John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 3:1

"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man`s, will he return unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah." — Jeremiah 3:1 (ASV)

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.