John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 5

By another vision God confirms what He had recently taught concerning the siege of Jerusalem. For He orders the Prophet to shave the hair off his head and his beard, then to distribute it into three parts, and to weigh it in a balance. He mentions a just balance, so that equity may be preserved, and that one portion may not surpass another.

There is no doubt that by the hair He understands the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as by the head He understands the seat itself of their dwelling-place. Then the application will follow; but this I shall pass by today, because I cannot proceed further. It is sufficient to understand briefly that men are here designated by hair—for hair can scarcely be counted, indeed that of the beard is countless; such was the multitude at Jerusalem, for we know that the city was very populous.

We know, again, that they took this as an occasion for pride; when they saw that they were strong in the multitude of their people, they thought themselves equal, if not superior, to all enemies, and hence their foolish confidence, which destroyed them. God then commanded the Prophet to shave off all the hair of his head and of his beard.

Thus He taught that not even one man should escape the slaughter, because He says, make the sword pass, or pass it, over thy head, then over thy chin, so that nothing may remain. We see, then, how far the passing of the razor is to go—until no hair remains intact on either the head or beard.

From this it follows that God will take vengeance on the whole nation, so that not one of them shall survive. As to His ordering three parts to be weighed, and a proportion to be kept between them, in this way He signifies what we have often seen in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 15:2)—Whoever shall have escaped the sword shall perish by famine, and whoever shall escape the famine shall perish by some other means.

But here God explains at length the manner in which He was about to destroy all the Jews, although they were distributed into various ranks. For their condition might seem different when some had been put to flight, and others had fled to Egypt. But in this variety God shows that it detracts nothing from His power or intention of destroying them to a man.

Let us come to the words make a razor pass over thy head and over thy beard; and then take scales (מאזנים, maznim, is properly called a balance because of its two ears). Take, therefore, a balance, or scales for weighing, and divide the hair. What this division means I have already explained, because all the Jews were not consumed by the same punishment, and therefore those who had escaped one kind of destruction boasted that they were safe.

Hence they were enraged against God. But this foolish confidence is taken away when the Prophet is ordered to divide the hair extracted from his head and beard. Divide them, he says; afterwards he adds, a third part. As for God’s distribution of the people into three parts, it is not done without the best reason for it; for a part was consumed by famine and distress before the city was taken.

But because God marks all miseries by fire, therefore He orders a third part to be cast into the fire, and consumed there. Now because there were two parts remaining, every one promised himself life; for he who escapes present death thinks himself free from all danger, and hence confidence is increased; for we too often think ourselves safe when we have overcome one kind of death.

For this reason, therefore, it is added, after thou hast burnt a third part in the fire, he says, take a third part and strike it with the sword. Moreover, he orders a third part to be burnt in the midst of the city. Ezekiel was then in Chaldea, and not near the city; but we said that all this took place by a prophetic vision.

What is here said corresponds to the wrath of God, because before the siege of the city, a third part was consumed by pestilence, famine, distress, and other evils and slaughters; and all these miseries are here denoted by fire. For after the city had been taken, God orders a third part to be struck with the sword. We know this to have been fulfilled when the king with all his company was seized as he was flying over the plain of Jericho (2 Kings 25), when meeting with the hostile army; because many were killed there, the king himself was carried off, his sons murdered in his sight, while his eyes were put out, and he was dragged to Babylon bound in chains. Hence this is the third part, which he commanded the Prophet to strike with the sword, because that slaughter represented the slaughter of the city.

Now it is added, that he should take a third part and cast it to the wind: then follows the threat, I will unsheathe my sword after them. This refers both to the fugitives who had gone into various countries, and to the poor, who being dispersed after the slaughter of the city, prolonged their lives for only a short time. For we know that some lay hidden in the land of Moab, others in that of Ammon, many in Egypt, and that others fled to various hiding-places. This dispersion was as if anyone should cast the shorn-off hair to the wind. But God pronounces that their flight and dispersion would not profit them, because He will draw His sword against them and pursue them to the very end. We see therefore, although at first glance the citizens of Jerusalem seem different, as if they were divided into three classes, yet the wrath of God hangs over all, and destroys the whole multitude.

It is now added: Thou shalt take then a small number, and bind them, (that is, that number, but the number is changed) namely, those hairs of which the number is small in the skirts of thy clothing. It either takes away the confidence which might arise from a temporary escape, or else it signifies that very few should be safe in the midst of the destruction of the whole people, which occurred miraculously.

If that interpretation is accepted, this corrective is added, that God would give some hope of favor because the people were consumed, yet so that the covenant of God might remain. Hence it was necessary that some remnants should be preserved, and they had been reduced like Sodom, unless God had kept for Himself a small seed (Isaiah 1:9; Romans 9:29).

Therefore in this sense the Prophet is ordered to bind and to hide in the skirts of his garment some part of the hair. Moreover, that part is understood to be from only the third group, because those who had escaped thought that they had obtained safety by flight, especially when they gathered in groups.

Afterwards it follows, thou shalt then take from these, and throw it into the midst of the fire, and burn it in the fire. From these few hairs God intends for another part to be burned and consumed; by these words He signifies that even when only a small portion remains, it must still be consumed in a similar way, or at least that many out of these few will be rejected.

And indeed those who seemed to have happily escaped and to have survived safely, were soon after cut off by various slaughters, or pined away gradually as if they had perished by a slow contagion. But since it pleased Him to remember His promise, we gather that a few of the people survived through God’s wonderful mercy: for because He was mindful of His covenant, He intended some part to be preserved, and therefore that corrective measure was introduced, that the Prophet should bind under his skirts a small number. Yet from that remnant, God again snatched away another part, and cast it into the fire. If the filth of the remainder was such that it was necessary to purge it, and cast part of it into the fire, what must be thought of the whole people, that is, of the dregs themselves? For the portion which the Prophet bound in his skirts was clearly the flower of the people: if there was any integrity, it ought to have been seen there.

We just saw that there were many reprobate in that small number. Hence, therefore, it is easily understood how desperate was the impiety of the whole people. After this, he says, take: this adverb is used so that those who survived after the slaughter of the city should not think that all their punishments were over: after this, says he, that is, when they shall imagine all their difficulties are over, thou shalt take from that part which thou hast preserved, and shalt cast it into the fire. Thence, he says, a fire shall go forth through the whole house of Israel. He signifies by these words, as we have seen before, that the vision was not illusory, just as many fictional things are presented in a theater.

Hence God says that what He shows by vision to His servant would happen, as the event itself eventually proved. But He goes further, that the whole house of Israel shall burn in this burning, because indeed the last destruction of the city brought despair to the miserable exiles, who, while the city was standing, hoped for a return.

But when they saw such utter destruction of the city, they were consumed just as if fire from Judea had crept even to them. In the meantime, the remnant whom the Lord wonderfully preserved are always an exception, although in the vision He was destroying the whole people. We now see the meaning of this vision. I will not proceed further now, because I would be compelled to stop, and so the teaching would be cut short. It is sufficient, therefore, to understand that although the people were divided into many parts so that the condition of each was distinct, yet all should perish, since God so determined. Hence the confidence of those who thought they would be safe at Jerusalem was broken: then the ten tribes, which were captives, should also acknowledge that the last vengeance of God was not complete, until the city itself, the seat of government and the priesthood, was destroyed.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You have proclaimed such a proof of Your fierce anger against Your ancient people, that we may today learn wisdom from the suffering of others, and may so subject ourselves obediently to You, that You may receive us into favor, and show Yourself so gracious to us, that by Your pardon we may be restored from death to life, until we enjoy that eternal blessedness which is provided for us by Your only-begotten Son our Lord. — Amen.

Now God shows the reason why He determined to act so severely and harshly towards that holy city which He had selected as His royal residence. For the greater the benefits with which He had adorned the city, the baser and grosser was their ingratitude. God recounts, therefore, His benefits towards Jerusalem, and that for the sake of reproving it.

For if the Jews had embraced the blessing of God, doubtless He would have enriched them more and more with His gifts. But when He saw that they rejected His favors, He was the more angry at their shameful conduct. For contempt of God’s benefits is a kind of profanation and sacrilege.

Now, therefore, we understand the intention of the Holy Spirit when He says that Jerusalem was placed, as it were, on a lofty platform, so that its dignity might be conspicuous on all sides. This is not said in praise of Jerusalem, but rather to its greatest disgrace, because whatever the Lord had conferred upon it ought to be taken into account, since they had so unworthily corrupted themselves and had polluted God’s glory, as it were, on purpose.

As to its being said, that Jerusalem was in the midst of the nations (Psalms 74:12), I do not take this so precisely as Jerome and most others. For they fancy that Jerusalem was the center of the earth, and he twists other places also into this sense: where God is said to have worked salvation in the midst of the earth, he explains it as the very middle, as they say.

But that is in my judgment puerile, because the Prophet simply means that Jerusalem was placed in the most celebrated part of the world. It had on all sides the most noble and very rich nations, as is well known, and was not far from the Mediterranean Sea. On one side it was opposite Asia Minor; then it had Egypt for a neighbor, and Babylon on the north.

This is the genuine sense of the Prophet: that Jerusalem was endowed with remarkable nobility among other nations, as if God had placed it in the highest rank. There is no city that does not have nations and lands around it, but God here names lands and nations par excellence—not just any, but only those that excelled in fruitfulness, in opulence, and all advantages.

And the demonstrative pronoun is emphatic when He says, This is Jerusalem: for He extols the city with magnificent praises, so that its ingratitude may appear the greater—hence it was placed in the midst of the nations and of countries round about it: because it was surrounded by many opulent regions. There the grace of God was chiefly displayed, as if it were the most beautiful part of a theater, which attracted all eyes towards it and moved all minds to admiration.

He now adds, My judgments are changed. Concerning the word מרה (mereh), I said that it sometimes signifies to change, but more often to transgress or to reject, and that sense suits very well, because the Jews were rebellious against the judgments of God even to impiety. But He enlarges upon their wickedness when He says, my statutes have been despised, since they had so devoted themselves to impiety.

For if there had been any pretext of virtue, their fault might have been extenuated; but when they cast themselves into gross impiety and thus despise God’s commandments, this is inexcusable.

Let us learn from this passage that unless we use God’s blessings with purity, the charge of ingratitude will always lie against us. For whatever God bestows upon us, He sanctifies both for our salvation and for the glory of His name.

We are then sacrilegious when we corrupt those things which were destined for His glory; then we are utterly perverse when we convert to our destruction what God has appointed for our salvation.

Now we must consider the ingratitude of Jerusalem as flagrant, because they rejected the commandments of God. Therefore, when God deposits among us the treasure of celestial doctrine, we must diligently take care that we do not turn aside to impiety, because there is no excuse for error once we have been taught what is right, and that from the mouth of God Himself.

Then He declares the same sentiment in other words, and says, beyond all nations and all lands which were round about; by which sentence He signifies that the Jews were worse than all the rest, because knowingly and willingly they had shaken off God’s yoke.

Other nations had not conducted themselves better, for we know that the worship of God was then everywhere vitiated. But the impiety of the elect people was fouler, for they turned light into darkness; while the Gentiles wandered in darkness because they were blind, the conduct of this people, whom God had intimately instructed, was different.

Since, therefore, the teaching of the law was conspicuous among the Jews, the Prophet deservedly says that they were impious beyond all nations and countries.

Then He explains how they had either changed the judgment of God or were themselves rebellious: because they had despised, He says, my judgments, and had not walked in my statutes.

First, He says, they had not fallen through ignorance but through pride and contempt; for when the will of God is made known to us, there is no place for ignorance. We therefore do not sin lightly, but our minds are necessarily infected with pride and contempt of God.

Now He adds, that they did not walk in His precepts, by which words He signifies that the contempt just mentioned appeared openly, because in truth its fruit was evident in their whole life.

This verse is explained in various ways because of the word המנכם, hemenekem: for some read it as a single phrase, as if because they were multiplied, they did not worship God; as if he meant that they became self-indulgent because of their wealth, just as horses become restless from too much food and fatness.

That passage from Moses has been noted: Israel, when highly fed, kicked. Therefore, they think that this passage is similar to it, and so they connect it, reasoning: because you have been multiplied beyond all Gentiles who were around you, you have despised my judgments, for you have become blind and drunk with prosperity (Deuteronomy 32:15).

But I do not approve of this interpretation, for it is clearly too forced. Others derive it from המה, hemeh, which means to be agitated or disturbed, and arrive at this interpretation: because you are tumultuous beyond all nations—that is, because your lasciviousness and licentiousness surpass that of all people, while your eagerness has drawn you on, as it were, without a bridle.

But I fear that explanation is far-fetched, and so I take it simply to mean 'to be multiplied,' or 'multiplication'; for machor can be either a noun or a verb, but with the same meaning.

However, I do not relate this to the number and multitude of the people, nor even to the abundance of goods, as most do. They argue that the number of people was multiplied, which does not fit the meaning. Even if it is referred to wealth, while it is true that God had acted generously toward that city, my interpretation differs.

I take it in an active sense: that they have multiplied beyond all nations. Jerome, in my opinion, did not translate it badly with, “because you have surpassed the nations,” yet he departed from the proper meaning of the word. Therefore, it is better to retain the verb 'multiply' or the noun 'multiplication,' but in an active sense, signifying that they had indulged excessively in their superstitions, so that they surpassed all nations in wrongdoing.

Therefore, because of your multiplying, or because of your multiplication beyond all nations—that is, because you were not content with moderate impiety, but heaped together all kinds of wickedness, so that your impiety reached the highest point, from which a curse follows.

But before he comes to that, he confirms what he had said before, namely, because they had not walked in his statutes, and had not kept his judgments. This, therefore, is the meaning of to multiply: because when the law was given to them, they despised it and imitated the wickedness of the nations and the surrounding countries.

These statements then agree: because beyond all the nations they had been rebellious in impiety against God, and also because they had multiplied beyond all nations and countries. Again, the reason is to be noted: because they did not walk in God’s statutes.

For the Gentiles followed no set course; hence, it is not surprising that they wandered in their own crooked ways. But a way had been shown to the Jews. The language of Moses was not in vain (Deuteronomy 30:19): I call heaven and earth to witness that I have set before you life and death: choose you therefore life.

Since God had thus laid down the doctrine of salvation for the Jews, He was all the more indignant at their insolence and wickedness in not walking according to His statutes. Life, then, had been set before them, as Moses says; it remained for them to walk in it, which the Gentiles could not do.

Now he adds, and according to the judgments of the Gentiles who are round about you. Here the Prophet seems to blame what is otherwise and in many places praised. For the Jews ought to have been separate from the Gentiles, so that they might worship God in purity, and the Prophets often expostulate with them because they followed the judgments or statutes of the Gentiles.

I have said nothing on these words because they occur often, and it has already been shown in many places why God calls His judgments laws. Some distinguish between judgments and statutes, because judgments pertain to mortals, and statutes to ceremonies. But this distinction is not always observed. However, God, in very many places, commends the precepts of His law, as He shows that nothing necessary for a complete system of teaching was omitted.

But this name is sometimes applied to perverse rites and corrupt superstitions, so that to walk in the judgments of the Gentiles is to corrupt oneself with their perverse morals. As I have already said, the Jews were often condemned by the Prophets because they gave themselves up to the corruptions of the Gentiles.

Here, therefore, the Prophet says that they had not done according to the judgments of the Gentiles. But he means that in this particular, also, they had surpassed the madness of the Gentiles, because they had not embraced the law of God so as to remain constantly in obedience to it.

For we saw in the second chapter of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2:10, 11) that the Gentiles were obstinate in their madness. Although that was not praiseworthy, yet God deservedly blames His people because they held Him in less honor than the Gentiles did their idols.

For we know how obstinately the nations were fixed in their superstitions; they did not change their religion except by some violent impulse, just as if heaven and earth were shaken together.

Therefore, since the religion of each nation was firm and fixed, God deservedly accuses the Jews of fickleness, because they inclined toward the errors and madness of the pagans. This, therefore, is Ezekiel’s meaning when he says, the Jews had not done according to the statutes of the Gentiles: as if he had said, 'They should have looked at the Gentiles, and just as they saw them obstinately worshipping idols, so they should have persisted in My law and in pure worship.'

But while the obstinacy of the Gentiles was so great that they could not be torn away from their own superstition, 'My people,' He says, 'have treacherously turned away from Me and My law by rash impulse, and without any need for it.' Now, therefore, we understand why the Prophet adds this to their crimes: that the people had not walked according to the judgments or customs of the Gentiles.

From this, they might have perceived that what people had once embraced, they ought not to have lightly thrown away, because when we are suddenly and easily turned aside in the matter of worshipping God, it is certain that we have never put down living roots. Since, then, the Gentiles instructed the Jews in their duty, their crime became more detestable.

Now follows the threat that God was prepared to take vengeance: Behold, I, even I, am against you. The particle גם, gam, 'even,' is used as we might say in French, yea, even: I, even I. We now see that the repetition is emphatic, as if God were asserting that a horrible destruction was hanging over the Jews.

For He wishes to inspire them with fear, since He assures them that He will prove to be an avenger. However, I do not accept Jerome’s comment, for he says that angels and other ministers of God’s wrath are excluded, because God determined to destroy the Jews by Himself. This we know to be false, for He made use of the Assyrians and Chaldeans.

Since then those people were His scourges, it follows that angels and men are not excluded when God pronounces Himself an avenger. But He increases the weight of the punishment when He says, I, even I, am He with whom thou shalt have to do. Now He adds, I will execute judgments, by which word 'jurisdiction,' as they call it, is intended.

What Jerome and those interpreters who follow him affirm is not correct: that by this name God’s justice is asserted, as if He meant that He would not be cruel in exacting punishment, nor unjust, nor too rigid. For 'to execute judgment' merely means to exercise jurisdiction, and an earthly judge is said to exercise justice when he sits on his tribunal, even if he perverts justice and equity.

This, indeed, cannot be the case with God, although the word itself might allow for such an interpretation. Besides, there is a fitting contrast between the doctrinal judgments and the actual ones. God complained that the Jews did not execute His judgments; now He threatens that He Himself would execute them, because He will vindicate His law by punishments.

The sum of the whole is that He will execute judgments in the midst of Jerusalem, because He will ascend a tribunal and compel the wicked to plead their cause and to give an account of their life.

God, therefore, executed His judgments at that time when He manifested His vengeance by means of the Chaldeans; and so famine was a part of His punishment, as well as the sword and the pestilence.

For while He delays, He seems to have ceased from His duty, and then the impious indulge themselves as if He had forgotten to execute judgment.

Therefore, in opposition to this, He declares that He would execute judgments: as if He had said, 'I will appear as judge although you think Me asleep.'

For He says, He will execute judgments in the midst of Jerusalem, before the eyes of the Gentiles. By this assertion He means that their punishments would be remarkable and such as could be easily observed by all the nations.

For we know that the Gentiles were then blind, because they thought that good and evil happened by chance. But God affirms that His judgments will be so manifest that the blind will be, as it were, eyewitnesses.

Now God adds that their punishment would be so severe that no similar example could be found in the world—I will do what I have not done, nor intended to do, that is, I will avenge your contempt of My law in a striking and unexpected manner, for God sometimes so chastises people as not to exceed the ordinary method.

But because punishments seem insignificant and contemptible when they are so common, God is compelled to surpass the ordinary measure and to punish the wicked strikingly and portentously, as He says through Moses (Deuteronomy 28:46). Therefore, when He now says, that He would do what He had not done before, and what He would not do again, He signifies a horrible vengeance, which has no similar example. It means nothing else than what we have quoted from Moses: that the vengeance would be striking and portentous.

Interpreters take this metaphorically, but this view cannot be admitted, because in their opinion no history has recorded its fulfillment; hence they resort to allegory and metaphor. But first of all, we know what Josephus says: that mothers were so ravenous that they killed their children and fed on them. Although here a previous siege is referred to, in which God signifies that He would cause fathers to devour their children, I confess it. But even if we accept what they wish, it was not done then; therefore, Jeremiah is mistaken when he says that miserable women cooked their children for food (Lamentations 4:10). Surely this is a sufficient witness, for to say that we never find that this actually happened is to reject the testimony of Jeremiah. Besides, God had threatened that very thing through Moses; nor can the passage be evaded, because there is weight in the words:

“Men delicate among you, and those accustomed to luxuries,” He says, “shall eat their own children; a man shall envy the wife of his bosom, so that he shall not suffer her to enjoy that nefarious food with him. Then by stealth shall he consume and devour the flesh of his son, so that he shall distribute no part of it to another” (Deuteronomy 28:54–55).

When Moses uses this language, he certainly does not mean that there will be internal dissensions, so that disciples will rise up against their masters, and masters oppress their disciples, as Jerome imagines. But it is necessary to take the words as they sound—namely, that God would not be content with common and customary punishments when the Jews had arrived at the very height of impiety and wickedness, since He blames them so severely.

Hence Ezekiel now threatens this. Nor is it surprising that the Prophets took such forms of expression from Moses, since they used the language of Moses rather than a new one, so that the people might not despise their prophecies. Now, therefore, we must conclude that the Prophet uses these threats against the Jews literally.

But if anyone now objects that what God says will not happen often does happen, a solution must be sought. For we said that when the Jews were besieged by Titus, such ravenousness afflicted certain women that they secretly fed on their own children. But God pronounces that He never would do this again. I reply that this kind of vengeance is not to be restricted to one occasion, as if to imply that God could not often punish the Jews in a similar manner.

But we do not read that this was done by anyone except the Jews. For although this cruelty is related in tragedies—that children were used as food by their parents—yet this particular barbarity, a father knowingly and willingly eating his own son, nowhere else existed; hence this was peculiar to the Jews.

And the fact that God had once executed this vengeance on them through the Chaldeans is no obstacle to His again inflicting the same punishment when He wished to take vengeance on the extreme rebellion of the people. For although in Ezekiel’s time all things were very corrupt, yet we know that when the Son of God was rejected, the Jews cut off from themselves all hope of restoration to the mercy of God. It is not surprising, then, if He again allowed sons to be devoured by their fathers, as He now threatens that fathers would be so rabid as not even to spare their own offspring.

I do not know why Jerome invented this distinction, which is altogether futile. For he says that when a thing is honorable and fitting it should be ascribed to God, but when the thing itself is base, God averts the infamy from Himself. For when this terrible event is spoken of here, God does not say, “I will cause the people to eat their sons,” but He says, “Fathers shall eat their sons, and sons their fathers.”

But there is nothing solid in this comment, because the cruelty that the Chaldeans exercised towards the Jews was certainly neither honorable nor fitting, and yet God ascribes to Himself whatever the Chaldeans did. Again, what was baser than the incest of Absalom in debauching his father’s wives? And even that was not sufficient, but he wished the whole people, at the sound of a trumpet, to be witnesses of his crime. And yet what does God say?

“I will do this before the sun,” He says (2 Samuel 12:12; 2 Samuel 16:21–22). We see, then, that this man was not familiar with the Scriptures, and yet he offered his comments too hastily. Indeed, there was no true religion in the man, and it is not without cause that I admonish you; for there is danger that many may be deceived if they are not warned that his mind was full of ostentation and arrogance.

He says, then, fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you, and this was certainly fulfilled, for Jeremiah speaks of women but includes men also (Lamentations 4:10). For Jeremiah says that women are tender-hearted; he does not speak of mothers merely, but that they were humane beyond others. Yet we know that maternal affection is more tender.

But when mothers and those tender ones devour their children, that was the final portent. Now He adds, I will execute, therefore, (for the connecting word “therefore” should here be understood as an emphatic particle), judgments against you. That is, in this manner I will truly show Myself a judge.

And I will scatter all your remnants to all winds. He signifies that there would be such a dispersion that no body or name of the people would remain.

Hope might have cherished and sustained the Jews if any name and body of the people had been left. But when God pronounces that they would be offscourings to be scattered to every wind, He takes away all hope of restoration, at least for the present. We know that a certain number was left, but such destruction was necessarily threatened before God gave any hope of His mercy.

When He says, to any wind, He signifies in every direction. For as one or another wind blows, so the dust is carried, and the offscourings are dispersed in all directions.

Here God again expresses more clearly why he was so eager to take vengeance, namely, because the religion of the Jews was corrupt, and the Temple had been violated, as we shall see tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since at this time you have so familiarly manifested yourself to us in the gospel of Christ our Lord, that we may learn to raise our eyes to the light which has been prepared for us; and grant that we may have them so fixed that we may be directed and urged towards the object of our existence, until, the duties of our calling being finished, we may arrive at length to you, and enjoy also with you that glory which your only-begotten Son acquired for us by his blood. — Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

Yesterday, after Ezekiel had prophesied concerning the slaughter of Jerusalem, he expressed one reason why God was so angry against that city, which he had formerly chosen for his dwelling. He says, they had violated or polluted his sanctuary.

Now therefore we see how greatly important that true and pure religion is before God, whose pollution he so severely avenges. Indeed, the safety of the city depended solely on the pure worship of God.

Therefore, the profanation of the Temple was just as if they had rejected God himself and renounced his aid. Lastly, that impiety sufficiently shows that they despised whatever God had promised them.

And these words are to be marked, where he says, even I will diminish thee, and my eye shall not spare, and I will not pardon, because nothing is more precious to God than that worship which he has commanded: when his sanctuary is polluted, it is no wonder if he is so angry.