John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 1:1-3

"The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: to whom the word of Jehovah came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month." — Jeremiah 1:1-3 (ASV)

I have said that the time when Jeremiah began to discharge his office as a Prophet in God’s Church is not stated here without reason. It was when the state of the people was extremely corrupt, the whole of religion having become corrupted because the Book of the Law was lost. For the rule according to which God is to be worshiped can be found nowhere else, nor can right knowledge be obtained from any other source.

It was then, at the time when impiety had by long custom prevailed among the Jews, that Jeremiah suddenly came forth. The heaviest burden was then laid on his shoulders, for many enemies must have risen to oppose him when he attempted to bring back the people to the pure doctrine of the law, which the greater part were then treading under their feet.

He calls himself the son of Hilkiah. The Rabbis think that this Hilkiah was the priest by whom the Book of Moses was found five years later, but this does not seem probable to me. The conjecture of Jerome is also very frivolous, who concludes that the Prophet was a boy when he began to prophesy because he calls himself נער (nor), a child, a little further on, as if he did not use the word metaphorically.

We do not know at what age he was called to the prophetic office; however, it is probable that he was of mature age, for it was a work of high authority. Furthermore, if he had been a youth, doubtless such a miracle—that he was made a prophet before the age of maturity—would not have been passed over in silence.

Regarding his father, it is not strange that the Rabbis have regarded him as the high priest, for we know that they are always prone to vain boasting. Ambition possessed them, and hence they have said that Jeremiah was the son of the high priest in order to add to the splendor of his character.

But what does the Prophet himself say? He declares indeed that he was the son of Hilkiah, but does not say that this Hilkiah was the high priest. On the contrary, he adds that he was from the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin. Now we know that this was a humble village, not far from Jerusalem, and Jeremiah says that it was in the tribe of Benjamin. Its nearness to Jerusalem can be gathered from the words of Isaiah, who says that small Anathoth was terrified (Isaiah 10:30). Isaiah threatened Jerusalem by saying that the enemy was near.

“What,” Isaiah says, “is your security? You can hear the noise of your enemies and the groans of your brethren from your very gates, for Anathoth is not far from you, being only three miles distant.”

Since Jeremiah only says that he came from Anathoth, why should we suppose him to be the son of the high priest? And what the Chaldee paraphraser adds here is frivolous: that Hilkiah had possessions in the town of Anathoth, as if priests were allowed to possess land. God allowed them only what was necessary to feed their flocks. We may then take as certain what the Prophet indeed expressly declares: that he came from the village of Anathoth.

He further says that he was of the priestly order. Hence, the prophetic office was more suitable to him than to many of the other prophets, such as Amos and Isaiah. God took Isaiah from the court, as he was of the royal family, and made him a prophet. Amos was in a different situation: he was taken from the shepherds, for he was a shepherd.

Since God appointed such prophets over His Church, He no doubt intended in this way to cast a reflection on the idleness and sloth of the priests. For, though all priests were not prophets, yet prophets ought to have been taken from that order, because the priestly order was, as it were, the nursery of the prophets.

But when gross lack of knowledge and ignorance prevailed among them, God chose His prophets from the other tribes, and thus exposed and condemned the priests. They ought, indeed, to have been the messengers of the God of hosts, so as to keep the law in their lips, that the people might seek it from their mouth, according to what is said by Malachi (Malachi 2:7).

But as they were dumb dogs, God transferred the honor of the prophetic office to others. Jeremiah, however, as I have already stated, was a prophet as well as a priest.

He begins in the second verse to speak of his calling. Indeed, it would have been to little purpose if he had merely said that he came forth and brought a message. But he explains in the second verse that he brought nothing but what had been delivered to him by God, as if he had said that he faithfully declared what God had commanded him.

For we know that all authority in matters of religious doctrine belongs entirely to God, and that humans do not have the power to mix this or that, and to make the faithful subject to themselves. Since God, then, is the only true teacher of the Church, whoever demands to be heard must prove that he is God’s minister.

This, then, is what Jeremiah is now carefully doing, for he says that the word of Jehovah was given to him.

He had previously said, the words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah. But anyone among the people might have objected, saying, “Why do you intrude yourself, as if just anyone is to be heard? For God claims this right for Himself alone.”

Hence Jeremiah, by way of correction, adds that the words were his, but that he was not their author, only the minister. He says, then, that he only carried out what God had commanded, for he had been the disciple of God Himself before he undertook the office of a teacher.

As for the beginning of his prophetic service and its end, it has been briefly shown why he says that he had been chosen a prophet in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and that he discharged his office until the eleventh year of Zedekiah.

Now that Josiah is called the son of Amon, it is doubtful whether Josiah was actually his son. Amon began to reign in his twenty-second year and reigned only two years. Josiah succeeded him in the eighth year of his age.

If we calculate the years precisely, Josiah must have been born when Amon was in his sixteenth year. However, it does not seem likely that Amon was a father at sixteen years of age, for in this case, Amon must have begotten a son in his fifteenth year, as the birth would have occurred nine months later. Thus, Josiah must have been conceived when Amon was in his fifteenth year.

It is therefore a probable conclusion that he was a son by law and not by nature, similar to how Zedekiah is later called Josiah’s son because he was his successor, even though many think he was his nephew (a brother’s son).

But it was a common practice to call the successors of kings their sons—meaning sons by law and not, as I have said, by nature. It now follows—