Jeremiah 13:22–23

Jeremiah 13:22

Jeremiah 13:22

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

22 Quod si dixeris in corde suc, cur (vel, ut quid) haec mala acciderunt mihi (occurrerunt mihi?) in multitudine (hoc est, propter multitudinem) iniquitatis tuae discoopertae sunt fimbriae tuae, et nudati calces tui (vel, plantae tuae nudatae sunt)

The Prophet again declares that God’s judgment would be just, which he had previously foretold; for hypocrites, we know, do not cease to quarrel with God, except they are often proved guilty; and it is always their object, where they cannot wholly excuse themselves, to extenuate in some measure their fault. The Prophet therefore here removes every pretense for evasion, and declares that they were wholly worthy of such a reward.

But his manner of speaking ought to be noticed, If thou wilt say in thine heart, etc. Hypocrites do not only claim for themselves righteousness before the world, but they also deceive themselves, and the devil so dementates them with a false persuasion, that they seek to be counted just before God. This then is what the Prophet sets forth when he says, If thou wilt say in thine heart, Why have these evils happened to me? that is, if thou seekest by secret murmuring to contend with God, the answer is ready, — Because of the multitude of thine iniquity, discovered are thy skirts, and thy heels are denuded.” The multitude of iniquity he calls that perverse wickedness which prevailed among the Jews; for they had not ceased for a long time to provoke the wrath of God. Had they only once sinned, or had been guilty of one kind of sin, there would have been some hope of pardon, at least God would not have executed a punishment so severe; but as there had been an uninterrupted course of sinning, the Prophet shews that it would not be right to spare them any longer.

Note 92. The verb is here in the singular, and is followed by a nominative in the plural; the very same anomaly exists in Welsh. The line would be literally the same in that language, — Pam y digwyddodd i mi y pethau hyn? But if “these things” preceded the verb, it would be in the plural. — Ed.

As to the simile, it is a form of speaking often used by the prophets, that is, to denude the soles of the feet, and to discover the skirts. We know that; men clothe themselves, not only to preserve them from cold. but that they also cover the body for the sake of modesty: there is therefore a twofold use of garments, the one occasioned by necessity, and the other by decency. As then clothes are partly made for this end — to cover what could not be decently shewn or left bare without shame, the prophets use this mode of speaking when they have in view to shew that one is exposed to public reproaJeremiah It afterwards follows —

Note 93. The three last lines are as follows: — For the number of thine iniquity Discovered have been thy skirts, Violently stripped off have been thy heels. “Skirts” here stand for the parts covered by them, and “heels” for the sandals which were worn. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate mention the parts, and not skirts — “the hinder parts,” “the uncomely parts,” but they retain the word “heels.” The metonomy exists, no doubt, as to both. The Syriac has “skirts” and “ankles.” The Targum gives the meaning, “confusion” and “ignominy.” The past time is used for the future. — Ed.

Jeremiah 13:23

Jeremiah 13:23

23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

23 An mutabit (sic proprie vertitur) Ethiopa pellem suam, et pardus maculas suas (aut, varietates, nam nomen hoc duplicatum deducitur a חבר, quod significat congregare, significat etiam livorem, accipitur vero hic pro maculis) etiam tu poteris ad benefaciendum, doctus ad malum?

God declares in this verse, that the people were so hardened in their wickedness, that there was no hope of their repentance. This is the sum of what is said. But it was a very bitter reproof for the Prophet to say that his own nation were past hope — that they had so entirely given themselves up to their vices that they were no longer healable.

But he uses a comparison, — Can the Ethiopian, he says, change his skin? Blackness is inherent in the skin of the Ethiopians, as it is well known. Were they then to wash themselves a hundred times daily, they could not put off their blackness. The same also must be said of leopards or panthers, and we know that these animals are besprinkled with spots. Such then is the spotted character of the leopard or panther, that whatever might be done to him he would still retain his color. We now then see what the Prophet means — that the Jews were so corrupted by long habit that they could not repent, for the devil had so enslaved them that they were not in their right mind; they no longer had any discernment, and could not discriminate between good and evil.

Note 94. The word in Hebrew is “Cushite;” and many learned men contend that the “Ethiopian” is not meant, though all the early versions so render it except the Syriac, which has “Indian.” Blayney agrees with Bochart and others in thinking that the Cushites were the inhabitants of Arabia, on the borders of the Red Sea, and he refers in proof of this to 2 Chronicles 21:16. The skin is not said here to be black, but it was no doubt of a particular color, different from that of the Jews. — Ed.

Note 95. ”Panther,” πάρδαλις — pardus, is the rendering of the Septuagint and the other versions. The word rendered “spots,” found only here, is translated “varieties” by the Septuagint and Vulgate, but “spots” by the Syriac and Targum. — Ed.

Learned men in our age do not wisely refer to this passage, when they seek to prove that there is no free-will in man; for it is not simply the nature of man that is spoken of here, but the habit that is contracted by long practice. Aristotle, a strong advocate of free will, confesses that it is not in man’s power to do right, when he is so immersed in his own vices as to have lost a free choice, (7. Lib. Ethicon) and this also is what experience proves. We hence see that this passage is improperly adduced to prove a sentiment which is yet true, and fully confirmed by many passages of Scripture.

Jeremiah, then, does not here refer to man’s nature as he is when he comes from the womb; but he condemns the Jews for contracting such a habit by long practice. As, then, they had hardened themselves in doing evil, he says that they could not repent, that wickedness had become inherent, or firmly fixed in their hearts, like the blackness which is inherent in the skin of the Ethiopians, or the spots which belong to the leopards or panthers.

We may at the same time gather from this passage a useful doctrine — that men become so corrupt, by sinful habits and sinful indulgence, that the devil takes away from them every desire and care for acting rightly, so that, in a word, they become wholly irreclaimable, as we see to be the case with regard to bodily diseases; for a chronic disease, in most instances, so corrupts what is sound and healthy in the body, that it becomes by degrees incurable. When, therefore, the body is thus infected for a long time, there is no hope of a cure Life may indeed be prolonged, but not without continual languor. Now, as to spiritual diseases it is also true, that when putridity has pervaded the inward parts, it is impossible for any one to repent. And yet it must be observed, that we do not speak here of the power of God, but only shew, that all those who harden themselves in their vices, as far as their power is concerned, are incurable, and past all remedy. Yet God can deliver, even from the lowest depths, such as have a hundred times past all recovery. But here, as I have already said, the Prophet does not refer to God’s power, but only condemns his own nation, that they might not complain that God treated them with too much severity.

The meaning then is, that they ought not to have thought it strange that God left them no hope; for they became past recovery, through their own perverseness, as they could not adopt another course of life after having so long accustomed themselves to everything that was evil: Wilt thou also, he says, be able to do good? that is, wilt thou apply thy mind to what is just, who hast been accustomed to evil, or who hast hitherto learnt nothing but to do evil? We now perceive the design of the Prophet — that they unreasonably sought pardon of God, who had contracted such hardness by a long course of sinning that they were become incurable. It afterwards follows —

Note 96. Neither this sentence nor the preceding is put interrogatively in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, but in this way, — “If the Ethiopian,” etc.; “Even so can ye,” etc. The Arabic and the Targum have both sentences in an interrogative form, and more consistently with the Hebrew. Blayney renders the first part interrogatively, as in our version, but not the second, and he gives a meaning to the second part which the original will not bear, and which is not countenanced by any of the versions. The most literal version is as follows, — Can the Cushite change his skin, Or the panther his spots? — Also ye, can ye do good, Who have learned evil? The future tense in Hebrew ought often to be rendered potentially, and sometimes subjunctively. — Ed.