John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 50

Our Prophet has been until now speaking of neighboring nations who had cruelly harassed the chosen people. It was some consolation when the children of Abraham understood that God undertook their cause and would be the avenger of those wrongs which they had suffered. But this of itself would have been no great consolation; indeed, it might have been viewed as nothing by many while there was no hope of restoration, for it would have been but a small consolation to have others as associates in misery.

If, indeed, Jeremiah had only taught that none of the nations who had troubled God’s Church would escape unpunished, the Jews might have raised an objection, saying that they were not freed from their own calamities because the monarchy of Babylon still flourished, and that they were buried, as it were, in a perpetual grave. It was therefore necessary that what we read here should be predicted. And though this prophecy is given last, we ought to notice that the Prophet had from the beginning expressly spoken, as we have seen, of the calamity and destruction of Babylon. But this prophecy is given as the conclusion of the book to mitigate the sorrow of the miserable exiles; for it was no small relief to them to hear that the tyranny by which they were oppressed, and under which they lived, as it were, a lifeless life, would not be perpetual. We now understand, then, why the Prophet spoke of the Babylonians and of their destruction.

But a longer preface would be superfluous, because those acquainted with Scripture well know that the Jews were eventually so reduced by the Babylonians that their very name seemed to have been obliterated. Since they were then reduced to such extremities, it is no wonder that the Prophet here affirms that the Babylonians would eventually be punished, not only so that God might show Himself to be the avenger of wickedness, but also so that the miserable exiles might know that they were not wholly repudiated, but on the contrary, that God cared for their salvation. We now perceive the design of this prophecy.

The word of Jehovah, he says, which he spoke concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by the hand of Jeremiah the Prophet. He testifies in his usual manner that he did not bring forward what he himself had invented, but that God was the author of this prophecy. He at the same time declares that he was God’s minister; for God did not descend from heaven whenever it pleased him to reveal his favor to the Jews, but, as it is said in Deuteronomy, he customarily spoke by his servants (Deuteronomy 18:18). In short, Jeremiah thus recommends what he was about to say, so that the Jews might reverently receive them, not as the fictions of men, but as oracles from heaven.

He predicts the ruin of Babylon, not in simple words, because nothing seemed then more unreasonable than to announce the things which God eventually proved by the outcome. As Babylon was then the metropolis of the East, no one could have thought that it would ever be possessed by a foreign power.

No one could have thought of the Persians, for they were distant. As for the Medes, who were nearer, they were, as we know, sunk in their own luxuries and were considered but half men. Since there was so much softness in the Medes, and as the Persians were so distant and enclosed in their own mountains, Babylon peacefully enjoyed the empire of the whole eastern world. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet expresses at length what he could have stated in very few words.

Tell, he says, among the nations, publish, raise up a sign, and again, publish. For what purpose is such an abundance of words? It was so that the faithful might learn to lift their thoughts above the world and to expect that which was then, according to the judgment of all, incredible.

This confidence shows that Jeremiah did not, in vain, foretell what he states; but he thundered, as it were, from heaven, knowing from where he derived this prophecy. And his proclamation was this: Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, and Merodach is broken. I do not know why some think that Merodach was an idol; for as for Bel, we know that the Babylonians trusted in that god, or rather, in that figment.

But the Prophet here clearly mentions the name of a king well known to the Jews, in order to show that Babylon, with all its defences and its wealth, was already devoted to destruction. For we know that men look partly to some god and partly to human or temporal means. So the Babylonians boasted that they were under the protection of Bel and dared proudly to set up this idol in opposition to the only true God, as the unbelieving do. Then, in the second place, they were intoxicated with confidence in their own power.

And hypocrisy always rules in the unbelieving, so that they arrogate to themselves much more than what they ascribe to their idols. It is then the same thing as if he had said that Babylon was taken, that Bel was confounded, and that the kingdom was broken, or broken in pieces.

The name Merodach, as I have said, was well known among the Jews, and mention is made of a father and of a son of this name by Isaiah and in sacred history (Isaiah 39:1; 2 Kings 20:12). It is no wonder, then, that the Prophet should name this king, though dead, on account of the esteem in which he was held. As we have seen in the case of the kingdom of Syria, he mentioned Ben-hadad, though no one supposes that he was alive then; but as Ben-hadad distinguished himself above other kings of Syria, the Prophet introduced his name. For the same reason, in my opinion, he names Merodach here.

The sum of it all is that though Babylon thought itself safe and secure through the help of its idol, and also through its wealth and warlike power, and through other defences, yet its confidence would become vain and empty, for God would bring its idol to shame and destroy its king.

He returned to the idols again, and not without reason, for in this way he called the attention of his own nation to the only true God and also reminded them how detestable the idolatry was that then prevailed among the Chaldeans. And it was necessary to present this doctrine to the Jews and to impress it on them, so that they might not abandon themselves to the superstitions of heathens, as indeed happened.

But the Prophet deliberately spoke of images and idols so that the Jews might know that it was the only true God who had adopted them. In this way, they might rest confidently in His power and know that those things highly regarded throughout the whole world by the heathens and the unbelieving were only vain fictions.

Let what I have said before be kept in mind: the Prophet uses many words in describing the ruin of Babylon. For it was not enough to predict what was to happen; but as weak minds wavered, it was necessary to add a confirmation. Then, after speaking of the power of Babylon and its idols, he now points out the way in which it was to be destroyed—a nation would come from the north, that is, with reference to Chaldea.

He means the Medes and Persians, as interpreters commonly think, and this is probable because he afterwards adds that the Jews would then return. Since Jeremiah connects these two things together—the destruction of Babylon and the restoration of God’s Church—it is probable that he refers here to the Medes and Persians. If, at the same time, we view things more closely, there is no doubt that this prophecy extends further, and this will become more evident as we proceed.

He simply says now that a nation would come from the north, which would turn the land to a waste. This clause shows that this prophecy could not be properly confined to the time when Babylon was taken by Cyrus, for we know that it was betrayed by two Satraps during a siege, and that it was at a time when a feast was held, as though there were peace and security, as Daniel testifies, with whom pagan writers agree.

Now Xenophon testifies that Cyrus exercised great forbearance and humanity, and that he used his victory with such moderation, that Babylon seemed as though it had not been taken. It had, indeed, changed masters, but such was the change that the citizens readily submitted to it. But it was afterwards treated more harshly, when Darius recovered it with the aid of Zopyrus; for Babylon had revolted from the Persians and shaken off the yoke.

After storming it in vain, Darius finally recovered it with the help of one man. For Zopyrus, having cut off his nose and mutilated his ears and his face, pretended, in this deformed manner, to be a fugitive and complained of the cruelty and barbarity of his king, with whom he was nonetheless most intimate. The city was soon afterwards taken by treachery in the night. Then about four thousand of the Persians were hung in the middle of the Forum, nor did Darius spare the people.

The Prophet then seems to include this second destruction when he predicted that the whole land would be made desolate. Nor should this be considered unreasonable, for the Prophets spoke of God’s judgments in such a way that they extended what they said beyond the beginning, as was the case in the present instance.

Therefore, when Babylon was taken by the Persians, it received the yoke; and she, which had ruled over all other nations, was reduced to a state of servitude. For the Persians, as it is well known, were very inhuman, and Isaiah describes them at length. In the meantime, the city, as I have said, retained its external appearance. The citizens were robbed of their gold and silver, and of their precious things, and had to serve strangers: this was bitter to them.

But when Darius punished their perfidy and hung so many of the chief men (about four thousand), and also indiscriminately shed the blood of the people, and subjected the city itself to the plunder of his soldiers, then doubtless what the Prophet says here was more fully accomplished. Yet it was God’s purpose to give only a prelude of His vengeance when He made the Babylonians subject to the Medes and Persians.

The Prophet now explains more clearly the purpose of God: that in punishing the Chaldeans so severely, his object was to provide for the safety of his Church.

For had Jeremiah spoken only of vengeance, the Jews might still have raised an objection, saying, “It will not profit us at all that God should be a severe judge towards our enemies if we are to remain under their tyranny.”

Then the Prophet shows that the destruction of Babylon would be connected with the deliverance of the chosen people. Thus he points out, as it were, by the finger, the reason why Babylon was to be destroyed: for the sake of the chosen people, so that the miserable exiles might take courage and not doubt that God would at last be propitious, as Jeremiah had testified to them, having, as we have seen, set the term of seventy years.

He was derided by the Jews, who had become so hardened in heart that they counted as nothing, or at least regarded as fables, all the reproofs and threatenings of God, and also paid attention, as we have seen, to the flatteries of the false prophets.

Jeremiah now promises that God would be their liberator after the time of exile had passed, of which he had spoken. Thus we perceive the design of this passage, in which the Prophet, after having referred to the destruction of Babylon, makes a sudden transition and refers to God’s mercy, which he would show to the Jews after they had suffered a just punishment. In those days, he says, and at that time—he adds the appointed time, so that the Jews might not doubt that the Chaldeans would be subdued, because God had appointed them to destruction.

He says, Come shall the children of Israel, they and the children of Judah together; and he says this so that they might still suspend their desires. He commends here the greatness of God’s favor, because the condition of the Church would be better after the exile than it was before.

The ten tribes, as we know, had separated from the kingdom of Judah; and that separation was, as it were, the tearing asunder of the body. For God had adopted the seed of Abraham for this purpose, that they might be one body under one head; but they willfully made a defection, so that both kingdoms became mutilated.

The kingdom of Israel indeed became accursed, for it had separated from the family of David, and this separation was in a manner an impious denial of God. As, then, the children of Israel had alienated themselves from the Church, and the kingdom of the ten tribes had become spurious, their condition was undoubtedly miserable (though the Jews, as well as the Israelites, were alike inebriated with their own lusts).

But what does our Prophet now say? They shall return together, the children of Israel and the children of Judah. That is, God will not only gather the dispersed but will also apply such a remedy that there will no longer be any separation. Instead, brotherly concord will prevail between the ten tribes and the tribe of Judah when God shall restore them again to himself.

We therefore now perceive what the Prophet had in view. There is, indeed, here an implied comparison between their former state and that for which they could still hardly hope after their return from exile. For there is nothing better than brotherly concord, as it is said in the Psalms,

How good and how pleasant it is for brethren
to dwell together in unity. (Psalms 133:1)

For the kingdom and the priesthood, the pledges, as it were, of the people’s safety, could not stand together without the union of the Israelites with the Jews. But they had been long alienated from one another, so that the chief favor of God had been extinguished by this separation. The Prophet now says that they would come together.

And he adds, Going and weeping they shall come. This may seem contrary to what is said in the Psalms,

Going they shall go, and weep as those who sow; but coming they shall come with joy, carrying their handfuls. (Psalms 126:6)

The Prophet says here that they shall come with tears. How can these two things be consistent? Because weeping may be taken for that which flows from joy or from admiration, for we know that tears gush out not only through sorrow but also through rejoicing. Furthermore, when anything unexpected happens, tears will flow from our eyes.

We can then take the Prophet’s words in this sense: that they would come weeping because they would then find God merciful to them. But it is better to regard sorrow as simply meant. The two things may be reconciled in this way: the Jews would come with joy and also with sorrow, not only because the memory of their exile could not be immediately obliterated from their minds, but also because it was necessary for them to remember their sins.

They saw the Temple overthrown and the land wasted—sights sufficient to draw tears a hundred times even from the hardest hearts. On one side, there were reasons for joy, and on the other, reasons for tears.

We know that tears were shed, for the Prophet Haggai expressly tells us that the old men who had seen the former Temple were greatly disheartened because there was then no such glory as they had seen (Haggai 2).

However this may have been, the Prophet means that though the return would not be without many troubles, yet the Jews would come. Coming, he says, they shall come, that is, going they shall go, and weep, as it is said in the Psalms, that they would come through desert and dry places (Psalms 84:6).

The meaning then is that though the journey would be hard and laborious, the Jews would nevertheless return with alacrity to their own country, so that no labors would so fatigue them as to make them desist from their course.

He adds the main thing: that they would come to seek their God. Their change of place would have been useless had they not come animated with the desire of worshipping God.

For the worship had ceased during the time of exile, as it is said again in another Psalm,

How shall we sing songs to our God in a foreign land? (Psalms 137:4)

Then the Prophet here reminds them that God’s favor would be real and complete, because the Jews would not only return to their own country to possess it, but they would also set up the worship of God and dwell, as it were, under his protection.

He explains himself more fully: that they would ask those they met the way, that their faces would be towards Zion, and that they would also exhort one another to seek God and join themselves to him by a perpetual covenant. The Prophet includes here all the tribes, and says that the Jews and the Israelites would not only return to their own country to partake of the produce of that rich and fruitful land, but that they would also render to God the worship due to him. He adds that then nothing would be so troublesome to them that they would not be able to overcome all difficulties and all obstacles.

He says first, that they would ask the way—a proof of perseverance; that they would ask the way to Zion, that is, ask how they were to proceed so that they might come to Zion. By these words, the Prophet, as I have just said, denotes their constancy and indefatigable resolution, as though he had said that even if they journeyed through unknown lands, indeed, through many devious places, they would still in no way be so disheartened as to fail to inquire of those they met until they came to Zion.

This is one thing. Then he adds to the same purpose, Thither their faces. We indeed know that plans are often changed when adverse events impede us; for someone who undertakes an expedition, when he sees his course is very difficult, turns back again. But the Prophet declares here that there would be no change of mind that would cause the Jews to give up their purpose of returning, because their faces would be towards Zion; that is, they would turn their eyes there, so that nothing would be able to turn them elsewhere.

There is added, in the third place, an exhortation: Come ye; and they shall join themselves to Jehovah their God, by a perpetual covenant. Here the Prophet first shows that the Jews would be so encouraged as to urge one another on; and thus it is said, Come ye. Secondly, he adds, they shall cleave (there is here a change of person) to Jehovah by a perpetual covenant which shall not be blotted out by oblivion.

He again repeats what he had said: that the exiles would not return to their own country merely to indulge themselves there, but he mentions another purpose, namely, that they might join themselves to God. He means, in short, that God would do for them something better and more excellent than to allure them with earthly pleasures.

But we must notice the words, they shall cleave (so it is literally) to Jehovah by a perpetual covenant; for there is an implied contrast between the covenant they had made void and the new covenant which God would make with them, of which Jeremiah spoke in Jeremiah 31. God’s covenant was, indeed, always inviolable; for God did not promise to be the God of Abraham for a specific number of years, but the adoption, as Paul testifies, remains fixed and can never be changed (Romans 11:29). Therefore, on God’s part it is eternal. But as the Jews had become covenant-breakers, that covenant is, on this account, called weak and fleeting; and for this reason the Prophet said:

In the last days I will make a covenant with you, not such as I made with your fathers, for they have broken, he said, that covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–32).

Jeremiah now repeats the same thing, though more briefly: that the Jews would return to favor with God, not only for a moment, but that his covenant might continue and remain valid. The way by which this would be done is expressed in Jeremiah 21, namely, because God would inscribe his law on their inward parts and engrave it on their hearts. For it is not in man’s power to continue so constant that God’s covenant should never fail. But what the Prophet omits here must be supplied from the former passage: that when the Jews returned, God’s covenant would again become so valid and fixed that it would never fail, precisely because their hearts would be renewed, so that they would be faithful to God and never become apostates any longer like their fathers.

He then adds, This covenant shall not be forgotten. We therefore conclude that the perpetuity of which he speaks was founded on the mere benevolence of God rather than on the virtue of the people. He then calls the covenant which God would never forget, perpetual, because he would remember his mercy towards the chosen people. And though they were unworthy to receive such a favor, yet he would perpetually continue his mercy towards them until the coming of Christ; for the passage clearly shows that this prophecy can only be explained in reference to Christ’s spiritual kingdom.

The Jews indeed returned to their own country, but it was only a small number; and besides, they were harassed by many troubles. God also visited their land with sterility, and they were diminished by various slaughters in wars. Why then did the prophets extol so highly the favor of God, which, however, did not appear among the people? It was because they included the kingdom of Christ; for whenever they spoke of the return of the people, they ascended, as we have said, to the ultimate deliverance.

I do not, however, follow our interpreters who explain these prophecies concerning the spiritual kingdom of Christ allegorically. For these words ought to be taken simply, or as they say, literally—that God would never forget his covenant, in the sense of retaining the Jews in the possession of the land.

But this would have been a very small thing, if Christ had not come, in whom the real perpetuity of the covenant is founded. This is because God’s covenant cannot be separated from a state of happiness; for, as the Psalmist says, blessed are the people to whom God shows himself to be their God (Psalms 144:15).

Now, then, since the Jews were so miserable, it follows that God’s covenant did not openly appear or was not conspicuous. We must therefore necessarily come to Christ, as we have elsewhere seen that this was commonly done by the Prophets. The Prophet now enters on a new argument—