As regards the style of Jeremiah, Cunaeus (de repub. Hebr. i. 3, c. 7) pertinently remarks: "The whole majesty of Jeremiah lies in his negligent language; that rough diction becomes him exceedingly well." It is certainly very superficial in Jerome to seek the cause of that humilitas dictionis of the Prophet, whom he, at the same time, calls in majestate sensuum profundissimum, in his origin from the viculus Anathoth. It would be unnatural if it were otherwise. The style of Jeremiah stands on the same ground as the hairy garment and leather girdle of Elijah. He who is sorrowful and afflicted in his heart, whose eyes fail with tears (Lament. ii. 11), cannot adorn and decorate himself in his dress or speech.
From chap. xi. 21, xii. 5, 6, several interpreters have inferred, that the Prophet first came forward in his native place Anathoth, and that, because they there said to him: "Thou shalt not prophecy in the name of the Lord, else thou shalt die by our hand," he then went to Jerusalem. But those passages rather refer to an experience which the Prophet made at an incidental visit in his native place, quite similar to what our Saviour experienced at Nazareth, according to Luke iv. 24. For in chap. xxv. 3, Jeremiah says to "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem," that he had spoken to them since the thirteenth year of Josiah. As early as in chap. ii. 2, at the beginning of a discourse which bears a general introductory character, and which immediately follows, and is connected with his vocation in chap. i., he receives the command: "Go, and cry into the ears of Jerusalem." The opening speech itself cannot, according to its contents, have been spoken in some corner of the country, but in the metropolis only, in the temple more specially, the centre of the nation and its spiritual dwelling place. It was there that that must be delivered which was to be told to the whole people as such.
[THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-l7.]
The whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms one connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the inscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the inscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external than internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole series of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the correctness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would determine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the exact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion belongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet have expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in terms so general as: "And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah the king?" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found more accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections, disappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, e.g., the twofold reference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff., xxxvi., xxxvii., on which Eichhorn and Dahler lay so much stress. We are not entitled here to suppose a reference to a definite historical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed out in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe and unfounded conjectures. In both of the passages something future is spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is this:--that Asshur, i.e., the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up Judah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten tribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help against him. This thought refers to historical circumstances which had already existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which, in reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea, compare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us, not so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so uttered at some particular period in the reign of Josiah, as rather a resumé of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under Josiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular circumstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an inward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen of the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission which he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah. Even the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places this relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the minor prophets; comp. e.g., the introduction to Micah.
In the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold object,--first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap. iii. 6–iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to the end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it is intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled upon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that these two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another. According to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for Israel cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This object even comes out distinctly in ver. 6–11, and the import of the discourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to be rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to be spared.--When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four years had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon Israel; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah, instead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of others, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction of the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was, on the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still existed, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they imagined, appeared to them as a seal which God impressed upon their ways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought that they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of Christ, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circumstance that they still considered themselves as the sole members of the Kingdom of God, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it. The Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the same relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of Israel.
Ver. 14. "Turn, O apostate children, saith the Lord, for I marry myself unto you, and I take one of a city, and two of a family, and bring you to Zion."
The question here is:--To whom is the discourse here addressed,--to the members of Israel, i.e., the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of the interpreters suppose (Abarbanel, Calvin, Schmid, and others), or, as others assume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has considerable influence upon the exposition of the whole passage; but it must unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first view. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same phrase, "turn, O apostate children," occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel. Apostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing expression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8–11. The measure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of the Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the more culpable. Farther--A detailed announcement of salvation for Judah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded; and ver. 18 ("In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side of [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel," according to which the return of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here been mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of salvation, contained in vers. 14–17, refers to Israel. To Israel the Prophet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the house of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3, it is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons of Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be understood. Finally--It will be seen from the exposition, that it is only on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of ver. 16, 17, become intelligible.--In our explanation of the words כי אנכי בעלתי אתכם, we follow the precedent of the Vulgate (quia ego vir vester), of Luther ("I will marry you to me"), of Calvin, Schimd, and others. On the other hand, others, especially Pococke, ad P.M. p. 2, Schultens on Prov. xxx. 22, Venema, Schnurrer, Gesenius, Winer, Bleek, have made every endeavour to prove that בעל is used sensu malo here, as well as in chap. xxxi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether similar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the passages at the same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold way. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew usus loquendi, and refer solely to the Arabic, where בעל means fastidire. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, "to rule," that of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by referring, with Gesenius, to other verbs in which the signification, to subdue, to be distinguished, to rule, has been changed into that of looking down, despising, and contemning. As regards the first derivation, even if the Arabic usus loquendi were proved, we could not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew usus loquendi. But with respect to this Arabic usus loquendi, it is far from being proved and established. It is true that such would not be the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression
fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit; but it is only by a strange quid pro quo that interpreters, even Schultens among them, following the example of Kimchi, have saddled this expression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of Adul Walid, who, instead of it, has