John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 3

Many regard this verse as connected with the last, and thus read them together, “God hates false confidences, because He says…,” etc. But this does not seem suitable to me, for Jeremiah brings before us here a new subject: that God seeks to be reconciled to His people. This is similar to what a husband does who desires to receive an unchaste wife back into favor, ready to grant her full pardon and take her again as a chaste and faithful wife.

This verse, then, cannot be connected with the previous one, in which, as we have seen, the people are condemned.

The word לסמר, lamer, means the same, I think, as when we say in French, par manière de dire, or as when it is commonly said, “Suppose a case.” For the Prophet does not here introduce God as the speaker, but lays before us a common subject with this preface, לאמר, lamer, that is, “Suppose a man divorces his wife, and she becomes allied to another husband, can she return again to her first husband? This is not usually done.”

But God implies, “I will surpass whatever kindness there may be among men, for I am ready to receive you, provided you will in the future observe conjugal fidelity and part with your adulteries and adulterers.”

As to the main point, there is no ambiguity here: for God shows that He would be reconciled to the Jews, provided they did not proceed obstinately in their sinful courses. But in order to set forth His mercy more fully, He uses a comparison which must be considered a little more attentively.

He had said before that He held the place of a husband and the people occupied the position of a wife. Then He complained of the people's base perfidy, who had forsaken Him, saying they had acted like a wife who, having despised her husband, prostituted herself to any adulterers she might happen to meet.

But He now adds, “Behold, if a man dismisses his wife, and she becomes the wife of another, he will never receive her again.” And this was forbidden by the Law.

“But I am ready,” He says, “to receive you, though I had not given you the usual divorce at My pleasure, as husbands are accustomed to do who repudiate their wives when they find anything displeasing in them.”

It is not a simple comparison, as many think (I do not know whether all think so, for I have not read any who seem to understand the true meaning). For God does not simply compare Himself to a husband who has repudiated his wife for adultery; but as I have already said, there are here two clauses.

The Jews at that time were accustomed to divorce their wives even for slight causes, and for no cause at all.

Now, God speaks thus by Isaiah:

“Shew me the bill of your mother’s divorcement” (Isaiah 50:1).

It is as though He had said, “I have not repudiated your mother.” For if anyone at that time separated from his wife, the Law compelled him to take some blame on himself. For what was the bill of divorcement? It was a testimony to the wife’s chastity.

If anyone was found guilty of adultery, there was no need of divorcement, as it was a capital crime (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Hence, adulteresses were not usually divorced.

But if any woman had conducted herself faithfully towards her husband, and he wished to repudiate her, the Law constrained him to give her the bill of divorcement: “I repudiate this wife, not because she has broken or violated the bond of marriage, but because her manners are not agreeable, or because her beauty does not please me.”

Thus the husbands were then commanded to take some of the blame on themselves. Hence the Lord says by Isaiah,

“Shew me the bill of your mother’s divorcement”;

as though He had said, “She has departed from Me; she has broken the bond of marriage by her fornications. Then I am not at fault for being alienated from you.”

God then does not mean in this place that He had divorced the people, for this would have been wrong and unlawful, and could not have been consistent with the character of God. But as I have already said, there is here a twofold comparison.

He implies: “Though a husband should fastidiously send away his wife, and she through his fault should be led to contract another marriage and become the partner of another, as if in contempt of him, he could hardly ever bear that indignity and become reconciled to her. But you have not been repudiated by Me; rather, you are like a perfidious woman who shamefully prostitutes herself to all whom she may meet. And yet I am ready to receive you and to forget all your base conduct.”

We now, then, understand the meaning of the words.

In the second clause, there is a comparison made from the lesser to the greater. For the return to favor would have been easier if the repudiated wife had afterwards become acceptable to him, even though she had become the wife of another.

But when an adulteress finds her husband so willing himself, and ready to grant free pardon, it is certainly an example not found among mortals. Thus we see that God, by an argument from the lesser to the greater, enhances His goodness towards the people, in order to render the Jews less excusable for so stubbornly rejecting a favor freely offered to them.

But it may be asked why the Prophet says, “By pollution shall not this land be polluted?” or, “through this?” I will speak first of the words, and then refer to the subject.

Almost all give this version: “Is not that land by pollution polluted?” But I do not know what sense we can derive from such a rendering, unless, perhaps, God compares a divorced wife to the land, or by an abrupt transition, He transfers to the land what He had said of a divorced wife, or rather that He explains the metaphor that had been used.

If this sense is approved, then the copulative which follows must be translated as a causative, which all have translated adversatively, and rightly so: “But you.” I then prefer to read ההיא, eeia, by itself as “by this;” that is, when a wife returns again to her first husband after having married another.

For the Law, as we have said, forbade this; and the husband must have become an adulterer if he took back the wife whom he had repudiated.

Liberty was granted to women by divorce; not that divorce was allowed by God, but as the women were innocent, they were released, for God imputed the fault to the husbands. And when the repudiated wife married another man, this second marriage was considered legitimate. If, then, the first husband sought to recover the wife whom he had divorced, he violated the bond of the second marriage.

For this reason, and according to this sense, the Prophet says that the land would “by this” become polluted. It is as though He had said, “It is not lawful for husbands to take back their wives, however ready they may be to forgive them; but I require nothing else but your return to Me.”

Regarding the words, we now see that the Prophet does not say without reason, “By this;” that is, when a woman unites herself to one man, then to another, and afterwards returns to her first husband. For society would thus be torn apart, and the sacred bond of marriage—the main thing in preserving social order—would also be broken.

It is added, “But you have played the harlot with many companions.” What we have observed before is confirmed here: that the people had been guilty not only of one act of adultery, but had become like common prostitutes, who prostitute themselves to all without any difference. This is what will soon be stated.

Those whom He calls companions or friends were rivals. He says, “Yet return to Me,” says Jehovah. By this He intimated, “Pardon is ready for you, provided you repent.”

An objection may, however, be raised here: How could God do what He had forbidden in His Law?

The answer is obvious: No other remedy could have been given to preserve order in society when men were allowed to repudiate their wives, except by adding this restraint as a proof that God did not favor their levity and fickleness.

It was thus necessary, in the interest of society, to punish men who were too morose and rigid by withholding from them the power of recovering the wives whom they had dismissed. Otherwise, it might have been that a man changed his affection on the third day, or in a month, or in a year, and demanded his wife back.

God then intended to put this restraint on divorce, so that no man who had divorced his wife could take her back. But the case is very different regarding God Himself; it is therefore not strange that He claims for Himself the right of being reconciled to the Jews on their repentance.

The Prophet had charged the Jews with behaving wantonly in a loose and promiscuous manner, as is the case with abandoned women who have cast away all shame. So that they could not evade this charge by objecting that they were not conscious of any crime, he, in a way, makes them the judges themselves.

He says, Raise up your eyes to the high places and see; that is, “I bring forward witnesses sufficiently known to you; there is no hill in the land where you have not been connected with idols.” We have already said, and we will find the same thing often mentioned by this Prophet—that superstitions are considered idolatries by God.

But it was customary for the Jews to ascend high places, as though they were nearer to God there. This is why the Prophet commands them to turn their eyes to all the hills. See, he says, whether any hill is free from your fornications. For as prostitutes seek hiding-places to perpetrate their obscenities, so the Jews sought hills as their brothels.

And so their impiety was more detestable because they acted openly, especially as they wished their heinous acts to be seen from a distance, ascending, as they did, high places. In contrast, prostitutes, having found adulterers or lovers, usually seek secret retreats. The Prophet then cuts off every opportunity for the Jews to evade the charge when he commands them to raise up their eyes to the high places; for when they prostrated themselves before their idols, it was the same as when prostitutes commit acts of adultery.

And he adds that they sat by the ways, as the Arabian in the desert. He again repeats what we have observed before: the Jews were not led away by the enticement of others to violate the covenantal pledge they had given to God. On the contrary, they were moved by their own wantonness, so that they themselves sought base and filthy gratifications.

He had said before, “You have corrupted others by your wickedness;” and now he confirms the same, “You have sat,” he says, “by all the ways.” This is also what is done by vile prostitutes who, as has been said, have lost all shame.

But the Prophet enhances this crime by another comparison: As an Arabian in the desert, who lies in wait for travelers to rob and kill them, so you have sat by the ways.

We then see a double comparison here. One is taken from prostitutes who, having made a gain in the past, now that they find themselves neglected, lay siege to the roadsides and offer themselves to anyone they may meet. This is the first comparison.

The other is that they were like robbers who lie in wait for travelers to rob and kill them. It is as though he had said that the Chaldeans and Egyptians were excusable when compared with the Jews. This is because they had been drawn by the Jews' wicked arts into illicit treaties, much like a traveler passing by who is enticed by a robber— “What are you but a helpless man? But if you join me and agree to be my companion, there is the best prospect of gain, and new spoils will fall into our hands daily.”

Such a robber is two or three times more wicked than the other. So also, the Prophet says of the Jews that they were like old robbers, hardened in intrigues, plundering, and every kind of wickedness, who had enticed to themselves both the Egyptians and the Assyrians.

Jeremiah proceeds with his severe reproof, stating that the Jews were entirely given to wickedness, for they had completely devoted themselves to superstitions and also to unlawful alliances, and in both instances had despised God. He now shows how great and how strong their obstinacy was. Restrained, he says, have been the rains, there has not been the latter rain; yet the front of a harlot has been thine; as if he had said, that the Jews had not in any degree been subdued by punishment.

It was a most atrocious wickedness to pay no heed to pious warnings, when the prophets continually cried out to them and endeavored to restore them to the right way. That they hardened themselves in this way against the appeals of the prophets was a proof of the greatest impiety. But God also tried to restore them to Himself by punishments, and these were very severe.

He punished them with barrenness. The drought of which the Prophet speaks was undoubtedly so uncommon that the Jews might have perceived—if they had possessed even a particle of a sound mind—that God was at war with them. It often happens that not a drop of rain falls from heaven, for we see that many summers are hot and dry. There is no doubt that God then reminds us of our sins and exhorts us to repent.

But as familiarity makes us overlook God’s judgments, He sometimes punishes us in a new and unusual manner. Therefore, I do not doubt that the Prophet, by saying, Restrained have been rains from them, refers to some extraordinary instance of God’s vengeance, by which the Jews might have perceived—unless they were extremely dull-witted—that God was opposed to them and displeased with them.

The meaning of what is said is this: that the Jews had not only run here and there driven by a mad impulse, according to their own wills and inclinations, but they had also been restrained by evident judgments. This was because God had openly shown Himself from heaven to be the vindicator of His own glory, and because there had been such a great drought that it appeared clear the curse of the law had been fulfilled against them,

I will make heaven iron to you, and the earth brass (Leviticus 26:19).

Regarding the latter rain, we have said elsewhere that this word means the rain which falls just before harvest; it is called “latter” with reference to the harvest. For, as there is great heat in those eastern regions, they need rain before the harvest begins; the extreme heat of the sun would otherwise scorch the grain. Hence, they especially look for the latter rain, which comes shortly before harvest time. The other rain, in September and October, is called a seasonable rain on account of the sowing time, for it soaks and moistens the seed so that it may strike roots and gather vigor and strength.

The object is to show that God had given the Jews clear signs of His displeasure from heaven, yet to no avail; for they had the front of a harlot and felt no shame. That is, they were unmoved by any of God’s judgments and could not bear to be corrected.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You were once pleased not only to adopt us as Your children, but also to unite us to Yourself by the bond of marriage, and to give us a pledge of this sacred union in Your only-begotten Son. O grant that we may continue in the faith of Your Gospel, and so honestly keep the pledge given to You, that You may also show Yourself to us as a Husband and as a Father, and that we may, to the end, find in You that merciful kindness which is necessary to keep us in the holy fear of Your name, until we at last enjoy fellowship with You in Your celestial kingdom, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

God, after having shown the wickedness of his people and severely rebuked them as they deserved, now kindly invites them to repentance. Wilt thou not say to me hereafter, he says, My Father! Some incorrectly interpret the words, “Will you say to me, My Father,” as if God would reject what they said. Their interpretation is that the Jews would act dishonestly by glorying in God’s name in this way, from whom they were so alienated. But the Prophet's meaning is very different, for God mitigates the severity of the rebuke which we have observed and shows that he would be ready to be reconciled to them, if they repented.

Indeed, he does not wait for their repentance, but of his own accord meets and allures these perfidious apostates. “What!” says God, “will there no longer be any union between us?” For God expresses here the feeling of one grieving and lamenting when he saw the people perishing, and he seems anxious, if possible, to restore them.

It is with this purpose that he asks, “Will they not again call on me as their Father and the guide of their youth?” And by this indirect way of speaking, he implies that he was the husband of that people, for most tender is that love which a youth has for a young virgin in the flower of her age. God, then, now uses this comparison and says that he still remembered the love which he had shown toward his people. In short, he shows here that pardon was ready if the people sought reconciliation; and he confirms the same thing when he adds —

God shows that it was the fault of the Jews that he did not receive them into favor. And here he takes the argument from his own nature, and speaks of himself in the third person. It is as though the Prophet had interposed this reasoning: "God is not inexorable, for he is as ready to forgive as he is long-suffering. Now, then, what prevents you from living happily again under his government? For he will spare you, provided he finds in you genuine repentance." So we now see what the Prophet means here. For as God had kindly exhorted the people to repent, the Prophet now speaks generally of God’s own nature—that he keeps not for ever, nor reserves perpetually.

These words, when put alone, mean that he does not cherish vengeance; and in our language, we imitate the Hebrews: Il lui garde. This garde, when put without anything added to it, means, as I have said, that vengeance is cherished within. But nothing is more contrary than this to the nature of God. Hence, it follows that the Jews had no obstacle in their way, except that they shunned God and, being addicted to their own vices, were unwilling to receive the pardon that was freely offered to them.

As to the second clause, it admits of being explained in two ways. We may regard an adversative particle to be understood, "though you have spoken and have done," etc.; as if God had said that he would be propitious to the Jews, however atrociously they might have sinned.

But another view is more simple: that God here complains that there was no hope of amendment, as they had become hardened in their vices. "You have spoken," he says, "you have done, and you have been able." And interpreters further vary in their views, for the copulative is explained by some as a particle of comparison, in the sense of כאשר, keasher, "according to what you were able, you have done wickedness." But others take the words more simply and, as I think, more correctly: "You have been very strong;" that is, you have exerted all your power, so that you have put forth all your strength in doing evil, as we say in Latin, pro virili, with all your might; that is, as far as your capacity extended, you have devoted yourself to wickedness.

I therefore give this explanation: God had before put on, as it were, the character of one in grief and sorrow, and kindly exhorted the people to repent, and testified that he would be ready to pardon them, and at the same time showed in general that he would be propitious, as he is by nature inclined to mercy.

After having set forth these things, he now adds that he despaired of that people because they gloried in their own wickedness. For to speak and to do means the same as if he had said that the people were so impudent that they boasted of their rebellion against God and dared to call darkness light. For the superstitious, we know, glory against God without any shame.

Now, such was the state of the people. For God, by his prophets, condemned this especially in them: that they had corrupted the pure worship of the law. But they, with a meretricious front, dared to set up against him their own devotions and good intentions, as they are commonly called. As they thus presumptuously defended their wicked deeds, God here complains that they were in no way healable, and so he leaves them as past remedy.

This I regard as the real meaning of the Prophet; and of similar import is the verb תוכל, tucal; "you have put forth all your might," he says. That is, you have observed no limits in sinning but, on the contrary, have given yourself up to unbridled licentiousness.