Gaspar Sanchez's Commentary on Jeremiah 20:1-18

 

Father Gaspar Sanchez's Commentary on Jeremiah Chapter 20

Jer 20:1 Whether this Phashur was a Priest or a Prince among the priests, interpreters doubt. There are those who persuade themselves that he was the High Priest because here he is called "in the house of the Lord." Jerome seems to feel this way while calling him a priest of the temple. But what makes this opinion less pleasing is that, as Castro teaches, Phashur could in no way be the High Priest of Jeremiah's time. For those who held that highest order during that period are enumerated by name in Scripture: under Josiah, the Pontiff was Hilkiah, who found the book of the law (4 Kings 22); his descendants are narrated in 1 Paralipomenon (Chronicles) 6, verse 12, up to Josedech, who was led away captive to Babylon. Because, as is clear from this chapter, Phashur went into exile in Babylon, and besides Josedech, others died in Judea (for Seraiah, the last of them, was killed by Nebuchadnezzar in Reblatha, Jeremiah chapter 52, verse 27). But Josedech, who succeeded his parent Seraiah, and who saw the "Prince in the house of the Lord" already cut off while in exile, could in no way be [Phashur]; yet Phashur is said to be the Prince.

Add to this that in 1 Paralipomenon chapter 12, the lineage of Phashur and Emmer is given, which is different in genus from those who are called High Priests.

Why then is Phashur called "Prince in the house"? More than one reason can be adduced. For in the temple there were ministries to which men from the number of priests were appointed as Principals, nor was there only one Prince among the priests. There were many, namely those who presided over the twenty-four families of priests, concerning whom see 1 Paralipomenon chapter 24. These are believed to be those who in the Gospel are called "Chief Priests," as Toletus thinks in chapter 18 of John. Nor are they called Chief Priests only in the Gospel, but also in the Old Testament, book 1 Esdras chapter 8, verse 24: "And I separated twelve of the chief of the priests..." and in other places often. Indeed, these are also called "High Priests" because they are first in their classes and set over the rest. Thus Mark often in chapter 14 and chapter 15. I believe Phashur was of this order, who perhaps at that time was ministering in the order of his course when Jeremiah, having broken the little jug, uttered this threatening prophecy. The princes and elders of the people were present.

Jer 20:2 "And Phashur struck Jeremiah the Prophet, and put him in the stocks." I believe Jeremiah was struck with a fist or a slap, which we said above is the highest genus of ignominy, regarding that passage in Isaiah chapter 3: "You have shaved the faces of the poor." From this, it is no slight conjecture that this Pontiff was not the High Priest; for he would not have struck the Prophet with a slap using his own hand given the authority he held over all.

But because he was then the Prince of those who served in the temple according to the classes distributed by David, he could, I believe, either by law or by custom, cast Jeremiah into prison. Jeremiah was accusing him of disturbing public affairs with prophetic clamors in the house of the Lord, which seemed to pertain neither to popular judgment nor to the profane court, nor to the care of the High Priest. Indeed, Nehelamites was not the High Priest, and yet Jeremiah 29, verse 26, power is said to be given to him "to put every man that is mad and prophesies into prison and in the stocks."

Concerning the "stocks" (nervum): The Greeks call it basanisterion or trebloterion, which the Septuagint rendered as katarraktes, and similarly Theodotion. It is a deep ditch or a prison depressed deeply, which the Spanish call by the Punic word mazmorra. Symmachus signifies it, as Jerome also thinks. But the "stocks" (nervum), if we believe Vatablus and Rabbi Mardochai from Joseph Kimhi, were two pieces of wood compacted together in such a way that they met on both sides, hollowed out with three holes, into the middle of which the neck was inserted, and the hands into the extremes.

Concerning the form, nothing is certain to me. With Jerome, I prefer to establish this genus of torment rather than of bonds, and that it was applied not so much to the neck as to the feet. For Jerome says here the same thing [happened] to Paul and Silas in Acts chapter 16, who are said to have had their feet constrained in wood. "And he stretched their feet in the wood." And when he says in chapter 13, "You have put my foot in the stocks," he teaches in chapter 11 that the stocks pertain nearly the same regarding the Martyrs.

Perhaps this genus of wooden stocks is that of which frequent mention is made in Ecclesiastical History, which was distinguished by various holes, into which the legs of Martyrs were inserted, so that spread apart and disjoined beyond their natural state they were luxated, according to the merits of crimes or the lust of Tyrants. Whence often in the tortures of Martyrs it is heard: "He was extended to the fourth or even the fifth hole." The more holes one was condemned to, the more he was tortured with twisted legs. See Eusebius book 5, chapter 1, and book 6, chapter 32. Concerning Origen, it is written that he had his feet intruded into wooden stocks, distended up to the fourth hole. And book 8, they suffered in Alexandria. And Prudentius, hymn 4 on Saint Vincent: "Into this abyss the truculent enemy casts the Martyr, and inserts his soles into the wood, with legs spread apart." Baronius writes more on these things in the Annotations to the Martyrology on the 22nd day of January, which genus of torment Rufinus calls the "stocks" in book 5, chapter 2.

"Which was in the gate of Benjamin, the upper gate, in the house of the Lord." What is this "upper gate of Benjamin"? Benjamin is called a portion in Joshua chapter 18. From these things, it seems verisimilar to me that those gates of the temple which looked toward that region of the city which pertained to the lot of Benjamin were called the gates of Benjamin, just as others, in my opinion, of the walls were also called gates of Benjamin for the same cause, as Jeremiah 37, verse 12.

We must act with conjectures when we have nothing certain in Scripture to follow. Maldonatus, in my judgment, conjectures not badly when he thinks this name was given to the gate from the situation of the temple itself, which, as I have taught in many places regarding that passage of Zechariah 2, "O Zion, flee," pertains to both Tribes, Judah and Benjamin, because it was constructed on their boundary, just as the city itself is said to be common to both Tribes. For that Jerusalem pertains to Benjamin is clear from chapter 18 of Joshua. That it also pertained to Judah is evident from the same Joshua chapter 15: "The Jebusite dwelt with the sons of Judah..." And with the same words it is said in Judges chapter 1: "The Jebusite dwelt with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem..."

But that the temple pertains to Benjamin, that Hebrew tradition proves, as Jerome reports in Hebrew Traditions, who interpret that passage of Genesis 49: "Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning he shall eat the prey, and at evening he shall divide the spoil," concerning the temple, in which in the morning sacrifices are immolated by the priests and in the evening the spoils are distributed. And the Chaldean thinks so, and the blessing of Moses agrees, Deuteronomy 33, where Benjamin is said to be future "in the tabernacle of the Lord," that is, in the temple, as the Chaldean also explains. Therefore the blessings of Jacob and Moses aim at the same thing, namely at that which was most precious.

But that the temple also pertains to Judah, Psalm 77 indicates: "He rejected the tabernacle of Joseph, and the tribe of Ephraim he chose not, but he chose the tribe of Judah, mount Sion which he loved. And he built his sanctuary like that of unicorns," that is, the temple. And in this same chapter below: "The Lord will possess Judah his portion in the sanctified land, and he will yet choose Jerusalem." Therefore the temple and city seem to pertain to both Tribes, because the part is put by synecdoche for the whole city and temple. And just as because the line was drawn through the fountain of Solis and through the fountain of Rogel (Joshua chapter 15), and through the same fountains the line would be said to pertain to both Tribes, so also because the line of both Tribes was led through Jebus and the valley of Ennom, as is clear from chapters 15 and 18 of Joshua, Jerusalem also was common to both Tribes.

I estimate, however, that ancient Jerusalem, which was small, was in the Tribe of Benjamin, but afterwards widely amplified, it occupied that part which was within the lot of Judah (chapter 38, verse 7 and Zechariah 14, number 10). Nor is it difficult to imagine that both in the temple and in the city, some part of the city and temple was called "upper" and "lower" according to the various site of the city. It is verisimilar that the "upper gate of the temple" is called that which approached nearer to the Holy of Holies, where the stocks were and the prison in which those of the sacerdotal or Levitical genus gave penalties for graver crimes, such as Jeremiah was, who was of the priests of Anathoth and was accused of sinning in the temple.

Jer 20:3 "The Lord shall not call thy name Phashur, but Terror on every side." It is customary in every nation that when a mutation of fortune occurs, or some grave case, or finally whatever is frequently observed in someone, the ancient name is also changed. Thus Noemi, her fortune changed, ascends the name Marah for herself, which sounds something unfortunate and bitter. Thus Jacob [is called] Israel, thus Gedeon [is called] Jerobaal. And although this is common to other nations, nevertheless there is a particular reason why it is done more frequently among the Hebrews, among whom to be called is the same as to be. As: "Call his name Make Haste to the Spoils," because he will hasten to take away the spoils (Isaiah chapter 8). Thus concerning Jerusalem: "My Will is in her," because the Lord was to be well-pleased in her.

Now we must see why the future mutation of the name of Phashur [is proposed]. This name signifies many things if you compose or separate its letters variously. Jerome thinks it signifies "a black mouth" or "blackness of the mouth." Lyra in the book of Differences upon this place thinks it signifies "an increase of whiteness" or "principality," which also pleases Pagninus in the explanation of Hebrew names. And this last seems more probable to me, because here something great and splendid seems to be contained in the name Phashur, which ought to be changed by a great conversion of times and fortune. I judge the opposite of that succession of things which is explained in the other name which is immediately subjoined, which avails for "terror on every side" or "terror in circuit," the reason for which he renders in the explanation of which there is nothing that requires the labor of the Interpreter.

Jer 20:7 "You have deceived me, O Lord, and I was deceived; you were stronger than me, and you prevailed." After the Prophet neither less freely nor with less constancy acted with Phashur and with the elders and Princes (whom I believe are here called friends of that one) than if he had never been cast into prison or compacted in the stocks, or as if those men did not have the power or audacity to do the same in the future, he turns himself to God, with whom he expostulates in a human manner.

To what this seduction may be regarded, the sentiment of interpreters is various. Jerome thinks Jeremiah therefore thought himself to have been deceived because, while he believed he was to be sent only to the Gentiles so that he might be a hard messenger to them, he was sent to his own tribesmen. Or because he thought that all things which he had predicted would be fulfilled immediately straightway, and from that he was bolder in speaking, now he sees nothing of those things happened, why the Prophet is judged vain while the tardiness of punishment is thought to be a lie.

It is certain to me that so great a Prophet asserts nothing here against the faith given before by the Lord. For what would so great a man dare which would not be bearable in a man of most profligate life? But either he signified what he suffers humanly, that is, what flesh and blood felt in that crisis of things (from which sense, however, the soul already consecrated to the Lord was far absent, and projected into every peril and chance), or certainly Jeremiah speaks here according to vulgar custom, especially among the Hebrews, who interpret something as done with that counsel by which something is usually undertaken and performed by men, if similar outcomes are seen to be in it. I now demonstrate this by one example or another.

He who does not attend to or care what another demands from him, is estimated to have despised or hated that other, and by that name that affect is expressed, from whatever counsel of the mind it may proceed. Thus he is said to hate father and mother who, abducted from them, follows Christ. And he who does not care what the sensitive motions postulate, is written to hate his own soul, when nevertheless the mind is absent from hatred by the longest distance. To change the sentence is his whose fact or counsel repents, and therefore God is said not once to repent by this Prophet, when nevertheless repentance does not fall upon Him, when He changes the fact into which His fury seemed to be intent. Thus Christ is said to be cursed in Galatians chapter 3, because he suffered such things as those who are said to be cursed by the Lord suffer. Thus Jeremiah could be said to be induced by God because he endured such things while he obeys His command, such as he who is led into ambushes by another is accustomed to sustain. Ribera writes more on this genus of speaking in chapter 2 of Amos, verse 19.

Jeremiah seemed sufficiently defended in this way from the word of blasphemy, but he could be defended also in another mode not difficult, so that the Prophet says the study of prophecy happened to him otherwise than he thought at the beginning, which Jerome seems to have indicated above. For he did not think that the hatreds of many were to be undergone by him, or that a slap and stocks were to be tolerated by him. Therefore God "deceived" him, that is, led him there where he did not believe he would be led. Which he immediately declares when he says he is derided by all and subsanned, and held in that place in which fools are accustomed to be held, when nevertheless the high office of prophesying promised things far more splendid and sacred.

I incline, however, more to the prior sentiment concerning the sense, namely the human affect and that which is from the flesh, because those things which are said afterwards are more expedited to that sense.

Jer 20:8 "For since I spoke, I cried out, crying out injustice and devastation." While I execute [my mission], "since long ago," that is, from the time when you inspired the prophetic mind in me, that which was given to me in command, while I burn with zeal against the crime of my tribesmen and accuse their impiety with clamors and announce the devastation of the Jewish state, I have achieved this: that I am a reproach among you and a hated head.

Jer 20:9 "And I said: I will not remember Him, nor will I speak anymore in His name." Chrysostom joins this with the prior clause, homily 1 on Lazarus, tome 2, and thinks Jeremiah therefore wished to abstain from prophesying because the word of God was contemptuous, nor was anything captured from it except ignominy and shame. For when he had related the words of Jeremiah in whose explanation we are now, he adds: "But what he says has this sense: I wish to desist from prediction because the Jews did not listen." Almost the same [says] Saint Thomas, who [says] Jeremiah therefore wished to abstain from prophetic speech lest he give holy things to dogs or cast pearls before swine.

But as I said, and consequences persuade more, this affect and motion is human, from flesh and blood, not erupting from deliberating reason. For since it is hard to be judged a vain Prophet and delirious, hard to be compacted into prison and into the stocks, the flesh shrinks from that molestation nor willingly admits the cause of it. Wherefore it says indignantly with itself: "I will not speak anymore in the name of the Lord," that is, I altogether order the business of prophesying to cease from here.

"And it was made in my heart as a fire burning, shut up in my bones, and I failed, not being able to sustain." This place renders the thread of the chapter difficult, nor do you easily understand how consequence can be joined with antecedents. Gregory book 13 of Morals chapter 10 says Jeremiah could not sustain that force of the estuating spirit even if he had previously decided to be silent, because charity urged when the sins of men increased everywhere. Chrysostom also above says that ardent flame could not be compressed in the heart lest it erupt outward. The same [says] Theodoret, Saint Thomas, and commonly other interpreters both ancient and recent, and of all especially Jerome, who teaches best that the effervescent force and immense ardor of the Divine word cannot be contained. Which he teaches by the example of Paul, who in Acts 17, when he was in Athens and saw the city dedicated to idolatry, was incited in spirit and the whole mind was fervent.

And indeed the Divine sermon in the breast instigated by God can more difficultly be coerced lest it leap out than a word instigated by any other affect, such as was that of Eliu, concerning whom Job chapter 32: "For I am full of words, and the spirit of my belly constrains me. Behold my belly is as must without a vent, like new wine skins ready to burst." If the word of God is fire, as Jeremiah said in chapter 23, and "the speech of the Lord is fiery" vehemently in Psalm 118, what wonder if the flame leaps out?

These things are more probable to me because they seem to please all, no one excepted that I know. But there is still something I require in their exposition, and this especially because the thread of speech does not seem to be aptly woven. For both those things which preceded and those which followed immediately signify a languid mind and timid, which more perhorresces and shrinks from the Divine word and the study of prophesying than that it be excited or enflamed to announce it.

Therefore we will attempt to explain these things otherwise, not that we wish to prove our sentiment altogether to ourselves or persuade it to others, but lest we seem to have brought nothing to that which is seen to be implicate and obscure, if not of light, certainly of labor and study.

The Prophet had shown recently that the word of God was grave to him when it brought together the envy of many and the same Princes, and brought ignominy and pain. Wherefore, led only by human sense, he had said within himself that there would be no commerce for him with the Divine sermon and prophetic [office]. I believe he renders the cause of that deliberation with these words: because that word gravely cruciates the innermost senses and burns vehemently, not otherwise than if some sacred fire included within were to liquefy even the marrow of the bones. Wherefore he says he fails, consumed by that ardor or pain, nor can he not succumb to so molested and importable a weight.

Therefore Jeremiah says, as our sentiment meditates, in that his human and, so to speak, carnal sense, that he does not now wish to serve the prophetic spirit by which he labors daily with so many and such molestations, rather than, as others think, that he cannot not obey its command and fiery virtue. To which sentiment I see nothing that can be adverse in the whole text, as a moderately attentive reader will understand, nor do individual words come unwillingly into this thought, which will be established more if we explore any one of them separately.

"And it was made in my heart as a fire burning." That et (and) is causal, as elsewhere in Scripture it renders the reason a thousand times why he now refuses to prophesy anymore: because the word of God not otherwise estuates and cruciates in the heart while it shakes with fear and confects with pain, than if a fire were to cook and confect the internal viscera. But that fire is taken for maximum cruciamentum is sufficiently clear from Scripture, concerning which we [write] more below on chapter 29, verse 22.

"Shut up in my bones." Fire shut up indeed occultly, but nevertheless burns and cruciates vehemently, nor does the Divine word affect less cruelly when it protrudes the obedient Prophet into a certain as it were fire of malevolents. Fire in the bones seems to signify pain and affliction, Lamentations chapter 1: "From on high he has sent fire into my bones."

"I failed, not being able to sustain." I have now cast away the mind which I had previously affirmed against the encountered discriminations of things, for nor can I anymore sustain the molestias which the prophetic word imports with itself.

Jer 20:10 "For I heard the reproaches of many, and terror in circuit." These things favor the posterior explanation very much; for they are grave things which can deter a constant mind from its institute. Nor is it to be wondered at, when terrors clamor on all sides and reproaches are heard everywhere, if the soul of the Prophet wavers, nor can he bear either the proposed threats or the imposed weight of the prophetic word. Into the other common sentiment I do not see how these words can convene, unless we say that those things which immediately preceded are separated from the adjuncts and included in a parenthesis.

Gregory above so connects it that the cause is rendered why the estuating mind, which estimated silence was future for itself from use, broke the silence. "It often happens," he says, "that wise men, when they consider that they are not heard, indicate silence to their mouth, but while they frequently perceive that the crimes of the wicked increase by their silence and not correcting, they sustain a certain force of spirit so that they erupt into the locution of open correction." Jerome inclines into this exposition, but he himself, as appears, Jeremiah soon renders the reason not why he broke the silence, but why he thought it would be future for himself from use never to speak, since he saw the hatreds of all inflamed against himself.

"Persecute, and let us persecute him from all men who were my pacific ones and watching my side." I take these words materially which the Prophet says [were said] by those whom he had as federates, familiars, and domestics. As if he says: I heard from those who sold their faith and tutelage to me these words against me: "Persecute," etc., by which an ardent conspiracy is signified.

Those are called "Pacifici" (men of peace) with whom there is to us custom and social pact, who are also called "men of peace," Psalm 40: "The man of my peace in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, magnified supplantation against me." Likewise Abdias number 7: "All the men of your pact have illuded you, the men of your peace have prevailed against you."

That "watching my side" either avails the same as "who ought to have guarded my quiet," so that it is taken for a debt which is obvious in Scripture, or that familiarity is explained by which none can be more joined, which so binds friend to friend that he never discedes from his side. But to "guard the side" is of those who assist others for safety and tutelage, who were once therefore called laterones (side-men), whom he who bore with him was said to walk safely at the side.

Jer 20:11 "But the Lord is with me as a mighty warrior." Until now the Prophet has spoken rather from human sense, which is from the flesh, than led by that thought which was graver and held in better esteem by him. For his mind was falling [into despair] when he looked upon those clamors which were raging on all sides against his own head, which he had recently learned by experience would not be vain, having been struck with a slap and compacted into the stocks.

But now he reproves and corrects himself, and refreshed by hope of the present divinity from that desperation, he thinks nothing is now to be feared from the threats offered, nor from the conspiracy of so many orders. For he remembers having heard, when he was first inspired with the prophetic spirit by God in chapter 1, verse 17: "Be not afraid of their faces... They shall fight against thee and shall not prevail: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee." Therefore he does not fear those fighting against him because he has with him God as a helper, a mighty warrior.

"They shall be greatly confounded because they have not understood: an everlasting reproach that shall never be forgotten." To such an extent were those who had drunk in a threatening spirit against Jeremiah not masters of their vow, that rather they themselves were confounded by God and suffered an everlasting reproach. The Prophet says this to them indeed because they "have not understood," that is, they did not persuade themselves that the threats of the Prophet would have effect, which they heard no otherwise than as things from the circus or trifles from the dreams of delirious men.

Jer 20:12 "But thou, O Lord of hosts, the tester of the just, who seest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them." This is not an imprecation but a prediction of future and impending evil. Just as Jeremiah did in other places, chapter 11, verse 20, the same words are employed; seek the explanation from there. Moreover, for that which you read here as "tester of the just" (probator iusti), there it is "who judgest the just" (qui iudicas iustum).

Jer 20:13 "Sing ye to the Lord, praise ye the Lord: for he hath delivered the soul of the poor from the hand of the evil doers." Because he saw himself liberated from the stocks into which he had been cast by Phashur, and he knew certainly that he would be liberated from that which the adversaries were plotting against his head (because he did not think the Divine promise would be void), the Prophet gives thanks and calls upon others as companions for that business of congratulation. To such an extent does he not complain that he was deceived by the Lord.

Jer 20:14 "Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bore me be blessed." This passage seems to disturb many things which were considered less impeded. But if it shall be established from what affect this erupted, which may seem an execration, I believe the rest will not be difficult. Job wrote nearly these same words in chapter 3, in which place Interpreters also interpret this passage of Jeremiah, although something occurs in Jeremiah which ought to bend the sentiment elsewhere.

Some think here that the conditional particle "if" is to be supplied, in this sense: "If any day is ill-omened and cursed, certainly that is it in which I first saw this light." Chrysostom in the Catena Graeca on chapter 3 of Job, and Theodoret here, think that immense grief is signified by these words. Nor do I disapprove of this; for graver affects are accustomed to be explained by such proverbial modes of speaking, just as by interjection; nor does this proverbial mode of speaking wish for itself anything other than to express the gravest grief.

Others think this affect is of the sensitive part, which is so carried away that it abhors and detests what it sees to be contrary to the flesh, just as recently we interpreted Jeremiah's sense in a dissimilar matter. Because I see these things are approved by great men, I cannot disapprove them, nor would I wish to if I could.

Nevertheless, I will say what else has seemed to me to be expedited in this knot which seems difficult, not ineptly. In the first place, why the Prophet should grieve here on account of those inconveniences which the prophetic spirit imports, I see nothing; for he had said that nothing was to be feared by him from the snares of enemies since he has with him God as a helper, a mighty warrior, whose strength and faithfulness in fulfilling promises since he had now experienced, he had called [others] to celebrate Divine praises. Why therefore should he complain that evils were impending for him on account of the business enjoined upon him, or why should he grieve concerning the prison and stocks when he had recently given thanks to God for his liberty?

Therefore two other things seem to have furnished matter for the Prophet's grief: the one, because he happened to be born at that time when he could not refuse seeing the slaughter of the city, the ruin of the temple, and the exile of his own people; and it might seem desirable to have had no use of light for whom that lugubrious species was proposed. Indeed, Mattathias thought so in 1 Machabees chapter 2: "Woe is me, wherefore was I born to see the destruction of my people, and the destruction of the holy city?"

I believe what I touched upon above, that by words of this sort which have the appearance either of imprecation or of desperation, a great pain of mind is signified, as Theodoret and Chrysostom indicate above, which avails altogether the same, nor perhaps anything other than those interjections "Woe is me," "Alas for miserable me," and similar things. Which affects of minds or calamitous condition are best explained either by weariness of life or desire of death, how Job explained his pain and extreme condition with the same words in chapter 3, and Elias in 3 Kings chapter 19: "He requested for his soul that it might die, and said: It is enough for me, O Lord, take away my life."

Moreover, this mode of speaking seems born from that opinion of the common people by which men think it is better not to be born than to draw an inauspicious and calamitous spirit, in which manner it is said in Job chapter 3: "Why is light given to him that is in misery?" Thus David in Psalm 38: "My heart grew hot within me, and in my meditation a fire burned," as if he says with Jeremiah in this place: "It was made in my heart as a fire burning, shut up in my bones." "Make known to me, O Lord, my end," that is, when I shall die. Thus Paul in Romans 7: "Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

By which mode of speaking also foreigners use in great either pain or desperation. In Aeneid 2: "Thrice and four times blessed, to whom before the faces of their fathers under the high walls of Troy it happened to die." And immediately: "Not to be able to fall on the Ilian fields." And Andromache in the same book 3 thus laments her calamity: "O happy one alone before others, Priam's virgin, commanded to die at the hostile tomb under the high walls of Troy."

In this manner Jeremiah seems to grieve the hard exitus of his city, which he considers his own, nor does he wish by this either hatred of life or desire of death anything other than that the case of so great a people seemed to him most bitter, so sudden and horrible.

Or perhaps there was another cause of pain: because although he ought not to doubt concerning the promise of God which had declared to him that nothing was to be feared by him from the enemy, since he who was breathing the prophetic spirit into him would not be absent from him in the crisis of things, and he had found certain proof of the thing itself, nevertheless he was called away by God and at length came into that thought that he should abstain altogether from the word. Therefore since the holy man seemed to have sinned in that matter and in some way violated Divine faith, which he had accused of levity, and reckoning with himself that it would have been altogether better to lack the use of life than to have sinned against God, he accuses his life and curses the day which first brought him forth into light and vital air. Which sentiment pleases me before the others.

Here it is to be noted that it is the custom of Scripture that as often as it wishes to affirm with emphasis, that is, by some grave genre of speaking, it does so by the adhibition of the negation of the contrary. Thus John chapter 1 concerning the Baptist: "He confessed and did not deny." Ezekiel chapter 18, verses 21 and 28: "He shall live and shall not die." Deuteronomy 28, verse 13: "The Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail, and thou shalt be always above and not beneath." Isaiah chapter 38: "Thou shalt die and not live." Thus in this place Jeremiah: "Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bore me be blessed."

Jer 20:15 "Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father..." These things which follow, I think, do nothing other than amplify the nativity of the man from adjuncts. For thus it is accustomed to happen that when a male has been born, which is most of all in the vows of parents, immediately the servants fly to the father if he happens to be absent, and on account of the joyful and expected news and gratulation they report evangelia (good tidings).

Jer 20:16 "And let that man be as the cities which the Lord overthrew and repented not." He indicates the Pentapolis which are handed down as overthrown especially by the Lord because it was established that they were touched from heaven and burned. But this is a sign of maximum offense when exitus is signified horrible nor is any restoration of it hoped for. Just as after the ages of those cities which once were, the Dead Sea, nor is the ruin restored nor is there any hope that it can ever be restored. For "and he repented not" avails because he did not change the fact or restore the collapsed things; for this is accustomed to be explained in the Lord by the name of repentance, which is the same as if he should say: "which he subverted forever."

"Let him hear the cry in the morning, and shouting at noon time." This mode of speaking indicates grief and lamentation succeeding to him perpetually, indeed and containing [him]. Thus Psalm 54: "Evening and morning and at noon I will declare." Which mode of speaking is also used by profane authors, who design continuations of work by various notes and spaces of times, as is that of Maro in Georgics book 4: "Thee coming day, thee departing he sang," that is, he never ceased.

I think these things are not to be referred to him who gratifying the father narrated that a male was born, but to him of whom immediately [after], who indeed seems plainly diverse from the prior, namely to him who did not crush the conceived fetus in the womb nor immediately extinguished it when received into light.

But you will say: What did he merit, or who rejoicing gratulated the parent on Jeremiah's birth, or who was not animated hostilely toward the boy? Surely he might more justly opt or imprecate something hard against him if he had attempted a thing alien from all humanity. He had said these same or not very dissimilar things before in Job chapter 3, whom I and Jeremiah I think are thus defended from sin because this mode of speaking with proverbial species expresses nothing other than anguish of mind, as I said before. But the nature of pain or of any other affect more bitterly incited bears that we are indignant and rage against those things which lack not only fault but even sense, no otherwise than as if they had offered force or cause to the blows accepted by us; just as contrary in some great joy we call inanimate things to joy and gratulation, which occurs often in Psalms and Canticles. Thus Virgil in Eclogue 5 from that which usually happens said: "When I embraced the miserable body of my son, she calls the gods and stars cruel, a mother." And from the use of the gentiles in book 2 of the Aeneid he introduces Aeneas in supreme grief complaining about gods and men: "Whom did I not accuse, madman, of men and gods?"

But just as for the sake of expressing grief we do many things against those to whom we wish least evil, as we drive away those who strive to console us in sorrow, who warn amicably and exhibit other offices of a loving mind and condoling, indeed we savagely rage against ourselves or wish to seem to rage lest others judge us to be moved moderately either in our own case or in another's. Wherefore in mourning we tear the hair, we deface the face with nails, we turn away offered foods, when nevertheless sometimes we fastidize or horror nothing less; so also we say many things and seem to opt grave things against those to whom we wish all things to be second, because by that genre of speech either we indicate our sense or we serve public and as it were legitimate custom. Who would believe it to be in the vows of David that never should rain descend upon the mountains of Gelboe nor dew, nor anything proceed from them opportune for human uses? But by the imprecation of these things he signified how greatly he grieved concerning the death of Saul, who met death on those mountains. Therefore Jeremiah prays nothing adverse against him who admonished the father concerning the birth of the son or against him who did not wish to care that he might not see the light, but by the accustomed custom of the Hebrews he expressed how great a sorrow to him was the calamity of the Jews.

Jer 20:17 "Because he slew me not from the womb..." Who this was to whom the prior misfortunes seem to be opted is doubtful. Some think that man to be he who brought the news to the parent concerning the birth of the son, and who is said to have been more about to do according to Jeremiah's vow, to have snatched away the first use of light from him. Then indeed the sentiment of the place can be twofold: for either he is devoted to dire execrations because he did not oppress the infant recently born, or submerged in the womb itself he did not extinguish him, or certainly when he announced him to be born he did not rather announce him extinct.

Moreover, in Holy Scripture it is not infrequent that we are said to have done or to be about to do those things which we say were done or about to be done by others. In which manner Jeremiah is handed down as about to build and destroy because he was about to announce that it was to be built and destroyed by others. See what we said above on that passage of chapter 1: "To root up and to destroy."

Others from the Hebrews, as Jerome reports, understand God here, with whom Vatablus also agrees. But however they turn themselves variously, nevertheless they will not be able to remove from God this species of execration which it is credible did not come into Jeremiah's mind.

It seems sufficiently verisimilar to me that the Prophet remembers different persons in this place, both of him who brought the news to the parent concerning the son born, and of him who when he could nevertheless did not wish to oppress the recently born; in this sentiment: "Cursed be he who announced, and let him perish badly who did not snatch away life from me when born," which posterior explanation seems to me to be more solved.

"That my mother might be my sepulcher, and her womb a conception eternal." The Prophet seems to opt never to be born but rather to perish in the maternal womb, which he elegantly expresses while he desires not so much the womb of the mother in which he might be formed and grow, as that in it as in a sepulcher he might hide perpetually.

That is to be explored in this place, for it seems that those things which immediately preceded do not agree sufficiently aptly with these things which we are now turning over. For how can it be that he who was killed from the womb, that is, who had now proceeded from the mother's womb, can have in that [womb] the place of a sepulcher or be an eternal conception, which plainly indicates that mature fetus never deserted that container of the maternal womb?

If you consult the Hebrew text, the matter is not difficult. For where the Vulgate has "ut" (that), in the Hebrew we read vatebi, that is, "and it was," which particle indicates no force of final cause, and the speech is distinguished by the accent athnah from the superior [clause], according to which reading the sense would be not obscure: "Either I should have perished together as soon as I beheld the light, or before I was born I should have perished, so that the maternal womb might be for me as a sepulcher." Nor do I think the sentiment is otherwise.

Which indeed will seem not difficult to him who shall have known from the custom of Scripture that it is usual for small number of time or delay to have no reason. Wherefore when someone died immediately as soon as he was possessed of the kingdom, he is not said to have reigned nor to have lived who left the light immediately from childbirth; for it is true in any other matter that saying from law: "He is not considered to have come who did not stand." Wherefore he can be seen tumulated in the maternal womb who was immediately carried from it into this [light]; for this is considered the same as if he had never been. Which Job expressed more clearly in chapter 10: "I should have been as if I were not, carried from the womb to the grave." And Gesenius thus expressed this place: "I should have been as if I were not."

These things seem more expedited to me, but see whether that "ut" which the Vulgate has signifies study or pleasure, which is accustomed to be explained by "qualiter" (as/how). Which use it has frequent among the Latins, in which manner Horace says in the Epode: "As he rejoices plucking the inborn pears." And Eclogue 8 of Virgil: "As I saw, as I perished, as evil error carried me away." In the same manner the same in book 8 of the Aeneid: "As I receive thee, bravest of Teucrians, and know thee willingly, as I recall the words of parent and the voice of great Anchises and the face."

In this manner this place of Isaiah seems able to be explained: "That my mother might be my sepulcher," that is, "as it might be made" or "what kind of sepulcher for me the maternal uterus might be," convenient as if he should say and optable. Then indeed the note of interrogation would be to be adhibited. Or what I rather think, "ut" in this place avails the same as "utinam" (O that/Would that), which is also in use among the Latins. Whence among the Comedians frequent: "Ut te perdat Iuppiter" (That Jupiter destroy thee), that is, "Would that Jupiter destroy thee." Terence in Adelphi Act 4 Scene 6: "Ut Syre te cum tua monstratione Magnus perdat Iuppiter," where Donatus and other interpreters say "ut" signifies "utinam" either in opting or in execrating. Almost the same in Heautontimorumenos Act 4 Scene 6. More clearly Plautus in Mostellaria: "Ut dii deaeque omnes pessimis exemplis interficiant nisi ego illam interfecero fame sitique ac gelu."

Therefore the sense will be: "Would that my mother might be a sepulcher for me, and I might be a certain eternal conception," that is, from the womb in which I was conceived and enclosed I might never emerge.

Jer 20:18 "Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed in shame?" Behold why Jeremiah calls himself miserable, behold why he loves darkness and a sepulcher, and born to light that he might always grieve and undergo perpetual ignominy. For from a boy he knew and predicted the calamity of his people, nor did he have any day vacant from labor or from pain. For he obtained those times which vehemently assailed either by the faults of citizens or the battalions of Chaldeans, as is established not obscurely from this prophecy and from the 4th book of Kings.

You have nearly these same things in the book of Job chapter 10, to which Jeremiah seems to have looked. But the cause of labor, pain, and confusion was chief because he doubted concerning the Divine promise and faith, in which sense we explained above at number 26.

 CONTINUE