Jer 3:4 | KD | STEP | Henceforward, forsooth, it calls upon its God, and expects that His wrath will abate; but this calling on Him is but lip-service, for it goes on in its sins, amends not its life. הלוא, nonne , has usually the force of a confident assurance, introducing in the form of a question that which is held not to be in the least doubtful. מעתּה, henceforward, the antithesis to מעולם, , , is rightly referred by Chr. B. Mich. to the time of the reformation in public worship, begun by Josiah in the twelfth year of his reign, and finally completed in the eighteenth year, 2 Chron 34:3-33. Clearly we cannot suppose a reference to distress and anxiety excited by the drought; since, in , it is expressly said that this had made no impression on the people. On אבי, cf. Jer 2:27. אלּוּף נערי (cf. ), the familiar friend of my youth, is the dear beloved God, i.e., Jahveh, who has espoused Israel when it was a young nation ( ). Of Him it expects that He will not bear a grudge for ever. נטר, guard, then like τηρεῖν, cherish ill-will, keep up, used of anger; see on ; , etc. A like meaning has ישׁמר, to which אף, iram , is to be supplied from the context; cf. Amo 1:11. - Thus the people speaks, but it does evil. דּבּרתּי, like קראתי in , is 2nd pers. fem.; see in Jer 2:20. Hitz. connects דּבּרתּי so closely with ותּעשׂי as to make הרעות the object to the former verb also: thou hast spoken and done the evil; but this is plainly contrary to the context. "Thou speakest" refers to the people’s saying quoted in the first half of the verse: Will God be angry for ever? What they do is the contradiction of what they thus say. If the people wishes that God be angry no more, it must give over its evil life. הרעות, not calamity, but misdeeds, as in Jer 2:33. תּוּכל, thou hast managed it, properly mastered, i.e., carried it through; cf. ; 1Ki 22:22. The form is 2nd pers. fem., with the fem. ending dropped on account of the Vav consec . at the end of the discourse, cf. Ew. §191, b . So long as this is the behaviour of the people, God cannot withdraw His anger. These four chapters form a lengthy prophetic discourse of the time of Josiah, in which two great truths are developed : that Israel can become a partaker of promised blessing only through conversion to the Lord, and that by perseverance in apostasy it is drawing on itself the judgment of expulsion amongst the heathen. In the first section, , we have the fate of the ten tribes displayed to the faithless Judah, and the future reception again and conversion of Israel announced. In the second section, , the call to Judah to repent is brought home to the people by the portrayal of the judgment about to fall upon the kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation of the land. In the third section, chap, 5, a further description is given of the people's persistence in unrighteousness and apostasy. And in the fourth section, chap, 4, the impending judgment and its horrors are yet more fully exhibited to a generation blinded by its self-righteous confidence in the external performance of the sacrificial worship. Eichhorn and Hitz. have separated from what follows as being a separate oracle, on the ground that at a new series of oracles begins, extending to Jer 10:25. These oracles, they say, “are composed under the impressions created by an invasion of a northern nation, looked for with dread and come at last in reality;” while they find no trace of this invasion in . This latter section they hold rather to be the completion to , seeing that the severe retort (3:5) upon repentant Judah is justified here (3:10) by the statement that this is no true repentance; that the harsh saying : thou hast thyself wrought out thy misfortunes, cannot be the prophet's last word ; and that the final answer to הֲיִנְטֹ֣ר לְעוֹלָ֔ם in ver. 5 is not found before לֹ֥א אֶטּ֖וֹר לְעוֹלָֽם in ver. 12. By Dahler, Umbreit, Neumann, Jer 3. is taken as an independent discourse ; but they hold it to extend to , because כִּי in iv. 3 cannot introduce a new discourse. The two views are equally untenable. It is impossible that a new discourse should begin with “for thus saith Jahveh ;” and it is as impossible that the threatening of judgment beginning with iv. 5, “declare ye in Jahveh,” should be torn apart, separated from the call : “plow up a new soil ; circumcise the foreskins of your hearts, that my wrath go not forth like fire and burn,” etc. (4:3, 4). Against the separation and for the unity we have arguments in the absence of any heading and of any trace of a new commencement in chap, iv., and in the connection of the subject-matter of all the sections of these chapters. We have no ground for the disjunction of one part of the discourse from the other in the fact that in apostate Israel (of the ten tribes) is summoned to return to the Lord, and invited to repentance by the promise of acceptance and rich blessing for those who in penitence return again to God ; while in iv. 3-vi. the devastation of the land and dispersion amongst the heathen are held out as punishment of a people (Judah) persisting in apostasy (see comment, on 3:6 ff.). The supposed connection between the discourse, and , is not so close as Hitz. would have it. The relation of ff, to ff. is not that the prophet desires in to explain or mitigate the harsh utterance in , because his own heart could not acquiesce in the thought of the utter rejection of his people, and because the wrath of the seer was here calming down again. This opinion and the reference of the threatened judgment in chap, 4-6. to the Scythians are based on unscriptural views of the nature of prophecy. But even if, in accordance with what has been said, these four chapters form one continuous prophetic discourse, yet we are not justified by the character of the whole discourse as a unity in assuming that Jeremiah delivered it publicly in this form before the people at some particular time. Against this tells the indefiniteness of the date given : in the days of Josiah ; and of still greater weight is the transition, which we mark repeated more than once, from the call to repentance and the denunciation of sin, to threatening and description of the judgment about to fall on people and kingdom, city and country; cf. with v. 1 and , 16. From this we can see that the prophet continually begins again afresh, in order to bring more forcibly home to the heart what he has already said. The discourse as we have it is evidently the condensation into one uniform whole of a series of oral addresses which had been delivered by Jeremiah in Josiah's times. — Hgstb. speaks of this passage as the announcement of redemption in store for Israel. And he so speaks not without good cause ; for although in the subject is the rejection of Israel for its backsliding from the Lord, yet this introduction to the discourse is but the historical foundation for the declaration of good news ( ), that rejected Israel will yet return to its God, and have a share in the glory of the Messiah. From the clearly drawn parallel between Israel and Judah in it is certain that the announcement of Israel's redemption can have no other aim than “to wound Judah.” The contents of the whole discourse maybe summed up in two thoughts: 1. Israel is not to remain alway rejected, as pharisaic Judah imagined ; 2. Judah is not to be alway spared. When Jeremiah entered upon his office Israel had been in exile for 94 years, and all hope for the restoration of the banished people seemed to have vanished. But Judah, instead of taking warning by the judgment that had fallen upon the ten tribes, and instead of seeing in the downfall of the sister people the prognostication of its own, was only confirmed by it in its delusion, and held its own continued existence to be a token that against it, as the people of God, no judgment of wrath could come. This delusion must be destroyed by the announcement of Israel's future reinstatement.

‏ Jeremiah 3:4

Henceforward, forsooth, it calls upon its God, and expects that His wrath will abate; but this calling on Him is but lip-service, for it goes on in its sins, amends not its life. הלוא, nonne, has usually the force of a confident assurance, introducing in the form of a question that which is held not to be in the least doubtful. מעתּה, henceforward, the antithesis to מעולם, Jer 2:20, Jer 2:27, is rightly referred by Chr. B. Mich. to the time of the reformation in public worship, begun by Josiah in the twelfth year of his reign, and finally completed in the eighteenth year, 2 Chron 34:3-33. Clearly we cannot suppose a reference to distress and anxiety excited by the drought; since, in Jer 3:3, it is expressly said that this had made no impression on the people. On אבי, cf. Jer 2:27. אלּוּף נערי (cf. Pro 2:17), the familiar friend of my youth, is the dear beloved God, i.e., Jahveh, who has espoused Israel when it was a young nation (Jer 2:2). Of Him it expects that He will not bear a grudge for ever. נטר, guard, then like τηρεῖν, cherish ill-will, keep up, used of anger; see on Lev 19:18; Psa 103:9, etc. A like meaning has ישׁמר, to which אף, iram, is to be supplied from the context; cf. Amo 1:11. - Thus the people speaks, but it does evil. דּבּרתּי, like קראתי in Jer 3:4, is 2nd pers. fem.; see in Jer 2:20. Hitz. connects דּבּרתּי so closely with ותּעשׂי as to make הרעות the object to the former verb also: thou hast spoken and done the evil; but this is plainly contrary to the context. "Thou speakest" refers to the people’s saying quoted in the first half of the verse: Will God be angry for ever? What they do is the contradiction of what they thus say. If the people wishes that God be angry no more, it must give over its evil life. הרעות, not calamity, but misdeeds, as in Jer 2:33. תּוּכל, thou hast managed it, properly mastered, i.e., carried it through; cf. 1Sa 26:25; 1Ki 22:22. The form is 2nd pers. fem., with the fem. ending dropped on account of the Vav consec. at the end of the discourse, cf. Ew. §191, b. So long as this is the behaviour of the people, God cannot withdraw His anger.

CHAP. III. 6-VI. 30. — THE REJECTION OP IMPENITENT ISRAEL.

These four chapters form a lengthy prophetic discourse of the time of Josiah, in which two great truths are developed : that Israel can become a partaker of promised blessing only through conversion to the Lord, and that by perseverance in apostasy it is drawing on itself the judgment of expulsion amongst the heathen. In the first section, Jer 3:6-4:2, we have the fate of the ten tribes displayed to the faithless Judah, and the future reception again and conversion of Israel announced. In the second section, Jer 4:3-31, the call to Judah to repent is brought home to the people by the portrayal of the judgment about to fall upon the kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation of the land. In the third section, chap, 5, a further description is given of the people's persistence in unrighteousness and apostasy. And in the fourth section, chap, 4, the impending judgment and its horrors are yet more fully exhibited to a generation blinded by its self-righteous confidence in the external performance of the sacrificial worship. Eichhorn and Hitz. have separated Jer 3:6-4:2 from what follows as being a separate oracle, on the ground that at Jer 4:3 a new series of oracles begins, extending to Jer 10:25. These oracles, they say, “are composed under the impressions created by an invasion of a northern nation, looked for with dread and come at last in reality;” while they find no trace of this invasion in Jer 3:6-4:2 . This latter section they hold rather to be the completion to Jer 2:1-3:5, seeing that the severe retort (3:5) upon repentant Judah is justified here (3:10) by the statement that this is no true repentance; that the harsh saying : thou hast thyself wrought out thy misfortunes, cannot be the prophet's last word ; and that the final answer to הֲיִנְטֹ֣ר לְעוֹלָ֔ם in ver. 5 is not found before לֹ֥א אֶטּ֖וֹר לְעוֹלָֽם in ver. 12. By Dahler, Umbreit, Neumann, Jer 3. is taken as an independent discourse ; but they hold it to extend to Jer 4:4, because כִּי in iv. 3 cannot introduce a new discourse. The two views are equally untenable. It is impossible that a new discourse should begin with “for thus saith Jahveh ;” and it is as impossible that the threatening of judgment beginning with iv. 5, “declare ye in Jahveh,” should be torn apart, separated from the call : “plow up a new soil ; circumcise the foreskins of your hearts, that my wrath go not forth like fire and burn,” etc. (4:3, 4). Against the separation and for the unity we have arguments in the absence of any heading and of any trace of a new commencement in chap, iv., and in the connection of the subject-matter of all the sections of these chapters. ^{▼▼' By Eosenm. has been justly urged : “Cum inscriptio hic (3, 6) etc. 7, 1, obvia, qua concionis habitæ tempus notatur, tum manifesta omnium partium inde a c. 3, 6, usque ad finem cap. 6 cohærentia, et orationis tenor sine uho interstitio ac novæ concionis signo decurrens.”} We have no ground for the disjunction of one part of the discourse from the other in the fact that in Jer 3:6-4:2 apostate Israel (of the ten tribes) is summoned to return to the Lord, and invited to repentance by the promise of acceptance and rich blessing for those who in penitence return again to God ; while in iv. 3-vi. the devastation of the land and dispersion amongst the heathen are held out as punishment of a people (Judah) persisting in apostasy (see comment, on 3:6 ff.). The supposed connection between the discourse, Jer 3:6-4:2 and Jer 2:1-3:5, is not so close as Hitz. would have it. The relation of Jer 3:6 ff, to Jer 2:1 ff. is not that the prophet desires in Jer 3:6-4:2 to explain or mitigate the harsh utterance in Jer 3:5, because his own heart could not acquiesce in the thought of the utter rejection of his people, and because the wrath of the seer was here calming down again. This opinion and the reference of the threatened judgment in chap, 4-6. to the Scythians are based on unscriptural views of the nature of prophecy. But even if, in accordance with what has been said, these four chapters form one continuous prophetic discourse, yet we are not justified by the character of the whole discourse as a unity in assuming that Jeremiah delivered it publicly in this form before the people at some particular time. Against this tells the indefiniteness of the date given : in the days of Josiah ; and of still greater weight is the transition, which we mark repeated more than once, from the call to repentance and the denunciation of sin, to threatening and description of the judgment about to fall on people and kingdom, city and country; cf. Jer 4:3 with v. 1 and Jer 4:1, 16. From this we can see that the prophet continually begins again afresh, in order to bring more forcibly home to the heart what he has already said. The discourse as we have it is evidently the condensation into one uniform whole of a series of oral addresses which had been delivered by Jeremiah in Josiah's times.

Chap. 3:6-4:2. The rejection and restoration of Israel (of the Ten Tribes).

— Hgstb. speaks of this passage as the announcement of redemption in store for Israel. And he so speaks not without good cause ; for although in Jer 3:6-9 the subject is the rejection of Israel for its backsliding from the Lord, yet this introduction to the discourse is but the historical foundation for the declaration of good news (Jer 3:12-4:2), that rejected Israel will yet return to its God, and have a share in the glory of the Messiah. From the clearly drawn parallel between Israel and Judah in Jer 3:8-11 it is certain that the announcement of Israel's redemption can have no other aim than “to wound Judah.” The contents of the whole discourse maybe summed up in two thoughts: 1. Israel is not to remain alway rejected, as pharisaic Judah imagined ; 2. Judah is not to be alway spared. When Jeremiah entered upon his office Israel had been in exile for 94 years, and all hope for the restoration of the banished people seemed to have vanished. But Judah, instead of taking warning by the judgment that had fallen upon the ten tribes, and instead of seeing in the downfall of the sister people the prognostication of its own, was only confirmed by it in its delusion, and held its own continued existence to be a token that against it, as the people of God, no judgment of wrath could come. This delusion must be destroyed by the announcement of Israel's future reinstatement.