John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 32:35

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." — Jeremiah 32:35 (ASV)

After complaining about the profanation of His own Temple, God now says that the Jews had sinned through another superstition, specifically because the valley of the son of Hinnom had become for them a temple instead of the true one. God had forbidden in the Law that sacrifices be offered anywhere except where He appointed:

Thou shalt not do so to thy God, but thou shalt come to the place where he has put the memorial of his name. (Deuteronomy 12:4–5)

Since God then had expressly testified that sacrifices are not acceptable to Him except in one Temple and on one altar, He shows here that the lawful worship had been corrupted by the Jews, because they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire in honor of Molech. And yet in a former passage, He calls him Baal. Therefore, it appears, as we said yesterday, that the word Baal includes all kinds of idols. For the Jews, no doubt, while they worshipped their Baalim, always wished to ascribe chief sovereignty to the one true God, but, at the same time, they devised patrons for themselves, and thus arose the multitude of their gods. But Molech was a particular deity, as we learn from other parts of Scripture.

We now perceive, then, the Prophet’s meaning—that the Jews had not been satisfied with one kind of idolatry, but built high places or altars for themselves; for this is how some explain במות, bemut; במה, beme, means a high place, and is generally understood as the groves, as they were called, that is, tall trees.

But as mention is made here of a valley, some think that the term "high places" is not suitable here; therefore they render the word altars. As to the main point, God undoubtedly condemns the Jews here, because they had dared to set up a foreign mode of worship in the valley of Hinnom, when the Law expressly forbade it.

The relative אשר, asher, as I have said, may be applied to the altars as well as to Baal. But it seems to me a more suitable meaning if we say that Baal himself, that is, the idol, was in the valley of Hinnom. Of the passing through the fire, I have spoken elsewhere—it was a kind of lustration. However, there is no doubt that some exceeded the moderation commonly observed, who wished to excel others in the fervor of their zeal; for they actually burned their sons and their daughters, which was a most savage deed. Yet they still thought that it was a service acceptable to God. Others performed their superstition in a milder manner, as they deemed it enough that their children should pass through the fire as a symbol of purification, just as the pagans also used to purify themselves.

But the Prophet speaks of sons and of daughters, in order to show that so great was the intemperate zeal of the Jews, that they not only prostituted themselves before their idols, but also contaminated their offspring with these defilements.

Finally, He says that He had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind. We have said elsewhere that whenever this way of speaking occurs, God cuts off every pretext from objectors, because the superstitious always have something to allege as an excuse when they are called to account.

We know that the Papists, by pretending good intentions, confidently boast against God. They think that this one pretense is sufficient to defend them against all reproofs, and they also think that the servants of God and the Prophets are too morose and scrupulous when such an excuse does not satisfy them.

But God, so that He might not tediously argue with the superstitious, lays down this principle—that whatever they attempt beyond the Law is spurious. Therefore, the inventions of people cannot be defended by any disguise or pretense.

Let us then know that true religion is always founded on obedience to God’s will. Consequently, everything devised by people, when there is no command of God, is not only frivolous but also abominable, according to what was said yesterday respecting the work of their hands. And so here, the command of God is set in opposition to all the inventions of people. But as such declarations often occur, I will only touch briefly on this passage now.

This doctrine, however, should be especially noted: namely, that there is no need for a long refutation when we undertake to expose fictitious modes of worship, which people devise for themselves according to their own notions. Because, despite all they can say, God gives this concise answer: that whatever He has not commanded in His Law is futile and harmful. He then says that He had not commanded this, and that it had never entered into his mind.

God in the last clause attributes to Himself what applies only to people; for it cannot be said strictly speaking of God, that this or that had not come to His mind. But here He rebukes the presumption of people, who dare to introduce this or that, and think that an acceptable worship of God which they themselves have presumptuously devised; for they seek thus to exalt their own wisdom above that of God Himself.

And we find even today that the Papists, when we show that nothing has proceeded from the mouth of God among all the mass of observances in which they make religion consist, always allege that they do not without reason observe what has been commanded by the fathers, as though some things had come into the minds of people which had escaped God Himself!

We then see that God in this place exposes to ridicule the madness of those who, relying on their own ingenuity, devise for themselves various kinds of worship; for, as we have said, they seek to be wiser than God Himself. We now perceive, then, the force of the expression, when God says that it never came to His mind, because people boast that it had not been contrived without reason, and glory in their own acuteness, as though they were able to appoint a better thing than God Himself.

He afterwards says, That they should do this abomination. God now goes further and calls whatever He had not commanded an abomination. This clause confirms what I have said before: there is no need for long arguments when the question concerns the inventions of people, for nothing can be approved in the worship of God except what He Himself has commanded.

Whatever, therefore, has proceeded from the notions of people is not only frivolous and useless, but it is also an abomination, for God represents it as such in this place. Therefore, it is not enough today to repudiate and treat with disdain the fictitious modes of worship in which the Papists so much glory. Instead, if we would prove that we have a true zeal for religion, we must abominate all these fictitious things, for God has once for all declared them to be abominable.

He adds, that Judah might sin, or, that they might make Judah sin: either is admissible, and there is a twofold reading. Whatever the case may be, He declares that those who do not build on the Law do nothing but sin, though they may think that they render to God the best service, because they should have begun with this principle—to do nothing but according to what the Law prescribes.