Commentary on Jeremiah Volume 1 John Calvin
JOHN CALVIN
to render the words thus, ``I will meet the enemy for thee,'' or, ``I will cause the enemy to meet thee;'' that is, ``I will pacify him by my secret influence, so that he will of himself spare thee and treat thee kindly.'' And we know that it so happened; for Jeremiah was loosed from his chains and was allowed his liberty, so that he was permitted to go wherever he wished. As then the enemies treated him with so nmch kindness, it appears evident that what God had before promised was fulfined.
As to the main thing intended, there is no ambiguity in the words: God promised that the latter end of Jeremiah would be happy, and that though he was to suffer somewhat in the common calamity of the whole people, yet the enemy would treat him kindly, so that his condition would be better and more desirable than that of others. 397
But why did Jeremiah make this public? why did he give this description? why did he commit it to writing? even that the Jews might understand that they who harassed him, when he had done them no injury, dealt unjustly with him. They had indeed been excited by him, but it was through what his office required, for he could not deny obedience to God. Jeremiah then made public what God only knew before, that he might produce an impression on them, provided any hope of repentance yet remained. And for the same reason also was the promise of God added; for the Jews ought to have been terrified, when they saw that such an end was promised by God to the Prophet; for what must have happened to them, except the curse of God to the utter-most? We hence see, that in the complaint of the Prophet, and in the answer given by God, the salvation of the people was regarded; for the complaint contains a most severe reproof and the answer of God threatens a most dreadful judgment to the rebellious people. It follows ---
Jeremiah 15:12
12. Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?
12. An conteret ferrum ferrum ab aquilone et aes (vel, chalybem?)
This verse also has been taken in different ways by interpreters: some take the word iron, when repeated in a different case, ``Will iron break iron?'' but others think the subject wanting in the clause, and consider people to be understood, ``Will the Jews break the iron, even the iron from the north, and not only the iron but the brass also, or, the the brass mixed with iron?'' There is in reality no difference, but in words only. If we read, ``Will the iron break the iron from the north?'' the meaning will be, ``Though there be great hardness in you, can it yet break that which is in 397This verse, and the three which follow, have caused considerable variety of opinion. Some, like Calvin, Grotius, Henry, and Scott, apply this to the Prophet and the rest to the people; but others, as Blayney, consider the whole as addressed to the people. But what appears the most probable is, that the Prophet is addressed, and in the 11th and 12th (Jeremiah 15:11-12) verses personally, and then as identified with the people in verses the 13th and 14th (Jeremiah 15:13-14). There is no change of person, and this makes it difficult to regard two parties as addressed. This verse, the 11th, is in the past tense and not in the future, and may be thus rendered, — Jehovah said, — Has not thy ministry been for good? Have I not interposed for thee in the time of evil, And in the time of distress, with the enemy? There are various readings for the word I render "ministry," which Parkhurst thinks comes from {,{שרתto serve. Very few readings favor the word which means a remnant,'' and of the versions the Vulgate alone. The reading mostly countenanced (19 MSS.) is ,{}שרותיךderived from ,{}שרהto loose, or to let go, ``Have I not happily let thee go?'' In this case {}לטובmust be rendered adverbially, happily, or fully. Blayney's version is, --- Have I not brought thee off advantageously? But the most natural meaning is what Parkhurst proposes, which is approved by Horsley, only he renders the sentence in the past tense, ``Is not thy ministry for good?'' while the only verb in the verse is in the past tense, and so ought this clause to be. --- Ed.