coming on the land, and many more when away in exile would mourn. But the prophet knew that their hearts would he cheered and sustained hy the earnest and confident assurance that " their captivity should return." For their sake, therefore, Lc reiterated this word. And in order to our now earnestly proclaiming tiie message ol God's lore, we too must believe that it will do the people good, that it will bd for their help and comfort. And we must have for them, as the prophet had for his people, a real love and concern. This has ever been an attendant of and is essential to a successful ministry. 4. Ih knew that it would so vindicate Ood. Questionings and perplexitie.- not a few were being occasioned by the prophet's solemn declarations of the cominp destruction. They contrasted his terrible word with the oft-repeated promises made by Grod " to David aud to his seed for ever," and to Zion, concerning which he had said, •' There will I dwell, for I have delighted in it." I'hese and the many more like promise seemed for ever to forbid the possibility of that which the prophet, and now the actua course of events, declared to be close at hand. How were the two to be reconciled, and the truth and goodness of God to be vindicated? It was by the truth declared in this refrain of the prophet. That rendered both Divine words harmonious and true. Thus the enemies of the prophet would be silenced, and the company of them that feared God would he reassured. The house of God was dear to the prophet ; and so must it be to us would we earnestly preach his Word. " The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; " " Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? " So was it spoken of or by the Lord Jesus Christ ; and so in like manner in our measure and degree must it be true of us if we are to be true witnesses for him and for his grace. The gospel is the vindication of God to-day, as the return of the Captivity was in the days.of the prophet. And being jealous for God, he proclaimed incessantly that return, as we must the redemption of mankind. — C.
Ver. 16. — " The Lord our Bighteoumeu." (Cf. homily on ch. xxiii. 6.) — 0.
Vers. 17, 18. — Do the prophets prophesy falsely t If the statements of these verses be taken literally, it would seem as if they did. The house of Israel never, since its exile, has had a throne at all, nor has any descendant of David been acknowledged as its prince. Yet these verses say, " David shall never want," etc. And, literally, it never can come to pass, for in the lapse and confusion of the ages their genealogical tables have been utterly lost, so that none can certainly say who is of the house of David or who of the house of Levi. The Asmonean princes who occupied the throne of Judah were of the tribe of Levi, and Herod was no Jew at all. Now, the promise of these verses is one that is perpetually repeated (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 16 ; 1 Kings ii. 4 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 4, 29, 36 j Numb. xxv. 12, etc.). How, then, are they to be understood, since events have most surely falsified them if understood in any hteral way? And so the Prophet Hosea cheered the ten tribes of Israel — those of whom we speak now as the lost ten tribes — by promises of their restoration, and Jeremiah does the same (cf. Hos. vi. 2 ; ch. iii. 14, etc. ; 1. 17 — 20, etc.). But in spite of all these prophecies, the " ten tribes never were restored, and never, as a whole, received any favour from God after they went into captivity " (Pusey). Now, what shall we say to these things ? Shall we say —
I. The prophets webb but men, and hence thet were certain to bb wrong WHEN thet ventured INTO THE DOMAIN OF THE FUTURE ? Tliis is the rationalist's reply. He attributes all these utterances to the wish to cheer their countrymen in their sorrow, and perhaps to maintain their own credit. Sanguine enthusiasm will account for all. Is, then, the estimate that our Lord and his apostles and the Church universal held concerning these " holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," to be regarded as lalse ? Are the prophets themselves to be con- victed as liars, afiSrming, " Thus saith the Lord," when not the Lord, but only their own poor weak selves were speaking ? And are all the manifest fulfilments of pro- phecy to go for nothing in establishing their authority ? The rationalist's reply will not do.
II. That the exiles did not fulfil the conditions of the promised bbstoba- TioN ? (Cf. homily on A never-to-be-forgotten principle of interpretation, vol. 1, p. 451.) But does this principle apply here ? No ; for the promise of restoration carries along with it the promise of the " new covenant," which included " the new heart " — tht
JEBEMIAH — II •
82 THE BOOK OP THE PROPHET JEREMIAH, [oh, xxxin. 1—28.
heart of Btone taken away and the heart of flesh giyen instead. The conditioiM neces- sary for the restoration were the subjects of promise as much as the restoration itself. God took the whole matter into his own hand.
III. That the prophets, like the apostles concbrnino the ebtuen of the Lord, did not know concerninq the return of the Captivity? The apostles do undoubtedly speak of the Lord's return as a thing close at hand, to be looked for in their own day. But such language is to be regardSi rather as the language of desire than of knowledge. For the Lord had distinctly told them that it was not for them to know the times and the seasons. Therefore we can only regard their words as those of desire, hope — permitted hope, indeed, but not of Divine assurance. May we do thus with the prophetic word on the return of the Captivity ? No ; because they so distinctly claim the Divine authority (cf. vers. 25 and 26 of this chapter and passim, for what they affirm). The apostles do not ; 1 'I'hess. iv. 15, " By the word of the Lord," is an exception. The Lord's revelation referred only to such as should be alive and remain at his coming, not to that generation then living.