_BAD SHEPHERDS AND FALSE PROPHETS_
xxiii., xxiv.
"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My
pasture!"--JER. xxiii. 1.
"Of what avail is straw instead of grain?... Is not My word like
fire, ... like a hammer that shattereth the rocks?"--JER. xxiii.
28, 29.
The captivity of Jehoiachin and the deportation of the flower of the
people marked the opening of the last scene in the tragedy of Judah and
of a new period in the ministry of Jeremiah. These events, together with
the accession of Zedekiah as Nebuchadnezzar's nominee, very largely
altered the state of affairs in Jerusalem. And yet the two main features
of the situation were unchanged--the people and the government
persistently disregarded Jeremiah's exhortations. "Neither Zedekiah, nor
his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of
Jehovah which He spake by the prophet Jeremiah."[101] They would not
obey the will of Jehovah as to their life and worship, and they would
not submit to Nebuchadnezzar. "Zedekiah ... did evil in the sight of
Jehovah, according to all that Jehoiakim had done; ... and Zedekiah
rebelled against the king of Babylon."[102]
It is remarkable that though Jeremiah consistently urged submission to
Babylon, the various arrangements made by Nebuchadnezzar did very little
to improve the prophet's position or increase his influence. The
Chaldean king may have seemed ungrateful only because he was ignorant of
the services rendered to him--Jeremiah would not enter into direct and
personal co-operation with the enemy of his country, even with him whom
Jehovah had appointed to be the scourge of His disobedient people--but
the Chaldean policy served Nebuchadnezzar as little as it profited
Jeremiah. Jehoiakim, in spite of his forced submission, remained the
able and determined foe of his suzerain, and Zedekiah, to the best of
his very limited ability, followed his predecessor's example.
Zedekiah was uncle of Jehoiachin, half-brother of Jehoiakim, and own
brother to Jehoahaz.[103] Possibly the two brothers owed their bias
against Jeremiah and his teaching to their mother, Josiah's wife
Hamutal, the daughter of another Jeremiah, the Libnite. Ezekiel thus
describes the appointment of the new king: "The king of Babylon ...
took one of the seed royal, and made a covenant with him; he also put
him under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land: that the
kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by
keeping of his covenant it might stand."[104] Apparently
Nebuchadnezzar was careful to choose a feeble prince for his "base
kingdom"; all that we read of Zedekiah suggests that he was weak and
incapable. Henceforth the sovereign counted for little in the
internal struggles of the tottering state. Josiah had firmly
maintained the religious policy of Jeremiah, and Jehoiakim, as firmly,
the opposite policy; but Zedekiah had neither the strength nor the
firmness to enforce a consistent policy and to make one party
permanently dominant. Jeremiah and his enemies were left to fight it
out amongst themselves, so that now their antagonism grew more bitter
and pronounced than during any other reign.
But whatever advantage the prophet might derive from the weakness of
the sovereign was more than counterbalanced by the recent deportation.
In selecting the captives Nebuchadnezzar had sought merely to weaken
Judah by carrying away every one who would have been an element of
strength to the "base kingdom." Perhaps he rightly believed that
neither the prudence of the wise nor the honour of the virtuous would
overcome their patriotic hatred of subjection; weakness alone would
guarantee the obedience of Judah. He forgot that even weakness is apt
to be foolhardy--when there is no immediate prospect of penalty.
One result of his policy was that the enemies and friends of Jeremiah
were carried away indiscriminately; there was no attempt to leave
behind those who might have counselled submission to Babylon as the
acceptance of a Divine judgment, and thus have helped to keep Judah
loyal to its foreign master. On the contrary Jeremiah's disciples were
chiefly thoughtful and honourable men, and Nebuchadnezzar's policy in
taking away "the mighty of the land" bereft the prophet of many
friends and supporters, amongst them his disciple Ezekiel and
doubtless a large class of whom Daniel and his three friends might be
taken as types. When Jeremiah characterises the captives as "good
figs" and those left behind as "bad figs,"[105] and the judgment is
confirmed and amplified by Ezekiel,[106] we may be sure that most of
the prophet's adherents were in exile.
We have already had occasion to compare the changes in the religious
policy of the Jewish government to the alternations of Protestant and
Romanist sovereigns among the Tudors; but no Tudor was as feeble as
Zedekiah. He may rather be compared to Charles IX. of France, helpless
between the Huguenots and the League. Only the Jewish factions were
less numerous, less evenly balanced; and by the speedy advance of
Nebuchadnezzar civil dissensions were merged in national ruin.
The opening years of the new reign passed in nominal allegiance to
Babylon. Jeremiah's influence would be used to induce the vassal king to
observe the covenant he had entered into and to be faithful to his oath
to Nebuchadnezzar. On the other hand a crowd of "patriotic" prophets
urged Zedekiah to set up once more the standard of national
independence, to "come to the help of the Lord against the mighty." Let
us then briefly consider Jeremiah's polemic against the princes,
prophets, and priests of his people. While Ezekiel in a celebrated
chapter[107] denounces the idolatry of the princes, priests, and women
of Judah, their worship of creeping things and abominable beasts, their
weeping for Tammuz, their adoration of the sun, Jeremiah is chiefly
concerned with the perverse policy of the government and the support it
receives from priests and prophets, who profess to speak in the name of
Jehovah. Jeremiah does not utter against Zedekiah any formal judgment
like those on his three predecessors. Perhaps the prophet did not regard
this impotent sovereign as the responsible representative of the state,
and when the long-expected catastrophe at last befell the doomed people,
neither Zedekiah nor his doings distracted men's attention from their
own personal sufferings and patriotic regrets. At the point where a
paragraph on Zedekiah would naturally have followed that on Jehoiachin,
we have by way of summary and conclusion to the previous sections a
brief denunciation of the shepherds of Israel.
"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My
pasture!... Ye have scattered My flock, and driven them away, and have
not cared for them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your
doings."
These "shepherds" are primarily the kings, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and
Jehoiachin, who have been condemned by name in the previous chapter,
together with the unhappy Zedekiah, who is too insignificant to be
mentioned. But the term shepherds will also include the ruling and
influential classes of which the king was the leading representative.
The image is a familiar one in the Old Testament and is found in the
oldest literature of Israel,[108] but the denunciation of the rulers of
Judah as unfaithful shepherds is characteristic of Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and one of the prophecies appended to the Book of Zechariah.[109]
Ezekiel xxxiv. expands this figure and enforces its lessons:--
"Woe unto the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves!
Should not the shepherds feed the sheep? Ye eat the fat, and
ye clothe you with the wool.
Ye kill the fatlings; but ye feed not the sheep.
The diseased have ye not strengthened,
Neither have ye healed the sick,
Neither have ye bound up the bruised,
Neither have ye brought back again that which was driven
away,
Neither have ye sought for that which was lost,
But your rule over them has been harsh and violent.
And for want of a shepherd, they were scattered,
And became food for every beast of the field."[110]
So in Zechariah ix., etc., Jehovah's anger is kindled against the
shepherds, because they do not pity His flock.[111] Elsewhere[112]
Jeremiah speaks of the kings of all nations as shepherds, and pronounces
against them also a like doom. All these passages illustrate the concern
of the prophets for good government. They were neither Pharisees nor
formalists; their religious ideals were broad and wholesome. Doubtless
the elect remnant will endure through all conditions of society; but the
Kingdom of God was not meant to be a pure Church in a rotten state. This
present evil world is no manure heap to fatten the growth of holiness:
it is rather a mass for the saints to leaven.
Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel turn from the unfaithful shepherds whose
"hungry sheep look up and are not fed" to the true King of Israel, the
"Shepherd of Israel that led Joseph like a flock, and dwelt between
the Cherubim." In the days of the Restoration He will raise up
faithful shepherds, and over them a righteous Branch, the real Jehovah
Zidqenu, instead of the sapless twig who disgraced the name
"Zedekiah." Similarly Ezekiel promises that God will set up one
shepherd over His people, "even My servant David." The pastoral care
of Jehovah for His people is most tenderly and beautifully set forth
in the twenty-third Psalm. Our Lord, the root and the offspring of
David, claims to be the fulfilment of ancient prophecy when He calls
Himself "the Good Shepherd." The words of Christ and of the Psalmist
receive new force and fuller meaning when we contrast their pictures
of the true Shepherd with the portraits of the Jewish kings drawn by
the prophets. Moreover the history of this metaphor warns us against
ignoring the organic life of the Christian society, the Church, in our
concern for the spiritual life of the individual. As Sir Thomas More
said, in applying this figure to Henry VIII., "Of the multitude of
sheep cometh the name of a shepherd."[113] A shepherd implies not
merely a sheep, but a flock; His relation to each member is tender and
personal, but He bestows blessings and requires service in fellowship
with the Family of God.
By a natural sequence the denunciation of the unfaithful shepherds is
followed by a similar utterance "concerning the prophets." It is true
that the prophets are not spoken of as shepherds; and Milton's use of
the figure in _Lycidas_ suggests the New Testament rather than the
Old. Yet the prophets had a large share in guiding the destinies of
Israel in politics as well as in religion, and having passed sentence
on the shepherds--the kings and princes--Jeremiah turns to the
ecclesiastics, chiefly, as the heading implies, to the prophets. The
priests indeed do not escape, but Jeremiah seems to feel that they are
adequately dealt with in two or three casual references. We use the
term "ecclesiastics" advisedly; the prophets were now a large
professional class, more important and even more clerical than the
priests. The prophets and priests together were the clergy of Israel.
They claimed to be devoted servants of Jehovah, and for the most part
the claim was made in all sincerity; but they misunderstood His
character, and mistook for Divine inspiration the suggestions of their
own prejudice and self-will.
Jeremiah's indictment against them has various counts. He accuses them
of speaking without authority, and also of time-serving, plagiarism,
and cant.
First, then, as to their unauthorised utterances: Jeremiah finds them
guilty of an unholy licence in prophesying, a distorted caricature of
that "liberty of prophesying" which is the prerogative of God's
accredited ambassadors.
"Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto
you.
They make fools of you:
The visions which they declare are from their own hearts,
And not from the mouth of Jehovah.
* * * * *
Who hath stood in the council of Jehovah,
To perceive and hear His word?
Who hath marked His word and heard it?
I sent not the prophets--yet they ran;
I spake not unto them--yet they prophesied."
The evils which Jeremiah describes are such as will always be found in
any large professional class. To use modern terms--in the Church, as
in every profession, there will be men who are not qualified for the
vocation which they follow. They are indeed not called to their
vocation; they "follow," but do not overtake it. They are not sent of
God, yet they run; they have no Divine message, yet they preach. They
have never stood in the council of Jehovah; they might perhaps have
gathered up scraps of the King's purposes from His true councillors;
but when they had opportunity they neither "marked nor heard"; and yet
they discourse concerning heavenly things with much importance and
assurance. But their inspiration, at its best, has no deeper or richer
source than their own shallow selves; their visions are the mere
product of their own imaginations. Strangers to the true fellowship,
their spirit is not "a well of water springing up unto eternal life,"
but a stagnant pool. And, unless the judgment and mercy of God
intervene, that pool will in the end be fed from a fountain whose
bitter waters are earthly, sensual, devilish.
We are always reluctant to speak of ancient prophecy or modern
preaching as a "profession." We may gladly dispense with the word, if
we do not thereby ignore the truth which it inaccurately expresses.
Men lived by prophecy, as, with Apostolic sanction, men live by "the
gospel." They were expected, as ministers are now, though in a less
degree, to justify their claims to an income and an official status,
by discharging religious functions so as to secure the approval of the
people or the authorities. Then, as now, the prophet's reputation,
influence, and social standing, probably even his income, depended
upon the amount of visible success that he could achieve.
In view of such facts, it is futile to ask men of the world not to
speak of the clerical life as a profession. They discern no ethical
difference between a curate's dreams of a bishopric and the
aspirations of a junior barrister to the woolsack. Probably a refusal
to recognise the element common to the ministry with law, medicine,
and other professions, injures both the Church and its servants. One
peculiar difficulty and most insidious temptation of the Christian
ministry consists in its mingled resemblances to and differences from
the other professions. The minister has to work under similar worldly
conditions, and yet to control those conditions by the indwelling
power of the Spirit. He has to "run," it may be twice or even three
times a week, whether he be sent or no: how can he always preach only
that which God has taught him? He is consciously dependent upon the
exercise of his memory, his intellect, his fancy: how can he avoid
speaking "the visions of his own heart"? The Church can never allow
its ministers to regard themselves as mere professional teachers and
lecturers, and yet if they claim to be more, must they not often fall
under Jeremiah's condemnation?
It is one of those practical dilemmas which delight casuists and
distress honest and earnest servants of God. In the early Christian
centuries similar difficulties peopled the Egyptian and Syrian deserts
with ascetics, who had given up the world as a hopeless riddle. A full
discussion of the problem would lead us too far away from the exposition
of Jeremiah, and we will only venture to make two suggestions.
The necessity, which most ministers are under, of "living by the
gospel," may promote their own spiritual life and add to their
usefulness. It corrects and reduces spiritual pride, and helps them to
understand and sympathise with their lay brethren, most of whom are
subject to a similar trial.
Secondly, as a minister feels the ceaseless pressure of strong
temptation to speak from and live for himself--his lower, egotistic
self--he will be correspondingly driven to a more entire and persistent
surrender to God. The infinite fulness and variety of Revelation is
expressed by the manifold gifts and experience of the prophets. If only
the prophet be surrendered to the Spirit, then what is most
characteristic of himself may become the most forcible expression of his
message. His constant prayer will be that he may have the child's heart
and may never resist the Holy Ghost, that no personal interest or
prejudice, no bias of training or tradition or current opinion, may dull
his hearing when he stands in the council of the Lord, or betray him
into uttering for Christ's gospel the suggestions of his own self-will
or the mere watchwords of his ecclesiastical faction.
But to return to the ecclesiastics who had stirred Jeremiah's wrath.
The professional prophets naturally adapted their words to the itching
ears of their clients. They were not only officious, but also
time-serving. Had they been true prophets, they would have dealt
faithfully with Judah; they would have sought to convince the people
of sin, and to lead them to repentance; they would thus have given
them yet another opportunity of salvation.
"If they had stood in My council,
They would have caused My people to hear My words;
They would have turned them from their evil way,
And from the evil of their doings."
But now:--
"They walk in lies and strengthen the hands of evildoers,
That no one may turn away from his sin.
* * * * *
They say continually unto them that despise the word of
Jehovah,[114]
Ye shall have peace;
And unto every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his
heart they say,
No evil shall come upon you."
Unfortunately, when prophecy becomes professional in the lowest sense
of the word, it is governed by commercial principles. A sufficiently
imperious demand calls forth an abundant supply. A sovereign can "tune
the pulpits"; and a ruling race can obtain from its clergy formal
ecclesiastical sanction for such "domestic institutions" as slavery.
When evildoers grow numerous and powerful, there will always be
prophets to strengthen their hands and encourage them not to turn away
from their sin. But to give the lie to these false prophets God sends
Jeremiahs, who are often branded as heretics and schismatics,
turbulent fellows who turn the world upside-down.
The self-important, self-seeking spirit leads further to the sin of
plagiarism:--
"Therefore I am against the prophets, is the utterance of
Jehovah,
Who steal My word from one another."
The sin of plagiarism is impossible to the true prophet, partly
because there are no rights of private property in the word of
Jehovah. The Old Testament writers make free use of the works of their
predecessors. For instance, Isaiah ii. 2-4 is almost identical with
Micah iv. 1-3; yet neither author acknowledges his indebtedness to the
other or to any third prophet.[115] Uriah ben Shemaiah prophesied
according to all the words of Jeremiah,[116] who himself owes much to
Hosea, whom he never mentions. Yet he was not conscious of stealing
from his predecessor, and he would have brought no such charge against
Isaiah or Micah or Uriah. In the New Testament 2 Peter and Jude have
so much in common that one must have used the other without
acknowledgment. Yet the Church has not, on that ground, excluded
either Epistle from the Canon. In the goodly fellowship of the
prophets and the glorious company of the apostles no man says that the
things which he utters are his own. But the mere hireling has no part
in the spiritual communism wherein each may possess all things because
he claims nothing. When a prophet ceases to be the messenger of God,
and sinks into the mercenary purveyor of his own clever sayings and
brilliant fancies, then he is tempted to become a clerical Autolycus,
"a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles." Modern ideas furnish a curious
parallel to Jeremiah's indifference to the borrowings of the true
prophet, and his scorn of the literary pilferings of the false. We
hear only too often of stolen sermons, but no one complains of
plagiarism in prayers. Doubtless among these false prophets charges of
plagiarism were bandied to and fro with much personal acrimony. But it
is interesting to notice that Jeremiah is not denouncing an injury
done to himself; he does not accuse them of thieving from him, but
from one another. Probably assurance and lust of praise and power
would have overcome any awe they felt for Jeremiah. He was only free
from their depredations, because--from their point of view--his words
were not worth stealing. There was nothing to be gained by repeating
his stern denunciations, and even his promises were not exactly suited
to the popular taste.
These prophets were prepared to cater for the average religious
appetite in the most approved fashion--in other words, they were
masters of cant. Their office had been consecrated by the work of true
men of God like Elijah and Isaiah. They themselves claimed to stand in
the genuine prophetic succession, and to inherit the reverence felt
for their great predecessors, quoting their inspired utterances and
adopting their weighty phrases. As Jeremiah's contemporaries listened
to one of their favourite orators, they were soothed by his assurances
of Divine favour and protection, and their confidence in the speaker
was confirmed by the frequent sound of familiar formulæ in his
unctuous sentences. These had the true ring; they were redolent of
sound doctrine, of what popular tradition regarded as orthodox.
The solemn attestation NE'UM YAHWE, "It is the utterance of Jehovah,"
is continually appended to prophecies, almost as if it were the
sign-manual of the Almighty. Isaiah and other prophets frequently use
the term MASSA (A.V., R.V., "burden") as a title, especially for
prophecies concerning neighbouring nations. The ancient records loved
to tell how Jehovah revealed Himself to the patriarchs in dreams.
Jeremiah's rivals included dreams in their clerical apparatus:--
"Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams--
_Ne'um Yahwe_--
And tell them, and lead astray My people
By their lies and their rodomontade;
It was not I who sent or commanded them,
Neither shall they profit this people at all,
_Ne'um Yahwe_"
These prophets "thought to cause the Lord's people to forget His name,
as their fathers forgot His name for Baal, by their dreams which they
told one another."
Moreover they could glibly repeat the sacred phrases as part of their
professional jargon:--
"Behold, I am against the prophets,
It is the utterance of Jehovah (_Ne'um Yahwe_),
That use their tongues
To utter utterances (_Wayyin'amu Ne'um_)."
"To utter utterances"--the prophets uttered them, not Jehovah. These
sham oracles were due to no Diviner source than the imagination of
foolish hearts. But for Jeremiah's grim earnestness, the last clause
would be almost blasphemous. It is virtually a caricature of the most
solemn formula of ancient Hebrew religion. But this was really
degraded when it was used to obtain credence for the lies which men
prophesied out of the deceit of their own heart. Jeremiah's seeming
irreverence was the most forcible way of bringing this home to his
hearers. There are profanations of the most sacred things which can
scarcely be spoken of without an apparent breach of the Third
Commandment. The most awful taking in vain of the name of the Lord God
is not heard among the publicans and sinners, but in pulpits and on
the platforms of religious meetings.
But these prophets and their clients had a special fondness for the
phrase "The burden of Jehovah," and their unctuous use of it most
especially provoked Jeremiah's indignation:--
"When this people, priest, or prophet shall ask thee,
What is the burden of Jehovah?
Then say unto them, Ye are the burden.[117]
But I will cast you off, _Ne'um Yahwe_.
If priest or prophet or people shall say, The burden of
Jehovah,
I will punish that man and his house.
And ye shall say to one another,
What hath Jehovah answered? and, What hath Jehovah spoken?
And ye shall no more make mention of the burden of Jehovah:
For (if ye do) men's words shall become a burden to
themselves.
* * * * *
Thus shall ye inquire of a prophet,
What hath Jehovah answered thee?
What hath Jehovah spoken unto thee?
But if ye say, The burden of Jehovah,
Thus saith Jehovah: Because ye say this word, The burden of
Jehovah,
When I have sent unto you the command,
Ye shall not say, The burden of Jehovah,
Therefore I will assuredly take you up,
And will cast away from before Me both you and the city which
I gave to you and to your fathers.
I will bring upon you everlasting reproach
And everlasting shame, that shall not be forgotten."
Jeremiah's insistence and vehemence speak for themselves. Their moral
is obvious, though for the most part unheeded. The most solemn
formulæ, hallowed by ancient and sacred associations, used by inspired
teachers as the vehicle of revealed truths, may be debased till they
become the very legend of Antichrist, blazoned on the _Vexilla Regis
Inferni_. They are like a motto of one of Charles's Paladins flaunted
by his unworthy descendants to give distinction to cruelty and vice.
The Church's line of march is strewn with such dishonoured relics of
her noblest champions. Even our Lord's own words have not escaped.
There is a fashion of discoursing upon "the gospel" which almost
tempts reverent Christians to wish they might never hear that word
again. Neither is this debasing of the moral currency confined to
religious phrases; almost every political and social watchword has
been similarly abused. One of the vilest tyrannies the world has ever
seen--the Reign of Terror--claimed to be an incarnation of "Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity."
Yet the Bible, with that marvellous catholicity which lifts it so high
above the level of all other religious literature, not only records
Jeremiah's prohibition to use the term "Burden," but also tells us that
centuries later Malachi could still speak of "the burden of the word of
Jehovah." A great phrase that has been discredited by misuse may yet
recover itself; the tarnished and dishonoured sword of faith may be
baptised and burnished anew, and flame in the forefront of the holy war.
Jeremiah does not stand alone in his unfavourable estimate of the
professional prophets of Judah; a similar depreciation seems to be
implied by the words of Amos: "I am neither a prophet nor of the sons
of the prophets."[118] One of the unknown authors whose writings have
been included in the Book of Zechariah takes up the teaching of Amos
and Jeremiah and carries it a stage further:--
"In that day (it is the utterance of Jehovah Sabaoth) I will
cut off the names of the idols from the land,
They shall not be remembered any more;
Also the prophets and the spirit of uncleanness
Will I expel from the land.
When any shall yet prophesy,
His father and mother that begat him shall say unto him,
Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of
Jehovah:
And his father and mother that begat him shall thrust him
through when he prophesieth.
In that day every prophet when he prophesieth shall be
ashamed of his vision;
Neither shall any wear a hairy mantle to deceive:
He shall say, I am no prophet;
I am a tiller of the ground,
I was sold for a slave in my youth."[119]
No man with any self-respect would allow his fellows to dub him
prophet; slave was a less humiliating name. No family would endure the
disgrace of having a member who belonged to this despised caste;
parents would rather put their son to death than see him a prophet. To
such extremities may the spirit of time-serving and cant reduce a
national clergy. We are reminded of Latimer's words in his famous
sermon to Convocation in 1536: "All good men in all places accuse your
avarice, your exactions, your tyranny. I commanded you that ye should
feed my sheep, and ye earnestly feed yourselves from day to day,
wallowing in delights and idleness. I commanded you to teach my law;
you teach your own traditions, and seek your own glory."[120]
Over against their fluent and unctuous cant Jeremiah sets the terrible
reality of his Divine message. Compared to this, their sayings are like
chaff to the wheat; nay, this is too tame a figure--Jehovah's word is
like fire, like a hammer that shatters rocks. He says of himself:--
"My heart within me is broken; all my bones shake:
I am like a drunken man, like a man whom wine hath overcome,
Because of Jehovah and His holy words."
Thus we have in chapter xxiii. a full and formal statement of the
controversy between Jeremiah and his brother-prophets. On the one
hand, self-seeking and self-assurance winning popularity by orthodox
phrases, traditional doctrine, and the prophesying of smooth things;
on the other hand, a man to whom the word of the Lord was like a fire
in his bones, who had surrendered prejudice and predilection that he
might himself become a hammer to shatter the Lord's enemies, a man
through whom God wrought so mightily that he himself reeled and
staggered with the blows of which he was the instrument.
The relation of the two parties was not unlike that of St. Paul and
his Corinthian adversaries: the prophet, like the Apostle, spoke "in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power"; he considered "not the word
of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is
not in word, but in power." In our next chapter we shall see the
practical working of this antagonism which we have here set forth.
FOOTNOTES:
[101] xxxvii. 2.
[102] 2 Kings xxiv. 18-20.
[103] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 makes Zedekiah the brother of Jehoiachin,
possibly using the word in the general sense of "relation." Zedekiah's
age shows that he cannot have been the son of Jehoiakim.
[104] Ezek. xvii. 13, 14.
[105] xxiv.
[106] vii.-xi.
[107] viii.
[108] Gen. xlix. 24, J. from older source. Micah v. 5.
[109] ix.-xi., xiii. 7-9.
[110] Ezek. xxxiv. 2-5.
[111] Zech. x. 3, xi. 5.
[112] xxv. 34-38.
[113] Froude, i. 205.
[114] LXX. See R.V. margin.
[115] Possibly, however, the insertion of this passage in one of the
books may have been the work of an editor, and we cannot be sure that,
in Jeremiah's time, collections entitled Isaiah and Micah both
included this section.
[116] xxvi. 20.
[117] So LXX. and modern editors: see Giesebrecht, _in loco_. R.V.
"What burden!"
[118] vii. 14; but cf. R.V.; "I was," etc.
[119] Zech. xiii. 2-5. Post-exilic, according to most critics
(Driver's _Introduction, in loco_).
[120] Froude, ii. 474.