commanded is to abstain from "bearing burdens,"
and doing any kind of work (_melakah_, Gen. ii. 2, 3; Ex. xx. 9, 10,
xxxi. 14, 15; Gen. xxxix. 11, "appointed task," "duty," "business").
The bearing of burdens into the gates and out of the houses clearly
describes the ordinary commerce between town and country. The country
folk are forbidden to bring their farm produce to the market in
the city gates, and the townspeople to convey thither from their
houses and shops the manufactured goods which they were accustomed
to barter for these. Nehemiah's memoirs furnish a good illustration
of the general sense of the passage (Neh. xiii. 15), relating how he
suppressed this Sabbath traffic between town and country. Dr. Kuenen
has observed that "Jeremiah is the first of the prophets who stands
up for a stricter sanctification of the seventh day, treating it,
however, merely as a day of rest.... What was traditional appears
to have been only abstinence from field-work, and perhaps also from
professional pursuits." In like manner, he had before stated that
"tendencies to such an exaggeration of the Sabbath rest as would
make it absolute, are found from the Chaldean period. Isaiah (i. 13)
regards the Sabbath purely as a sacrificial day." The last statement
here is hardly a fair inference. In the passage referred to Isaiah
is inveighing against the futile worship of his contemporaries; and
he only mentions the Sabbath in this connexion. And that "tradition"
required more than "abstinence from field-work" is evident from words
of the prophet Amos, written at least a century and a half before the
present oracle, and implying that very abstinence from trading which
Jeremiah prescribes. Amos makes the grasping dealers of his time cry
impatiently, "When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn?
and the sabbath, that we may set out wheat for sale?" (Amos viii. 5);
a clear proof that buying and selling were suspended on the sabbath
festival in the eighth century B.C.
It is hardly likely that, when law or custom compelled covetous dealers
to cease operations on the Sabbath, and buying and selling, the
principal business of the time, was suspended, the artisans of town or
country would be allowed by public opinion to ply their everyday tasks.
Accordingly, when Jeremiah adds to his prohibition of Sabbath trading,
a veto upon any kind of "work"--a term which includes this trafficking,
but also covers the labour of handicraftsmen (cf. 1 Kings v. 30; 2 Kings
xii. 12; Ex. xxxv. 35)--he is not really increasing the stringency of
the traditional rule about Sabbath observance.
Further, it is difficult to understand how Dr. Kuenen could gather
from this passage that Jeremiah treats the Sabbath "merely as a
day of rest." This negative character of mere cessation from work,
of enforced idleness, is far from being the sole feature of the
Sabbath, either in Jeremiah's view of it, or as other more ancient
authorities represent it. The testimony of the passage before us
proves, if proof were needed, that the Sabbath was a day of worship.
This is implied both by the phrase "ye shall hallow the Day of Rest,"
that is, consecrate it to Iahvah; and by the promise that if the
precept be observed faithfully, abundant offerings shall flow into
the temple from all parts of the country, that is, as the context
seems to require, for the due celebration of the Sabbath festival.
There is an intentional contrast between the bringing of innumerable
victims, and "bearing burdens" of flour and oil and incense on the
Sabbath, for the joyful service of the temple, including the festal
meal of the worshippers, and that other carriage of goods for merely
secular objects. And as the wealth of the Jerusalem priesthood chiefly
depended upon the abundance of the sacrifices, it may be supposed
that Jeremiah thus gives them a hint that it is really their interest
to encourage the observance of the law of the Sabbath. For if men
were busy with their buying and selling, their making and mending,
upon the seventh as on other days, they would have no more time or
inclination for religious duties, than the Sunday traders of our large
towns have under the vastly changed conditions of the present day.
Moreover, the teaching of our prophet in this matter takes for granted
that of his predecessors, with whose writings he was thoroughly
acquainted. If in this passage he does not expressly designate the
Sabbath as a religious festival, it is because it seemed needless to
state a thing so obvious, so generally recognised in theory, however
loosely observed in practice. The elder prophets Hosea, Amos, Isaiah,
associate Sabbath and new moon together as days of festal rejoicing,
when men appeared before Iahvah, that is, repaired to the sanctuary
for worship and sacrifice (Hos. ii. 11; Isa. i. 11-14), and when all
ordinary business was consequently suspended (Amos viii. 5).
It is clear, then, from this important passage of Jeremiah that in his
time and by himself the Sabbath was still regarded under the double
aspect of a religious feast and a day of cessation from labour, the
latter being, as in the ancient world generally, a natural consequence
of the former characteristic. Whether the abolition of the local
sanctuaries in the eighteenth year of Josiah resulted in any practical
modification of the conception of the Sabbath, so that, in the words
of Professor Robertson Smith, "it became for most Israelites an
institution of humanity divorced from ritual," is rendered doubtful by
the following considerations. The period between the reform of Josiah
and the fall of Jerusalem was very brief, including not more than
about thirty-five years (621-586, according to Wellhausen). But that
a reaction followed the disastrous end of the royal Reformer, is both
likely under the circumstances, and implied by the express assertions
of the author of Kings, who declares of the succeeding monarchs that
they "did evil in the sight of the Lord according to all that their
fathers had done." As Wellhausen writes: "the battle of Megiddo had
shown that in spite of the covenant with Jehovah the possibilities
of non-success in war remained the same as before": so at least it
would appear to the unspiritual mind of a populace, still hankering
after the old forms of local worship, with their careless connivance
at riot and disorder. It is not probable that a rapacious and bloody
tyrant, like Jehoiakim, would evince more tenderness for the ritual
laws than for the moral precepts of Deuteronomy. It is likely, then,
that the worship at the local high places revived during this and
the following reigns, just as it had revived after its temporary
abolition by Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 22). Moreover, it is with Judah,
not ruined and depopulated Israel, that we have to deal; and even in
Judah the people must by this time have been greatly reduced by war
and its attendant evils, so that Jerusalem itself and its immediate
neighbourhood probably comprised the main part of the population
to which Jeremiah addressed his discourses during this period. The
bulk of the little nation would, in fact, naturally concentrate upon
Jerusalem, in the troublous times that followed the death of Josiah.
If so, it is superfluous to assume that "most men could only visit
the central altar at rare intervals" during these last decades of the
national existence.[79] The change of view belongs rather to the
sixth than the seventh century, to Babylonia rather than to Judea.
The Sabbath observance prescribed by the old Law, and recommended by
Jeremiah, was indeed a very different thing from the pedantic and
burdensome obligation which it afterwards became in the hands of
scribes and Pharisees. These, with their long catalogue of prohibited
works, and their grotesque methods of evading the rigour of their
own rules, had succeeded in making what was originally a joyous
festival and day of rest for the weary, into an intolerable interlude
of joyless restraint; when our Lord reminded them that the Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (St. Mark ii. 27).
Treating the strict observance of the day as an end in itself, they
forgot or ignored the fact that the oldest forms of the sacred Law
agreed in justifying the institution by religious and humanitarian
considerations (Ex. xx. 8, 10; Deut. v. 12). The difference in the
grounds assigned by the different legislations--Deuteronomy alleging
neither the Divine Rest of Exodus xx., nor the sign of Exodus xxxi.
13, but the enlightened and enduring motive "that thy bondman and
thine handmaid may rest as well as thou," coupled with the feeling
injunction, "Remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt"
(Deut. v. 14, 15)--need not here be discussed; for in any case, the
different motives thus suggested were enough to make it clear to those
who had eyes to see, that the Sabbath was not anciently conceived
as an arbitrary institution established purely for its own sake,
and without reference to ulterior considerations of public benefit.
The Book of the Covenant affirmed the principle of Sabbath rest in
these unmistakable terms: "Six days thou mayst do thy works, and on
the seventh day thou shalt leave off, that thine ox and thine ass
may rest, and the son of thine handmaid"--the home-born slave--"and
the alien may be refreshed" (Ex. xxiii. 12), lit. recover breath,
have respite. The humane care of the lawgiver for the dumb toilers
and slaves requires no comment; and we have already noticed the same
spirit of humanity in the later precept of the Book of the Law (Deut.
v. 14, 15). These older rules, it will be observed, are perfectly
general in their scope, and forbid not particular actions (Ex. xvi.
23, xxxv. 3; Num. xv. 32), but the continuance of ordinary labour;
prescribing a merciful intermission alike for the cattle employed in
husbandry and as beasts of burden, and for all classes of dependents.
The origin of the Sabbath festival is lost in obscurity. When the
unknown writer of Gen. i. so beautifully connects it with the creation
of the world, he betrays not only the belief of his contemporaries in
its immemorial antiquity, but also a true perception of the utility
of the institution, its perfect adaptation to the wants of humanity.
He expresses his sense of the fact in the most emphatic way possible,
by affirming the Divine origin of an institution whose value to man
is divinely great; and by carrying back that origin to the very
beginning, he implies that the Sabbath was made for mankind and not
merely for Israel. To whom indeed could an ancient Jewish writer refer
as the original source of this unique blessing of a Day of Rest and
drawing near to God, if not to Iahvah, the fountain of all things good?
That Moses, the founder of the nation, gave Israel the Sabbath,
is as likely as anything can be. Whether, in doing so, he simply
sanctioned an ancient and salutary custom (investing it perhaps with
new and better associations), dating from the tribal existence of the
fathers in Chaldea, or ordered the matter so in purposeful contrast
to the Egyptian week of ten days, cannot at present be determined.
The Sabbath of Israel, both that of the prophets and that of the
scribes, was an institution which distinguished the nation from all
others in the period open to historical scrutiny; and with this
knowledge we may rest content. That which made Israel what it was, and
what it became to the world; the total of the good which this people
realized, and left as a priceless heritage to mankind for ever, was
the outcome, not of what it had in common with heathen antiquity,
but of what was peculiar to itself in ideas and institutions. We
cannot be too strongly on our guard against assuming external,
superficial, and often accidental resemblances, to be an index of
inward and essential likeness and unity. Whatever approximations
may be established by modern archæology between Israel and kindred
peoples, it will still be true that those points of contact do not
explain, though to the apprehension of individuals they may obscure
what is truly characteristic of Israel, and what alone gives that
nation its imperishable significance in the history of the world.
After all deductions made upon such grounds, nothing can abolish the
force of the fact that Moses and the prophets do not belong to Moab,
Ammon, or Edom; that the Old Testament, though written in the language
of Canaan, is not a monument of Canaanite but of Israelite faith;
that the Christ did not spring out of Babylon or Egypt, and that
Christianity is not explicable as the last development of Accadian
magic or Egyptian animal worship.
To those who believe that the prophets enjoyed a higher and less
fallible guidance than human fancy, reflexion, experience; who
recognise in the general aim and effect of their teaching, as
contrasted with that of other teachers, the best proof that their
minds were subject to an influence and a spirit transcending the
common limits of humanity; the prominence given by Jeremiah to the law
of the Sabbath will be sufficient evidence of the importance of that
law to the welfare of his contemporaries, if not of all subsequent
generations. If we have rightly assigned the piece to the reign of
Jehoiachin, we may suppose that among the contrary currents which
agitated the national life at that crisis, there were indications
of repentance and remorse at the misdoings of the late reign. The
present utterance of the prophet might then be regarded as a test of
the degree and worth of the revulsion of popular feeling towards the
God of the Fathers. The nation was trembling for its existence; and
Jeremiah met its fears, by pointing out the path of safety. Here was
one special precept hitherto but little observed. Would they keep it
now and henceforth, in token of a genuine obedience? Repentance in
general terms is never difficult. The rub is _conduct_. Recognition
of the Divine Law is easy, so long as life is not submitted to its
control. The prophet thus proposes, in a single familiar instance, a
plain test of sincerity, which is perhaps not less applicable in our
own day than it was then.
* * * * *
The wording of the final threat suggests a thought of solemn
consequence for ourselves. "I will kindle a fire in her gates, and it
shall devour the castles of Jerusalem--and shall not be quenched!"
The gates were the scene of Judah's sinful breach of the Sabbath
law, and in them her punishment is to begin. So in the after life of
the lost those parts of the physical and mental organism which have
been the principal seats of sin, the means and instruments of man's
misdoing, will also be the seat of keenest suffering, the source
and abode of the most poignant misery. "The fire that never shall
be quenched"--Jesus has spoken of that awful mystery, as well as
Jeremiah. It is the ever-kindling, never-dying fire of hopeless and
insatiable desire; it is the withering flame of hatred of self, when
the castaway sees with open eyes what that self has become; it is the
burning pain of a sleepless memory of the unalterable past; it is the
piercing sense of a life flung recklessly to ruin; it is the scorching
shame, the scathing self-contempt, the quenchless, raging thirst
for deliverance from ourselves; it is the fearful consciousness of
self-destruction, branded upon the soul for ever and ever!
FOOTNOTES:
[78] The context is against supposing, with Graf, that the prophet's
call "hear ye!" extends also to princes yet unborn (cf. xiii. 13;
xxv. 18 is different). If, however, it be thought that Jeremiah
addressed not the sovereigns personally, but only the people passing
in and out of the gates; then the expression becomes intelligible as
a generalised plural, like the parallels in 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 ("his
children"), _ibid._ 16 ("the kings of Assyria" = Tiglath-pileser II.).
The prophet might naturally avoid the singular as too personal, in
affirming an obligation which lay upon the Judean kings in general.
[79] _Encycl. Britann._, _s.v._ Sabbath, p. 125.
XI.
_THE DIVINE POTTER._
JEREMIAH xviii.
Jeremiah goes down into the Lower Town, or the valley between the
upper and lower city; and there his attention is arrested by a potter
sitting at work before his wheel. As the prophet watches, a vessel
is spoiled in the making under the craftsman's hand; so the process
begins afresh, and out of the same lump of clay another vessel is
moulded, according to the potter's fancy.