John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 23:1-3

"Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith Jehovah. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, against the shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith Jehovah. And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and multiply." — Jeremiah 23:1-3 (ASV)

Here the Prophet promises the restoration of the Church, but he reminds hypocrites that there was no reason for them on that account to flatter themselves, especially the king, his counselors, and the priests. This prophecy is therefore a mixture of promises and threats, for God promises that he would be gracious to the miserable Jews after having disciplined them, so that the seed of Abraham might not be entirely cut off. Yet he deprives hypocrites of false confidence, so that they might not falsely apply to themselves the hope of salvation, from which they had excluded themselves by their ungodliness.

And this is what should be noted, for as soon as God’s mercy is offered, hypocrites apply to themselves whatever God promises and become more and more insolent, as if they held him bound to them. For impunity leads them to take more license to sin. This is why they boast that they are safe, because they consider themselves to be the people of God.

The Prophet, therefore, teaches here that whatever God promises belongs to his elect, that it does not apply indiscriminately to all, nor should it be extended to hypocrites who falsely claim his name, but that it specifically belongs to the elect, though they may be small in number and though they may be despised.

He says first, Wo to the pastors who destroy. Here are contrary things—a pastor and a destroyer! But he concedes to them the name which was honorable; and yet he derides their false boasting, for they thought that they could hide their crimes under this cover, falsely claimed. Though he calls them pastors, he yet removes the mask and thus shows that they boasted in vain while they assumed the name of pastors. “You are pastors,” he says, “and you are destroyers! who dissipate or scatter the flock of my pastures.”

Here God shows the reason why he was so greatly displeased with these pastors: by exercising tyranny over the people, they not only injured men but also injured and dishonored God, who had received his chosen people under his own protection. It is indeed true that the people deserved such a scattering. For we have already seen in many places that the people could by no means be excused when they were deceived by wicked and unfaithful leaders; for in this way, the full recompense was rendered to them for having provoked God’s wrath against themselves, from the least to the greatest.

But the wickedness of these pastors was not excusable on this account, for they should have considered for what purpose this burden was laid on them, and also by whom they had been appointed. God then intimates that great injury was done to him when the people were so shamefully scattered. He himself was the chief pastor; he had put, as it were, in his own place the king and his counselors, and also the priests. Therefore, he now justly condemns them because they had destroyed the flock of God, according to what is said in another place, That they had destroyed his vineyard (Jeremiah 12:10; Isaiah 5:3).

In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of his pastures, he does not consider what they deserved or what they were; on the contrary, he highlights the favor bestowed on the seed of Abraham. He is referring here, then, to his gratuitous adoption, though the Jews had made themselves unworthy of such a benefit.

He afterwards adds, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, to the pastors who feed my people. In the same sense, he now calls them his people, as he had previously called them the flock of his pastures. They had alienated themselves from God, and he had already by his own decree repudiated them. God might, in one respect, have deemed them aliens; yet in respect of the covenant, he acknowledged them as his own, and for this reason, he calls them his people. He now then confirms what we have already noted: that these pastors were not only thieves and robbers but also sacrilegious, for they not only had exercised cruelty towards the flock but, as far as they could, injured and dishonored God himself, who had undertaken the care of that people.

But there is a twofold concession here: he calls them pastors, and they are said to feed the people. He had said before that they destroyed and scattered the flock, and now he says that they fed them; but we well know in what sense, for by this kind of irony he meant to reprove them. They boasted that they were pastors, and they thought that their crimes would be buried by such a covering in the sight of God, as in the sight of men.

In a similar manner, when we speak today of the Pope and his mitered bishops and filthy clergy, we use expressions that are commonly employed. But Antichrist is anything but a father, and we know how far they are from being real bishops who assume the title. As for the clergy, the name is sacred, but they are very far from being God’s heritage.

Indeed, we attach no importance to these empty titles. But it is a great aggravation of their guilt that they, being devils, should assume angelic names; that they, being wolves, robbers, and sacrilegious, should falsely claim God’s name and recommend themselves by false titles, as if they were pastors, bishops, abbots, prelates, and so on.

So then our Prophet calls those whom he condemns, by way of taunt, pastors, and says that they fed, that is, they were called for this purpose, to do this work. But he afterwards adds, My flock you have scattered and driven away, and not visited. Surely it was not feeding to have no care for the sheep.

Their sloth in neglecting the flock was not to be tolerated; but it was still more intolerable when they exercised so much cruelty as to scatter the flock as if they were deadly enemies. And yet these are the things for which Jeremiah condemns them. We therefore see that there was an implied taunt when he conceded to them the office of feeding.

He then denounces judgment on them: I will visit upon you the wickedness of your doings. Here God declares that he would punish the pastors, to whom the scattering of the people was justly ascribed. For though no one was exempt from blame, as has been stated before, yet the main fault belonged to these pastors. This, then, is the reason why God declares that he would take vengeance, for he would not have his flock scattered with impunity.

It then follows, And I will gather my flock. As they had driven the people away, so God promises that he would take care to gather them. And yet he ascribes to himself what he had attributed to them—namely, that he had driven away his flock, but in a different sense. The pastors had scattered the flock not only by their sloth but also by their cruelty, for they became rapacious wolves; but God had punished the people, for they all had fully deserved such a scattering.

Thus, we see that the ungodly execute God’s judgment, but they are not excusable on this account, as if they were God’s ministers, for they have no such thing in mind. Nor can God be implicated in their sin while he thus employs them to execute his purpose. In short, the scattering of the people was a just punishment from God, for they had all departed from the faith; they had broken the sacred bond of the covenant by which God had bound them to himself. It was also the fault of the pastors—who, as I have said, were not only the priests but also the king and his counselors—because they avariciously and cruelly tyrannized over them.

I will gather, he says, not the flock, but the remnant of the sheep. God intimates here that he would be so merciful as to receive into favor not all indiscriminately, but a small number, constituting the elect. And for this reason, Paul carefully distinguished between the people and the remnant of grace, or the gratuitous remnant. For Christ, by his coming, appeared to have abolished the covenant by which God had adopted the children of Abraham, but Paul does not admit this.

Now, if anyone objects and says that the greater part of the people had been cut off, Paul allows this; but he says that the covenant remains valid in the remnant and also produces examples, such as the one we are now discussing. God then has always been the preserver of his Church; and thus his gratuitous adoption, by which he had chosen the seed of Abraham, never fails. But this adoption is effectual only for the remnant.

As for the word remnant, it not only intimates the small number of those whom God had resolved to gather but also the vengeance which, in terms of time, had preceded it. For God seemed to have destroyed the Jews when they were driven away into various lands, as they had no name remaining, and the kingdom and the priesthood were abolished. It was therefore a certain kind of death, as I have said before. But God here declares that there would be some remnant, according to what is said in Isaiah 10:22, that God saved a few, as it were, from the consumption. For he refers there to the very few that remained alive when they thought that it was all over for the whole people and that there was no hope of restoration.

I will gather, he says, the residue of my sheep from all the lands to which I shall have driven them. He again confirms what I have stated: that there would be no place for mercy until he had cleansed his Church from its many filthy pollutions. The scattering then of the people into various lands was the purgation of the Church, according to what God says, that he would separate the refuse and the chaff from the wheat in disciplining his people.

For as the chaff and the refuse are blown here and there when the wheat is winnowed, and only the wheat remains and is afterwards stored in the granary, so when God drove his people away into various lands, he then purged his Church. If anyone objects and says, “Then the remnant were dealt with like the refuse,” it is true as to the individuals, but God refers here to himself when he calls them his own, sheep, who were yet unworthy of such an honor.

He then adds that he would bring them back to their folds, that they might be fruitful, that is, bring forth and increase, and be multiplied. By 'folds' he undoubtedly means the land of Canaan, for there was then nothing in the world that the Jews would have preferred to the inheritance promised to them; the whole world was an exile to them.

For God had chosen that land in which they lived and had consecrated it to himself, and he gave it to them as an earnest or a pledge of the eternal inheritance. Therefore, he rightly now calls that land 'folds,' for they lived there under his guardianship and protection. The temple was, so to speak, the pastoral staff; they knew that God dwelt there, so that, being protected by his power, they might continue in safety. Since, then, there was safety for them under God’s protection in the land of Canaan, he calls it their fold. Then he says that they may be fruitful and be multiplied, for among other blessings, their increase was not the least significant. He afterwards adds—