Jeremiah

Jeremiah 4:1

Jeremiah begins to prophesy and immediately speaks to them a conditional statement, “If…” We therefore need to find the premise (the condition) and the conclusion; what will happen if the premise is fulfilled/met. The premise is found in Jeremiah 4:1-2a and the conclusion, Jeremiah 4:2b. The LLX translates the conditional conjunction as “If happily”.

The verb “shoob” is used twice in Jeremiah 4:1. It’s possible that the first shoob (to return) could refer to the land of Israel, rendering “If you shoob to Israel” rather than “…,O Israel” as nost MMS put it. If the first case (return to Israel) then the second appearance of shoob must take place first, otherwise the second appearance of shoob takes on more of a “hearts plea” from the one speaking.

What is certain of occurance #2 of shoob is that it is referring to God. For, the rest of verse 1 describe Israel’s return. As we will discover in Jeremiah 4:1b-4:2a, shoob does not just imply going to /returning from something, but also, just as important, leaving something.

From the 2nd premise, “If you shoob to me”, until the conclusion (4:2b) the content describes what “to shoob to the Lord” looks like. First, in order to return to the Lord, we must “remove” “vileness” or “detestable things”. Shiqquts: noun. Detestable things: “This noun is always used in connection with idolatrous practices, either referring to the idols themselves as being abhorrent and detestable in God’s sight, or to something associated with idolatrous ritual…Not only are the idols an abomination, but they that worship them ‘become detestable like that which they love’ (Hosea 9:10), for they identify themselves with idols.” (Harris, 1999. p. 955)

Connected with the removal of detestable things is to “not waver…”. The Hebrew word here is “node”. Node “denotes going back and forth” (Harris, 1999 p. 560). We, therefore, need to understand this word in reference to their movement between God and their idols. So it is not enough to simply remove from oneself “detestable things”, but we must also be unwavering in our faith, not moving back and forth from thing/person “x” to God.

To swear by the Lord in the Hebrew culture has a very significant difference to that of modern western culture. Deuteronomy 6:13 commands Israel to swear “by His name alone” in order to show Israel how to fear the Lord. “The Lord your God you shall fear; Him you shall serve, and by His name you shall swear.” The reason for this is found in TWOT: “Often one would swear by (bĕ) another who was tacitly and mutually assumed to be greater or more precious than the one making the oath (e.g. I Kgs 2:8, ‘I swear to him by the Lord’). Among Jerusalem’s ancient sins was the fact that some had ‘sworn by them that are not gods’ ( Jer 5:7 ). In such cases God, or a false deity, would be invoked to witness the truth and sincerity of that which was sworn, and by implication, to judge the one swearing if he should either be lying or fail to live up to his pledge in the days and years to come.”

An interesting dilemma if found in Matthew 5:33-37 as Jesus explains to his hearers not to swear “at all”. This was a practice among the Essences, a Jewish sect. Josephus writes, “They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury;a for they say, that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God, is already condemned” (Josephus, 1996. p. Wars 2.135). Also, regarding swearing, Philo says, “In the first place, that it is not a matter of blame for God to bear testimony to himself. For what other being could be competent to bear testimony to him? In the second place, He himself is to himself every thing that is most honourable— relative, kinsman, friend, virtue, prosperity, happiness, knowledge, understanding, beginning, end, entirety, universality, judge, opinion, intention, law, action, supremacy.” (Philo, 1996. p.74)

Back the immediate text, “‘…as the Lord lives!’ in truth…” Truth here refers to “faithfulness and reliableness…of God” (Brown, 2000. p. 54).

Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (900). Chicago: Moody Press.

Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. (Wars 2.135). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Philo, o. A., & Yonge, C. D. (1996, c1993). The works of Philo : Complete and unabridged (74). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (54). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

----

a This practice of the Essenes, in refusing to swear, and esteeming swearing, on ordinary occasions, worse than perjury, is delivered here in general words, as are the parallel injunctions of our Savior, Matt. 6:34; 23:16; and of St. James, 5:12; but all admit of particular exceptions for solemn causes, and on great and necessary occasions. Thus these very Essenes, who here do so zealously avoid swearing, are related in the very next section, to admit none till they take tremendous oaths to perform their several duties to God, and to their neighbor, without supposing they thereby break this rule, Not to swear at all. The case is the same in Christianity, as we learn from the Apostolical Constitutions, which, although they agree with Christ and St. James, in forbidding to swear in general, 5:12; 6:23; yet do they explain it elsewhere, by avoiding to swear falsely, and to swear often and in vain, 2:36; and again by “not swearing at all” but withal adding, that “if that cannot be avoided, to swear truly,” 7:3; which abundantly explain to us the nature of the measure of this general injunction.