Jeremiah 3:1

JEREMIAH 3

JUDAH MORE SINFUL THAN ISRAEL

We continue to find little interest in the guessing game connected with assigning dates to the various chapters of Jeremiah. In very few instances can it be affirmed that the exact date makes much difference. Jellie gave the date of the first paragraph here as the thirteenth year of Josiah, the next paragraph as the seventeenth year of Josiah, pointing out that some scholars favored the eighteenth year (E. Henderson), and some the year 620 B.C. (MH).[1]

Salient teachings of the chapter proclaim the final divorce of Israel as God's wife, and the impossibility of her return to her former status (Jeremiah 3:1-5); the refusal of Judah to learn her lesson despite the wretched example of Israel (Jeremiah 3:6-10); God's continued pleading for both Israel and Judah to return unto their God in full repentance (Jeremiah 3:11-13); the promise of God to receive a remnant from both of the treacherous sister nations in the Messianic Age (Jeremiah 3:14-18); the healing to take place in the days of the New Covenant; a further admonition regarding the uselessness and hurtfulness of idolatry (Jeremiah 3:19-22); but Israel and Judah alike consent to lie down in their shame (Jeremiah 3:13-25).

Jeremiah 3:1-5

"They say, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's wife, will he return unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah. Lift up thine eyes to the bare heights, and see; where hast thou not been lain with? By the ways hast thou sat for them, as an Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; yet thou hadst a harlot's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? Will he retain his anger forever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and hast done evil things, and hast had thy way."

"They say, if a man put away his wife ..." (Jeremiah 3:1). Many scholars are quick to point out that this corresponds to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, with the implication that this information had only recently come to Jeremiah through the discovery of that Book of the Law in the temple. This is by all odds an improper deduction, "This does not necessarily presuppose the discovery of the Book of the Law in the temple in 622 B.C."[2]

The words, `they say,' here clearly indicate that the knowledge revealed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, at the time Jeremiah wrote, was already well known by the whole Jewish nation, that the impossibility of a divorced woman going back to her first husband after being married to someone else was a common proverb known to the whole Jewish world of that period. Why not? Deuteronomy was nothing new to Israel, having already been in their possession since the great Lawgiver had written it and left it for them, along with the whole law.

Of course, this little phrase is a death-blow to the theory of the late `discovery' of Deuteronomy; and that accounts for all the confusion among so many scholars, as pointed out by Cheyne, of whom he said, "Various ingenious attempts have been made to explain this!"[3] However, no amount of ingenuity can remove the obvious import of the words.

"Will he return unto her again ..." (Jeremiah 3:1)?. This type of question in Hebrew always requires a negative answer, therefore affirming that God will not return to the divorced Israel; but the final clause of the verse represents the Lord as inviting the reprobate apostate wife to return? This can be nothing on earth except a mistranslation.

"Yet return again to me, saith Jehovah ..." (Jeremiah 3:1). The marginal reading in the American Standard Version has, "And thinkest thou to return unto me?" This alternative has been adopted in the Revised Standard Version, "And would you return to me, says the Lord?"[4] This is obviously to be preferred above the American Standard Version. Some scholars have appealed to the analogy of Hosea and Gomer in this passage, even affirming that Hosea's example in taking Gomer back, "Indicated that God would do even this."[5] We are astounded that so many scholars believe this but seem totally unaware that Hosea made it perfectly clear that he was NOT taking Gomer back as his wife, but as a slave!

"And Hosea said unto her: Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be any man's wife: so will I also be toward thee!"(Hosea 3:3).

Yes, there is a triple betrothal mentioned later in Hosea; but it was for Jezreel, not Israel, to the New Israel, not to the old reprobate whore! (See the full development of this in Vol. 2 of my series on the Minor Prophets.)

The true meaning of the last phrase of Jeremiah 3:1, therefore is this: "After your wretched conduct, do you really suppose that you can return as the wife of God?"

"Lift up thine eyes unto the bare heights ..." (Jeremiah 3:2). These words explode the arrogant notion of Israel that she might again be God's wife. Jeremiah here challenges her to look everywhere and find a single tree under which she has not committed whoredom by worshipping false gods and indulging in their sexual orgies. Israel has been like the Arabians in the wilderness, (1) either lying in wait to rob a caravan, or (2) sitting by the highway seducing travelers to adultery. That this was a device often followed by immoral women is proved by Tamar's seduction of Judah (Genesis 38:14ff).

"The showers have been withholden ... no latter rain ..." (Jeremiah 3:3). God's punishment of the Once Chosen People by the withholding of rain and other blessings had not led them to repentance, but rather to a bold and presumptuous arrogance. The "latter rains" were the ones in the spring, without which it was not possible to have an abundant harvest.

"Wilt thou not from this time cry, My father... Behold thou hast spoken and hast done evil things!" (Jeremiah 3:4-5). Yes, yes, Israel continued to claim Jehovah as their national God, and they always called upon him when in trouble, but their conduct made it impossible for God to help them. The last lines in this paragraph were rendered thus by Feinberg:

"This is how you talk,

but you do all the evil you can."[6]

Matthew Henry considered the meaning of these last two verses to be:

"Thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldst, and wouldst have spoken and done worse if thou hadst known how; thy will was to do it, but thou hadst not the opportunity![7]

"The essential message of these first five verses is simply this: `Judah, after it has turned away to other gods will not be received again by Jehovah (as his espoused wife), especially in view of all her chastisements and her adherence to evil ways.'"[8]

At this early period in Jeremiah's ministry, he evidently entertained high hope that Judah would indeed repent and that the looming punishment of their captivity might yet be averted. However, the shocking development of Judah's guilt being even greater than Israel's occurred to Jeremiah as raising another problem. If indeed Judah (more guilty than Israel) was to be spared, "Then the privilege of forgiveness and restoration must be offered to the Northern Kingdom also, because Judah's sins were worse than theirs."[9] This great privilege of forgiveness and restoration to all men would be realized under the gracious and benevolent terms of the New Covenant, prophesied a moment later in this chapter.

Nothing even resembling the repentance and return of Judah to their true God, however, came to pass. Surely God yearned for such repentance; but it never happened; and as Cook pointed out, "The words of this paragraph are not the language of consolation to the conscience-stricken, but they are the vehement expostulation with hardened sinners. They prove the truth of the interpretation put upon the last clause of the 1 st verse."[10]

And what was that interpretation? Here it is:

"`Yet return again unto me' should be rendered, `and thinkest thou to return unto me?' The whole argument is not of mercy, but is proof that after her repeated adulteries, Israel could not again take her place as a wife. To think of returning to God with the marriage-law unrepealed was folly."[11]

A vital point so often misunderstood by expositors is the difference between God's covenant with Racial Israel, which was terminated irrevocably in the total apostasy of the Once Chosen People and the New Covenant without any racial requirements whatever. The promises a few verses later pertain to that New Covenant, and not to the old Racial Covenant that endowed the race of Israel with the status of being Jehovah's espoused wife. That status was terminated irrevocably and finally by the events of the apostasy of both Israel and Judah. And yet, no racial descendant of Abraham who ever lived was in any manner excluded from the mercies and blessings of God. It only means that his access to those blessings would be upon the same terms applicable to everyone who ever lived on earth. "Whosoever will may come"!

As Harrison observed, "Even though from the analogy here the nation (that is racial Israel) could not take her place again as God's wife because of her repeated adulteries, she could still be forgiven if she was truly repentant."[12] That forgiveness, however, would not be under the old Sinaitic covenant, but under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant.