Dealing with presumption (Jer 3:1-14)
Jer 3:1-14
Heinrich Heine, a German poet of the 19th century, allegedly said on his deathbed, ‘God will forgive me. That’s His job.’ The anecdote represents the view of many today who assume that God’s love means indulgence towards His children. It makes sharing the gospel difficult when the recipients assume the good news as a given (and theirs by right), and brush aside sin and God’s judgment as a negation of the very love that they expect. It is also true of many Christians who treat salvation as a prize already won and live largely as they please. This is the issue God is facing with Israel and Judah: an arrogant presumption on grace by the chosen people who expected God’s protection while they acted as the unfaithful wife searching out lovers (other gods). Such sins polluted the land and would ultimately lead to exile (Jer 3:1-2 cf. Lev 18:24-30).
God’s argument
To awaken His people, God appealed to a well-known regulation of the law: a husband could not reclaim his wife he had divorced once the wife re-married even if her second husband divorced her or died (Deut 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). Although the rationale is not explained, it is a warning not to take the separation lightly; once done and new bonds are forged, there is no return possible. If this is true in human relationships how much more so with God? Israel and Judah then should not provoke God to the point of ‘divorce’ (i.e. exile) and ‘marry’ other gods, because they have no right or claim on Him to take them back afterwards.[1]
Warning signs
God also warned His people through drought (Jer 3:3). Since the worship of Baal (a storm god) and Asherah (fertility goddess) was connected to fertility of the land, so withholding rain was meant as a reality check to Israel-Judah: their gods were ineffective. The Lord never sprang final judgment on His people out of the blue; they always had plenty of warning. Nevertheless, they were obstinate (the forehead is hard and therefore associated with stubbornness, v.3) and their answer in the NLT’s rendering captures well the presumption on grace, ‘“Father, you have been my guide since my youth. Surely you won’t be angry forever! Surely you can forget about it!” So you talk, but you keep on doing all the evil you can.’ (Jer 3:4-5).
An example to deter
The northern kingdom, Israel’s ‘divorce’ from God in Assyrian exile earlier (722 BC) was a warning for Judah, but to no avail (Jer 3:6-8). They probably thought themselves superior for being spared, so that God’s patience was mistaken for His approval. Despite Josiah’s heartfelt reform (2 Kings 23:1-17; see also Introduction to Jeremiah), Judah’s repentance was no more than self-serving deception (sheqer; Jer 3:10), possibly motivated to ward off disaster, rather than by remorse over sin for its own sake. They were worse than Israel in some respects (Jer 3:11) in that a show of repentance without real substance muddied the waters.
Repent even now…
Yet, despite Israel’s captivity in Assyria, God wanted to give them by grace what He refused as their right, if only they returned to Him (Jer 3:12). In the Hebrew of v.12, ‘faithless’ means someone who turns this way and that, so that God’s call plays on the same root for ‘turn/return/repent’. We might say, ‘(Re)turn turncoat Israel!’ In fact, what is presumption in Israel’s mouth (‘Will He be angry forever?’, Jer 3:5) is grace and truth in God’s (‘I will not be angry forever’, Jer 3:12). The remedy is simple. If only God’s people would truly repent and acknowledge their sin, the Lord would bring them back to Zion/Jerusalem (Jer 3:13-14).
Challenge and comfort
For later readers from Judah sitting in Babylonian exile, this must have been a word of great comfort as well: there was a still a way home if only they turned back to God. For us, the Word is both comfort and challenge. It can be tempting at times to take advantage of God’s generosity and expect His indulgence, to deceive ourselves about our motives for repentance, to think that if the roof has not fallen in, then God does not mind our sin. Yet in those moments of brokenness when we see and acknowledge the sin God sees, illogically and inexplicably we meet not His wrath but His grace.
[1] It is uncertain what exactly the cause for divorce is in Deut 24:1. The NASB’s ‘indecency’ is literally ‘a naked matter’ (’ervat davar) in the Hebrew, which has sexual connotations (note Lev 18:7, where uncovering someone’s nakedness is a euphemism for incest). It is also unclear why the first husband is forbidden to take the woman back. Does it have to do with her specific sin that caused the first divorce, or the fact that she married again in the meantime? Is it for her protection to prevent her from being shuttled back and forth between men? Is it a deterrent for the husband not to divorce the wife lightly because he might not be able to get her back? The parallel with God and His people is not exact and we don’t have to match up the details. Rather it is a ‘from the lesser to the greater’ argument that makes a broad comparison between the two and says, if it is true in this lesser case, how much more so in the greater?
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.