John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 35

It must first be observed that the order of time in which the prophecies were written has not been retained. In history, the regular succession of days and years ought to be preserved, but in prophetic writings, this is not so necessary, as I have already reminded you. The Prophets, after preaching, reduced to a summary what they had spoken; a copy of this was usually affixed to the doors of the Temple, so that everyone desirous of knowing celestial doctrine might read the copy, and it was afterwards laid up in the archives.

From these were formed the books now extant. And what I say may be gathered from certain and known facts. But so that we may not now multiply words, this passage shows that the prophecy of Jeremiah inserted here did not follow the last discourse, for he relates what he had been commanded to say and to do in the time of Jehoiakim, that is, fifteen years before the destruction of the city.

Hence, what I have said is evident: that Jeremiah did not write the book as it exists now, but that his discourses were collected and formed into a volume, without regard to the order of time. The same may also be gathered from the prophecies which we shall later see, from the forty-fifth to the end of the fiftieth chapter.

The power of the kingdom of Judah was not so weakened under King Jehoiakim, yet they were still inflated with pride. Since, then, their security kept them from being attentive to the words of the Prophet, it was necessary to set before them a visible sign, in order to make them ashamed.

It was, then, God’s purpose to show how inexcusable their perverseness was. This was the design of this prophecy. And the Prophet was expressly commanded to call together the Rechabites and to offer wine to them, in order that the obstinacy of the people might appear more disgraceful, since they could not be induced to render obedience to God, while the Rechabites were so obedient to their father, a mortal man, who had been dead for nearly three centuries.

The Rechabites derived their origin from Obad and from Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. There are those indeed who think that Obad and Jethro were the same, but this conjecture seems improbable to me. However this may be, interpreters think that the Rechabites were the descendants of Obad, who followed Moses and the Israelites. And their opinion seems to be confirmed, because it is said here that they were commanded by Jonadab to live as sojourners in the land. An inheritance was indeed promised them, but as it appears from many parts of Scripture, they were unfaithfully dealt with, for they were scattered here and there throughout the tribes. They then did not enjoy an inheritance as was right and as they deserved. We also see that they lived among other nations.

With regard to Jonadab, of whom mention is made, we read in 2 Kings 10:15 that he was a man of great name and influence, for when Jehu began to reign, he had him as his friend, though he was an alien. He must, then, have been in high esteem, and a man of power and wealth among the Israelites.

And it is certain that it was the same Jonadab whom sacred history mentions there, because he is called the son of Rechab; and yet three hundred years, or nearly so, had elapsed from that time to the reign of Jehoiakim. As to the origin of this family or people, the first was Obad; from him came Rechab, whose son was Jonadab, who lived in the time of King Jehu, and was raised up into his chariot to be, as it were, next to him, when Jehu had not yet his power firmly established.

But they later went to Jerusalem on account of the continual calamities of the land of Israel, for it was exposed to constant plunders, and this we shall later see in the narrative. Then the sons of Rechab once dwelt in the kingdom of Israel; but when various incursions laid waste the land, and final ruin was at hand, having left their tents they went to Jerusalem, for they were not allowed to cultivate either fields or vineyards, as we shall later see.

The Rechabites, therefore, dwelt in the city Jerusalem, which protected them from the incursions and violence of enemies; but they still retained their ancient mode of living by abstaining from wine and by not cultivating either fields or vineyards. They indeed thought it right for them to dwell in buildings, because they could not find a vacant place in the city where they might pitch their tents, but this was done from necessity. In the meantime, they obeyed the command of their father Jonadab; and though he had been dead three hundred years, they still so venerated the memory of their father that they willingly abstained from wine and led not only a frugal but an austere life.

The Prophet is now commanded to bring these to the Temple, and to offer them wine to drink. I have briefly explained the design of God in this matter, namely, that He purposed to lay before the Jews the example of the Rechabites, in order to shame them; for that family obeyed their father after he was dead, but the Jews could not be induced to submit to the command of the living God, who was also the only Father of all. The Prophet then was commanded to bring them to the Temple and to lay before them cups full of wine, that they might drink. He says that they refused to drink, and brought as a reason that Jonadab their father forbade them to do so. We shall later see how this example was applied, for the whole cannot be explained at the same time.

Let us consider the Prophet’s words: he says that the word came to him in the days of Jehoiakim, that is, after he had learned through many years of trial how untamable the Jews were, and how great was their ferocity. The Prophet then had undertaken much labor, and yet they were not subdued enough to submit to the yoke of God. When, therefore, they had now for many years given many proofs of their obduracy, God summoned the Rechabites as witnesses, who, by their example, proved that the Jews were inexcusable for being so rebellious and disobedient to the commands of the Prophet.

Go, said he, to the house of Rechab, (we have said that they then dwelt at Jerusalem, and this will appear later) and bring them to the house of Jehovah. But we must inquire why the Prophet was ordered to lay wine before them in the Temple rather than in a private house.

The reason, indeed, is evident, for God’s purpose was to show how wicked and perverse the Jews were, because not even the priests abstained from wine except when they were performing their duties. The Law commanded them to then abstain from wine; but the Levites, who took care of the Temple, and also the priests, when not engaged in the discharge of their office, were fully allowed to drink wine.

Since, then, the priests were permitted to drink wine even in the Temple, that is, in the chambers adjoining the priests’ court, what excuse could have been made when the Rechabites, who were still of the common people, and even aliens among the Jews, refused wine according to the command of their father Jonadab?

Had God forbidden the whole people the use of wine, the Law might have appeared too rigid; but God not only permitted the people to drink wine, but also the priests. Indeed, no religious reverence prevented them from drinking wine close to the Temple when they were not engaged in their duties. We now perceive, then, why the place has been mentioned, that is, that the Prophet relates that he brought the Rechabites into the Temple.

Go, then, and bring them into the house of Jehovah, into one of the chambers, and offer them wine to drink. We have said that the chambers were near the priests’ court, for many of the Levites were always keeping watch, guarding the Temple, and also some of the priests. The priests, while on duty, alone abstained from wine; but permission was given by the Law to the Levites to drink wine, even in those very chambers, which were on both sides a sort of appendages to the Temple.

Now the Prophet adds that he took Jaazaniah, who was a leading man, and as it were the head of the family. And he names his father, namely Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah; and he then says, his whole house. It is added, that he brought them into the Temple, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God. The Prophet no doubt chose a well-known place, so that the report of this might spread through the whole city, and even throughout Judea, and also that the dignity of the place might add credit to the report; for we know that when a thing is done in an obscure corner, it may be regarded as doubtful or fabulous.

But the Prophet brought the Rechabites into an honorable place, namely into the chamber of the sons of Hanan. And he later says, that he was the son of Igdaliah, a man of God. Doubtless such was the reverence in which this man was held that no one dared to call into question what had been done there. Then he adds that the chamber was near the chamber of the princes, which was over the chamber of the keeper of the treasury. Some render the last word “the entrance”; the word means a vessel, and it signifies here the sacred furniture; and there is a change of number, for this word included all the vessels of the Temple. Hence we see that the place was select, superior to other places, so that it might be like a notable theater, and that the prophecy might thus gain more credit among all the Jews.

He says that he set wine before them and requested them to drink when full cups were placed before them. Then he adds that they refused: We will not drink wine, because Jonadab our father commanded us, saying, Drink ye no wine, nor build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, nor have any such thing as your own.

We see that four things were commanded the Rechabites by their father: to drink no wine, to cultivate no fields, and to plant no vineyards—these were three; and the fourth was not to build houses, but to be content with tents. Here is also added a promise: that ye may live long in the land where ye are strangers.

Then Jonadab promised his sons and his posterity a long life if they obeyed his precepts, that is, to live without wine all their life, and not to possess anything, nor build houses. Their saying that they had obeyed their father’s precept shall be later considered, for we cannot take in everything at once.

But let us now see whether Jonadab did right in forbidding his posterity to drink wine and to cultivate land. Agriculture is in itself a mode of living not only honest and innocent, but also remote from ambition, fraud, and plunder: in short, it seems to be of all kinds of living the simplest and the most innocent.

Then the advice of Jonadab to keep his sons from agriculture might in this instance be blamed and condemned. But the probability is that when he saw the Jews and the Israelites despising the Law of their God, he thought of the vengeance, which, though it did not follow for a long time, yet ought then to have been dreaded.

He also saw the sources of vices, namely that the Israelites especially gave themselves up to luxuries and indulged themselves, as it clearly appears from the Prophets, in all manner of excesses. When, therefore, he saw, on the one hand, the corruptions of the land, and on the other hand, he dreaded punishment, he wished his posterity to accustom themselves to an austere mode of living, so that they might more easily move here and there, and also that they might with more tranquil minds endure any adversity that might happen, being neither rich nor used to delicacies.

Jonadab then did not condemn agriculture, nor the use of wine, nor comfortable dwellings, when he commanded his posterity to be contented with tents and water, and wished them to buy wheat and to follow only a pastoral life; but as we have said, he had another object in view. This, then, is what we must first bear in mind.

But we must observe, at the same time, that the posterity of Jonadab did not live on plunder, nor spend their time in idleness; for they were shepherds, who with great labor and many watchings gained their own living. But it was their father Jonadab’s wish that they should in a manner be separated from the common affairs of life, on account of the corruptions which prevailed, and which he saw rampant before his eyes, so that he had no doubt as to what was to be, when the Israelites abandoned themselves more and more to all kinds of excesses, and when all integrity was disregarded. This, then, was the reason why Jonadab restrained his posterity from following the common way of living.

His counsel is, however, not commended, but the obedience which his sons rendered; and this is here proposed as an example, in order to make the Jews ashamed, because they so perversely rejected the Law of God and the doctrine of the Prophets. And it is an argument from the less to the greater: for if the authority of a mortal man prevailed so much with his posterity as to cause them to abstain from wine, and not only to live frugally, but also to endure cold and want and other hard things, how much more should the Jews have done what was right and easy, when God commanded them. This is one thing, namely, a comparison between God and mortal man.

And then there is another—that this precept continued in force for three hundred years and kept posterity from neglect; but the Law of God, which continually sounded in the ears of the people, had no power to influence them. Here is another comparison. The third is that God acted equitably and did not press too much on the Jews, so as to make the rigor of the law odious and wearisome: since God then used moderation in His Law, so as to require from the people nothing but what was easy to bear, it shows that Jonadab was rigid and austere, for he forbade the use of wine and did not allow his posterity to cultivate fields, nor to dwell in houses.

This threefold comparison ought then to be borne in mind, and these three parts of the contrast ought to be well considered: namely, that God had not obtained from His people what Jonadab had from his posterity; and also that God, continually admonishing, did not prevail, when a regard for a dead man retained posterity in their duty; and further, that the Law of God, which required nothing but what could be easily done, had been perversely rejected by the Jews, when the Rechabites, in honor to their dead father, suffered themselves to be deprived of all luxuries, and did not dread an austere, rustic, and, as it were, a savage kind of life; for they not only abstained from wine, but also dared not to shelter themselves from cold by dwelling in houses, and were forbidden all the comforts of life.

Now that the Prophet was ordered to offer them wine, and that they refused, a question here arises: Was their continence in this respect laudable? They seemed thus to prefer Jonadab to God, for they knew that Jeremiah, who offered them wine, was sent by God. But the Rechabites, no doubt, modestly excused themselves when they said that it was not right for them to drink wine, because they had been forbidden by their father.

It was not then their purpose to give more honor to their father than to God or to His Prophet, but they simply answered to excuse themselves, that they had abstained from wine for three hundred years, that is, that the whole family had done so. This, then, is the solution of the question.

But what the Papists do in bringing against us the Rechabites, first to support their tyrannical laws, and secondly, in order to torment miserable consciences at their pleasure, is frivolous in the extreme. As I have already said, the advice of Jonadab is not commended, as though he had rightly forbidden his sons to drink wine; but only his sons are spoken of as having reverently and humbly obeyed the command of their dead father.

Then this passage gives no support to the Papists, as though its object was to bind the consciences of the faithful to their laws; for what is spoken of here is that the Rechabites proved by their obedience how base and wicked was the obduracy of the people, as they showed less reverence and honor to God than the Rechabites did to a man that was dead.

But the Papists, however, dwell much on another point—that whatever has been handed down from the fathers ought to be observed; and thus they reason, “The authority of the whole Church is greater than that of a private man; now the Rechabites are commended for having followed the command of a private individual, much more then ought we to obey the laws of the Church.”

To this I answer that we ought to obey the fathers and the whole Church: nor have we a controversy with them on this subject, for we do not simply say that everything which men have handed down to us ought to be rejected.

But we deny that we ought to obey the laws of men when they bind the conscience without any necessity. When, therefore, a religious act is enjoined on us, men arrogate to themselves what is peculiar to God alone; thus the authority of God is violated when men claim so much for themselves as to bind consciences by their own laws.

We must then distinguish between civil laws, such as are introduced to preserve order or for some other end, and spiritual laws, such as are introduced into God’s worship, and by which religion is enjoined, and necessity is laid on consciences.—But I cannot now finish, for I see that the hour has already passed.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have been pleased to adopt us as Your children, and also to show us what pleases You—O grant, that we may in all things be obedient to You, and never turn aside either to the right hand or to the left; and as You also continually exhort us and stir us onward, grant that we may, in quiet meekness of spirit, so surrender ourselves to be ruled by You, as to prove ourselves to be Your children, and to glorify You as our Father, until we shall enjoy that eternal inheritance, which is laid up for us in heaven, through Christ our Lord.—Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We said in the last Lecture that the example of the Rechabites is brought forward, not for the purpose of commending their obedience, as though it were some great virtue, but only that the Prophet might reprove the Jews for rendering less honor to the living God than the Rechabites did to their dead father.

And, doubtless, this comparison must have exhibited the Jews as acting very disgracefully, for they could not be induced to render obedience, though they had before their eyes the Rechabites as an example. We have also said that Jonadab did not forbid his posterity to drink wine, to sow fields, and to plant vineyards, in order to set up something new in God’s worship; but that he did so because he deemed it good for his posterity thus to sojourn in the land, so that they might not become attached to their possessions, and that amidst various changes they might be less anxious, and be prepared, as it were, to move elsewhere.

We have hence shown that the Papists ignorantly pervert this passage in order to support their tyrannical laws, in which they pretend to include the spiritual worship of God, and by which they also distress miserable souls; for there is no likeness nor affinity between the command of Jonadab and those laws which are introduced for the purpose of establishing the spiritual worship of God.

For it was not primarily the object of Jonadab’s precept to demand from his posterity an abstinence from wine as a necessary thing, but it had a regard to what was quite different. Now, what is commanded for another end, as it is not necessary, so it is not opposed to the word of God, for their liberty of conscience is not taken away. Nor was it Jonadab’s design to claim for himself the right and authority of God, as though he were a spiritual lawgiver; but his precept only referred to what was civil or social.

Hence it appears how unlike his command was to the tyrannical laws by which liberty is destroyed under the Papacy.

Were it allowable to speak jocosely, we might say that it is a wonder that the Papists make so much of this example, which yet none of them follow; for though the monks have among them rigid and severe laws as to eating and drinking, yet the most holy among them have never observed them, and there has not been a Carthusian or a Celestian who submitted to the obligation of abstaining from wine. If then this virtue of the Rechabites pleases them so much, why do they not discontinue the use of wine? But this I have not said seriously.

With regard to the subject itself, the solution is certain and easy—that the Rechabites are not commended as though they had obeyed their father as God, but that they obediently received what their father had commanded them, because it was only a civil precept. He therefore had in view an ulterior object, and he did not require abstinence from wine and other things for its own sake. And Paul, even by one sentence, has settled this controversy; for when he exhorts children to obey their parents, he modifies his exhortation by saying,

“In the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:1)

We then see that Paul commands children to obey their parents, not in everything or without limitation, but so that God, who is the Sovereign and the only Father of all, may still retain His authority, and that earthly parents may not claim for themselves so much authority as to ascend the throne of God, as though they were lawgivers to souls.

Jeremiah explains extensively what might have been expressed briefly, in order to emphasize the steadfastness of the Rechabites. For one may obey his father, yet not be so resolute that he might not, on some slight occasion, fail in his duty. Jeremiah here shows that such was the ready perseverance of the Rechabites that they could not be enticed by having wine set before them; rather, as if no temptation had been presented to them, they kept the commandment of their father, who, as has already been mentioned, had been dead for some ages.

They then said that they hearkened to the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, their father; and also added, according to all the things which he has commanded us. He again relates what Jonadab had commanded, and to this belongs the sentence, According to all things, etc. For if he had ordered them only to abstain from wine, to obey would not have been difficult or hard; he designed to bind them to a wandering life, so that they should live only in tents and not possess anything. Since Jonadab, then, did not test the obedience of his family in one thing only, it appears more clearly how great was their readiness and perseverance in obeying.

They then said, first, that they were not to drink wine; and also added, all their days. We indeed know that the Nazarites were forbidden to drink wine, but it was only for a time, until they had fulfilled their vow. We also know that when the priest was performing his duty, he was not allowed, during that time, to drink wine.

But afterwards the priests, as well as the Nazarites, resumed their usual way of living. To taste no wine throughout life, however, was a far more difficult thing. The Prophet, no doubt, gave these details to bring greater disgrace upon the Jews, who, in a most just and by no means difficult matter, were not, as we shall see, obedient to God.

They said, We, our wives, our sons, our daughters, as though they had said, “This precept has always been observed in our family; and what has been handed down to us by our fathers, we have followed to this day, just as our fathers also did, who obeyed the command of a dead man because his will had been explained to them.”

They added that they were not to build houses, literally meaning to inhabit them, that is, to dwell in them. It was therefore lawful for the Rechabites to construct houses, meaning to build them for others; but they were to be content with tents and to live in them. They might then assist others in building splendid palaces and thus by their labor earn a living, but they were not allowed to inhabit them, as this was one of their precepts.

They further added, And a vineyard and a field and seed we have not. If we properly consider how hard their condition was, we shall see reason to praise the steadfastness of the Rechabites, for they were not deterred from their purpose when they saw that they were brought into dire straits. However, we should especially pay attention to the Prophet's objective, namely, to show how shameful the perverseness of the Jews was, who dared to despise and regard as nothing the precepts of God, even though the authority of a mortal man, and one who was dead, held such great sway with his posterity. They then said that they dwelt in tents and did according to all the things that Jonadab their father had commanded them.

Therefore, it appears that it was advantageous for the Rechabites to observe what their father had commanded them. If they had been tied to their possessions, they would have been driven into exile with the rest when the kingdom of Israel was destroyed. What happened to the ten tribes must also have happened to the Rechabites.

But as they had nothing of their own, they were freer to move elsewhere. Nor did they face the trial of leaving possessions, for they had none. We know that many are so tied to their own houses, fields, vineyards, and meadows, that they would rather be killed a hundred times than be torn away from them.

Then Jenadab wisely considered the benefit for his descendants when he ordered them to dwell in tents, for in this way they could gather all they had in one day, according to the known saying of Bias. Therefore, poverty was a great advantage to them. Their austerity of life was also a benefit, enabling them to dwell in Jerusalem without difficulty, as they had no need for many luxuries.

If they had been accustomed to wine and other delicacies, they might have debated whether it would have been better for them to die at once than to suffer hardship in a besieged city. Moreover, as they had lived frugally and had also been accustomed to an austere life, no anxiety prevented them from coming confidently to Jerusalem, for they thought that they could gain a meager and humble subsistence by their own labor.

So it now appears what Jenadab had in view when he forbade his descendants the use of wine as well as the possession of fields and vineyards, for he could then foresee what dreadful upheavals were near. It was therefore his purpose to train his descendants in this way, so that when difficulties came they might not succumb to the burden, but patiently bear hardship or any other inconvenience that would be intolerable to others when they remembered their former delicacies.

We they said, Come, and let us enter into Jerusalem from the face of both armies. Therefore, when the Israelites were detained by their fields and domestic possessions, the Rechabites went to Jerusalem and were thus freed from danger.

Here Jeremiah applies the example which he had related, for what follows is God’s complaint—that He was less regarded by His people than Jonadab was by his descendants. He then says, Go and speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. To make the reproof more effective, the Prophet introduces God as the speaker. It was therefore God’s purpose to convey the reproof to the Jews in His own name, and as it were, in His own person.

Will you not receive instruction, He says, so as to obey Me? The word מוסר, musar, sometimes means ruling or governing, and sometimes correction. But God here no doubt reprimands that madness of the Jews in which they had long hardened themselves, as if He had said, “You never think it right to return to a sound mind.” Since, then, they had been for a long time incorrigible and wandered after their own lusts like unbridled wild beasts, a reproof is here given, as if He had said, “Will this people always be so ungovernably wanton as never to submit to the yoke?”

And He says, so as to obey Me. God shows that He required nothing unjust from the Jews, so that a true excuse could be pretended, as though He was too rigid. “I require only,” He says, “that you obey Me: this is all My severity, for lovely is the rule of meekness which I use towards you. Since, then, I demand nothing but what children ought willingly to render to their fathers without being admonished, how is it that this moderation is so displeasing to you, and can in no way be approved by you?”

It is then added, confirmed have been the words of Jonadab by his children; but My people do not obey Me. But as we have said in the last lecture, the Prophet touches particularly on this circumstance—that the Rechabites obeyed the command of their father in not drinking wine: this was hard; they did not drink even to that day. But what did God require from His children? Only to receive His Law, and not to go astray, as it is here added, after alien gods.

There is, then, a contrast between the hard precept of Jonadab and the equity of the Law; for God required nothing from His people except to render Him pure worship. He says, They have drunk no wine to this day—and why? Because they obeyed; that is, there was no scruple of conscience to prevent them, but the authority of a man who was dead so far prevailed with them, that they willingly gave up the use of wine. “As then simple obedience, that is, piety or respect for their father, produced such influence on the Rechabites, how is it that I am not heard? For I have spoken,” He says, “so that the sin of the people is not excusable on the ground of ignorance.”

Then He adds, Early rising and speaking. Here assiduity and diligence are mentioned. Jonadab only once gave his command to his children; that command, which might have been forgotten, remained perpetually in the hearts of his sons, so that they taught the same to his grandsons. But God commanded what was right not only once, but rose up early; that is, He sedulously anticipated them. For by this metaphor He intimates that He did not wait until after continued licentiousness they became more addicted to their vices; for we know that those who have for many years been without restraint are not easily brought into order, but they become habitually refractory.

And so, it also becomes necessary to form from infancy those who are to be ruled by us; for if they are allowed to act as they please, their wantonness cannot afterwards be restrained by any laws. God then says, that He rose up early; that is, that He anticipated the Jews, so that together with their milk they might imbibe religion.

He afterwards adds that He was assiduous in teaching them, rising early and speaking. By speaking, He intimates that He had daily repeated the same things, so that forgetfulness might not be pleaded by the Jews as an excuse: I have spoken to you, rising up early and speaking, and you obeyed Me not. Then follows an explanation that God had sent the Prophets: the Jews would have otherwise been ready to object and say that God had never appeared to them.

Hence He says that He had spoken to them by His Prophets. I have sent, He says, and indeed many—I have sent all My servants, etc. For if Moses only had commanded the Jews what was right, they might have pretended that the Law was buried and forgotten, and that they had no recollection of what Moses had taught.

Hence, to meet such evasions, He says shortly that He had sent all His servants; that is, that He had sent many Prophets, and so many that He continually proclaimed in their hearing the doctrine of the Law. He again repeats the words, rising early and sending, so that He never ceased to warn and exhort them. Now those who are otherwise tardy and also refractory, yet become gentle when they are recalled to their duty every day and hour. Since God then thus urged them by His Prophets, their mad obstinacy became more evident when they still refused to obey.

Now follows that easy requirement, which still more aggravated their sin: Turn you now, every one from his evil way, and make right your doings (literally, make good). Here God shows the difference between His Law and the precepts of Jonadab, for He simply required of the Jews what they ought willingly to have done.

For had no Law been written, natural light was sufficient to teach the Jews that it was their duty to obey God; for the law of obedience is so written on our hearts, as a testimony, that no one can justly plead ignorance as an excuse. God then here declares that He required nothing but what nature itself dictated—even that the Jews should repent and form their life according to the rule of obedience. Though no Prophet were among them, yet every one ought to have been in this respect his own teacher.

It follows, And walk not after alien gods to serve them. This admonition still more clearly proves how moderate was what God required; for He sought nothing more than to retain the Jews under His authority and protection, that He might be a Father to them. Jonadab might have demanded obedience from his descendants, and yet have allowed them the free use of wine, and also the possession of fields and vineyards; but he wished to cut them off, as it were, from mankind, so that their condition became worse than that of all the nations and people among whom they lived. For they became, no doubt, objects of ridicule to their neighbors, endured many reproaches, and were grievously harassed.

God shows that He had abstained from exercising rigid authority and from requiring unbearable servitude, and demanded nothing from His people but that He might be acknowledged by them as a Father. As, then, He did not tyrannically force the Jews to render Him service, and His Law was moderate in its demands, it hence appears still more clear, as I have said, how incorrigible was the wickedness and depravity of that people.

He further adds a promise, which ought by its sweetness to have allured them, so as to become more disposed and prompt to obey. Though He might by authority have commanded, “Turn you from your superstitions, and faithfully serve Me,” it would yet have been a command just and equitable. But when He is pleased to add a promise, which ought to have disposed the Jews to obedience, and yet gains nothing from them, their wickedness is rendered again by this circumstance still more detestable.

We hence see that there is something important in every clause, and that it is not without meaning that He here adds, You shall dwell in the land which I gave to you and to your fathers. God here sets forth His own bounty, and then promises a perpetual fruition of it, provided the Jews obeyed.

He says that He gave that land to them, and before to their fathers. Had they never partaken of God’s bounty, yet the promise alone ought to have induced them to submit to His authority. But God had already been liberal to them.

Then experience ought to have convinced them, for they knew that they had obtained the promised land by no other right than by a promise made by God; they knew that the nations, into whose place they had entered, had been cast out by God’s mighty hand.

As, then, they had by experience found God to be bountiful, and as He had promised to be in future the same, how great and how monstrous must have been their madness when they would not turn to obedience? Then it is also a circumstance of weighty importance when God reminded them that it was He who gave the land to them and to their fathers.

He adds, You have not inclined your ear, nor obeyed Me. We have stated elsewhere the import of these words, “Not to incline the ear”: they removed the plea of ignorance or of the want of knowledge. God, then, charges the Jews here with deliberate wickedness, for they had obstinately rejected the doctrine of the Law and all the warnings given by the Prophets.

For when doctrine is set before any people, and God is pleased familiarly to teach them, and nothing is effected, their perverseness is thus more fully made known. God then intimates here that the Jews had not gone astray through ignorance, for they sufficiently understood what was right. Whence, then, was there so great a hardness? Even because they had designedly closed their ears; that is, they had wickedly denied obedience to God and had been refractory, as it were, through a long-cherished resolution, so that they could never be brought to a sound mind. It afterwards follows again—

The Prophet says nothing new here, but confirms what has been said before. He did this so that the shameful nature of the people’s conduct might more fully appear: on one hand, a mortal man, now dead, retained authority over his descendants by once imposing a difficult restraint upon them.

Meanwhile, God, on the other hand, accomplished nothing, even though He had constantly addressed and exhorted His people, sent prophets, and did not cease to invite them to Himself. He had not only invited them, but also kindly attracted them by presenting His favors to them and giving them hope for the future. Since God, then, had tried all means without any success, the hopeless depravity of the people therefore became evident. This is the significance of the whole matter.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since You have made known to us by Your servants, not only once, but even often, the way of salvation, and have also sent Your only-begotten Son to be our teacher of perfect wisdom — O grant, that we may so submit to You and so consecrate our whole life to You, that He who died for our salvation and rose again may peaceably rule us by the doctrine of His gospel; and that we may strive to glorify You in this world, so that we may at last be made partakers of that celestial glory which Your Son, our Lord, has obtained for us. Amen.