The Pulpit Commentary — Jeremiah — Volume 1 — Section 188

described in eh. vi. 11. Cakes (comp. eh. description of Paradise regained (xi.), xliv. HJ). The word is peculiar (1,avuanim), Hosea speaks of sufferings of the animals and perhaps entered Palestine together arising out of the i.;uilt of Israel (iv. 3), anrl with the foreign rite to which the cakes a consciousness of the "solidarity" of ull belonged. Various conjectures have been living creatures is ascribed to a Ninevito offered as to their nature, but withont any king in the Book of Jonah (iii. 7, 8). In demonstrable ground. S11crificial cakes were general, the origin of this community of not uncommon. Hosea refers to the 1uscious suffering is left mysterious, but in Gen. raisin-cakes 11Sed by idolaters (Hos. iii. 1). vi. 12 it is expressly stated as the cause of To the queen of heaven. This title of a the Deluge, that "all flesh [i.e. both man divinity only occurs in Jeremiah (here and and beast) had corrupted its way npon the in eh. xliv. 17-19, 25). It reminds ns, earth;" i.e. apparently, that contact with first, of titles (such as "queen of the gods") man had led to a corruption of the original of the Bo.bylonio-A.ssyrian goddesses, Bilat innocence of the lower animals. It is a. (Beltis) aud !star, who, though divided in common experience that intercourse between later times, were " originally but two forms Christianized (not to sa.y civilized) man and of the same goddess 11 (Soyce, Tmnsacti011s the domestic animals produces a sometimes of Socief,1 of Biblical .Arch/Eology, iii. 169). pathetic change in the psychic phenomena It is, however, perhaps an objection to the of the latter. Is the reverse process utterly view that Bilat or lotar is intended, that inconceivable? neither here nor in eh. xliv. is there any Vere. 21-28.-Jeremiah dispels the allusion to tho.t characteristic lascivious illnsion that God's claims are satisfied by a custom which was connected in Babylonia merely formo.1 service. with the worship of !star (Herod., i. 199). Ver. 21.-Put your burnt offerings, etc. The phrase has, however, another associa- Throw ull your sacrifices into a mass, and tion. It reminds us, in the second place, of eat them at your pleasure. Ye have my the Egyptian goddess N eith, " the mother perfect permission, for they are of no of the gods." The lhst meutiou of " the religious value. According to the Low, the queen of heaven II in Jeremiah occurs in the burnt offerings were to be entirely consumed reign of Jehoi11kim, who was placed on the by fire, while the other socri.fices were throne by Pharaoh-Nacho, one of the Sai'te mostly eaten by the offerers and by their dynasty (Sai's was the seat of the worship of friends. There is a touch of contempt in Neith). If the "queen of heaven" were a the phr11se, eat 11eah; they are merely Babylonio-Assyriau goddess, we should have pieces of flesh, ond ye may eat them. looked for the introduction of her cultus at Ver. 22.-I spake not unto your fathers, an e11rlier period (e.g. under Ahaz). But it etc. An important ond much-disputed woe in occordonce with the principles of pBSsoge, from which Graf, Colenso, nn<l polytheism (ond the mass of the Jews had Kuonen derive one of their chief subsidiory au irresistible tondency to polytheism) to 11rguments for the post-Exile dote of the odopt the potron-deity of the suzerain. Levitical legislation. The prophet hero Subsequently Judah became the subject appe11rs to deny in toto th11t Jehovah nt of Nebuchadnezzar; thus it woe equally Mount Sinoi had given ony injunctions on notur11l to give up the worship of on tho subject of socrifice. But the prophet Egyptian deity. Jewish colonists in Migdol must at any ru.te be consistent with himself; would os nnturolly revert to the cultus of he c11nnot utter 11nything by Divine cOin- the Egyption "mother of the gods" (sco mond which is fund11mentally at vo.ria.nco Grotz, • l\fonntsschrift,' Breslou, 1874, pp. with other equally cmthoritoti ve declo.ra.tions. :H9-351). The form of the word ren,lcretl Do the stotements of Jeremioh elsewhero " quten II being very uncommon, 11nother justify us in acceptiug tile words in their rco,liug, pronounced in the some way, literal, superficial meaning? There 11re obtained currency. This should ho ren- three other poss11ges which have o c)oim to dered, not " framo," or "workmonship" (ns be considered. In eh. xvii. 26 the prophet Authorized Version, margin), but "service." drows o picture of the hoppy condition in 'fhc context, however, evidently requires a which the Jews might be, wero they only person. oLedient. Ono of the feotures of this Ver. 19.-Do they provoke me, eto.? picture is th11t the Jews would still bring litcr~lly, Is it me that they provoke (or, v,z)f 1111 the various kinds of sucrifices to tile le it not themselves f house of Jehovah. In eh. nxi. 14 o similar Yer. 20.-Upon man, and upon beast. 'l'lmt description is closed with the promise to nil creation shures in tho curse of m11n is "sati11te the soul of the priests with fot- 1·epe11tedly 11ffirmed in the Old Testament nees," implying tha.t there would be o great ns well as the New. Inferentially, this abund11nco of thunk offerings in regenero.te doctrine 11ppears from the narrative o~ t~e Turocl. In eh. xxxiii. 11, omong other Foll, onu. still more cleo.rly from Iso1oh s blcssiugs of the future, the prophet mentiona  lSG THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH. [cu. vn. 1-34.