is impossible to help thinking or that Ps. xxii. 811ud Prov. xvi. 3, suggests thnt tho "Serve.nt of Jehovah," of whQm Jeremiah meaning is "Upon thee have I rolled my we.e a type, who is said, in prophetic vision, co.use." This expression is certninly not to have been "brought e.s a le.mb to the only more forcible, but more approprillte sle.ughter," a11d "not to have opened his th11n the other. Jeremiah's cnuse was not mouth " (Is:1. liii. 7). The tree with the fruit e. secret which needed to be " revealed" to thereof; apparently e. proverhial expression. J ehovoh, but a burden too heo.vy for so finely Giving the words their ordinary rnoiming, strung a nature to beo.r alone. Grnmme.ti- the rendering would be, the tree with its cally, the preferred meaning is quite justifi- bread (b'lakl,m<'i). Our translators appear able, though less obvious, as there are other to he.,e thought that the transition from instances of an interchange of mennings "bread" to ••fruit" was as justifiable in between two cl1LSses of verbs (see on eh. Hebrew as it is in Arabic (in which 'uh'!u xxxiii. G). means properly "food" in general, but also Ver. 21.-Prophesy not, eto, The men "date fruit"). Fruit, however, we.s not such of Anathoth tried first of all to effect their an important article of food with the object by threatening. In the no.me of the Israelites as with the Arabs ; and we must Lord should be rather, by the name, eto. The either, with Hitzig, suppose a Jett.er to have phrase is exactly parallel to Pd, l v. I, •• Save intruded into the text, and render (from e. me, 0 God, by thy Ne.me, e.nd judge me by corrected reading b'lekho), with its sap (comp. thy strength." The Ne.me of God is equivn• Deut. :uxiv. 7, Hebrew), or else appeal lent to his revealed presence or personality. to the etymology of lekhem (commonly Dne.l's prophets prophesied '' by Bnal" " bread") which is .. firm consistent" 1md ( eh. ii. 8), i.e. by an impulse thought to render, tl,; tree with its pith (Hence •la~mu proceed from Be.al; J ehovnh's by the con• in Arabic means "flesh," and lu~maiu, "a sciousness of his revealed presence, woof"). It is no credit to St. Jerome that Ver. 22.-Their- sons and their de.ughters, he followed tho absurd version of the etc. The lot of the weaker sex and of the Septuagint, "Let us put wood into his me.le children under the military age is bread." contrasted with that of the young warriors. Ver. 20.-(Parallel passage, eh. xx. 12.) Ver. 23.-Even the year, etc.: better, in Unto thee have I revealed my cause. This the year of their visitation (or, punishment), is the literal rendering, but e. comparison of taking the accusntive as that of time.
HOMILETICS. Vere. 1-8.-Tlie ancient covenant. I. THE ODJECT OF TllECOVENANT. This was to secure obedience. No covenant was required on God's side, since he is ever willing to bless and changeless in his beneficence, But for the ~ake of men's faith and t? secure their allegiance God graciously condescended to enter mto covenant bonds. It 1s there- fore foolish to claim the fulfilment of God's promises irrespective of our conduct. 'l'hey are "coven.ant" promiscs-i.e. conditional and assured on certain terms. If we break the terms we can no longer expect the fulfilment of the promises. II. THE BANCTIONB OF THE COVENANT. 1. The obligations of gratitude. The past mercies of God are recited; e.g. deliverance from Egypt. 2. Promises of future good. If faithful, Israel was to take possession of the "land ~owing with milk and honey." 3. Threats in case of disobedience. If they proved unfaithful, the people were to find the land of promise full of troubles, and ultimately to be expelled from it (Deut. xxviii. 15). 4. Constant Divine pleading. The covenant could not lapse through forgetfulness. Prophets were sent again and again to urge its claims on the people (ver. 7). IIL 'l'HE OBLIGATION OF THE COVENA~"T. This was an ancient covenant; yet it was tiill bindinu, God was still fulfilling his part in blessing his people, 'fhc obligation was not su~h as time could affect, What is inherently right once is right eternally. Truth does not lose force with age. 'l'hc Bible coniainH covenants which age has made venerable but not feeble. Its commands and promises are eternally fresh and living, e.nd,when' the merely local and personal exterior is laid aside, the essence of them applies as much to us aH to the Jews. 'l'he appetite for mere novelty which characterizes much intellectual inquiry in the present day, as it did that of the Athenians of St. ~aul's age (Acts xvii. 21), ignores the fact that the most important question is" What 1s true?" not " What is new?" Old familiar truths must be noticed that they may be remem• CIH, xt. 1-23.] THE nooK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH:. 297