John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 11

Here the Prophet teaches us that the Jews, though they continued to profess God’s holy name, were yet completely unfaithful and had departed entirely from the Law.

The meaning of this discourse is that the Jews gloried in the name of God, and yet were violators of His covenant, for they had broken their faith pledged to God and completely cast aside the doctrine of the Law.

The Jews, no doubt, were often greatly exasperated with Jeremiah, as if he were pleading his own cause. It was therefore necessary to show them their departure from the Law, so that they might be assured that their dispute was not with Jeremiah but with Moses, and with God Himself, the author of the Law. They were undoubtedly exasperated with his doctrine, but Jeremiah could not spare them when he saw that they were so perverse.

We may understand this better by an example. Though the Papists today openly repudiate everything cited from the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, yet they are deceptive on this point, and even affirm that they receive whatever proceeds from God.

As they then use evasions and do so shamelessly, one who seeks to restore the pure worship of God and true religion may deal with them in the same way. For instance, when any of God’s servants meets the Papists, he may address them thus: “Let the dispute not be between us individually now, but hear what God commanded formerly by Moses, and what He has more fully confirmed by His Prophets, and at last by His only-begotten Son and His Apostles; so that it is not right to do anything any longer against His Word. Now then, pay attention to the Law and the Prophets.”

We now understand what God’s design was in commanding His servant Jeremiah to speak these words. For, unless we properly consider the unfaithfulness of that people, we will be surprised that the word 'covenant' is so often mentioned, and it will appear meaningless to us. But the Prophet, as I have said, when he saw that the Jews made evasions through their quibbles, could not deal with them in any other way than by showing that they had violated God’s covenant and had thus become apostates, having completely departed from the Law. And he says that this was commanded them by God; nor is there any doubt that God not only suggested this to His servant, but also dictated to him the way and manner of speaking.

Jeremiah then rightly begins by saying that this word was given to him. By using the plural number in the second verse, he no doubt shows that he had a few assistants remaining, whom God addressed along with him, so that they might unite in delivering His message.

For though there were very few good men, yet Jeremiah was not entirely deprived of colleagues who agreed with and confirmed his doctrine. Baruch was one of them, and there were a few like him. These, then, God addresses in the second verse, when He says, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and say ye to the men of Judah and to the citizens of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah indeed knew, as did those who were with him, that they brought forward nothing but what was in the Law. But however conscious they were of their own sincerity, and could testify before God and His angels that they drew nothing from puddles but from a pure fountain, yet God intended to strengthen them against the stubbornness of the people. For they had this objection ready at hand: “You indeed boast that whatever you please to bring forward is the Word of God; but this we deny.”

Since the prophets then had to undergo such a conflict, it seemed good to God to strengthen their hands, so that they might first be assured themselves, and then become fit and bold witnesses of His truth to others, having good authority, as it was derived from the Law itself, and not from the schemes of men.

And we see to whom God intended this to be proclaimed: even to the men of Judah and to the citizens of Jerusalem. The ten tribes, as has appeared elsewhere, had now been driven into exile. Here was the flower, so to speak, of the chosen people; and having survived so many calamities, they thought that they had been preserved by Divine power because religion and God’s worship prevailed among them. Thus they were intoxicated with false notions and self-flattery. Hence the Prophet, and those who were with him, are expressly commanded to declare what we will notice later to the citizens of Jerusalem and to the inhabitants of the land who remained, and who thought that they were the chosen of God and would remain safe, even if all others were to perish.

The Prophet afterwards shows more clearly that the command was especially given to him, for he uses the singular number, Thou shalt say to them. Nor is it inconsistent that at first he included others with himself, for God might have united the approval of the few who desired the restoration of pure religion among the people, while Jeremiah, who was superior to the rest, still played the main role.

There is no doubt that others were anxious to confirm his doctrine by their agreement. But there was no rivalry among them; and though he excelled them, he yet willingly admitted into association with himself all those whom he found to be united with him in such a good and holy cause. God then, in the previous verse, spoke of them collectively, for He wished all His servants to add their testimony to that of His Prophet; but now He addresses the Prophet alone, for his authority was greater.

It follows, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, cursed the man who does not hearken to the words of this covenant. Whenever the word 'covenant' is mentioned, Jeremiah no doubt cuts off every pretext for all those evasions to which the Jews, according to what we have said, resorted. For they never willingly allowed that they took away anything from the Law, though they still despised Jeremiah, who was its true and faithful interpreter, who had mixed nothing of his own with it, but only applied what had been taught by Moses to the situation of the people at that time.

An implied contrast is then to be understood between the word 'covenant' and the doctrine of Jeremiah; not that there was any difference or opposition, or that Jeremiah had anything apart from the Law, but that he shaped his discourse to suit the situation of the people.

And there is a kind of concession, as if he had said, “I do not now demand to be heard by you, but hear only the Law itself. I have until now brought forward nothing but what God has commanded, and I have taught nothing inconsistent with Moses; there has been nothing additional in my doctrine. But as I cannot convince you of this, I now cease speaking to you; Moses himself speaks; hear him.”

By adding the pronoun demonstrative, “Hear ye the words of this covenant,” it is as if he had openly shown it to them as with his finger, so that there was no room for any doubt.

He then upbraided them by pointing out the covenant, as if he had said, “What good does it do you to feign and to pretend that what we say is ambiguous, and to hold it as uncertain whether or not we are the servants of God? Whether we speak by His Spirit? Whether He Himself has sent us? The thing is clear; this is the covenant.” We now perceive the force of this pronoun.

But in referring to the curse, his purpose, no doubt, was to overcome the stubbornness of the people. Had the Jews been teachable and submissive, God would have used a milder tone and attracted them by words of kindness and love. But as He had to deal with perverse minds, He was forced to address them in this manner, in order to strike them with terror, make them more attentive, and also to make them hear with more reverence, as they usually treated with contempt what He had spoken before.

We therefore see why he began with mentioning a curse. God followed another order in the Law; for He first introduced the rule of life, and also added promises to make the people willing to obey; and then He added the curses. But Jeremiah here begins by saying, Cursed are all those who hear not the words of this covenant. Why was this done?

It was because he had already discovered the hardness and the obstinate wickedness of the people. He then does not set forth a simple doctrine, but above all else he sets before them the curse of God, as if he had said, “It is very strange that you have not until now been moved, since God’s curse has been so often denounced against you. Since then you are so stupid, before I begin to speak of God’s commands, His curse shall be mentioned to awaken your sluggishness.”

But we learn from the Prophet’s words that he alluded to the form prescribed in the Law. For after Moses recited all the precepts, he added, “Cursed is every one who turns aside to foreign gods;” and he commanded the people to respond, Amen. And, “Cursed is every one who curses father and mother;” and he commanded them to respond, Amen. And after having narrated all the precepts, he added, “Cursed is every one who fulfils not all the words of this law;” and the people responded, Amen (Deuteronomy 27:15, 16, 26). Jeremiah now adopts the same form when he says,

“Declare then to the people that they are all accursed who do not obey My precepts;”

And then the Prophet adds, I answered and said, Amen, O Jehovah. But it must be observed that the Prophet here speaks for the whole people, as before;

as if he had said, “I subscribe to God’s judgment, even though you should all be objectors, as you really are. Though then you think that you can escape from God’s hand, as though it were easy to elude the curse which is pronounced in His Law, yet I subscribe with my own name, and answer before God, Amen, O Jehovah.”

But we must also notice the other words: Cursed, He says, is every one who hears not the words of this covenant. To 'hear,' in this place and in many other places, means to obey. He then speaks of the words or of the covenant itself, for the expression may be taken in either sense, as God had made a covenant with the Jews and at the same time expressed words. I am inclined to consider the covenant itself as intended.

God then says that He had made a covenant with them. There is yet a fuller explanation: The words which I commanded your fathers, He says, in the day when I brought them up from the land of Egypt. God shows here by a detail concerning the time how inexcusable the Jews were, for He says that He gave the Law to their fathers at the very time when they were rescued from death.

They were drawn out of the grave, so to speak, when God made a passage for them through the Red Sea. That redemption ought to have made such a deep impression as to convince them completely to devote themselves to God; yes, the memory of such a benefit should have been deeply fixed in their hearts.

We therefore see how aggravated the sin of ingratitude is here; for the Law was given to the Israelites when they had before their eyes the many deaths to which they had been exposed, and from which the Lord had miraculously delivered them.

For the same reason, He also mentions their miserable state as an iron furnace, according to what we find in Exodus 3 and in many other places. He then compares their Egyptian bondage to a furnace, for the Jews were then like wood and straw in a burning furnace. And He calls the furnace iron, as it could melt and reduce to nothing things harder than wood, even gold or silver or any other metal.

In short, the deplorable state of the people is described here; and the Prophet, by the comparison, magnifies the favor shown to them—that God, beyond all hope, had delivered them from death. Since then the authority of the Law was sanctioned by so great a benefit, it became evident how great the impiety of the people was, and how unbecoming and wicked their ingratitude was, for they did not willingly allow God’s yoke to be laid on them.

He says that God commanded these things. This expression, as I have said, is to be applied to the words of the Law, and not to the covenant. But the Prophet speaks interchangeably, now of the covenant, then of the things it contains, that is, of all the precepts it includes.

In other words, he expresses how inexcusable the sin of the people was, for God, in essence, required nothing else from them but to hear His voice. And what can be more just than that those who have been redeemed should obey the voice of their deliverer? And what could have been more detestable and monstrous than for the Israelites to refuse what God had a right to demand?

We now therefore perceive the Prophet's design in saying that God commanded this only to His redeemed people, even to hear His voice, and to do what He commanded.

He further adds a promise, which ought to have softened their stony hearts: Ye shall be, He says, to Me a people, and I will be to you a God. God might have positively required of the Jews what is implanted in everyone by nature; for those who have never been taught acknowledge that God ought to be worshipped, and the right way of worshipping Him is when we obey His precepts.

God then might have thus commanded them according to His supreme authority. The commands of kings, as it is said, are brief, for they contain no soothing expressions, nor do they reason, nor employ any persuasive language. How much greater is the authority of God, who can indicate by a nod what He pleases and what He demands?

But as if He descended from His high station, He seeks by promises to attach people to Himself, so that they may willingly obey Him. Thus God recommends His Law by manifesting His favor, and does not merely assert His own authority. Since God then so kindly addresses His people and promises so great a reward for obedience, how base and abominable is the stubbornness of men when they repudiate His Law.

Hence the Prophet shows here more clearly why he began by saying, Cursed is every one who obeys not, etc.; for kindness had achieved nothing. Friendly and tender words, the paternal invitation of God, produced no effect; as if he had said, “God could not, undoubtedly, have treated you more gently and kindly than by reminding you in a paternal manner of your duty, and by adding promises sufficient to soften even the hardest hearts. But as this has been done without effect, what now remains for God to do but to thunder and announce only His curses?”

We now understand what the Prophet had in view. But it may be objected here that all this was useless and without any benefit, for the Jews could not have undertaken the yoke of the Law until it was inscribed on their hearts. To this I answer that they were reminded of this very thing here at the same time. For though the teaching of the letter could do nothing but condemn the people, and hence it is said by Paul to be what brings death (2 Corinthians 3:6), yet the faithful knew that the Spirit of regeneration would not be denied them if they sought it from God.

Then, in the first place, it was their fault that the Law was not inscribed on their hearts; and, in the second place, a free promise of forgiveness was added. For why were those sacrifices and expiations under the Law, and so many ceremonies which related to their reconciliation to God, except so that the people might be assured that God would be gracious and reconcilable to them, though they could not satisfy the Law?

This teaching then was not useless for the faithful; for God, when He required from the Israelites what they ought to have done, was at the time ready to inscribe the Law on their hearts and also to forgive their sins. But when through obstinate wickedness they rejected the whole Law, the Prophet justly declares here that the curse of God was on them, because they basely rejected God’s promises, by which He testified His paternal kindness towards them.

He adds, That I may establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, to give them a land abounding in milk and honey, according to what it is at this day. Here He does not refer to the main part of their happiness; but only the land of Canaan is mentioned as the pledge or the guarantee of God’s favor, for His promise related to something much higher than to the land of Canaan.

God had indeed promised this as an inheritance to the Israelites. But when He says that He would be their God and they His people, the promise of eternal life and of heavenly glory is included, according to what is said elsewhere, that He is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22:31). And we must always bear in mind what is said by the Prophet Habakkuk,

“Thou art our God, we shall not die” (Habakkuk 1:12).

God then promised to the Israelites something far greater than the possession of the land when He said that He would be their God. But that land was a symbol, a guarantee, and a pledge of His paternal favor. All these things agree well together.

And what the Prophet adds is to the same purpose: that God had formerly sworn to their fathers that He would give them that land by an hereditary right, and this promise had been fulfilled to their posterity.

If anyone were to focus on this only—that God’s favor was seen in the land of Canaan because they had obtained it through the expulsion of the heathens by God’s kindness—the view would be cold, and the Prophet would greatly diminish that promise which far exceeds all that man can conceive.

Hence, as I have said, in speaking of the land of Canaan, he undoubtedly accommodates himself to the understanding of a common and ignorant people, and mentions the guarantee and the pledge, that they might see with their own eyes, exhibited to them even in this world and in this frail life, some evidence of that favor which far surpasses all that can be desired in the world.

Now, when He says, That I may establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, God undoubtedly shows that though the Jews should obey Him, they had not yet deserved by their obedience the inheritance promised before they were born. God then here proves that it was through His gratuitous kindness that they became heirs of the land.

How so? Because they were not created when God swore to Abraham that He would give that land to him and to his posterity. As the promise had then been given long before, it follows that it could not be ascribed to the merits of the people that they had at last in due time obtained the land.

As to the oath, God by referring to it praises His favor; for He not only promised the land for a heritage to the children of Abraham, but He also added an oath, so that the covenant might appear more sure.

But the Prophet at the same time intimates that they, if ungrateful to God, might justly be deprived of the promised inheritance; as if he had said, “There is no reason for you to argue with God, as if He defrauded you, if He were to cast you out of the land; for God Himself does not disinherit you, but your own wickedness does. And you are now unworthy, for God does not regard you as His children.”

While the Prophet then removes every reason for boasting, so that the Jews might not think that they possessed the land as a reward for their merits, he also reminds them that they might justly be deprived of their land on account of their own fault, as they did not render to God the service they owed to Him. Hence He says, that I might establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers.

A land, He says, flowing with milk and honey: this way of speaking was often adopted by Moses (Exodus 3:8, 3:17; Exodus 13:5; Exodus 33:3; Leviticus 20:24). The land was no doubt very fertile from the beginning, but it is probable that it became more fruitful after the people entered it, for it was renewed in a way. And it was God’s design to show in a visible manner how great the efficacy of His covenant was. It was not then without reason that Moses said so often that it was a land flowing with milk and honey.

He afterwards adds, According as it is at this day. He brings forward witnesses, as if he had said, “God has dealt faithfully with you, for He has kept the faith pledged to your fathers and has fulfilled His oath.

But now since you have polluted this land, and the memory of God’s favor is, so to speak, buried among you, and you even tread His Law under your feet—since then such great impiety turns His blessing away from you, what remains for Him to do but to drive you away into exile?”

We therefore see that an implied threat is to be understood here, when he says that God had performed what He had promised to the fathers, and promised with this condition—that they were to obey His commands.

We have already spoken of the Prophet’s answer. When he answered, Amen, he did not wait for what the people would say, for the greater part undoubtedly made an uproar and sought to find evasions with God. So great was their shameless boldness that they often rose up insolently against the Prophets. Then as he knew that they were so stubborn, he subscribed to the curse in his own name.

Here the Prophet explains more clearly why he had been commanded to proclaim the words of the covenant: for the greater part of the people were no doubt ready boldly to object and say, “What do you mean? Are we not the disciples of Moses? You, indeed! think that you have to do with a barbarous people. Have we not been from our childhood taught the law of God? Is it not daily enjoined on us? We are sufficiently instructed in this doctrine of which you pretend that we are ignorant. Be gone from here; and go either to the Chaldeans or to the Assyrians or to the Egyptians; for we understand what the law teaches.”

There is then no doubt that Jeremiah had been repulsed by this kind of insolence. He therefore shows that he had a just cause to set before them the law of God, for so great an oblivion had prevailed that they did not know what God had formerly taught in his law. Besides, they and their fathers had always been rebellious, so that they always needed to be taught.

This is according to what is said by Isaiah, that the people were to be treated like children and taught, A, A; B, B, and that though the same things were repeated, they yet stopped at the rudiments and never made any progress (Isaiah 28:10, 13). As Isaiah then reproached the people with tardiness in learning the law, so Jeremiah now shows that they were not to think it strange that God commanded his law to be proclaimed to them, because it had been until now despised by them. We will defer the rest.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since You have been pleased daily to invite us to Yourself with so much benignity and kindness, we may not with deaf ears turn aside from the doctrine which is set forth for our salvation. May we attend to it and persevere also in that obedience which You justly require from us, so that we may make increasing progress in true religion, and so form the whole course of our life according to Your righteous law, that we may fight as good soldiers for You in this world, until we will at length come to that blessed rest, which is prepared for us in heaven, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We observed in the last Lecture the complaint which God made against his people—that he had tried every means to reconcile them to himself, but all in vain. But there is great weight and emphasis in these words—that by protesting he protested, etc.; as though he subjected himself to the judgment of a third party, for we are accustomed to protest against those who do not willingly come before the tribunal of a judge.

God then takes this figure from the common practice of men, and says that he protested, and that not only once, but repeatedly. He afterwards adds that he had done this not only in one age, but from the time their fathers came out from bondage to that day. It was then extreme perverseness, when God did not cease to call them to himself, and yet spoke to the deaf.

But what follows is still more emphatic—that he rose early: for to take this transitively as some do, is what I do not approve. God then says that he was so solicitous about their welfare, that he rose early to call them. There is no doubt that God applies here to himself what properly belonged to his Prophets, as he also concedes to his servants what rightly belongs to him, and what cannot be applied to men, except by way of concession.

But God does here extol the authority of his word, when he says that he rose early; and at the same time he amplifies their ingratitude, since they had despised him, when they saw that he, like the head of a family, provided for their welfare. We therefore learn how much God values his word; for he testifies that there is no difference between him and his servants, whose labors he employs in teaching his Church.

We also learn from this how inexcusable our wickedness is when we reject God speaking so familiarly to us. We now perceive the import of this passage.

But it may, in the third place, be observed that God’s name is invoked in vain, except when he himself speaks. The Papists of this day would have whatever they say, according to their own fancies, to be received without any dispute. But God shows in this place that he is not offended except when he himself is despised; and he at the same time declares that he is so connected with his prophets, that they bring nothing of their own, nor anything else except what proceeds from him.

He now adds that this only he required from his chosen people: to obey his voice. The justness of this precept shows how base and wicked was the impiety of the people. God also shows that they had not the pretext of error or of ignorance, for the only way of evading was to pretend that they wished nothing other than to render to God the worship due to him.

But the rule he had prescribed in his law was such as could not be mistaken. It therefore follows that they willfully went astray after superstitions, for they were sufficiently taught in the law what God approved. This then is the reason why he so often repeats that he required nothing from the children of Abraham except to hear his voice.

It afterwards follows, Yet they heard not, and bent not, or inclined not their ear. Here the Prophet does not accuse a few men of perverseness, but says that, from the time they had been redeemed, they had been rebellious against God. He exaggerates their sin by saying that they inclined not their ear; for this was no doubt added for the sake of emphasis, as though the Prophet had said—that it was only their own fault that the right way was not quite evident to them, for they did not deign to give ear to God.

Now, it is a proof of extreme contempt when we not only repudiate what God says to us, and refuse to obey his authority and advice, but when we close up every avenue and, as far as we can, forbid him to speak to us; this is surely an extremity of insolence. It may indeed be that one will hear another speaking, and yet will not do what he says; he still will show some courtesy, lest a complaint of inattention be made. But it is an intolerable barbarity when we do not listen to the words of another.

God here complains that the Israelites had not only been disobedient to him, after having been instructed, but that they had been so refractory that they insolently rejected all the words of the prophets. This was not only a proof of base impiety but also of barbarous perverseness. We now understand what the Prophet means.

He says that they walked every one in the wickedness of his own evil heart. As he had before shown that they had been warned in due time, it is clear that they did not follow their impious superstitions through mistake, but because they rejected the true worship of God and did not listen to the teaching of the prophets.

By saying that they walked every one, etc., the Prophet doubtless intended to include them all, as it were, in one bundle. It is as though he had said that they had not been drawn away by a sudden impulse, as is often the case when an agitation is made by a few, and when most follow, being driven as it were by a storm, and do not think what they do. For thus some terror often seizes on the minds of the many, so that they go here and there without knowing where they are going.

But the Prophet here teaches us that every one followed his own counsel. It is as though he had said that the worship of God had not been thus rejected by the influence of the multitude, but that each one had his own object, and had concocted the wickedness and the great sin of rejecting God. There is then more meaning and force in this way of speaking than if he had said that they all walked in the wickedness of their own hearts. He further shows that they were all, from the least to the greatest, implicated, as they say, in the same impiety.

He afterwards adds that God had brought upon them the words, that is, the threatenings, of the covenant. By the words of the covenant he does not mean here the doctrine or precepts of the law. He indeed mentioned before the words of the covenant for the commands of God; but now, on finding that he had to do with refractory men, who were not capable of receiving any doctrine, he comes to threatenings.

But God first prescribes in his law what he wills to be done, and then adds not only kind invitations, but also what is alluring, in order to conciliate the minds of men. When, however, there is no attention to obedience, and no care for it, he then comes to threatenings. Though the Prophet had omitted the promises, he had yet spoken previously of the law itself; but he says now that God had executed what he had denounced against them.

He further says, Which I have commanded to be done; and they did them not. There seems indeed to be a confusion here; for by the words of this covenant, he no doubt means threatenings, as I have stated. Then he immediately adds, which I have commanded to be done, and they did them not.

But, as I have already reminded you, the Prophet had previously, with sufficient clearness, taught them that the rule of a godly and holy life was set forth in the law; but he now refers especially to threatenings. It is then not strange that he speaks so indistinctly, for the people had in a manner perverted the law.

There were indeed in the law these two distinct things: doctrine, or a rule of life; and threatenings, which were added as stimulants to rouse the sloth of men, or rather to subdue their perverseness. But as the Israelites and the Jews had not attended to the voice of God, the Prophet here blends threatenings with precepts.

We now understand what the Prophet means in this passage, when he says that he was sent by God to cry, Hear ye the words of this covenant; for they were forgetful of true religion. Such was their oblivion and impious contempt of the whole law, that they needed to be taught its first rudiments.

This is one thing. He then shows how solicitous God had been about their welfare, so that he had not neglected any of the duties of the best of fathers, and yet his labor had been all in vain. For they had not only been led away by their own lusts, but their inward wickedness had closed their ears, so that they did not deign to listen to God’s voice. This had not been in one age only, but from the time they came out of Egypt to that day.

It therefore follows that they were justly punished, for God had tried all means before he resorted to severity. Since he had adopted all kinds of ways to reform them, and all in vain, the only thing that remained was to punish them as men past all remedy. This is the import of the whole. He now adds—

Here the Prophet confronts more directly the men of his time, and says that they were worse than their fathers; for this is the meaning of the word, banding or joining together. For when the Israelites united in ungodly superstitions, it was more excusable at the beginning, for they had not yet struck deep roots in true religion. But when God by His prophets had striven many times, and in various ways, to restore them to the right way, and when His diligence and persistent efforts had proved fruitless, it was an evidence of confirmed and hopeless obstinacy. He then says that this had been discovered; for this is what he means by saying that it had been found out. This verb is often used in Scripture in another sense, but it means here the same, as if he had said that the conspiracy of the people had been discovered or proved, as it is said of thieves when found out, that they are caught in the very act. So God says here that it was no matter of dispute whether the people had intentionally and from sheer wickedness perverted His true and lawful worship; the conspiracy, he says, is sufficiently notorious.

We then understand the Prophet to mean that not a part of the people was implicated in impiety, but that all, from the least to the greatest, were together defiled. This was done not by some foolish impulse of the moment, but intentionally, for they banded together. Furthermore, this was sufficiently evident, so that they could no longer dispute the fact, for their wickedness was sufficiently manifest.

And he says, between Judah and Israel. A sharp rebuke is implied here, for we know that these two kingdoms had not only held a secret grudge but had fiercely contended with one another. The discord between the ten tribes and the tribe of Judah had been so great that it was, so to speak, an insane hatred, causing them to wish to completely destroy one another; for the Jews sent for the Egyptians when the Israelites had summoned the Syrians and the Assyrians to arms for the destruction of Judah.

Since they had treated one another with such hostility for so long, what did this now mean? What a monstrous thing it was that they conspired together to subvert the worship of God, to overturn everything true in religion, and to set up their own idols! We now perceive the Prophet's meaning: he implies that they had been enemies in all other things and united only in this one thing—carrying on war against God, subverting His worship, and making His law void.

We therefore see what the Spirit of God intended in saying that a conspiracy was found out. This was so that the Prophet would not need to use many words, as if the matter were doubtful! God then instructs him to declare this fact assertively, like a scribe who records the sentence of a judge. Thus God shows that He dealt with the Jews as people deal with those who are condemned.

He also adds that they had returned, etc. He shows for what purpose they had conspired: even to return to the vices of their fathers, who had been before them. Some translate the word as “ancestors,” but the Prophet's meaning is not adequately expressed in this way. For what he means is that the Israelites had been refractory from the very beginning, so that God could never subdue their rebellious natures.

However, it must be observed that he is not speaking of the most ancient ones, as הרשנים, erashnim, are the ancient ones who were before them. But as there had been a continuous succession or series of impiety, the Prophet here calls them the former fathers—those who had first begun to shake off God's yoke, continuing even to that day.

And he again mentions what we have noted before: that they were unwilling to hear. Though ignorance does not wholly clear or absolve us, it yet extenuates a crime; but God shows that the Israelites had been disobedient from the beginning. Although He had taught them sufficiently through Moses, we still find that they often rebelled against Moses. If we examine their origin, it seems to have been marked by resolute impiety; they were unwilling to obey God.

He then adds that they walked after alien gods that they might serve them. There is always an implied contrast between God and idols. God had given them enough evidence of His power and glory, and we may justly say that He had sufficiently proved Himself to be the only true God. How then was it that the Israelites had given preference to fictitious gods? Doubtless, no unwitting error could have been claimed.

Thus we see that they had rejected the true God and willfully followed their own devices. He then says that they might serve them. But God had already bound them to Himself, as He had redeemed them; when, therefore, they devoted themselves to alien gods, was not their ingratitude thus most fully proved?

He finally adds, by way of explanation, Therefore the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dissolved my covenant. He confirms what I have just said: that they had not erred because the way was unknown, but because they were refractory and untamable in their disposition, and would not bear to hear God, though He kindly showed them what they were to do. But the word “covenant” expresses more than this: God had not only delivered His precepts to them by Moses but had also adopted them as His own people and, at the same time, pledged His faithfulness to them:

I shall be your God, be ye my people (Jeremiah 11:4).

Since God had so kindly drawn them to Himself, how monstrous was their rebellion when they refused to hear His voice! It is with reference to this that the word ברית, berit, is used; for God had not only given them a rule of life but had also adopted them as His people, so that they might be obedient to Him.

By saying that He made a covenant with their fathers, He refers to that time when He brought the people out of Egypt, for then the race of Abraham was united. They were indeed twelve distinct tribes, but there was one head over the people, one priesthood, and they afterwards formed one kingdom.

God then shows that though the ten tribes later made another king for themselves, and the tribe of Judah was then divided (and there were some special causes of enmity in this separation), they still had always been of the same disposition and proved how like their fathers they were. It is as though He had said, “They were formerly one people; they are now two, yet they have conspired together. Their iniquity is the same; in this they are united, and there is among them a binding together.”

The Prophet now pronounces a calamity upon them. For it is probable that for many years he had been their teacher, threatening them, but all in vain. Hence he now confirms what we have previously observed—that their impious conspiracy was fully known and proved, so that they were no longer to be called or drawn before the judge’s tribunal, as they had so openly brought about their own ruin.

He then says that God was, as it were, armed to take vengeance. I will bring, he says, upon them an evil from which they will not be able to escape. Then he adds, and they will cry to me, but I will not hear them. By this latter clause he shows that no hope remained, as they could get no pardon from God, for He would no longer be persuaded by their entreaties. The meaning of the whole is that they were so given up to destruction that it was in vain for them to expect God’s mercy. God had indeed often promised in His law that He would be reconciled to them; but the Prophet now says that every hope was cut off because they had rejected God’s covenant. Therefore, whatever God had promised concerning His kindness and mercy no longer applied to them.

Let us now also learn how to apply this doctrine to ourselves. And first, we may remark that there is a great difference between us—who have been clearly, and for a long time, taught what is the true and lawful worship of God—and those miserable people who were blind in darkness. Therefore, our sin is much more atrocious and worthy of much heavier punishment.

Then we may also add this: though God may for a time bear with us, the whole time of His forbearance will have to be accounted for. There is no day in which God does not accuse us. Thus He rises early, and thus He shows us what concern He has for our salvation. But if we remain asleep in our sloth, a threatening is suspended over our heads today, especially when we consider that God comes nearer, as it were, to us than to His ancient people.

And from this we may also learn how much less tolerable our ingratitude is. Therefore, it ought to be carefully noticed that God is armed against those before whom He has set His word—not only for one day but for many years—when He has found that He has labored in vain. And when He is offended with their obstinate wickedness, there is no longer any remedy.

But it may be asked here: How is it that God declares here that He would not be propitious to the Israelites, even if they cried to Him, when this promise so often occurs, “Call on me, and I will hear thee?” (Psalms 50:15)

Though God does not everywhere use such words, yet in many places He makes this promise. But still it may appear inconsistent that He closes the door of mercy against those who flee to His mercy. But in the next verse he shows what this cry would be. For had they repented from the heart, doubtless His pardon would never have been denied. But we will soon see that these cries would be rambling, vagrant, and confused, so that they would not direct their prayers to God, nor observe the way made known to us all; for they would cry without repentance and faith, according to what follows, for the Prophet says—

The Prophet then shows in these words that those who cried in this way indiscriminately to God and to idols were not touched by a true and sincere feeling of repentance.

But another question may be raised here: How could they flee to God and to foreign gods too? The ready answer is this: the unbelieving, in a turbulent state of mind, turn here and there, so that they grasp nothing certain, sure, or fixed. This we see in the Papists—they cry to God and at the same time to a great number of gods.

Let us therefore know that there is in all the unbelieving a spirit, as it were, of giddiness, which turns them to different expedients, so that now they call on God, then they flee to their idols. Men are naturally led to God when any distress holds them bound; hence they call on God. But afterwards, not being satisfied with him alone, they resort to their own devices and heap together, as I have said, a vast multitude of gods. Since we see this done under the Papacy in our day, we should not wonder that it was done formerly, and that the Jews were condemned on this account.

The Prophet now addresses the Jews only; he had spoken of the Israelites before, but he now speaks especially to his own people: Go shall the cities of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem, etc. What shall they do? They shall cry to their gods. We see from this that their prayers were rambling, as though they poured them into the air; therefore God could not have heard them. For whenever God promises to be propitious and appeasable, he requires faith and repentance; but there was in this people an impious wantonness, and no faith, for they were entangled in their own superstitions.

The meaning is that the Jews, when oppressed by calamities, would make their prayers to the true God, but without understanding or discrimination, being, on the contrary, in a confused state of mind. This would be sufficiently evident, for they would at the same time seek the aid of various idols, but they would gain no help, either from God or from their idols.

And why? Because they would be unworthy to be heard by God, as they would not call on him in a right spirit, nor with faith and repentance; and their idols would not be able to bring them any help. It follows from this that they would be altogether in a hopeless state.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since you have been pleased, in such a kind manner, according to your paternal kindness, to invite us to yourself, we may not be rebellious, but willingly and quietly submit ourselves to you, and not wait until you shake us with terror and show us signs of your wrath; but may we anticipate your dreadful judgment, and thus always go on, so as to have no other object in view but to glorify your name throughout the whole course of our life, until at last we are made partakers of that glory which your only begotten Son has obtained for us. Amen.