Translated using ChatGPT
The prophet calls down divine vengeance (Jer 18:18–23).
He fittingly connects what follows. As Thomas Aquinas observes, their obstinacy is shown by the fact that they persecute the preachers while applauding false prophets (cf. Jer 5:31), by whom they are miserably deceived; but they persecute the true envoy of God, who announces the truth and desires the salvation of all—indeed, they even strive to take him out of life.
Jer 18:18: “And they said: Come, let us devise plans against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, let us strike him with the tongue, and let us not heed any of his words.”
Earlier (Jer 11:18) God had made him aware of the snares they had secretly laid against him. Now his adversaries, having become bolder, seem to have entered into a conspiracy against him openly and publicly, so that the matter soon became known to the prophet. Just as he did not cease to bring to them the harsh oracles of God, so they are inflamed with greater anger and indignation against him; hence they form a plan among themselves to destroy him, repeating blasphemously the same sentiment with which God had uttered His threats (v. 11).
They cloak their evil plan with a plausible pretext. Jeremiah had foretold a day of destruction when God would turn His back on His people. They deny that this can happen; hence they accuse Jeremiah of denying the eternal covenant. Therefore they assert that, by virtue of the divine promise, divine teaching and instruction—the law entrusted to the priesthood (cf. Mal 2:6–7)—will never be lacking to the people; nor will men be lacking who are wise in divine matters to give wholesome counsel in difficult circumstances; nor will God ever withdraw from His promise in the law to raise up prophets. Thus, in times of distress there will always be those through whom the theocracy remains secure.
Since Jeremiah denies this, they resolve to “strike him with the tongue,” that is, to give testimony against him such that he must suffer capital punishment. Meanwhile they encourage themselves in their plan by resolving to regard his words as utterly worthless.
Thus they prosecute him on the same charge for which he is later condemned to death (Jer 26:8 ff.) by enraged priests, false prophets, and the people. His adversaries pretend zeal for religion and faith: they claim it is blasphemy to announce the ruin of the theocracy and of that institution whose author through the law and continual governor through His prophets is God Himself.
As to the meaning of the words “the law shall not perish,” interpreters diverge into various opinions. Some take the words as opposing Jeremiah alone—who prophesies evil—to priests, wise men, and prophets who think and teach the contrary; therefore, since wisdom cannot be thought to have departed from all these, Jeremiah, being one against all, must be a liar (cf. Maldonatus). Others: “Let us kill him, otherwise he, as a priest, will not cease to teach and rebuke us and give counsel contrary to ours and predict evils” (cf. Theodoret, Vatablus, Scholz). Others interpret ironically: “Even if he is killed, it is no great loss; the law will not perish with him—many others are present to teach and give counsel” (cf. Ephrem, Loch, Schnurrer, Trochon, Umbreit, Nägelsbach, Keil). Or by comparison: “Just as the priest does not forget the law, so Jeremiah always prophesies evil” (cf. Calmet).
But none of these explanations is sufficiently proven. For if they had wished to say that Jeremiah alone disagreed with all the rest, one would expect: “for prophecy has not departed,” etc.; nor is it clear why mention of the law would be made. Nor does the second explanation please: who would believe that his adversaries would speak so honorably of Jeremiah—whom they hate—as to say, “let us kill him, otherwise he will always set the law before us”? The explanation that they say, “let us kill him; the law and prophecy will not be lacking—there are many others,” could indeed be suggested, but it is altogether trivial and does not truly explain their mindset.
Yet in a general conspiracy, plausible reasons are usually put forward to cloak the plan and especially to commend it to the common people—especially since those against whom Jeremiah inveighs profess outward piety (cf. Jer 7:4, 21). Hence, for such men, the explanation given above is most fitting: hatred and crime are covered and adorned with zeal for truth and for the divine promises. Moreover, as already noted, this same reasoning is later actually brought forward.
Among others, Maldonatus, Lapide, Menochius, Tirinus, and Calmet mention this explanation, and Lapide calls it very genuine. Jerome simply says in general that they boast that the law of God remains among their priests, though he does not specify more precisely what they intend. Thomas Aquinas seems to approach the explanation I prefer, for he writes that their argument for persecution is: “the law shall not perish,” as though Jeremiah had falsely predicted this.
Since they profess, “let us not heed his words,” Jeremiah prays that God would heed their words:
Jer 18:19: “Attend, O Lord, to me, and hear the voice of my adversaries.”
Jer 18:20: “Is evil returned for good, because they have dug a pit for my life? Remember that I stood before You to speak good for them and to turn away Your indignation from them.”
That is: “Will You, O Lord, according to Your justice, equally tolerate that for the good I have done them they lay snares for my life and desire to capture and kill me like a wild beast?”
What good he especially rendered is declared by the nature of the prophetic office: he set himself like a wall for the house of Israel (cf. Ez 13:5); he interceded before the Lord for the people, striving to obtain their salvation and to avert evils. See what the prophetic office is, and how familiar it is to holy men to pour out prayers for the safety of others. This is that Jeremiah who, even after his death, is described as “the lover of the brethren and of the people of Israel, who prays much for the people and the holy city” (2 Macc 15:14; cf. Jer 4:10; Jer 7:16; Jer 8:18; Jer 11:14; Jer 14:7 ff.; Jer 13:19).
The saints admonish that God is said “to remember” when, either by mercy or punishment, He shows some sign by which people understand God to be favorable or offended.
Jeremiah therefore again experiences in himself that the minds of the Jews are afflicted with incurable malice. Hence, instructed by this reality, he no longer—as earlier in chapter 14—strives to restrain God’s avenging hand, nor does he offer reasons to lessen their guilt; rather, he fully acquiesces in God’s judgment against the impious and in the decreed vengeance, and he prays that God would accomplish what He had threatened, manifesting His justice:
Jer 18:21: “Therefore give their children to famine, and deliver them into the hands of the sword; let their wives become childless and widows, and let their men be slain by death; let their young men be struck down by the sword in battle.”
He recounts individually the things God had already threatened and calls down various kinds of punishments upon various groups (cf. Jer 15:2; Jer 8:9; Jer 16:4; 9). “To deliver into the hands of the sword” means to hand them over to the sword (Ps 62:11; Ez 35:5). When “death” is joined with famine and sword, pestilence is understood (cf. Jer 15:2). “Outside the sword slays, and inside death” is similar to Lam 1:20.
Hence, as foretold (Jer 15:8):
Jer 18:22: “Let a cry be heard from their houses, for You will suddenly bring a band upon them; for they have dug a pit to take me and hidden snares for my feet.”
Jer 18:23: “But You, O Lord, know all their counsel against me unto death; do not forgive their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from before You; let them be overthrown before You; in the time of Your anger deal with them.”
In Hebrew, “when You bring an army suddenly upon them,” gedud (גדוד) means a troop or band, used both of raiders and of an army; here, from preceding oracles (Jer 5:15; Jer 6:22; Jer 8:16; Jer 15:8), it clearly refers to a hostile army, though at the same time it includes devastators and plunderers—hence “band.”
The punishment they devised against Jeremiah will fall back upon their own heads. The prophet prays that sinners be restrained by just punishments and that by this just chastisement the authority of divine oracles be upheld. Therefore, “do not forgive their guilt” is to be understood of the just punishment God had threatened to inflict; and “let them fall” means: in the time of Your anger, deal with them as they deserve according to their works and the oracles given (cf. Vatablus, Sanctius, Maldonatus, Mariana, Calmet).
As to the spirit in which such words are uttered, explanations vary. All absolve Jeremiah from vindictiveness and do not attribute fault to these imprecations, though in different ways. Some see in these words only a prediction of future events or a threat (e.g., Theodoret, Ephrem, Sanctius, Maldonatus, Menochius), but this is insufficient since the imperative “give” (ten, תֵּן) is not simply equivalent to an announcement.
Therefore better is Jerome: after the time given for repentance has passed and they persevere in wickedness, they are punished not so much for his sake as for others, lest unpunished sin harm others by example. More clearly: he not only foretells but, knowing God’s will, conforms his own will and desire to divine justice and declares that he approves God’s decree.
Thus such an imprecation does not exclude the prophet’s earlier desire that they be converted to God and escape evil; rather, against the obstinate who persist in impiety he becomes a defender of God’s glory and demands satisfaction for divine justice. Therefore he truly calls down punishment, in the same sense as imprecations occur even in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 8:20; 23:3; Gal 1:9; Gal 5:12; 2 Tim 4:14), as Jerome already notes on Gal 5:12—whatever is brought forward to excuse the apostle can also be used to defend the Old Law against those who revile the Old Testament.
The question is the same as concerning certain psalms; see what Cornely teaches (Introduction II, 2, p. 120 ff.) about the various ways of explaining them.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment