Original Meaning

THIS SECTION IS comprised of various oracles, both poetic and prose, concerned with the faithless acts of Israel and Judah, their folly in rejecting the Lord, and calls for the people to repent. They are not given any precise setting in Jeremiah’s own life,1 and as a continuation of the theme of prostitution from chapter 2, they likely represent samples of public proclamation from more than one period in Jeremiah’s prophetic work. There are several rhetorical plays on the Hebrew word šub (turn, return, repent) in the section that provide a thematic link to the prophecies.

The manner in which the audience is addressed varies in this collection, as it did in chapter 2. The following outline presents the “figures” of speech that comprise those addressed. An underlying metaphor is the identity of the people as members of the Lord’s household or family. Thus they can be depicted as “Jerusalem,” as the “spouse” or covenant partner of the Lord, as unfaithful sisters who are “married” to the Lord, and as children who have rebelled against the dictates of the Lord, the head of the household.

A. 3:1–5. Following the last section of chapter 2, the opening figure in chapter 3 is Jerusalem.

B. 3:6–10. This prose section represents “faithless Israel” and “unfaithful … Judah” as adulterous sisters.

C. 3:11–13. Israel (i.e., the adulterous northern kingdom) is addressed in a poetic oracle in verses 12b–13.

D. 3:14–18. The people, scattered because of their sinfulness, are addressed as God’s children and called to resettle the area of Judah and Jerusalem.

E. 3:19–20. Jerusalem is addressed (the “you” in Hebrew is feminine singular).

F. 3:21–22a. The people are addressed as wayward children from the house/family of the Lord.

G. 3:22b–25. The people, personified as prodigal children, offer a liturgy of repentance.

H. 4:1–2. The voice of the Lord concludes this section with a statement about repentance.

3:1–5. Jeremiah uses the relationship of a husband and his divorced wife as an analogy of the relationship between the Lord and his disobedient covenant people. Jerusalem is the female personification of the people; that is, she is the feminine “you” castigated in 3:1. The analogy builds on the claims of 2:2, where the relationship between the Lord and his people is compared to the marriage relationship.

This passage also presupposes the instruction of Deuteronomy 24:1–4 concerning divorce and remarriage. That text from the Torah raises the question whether a woman once married but then divorced and married to another man, can then remarry her “first husband.” The answer is no. Although the text offers no other reason than that the wife has become “defiled” to the first husband, the scenario likely presupposes some other factors not stated explicitly in forbidding the remarriage. It is not necessary to go into these other factors, since the important thing is the answer given in Torah, an answer presupposed in the rhetorical question of Jeremiah 3:1.

The question in 3:1, “Should [a former husband] return to [his wife] again after she had married another?” contains the first use of the verb šub in this section. As noted above, the answer is no. Jerusalem, representing the people of Judah, is the spouse who has married many lovers in her defection from the Lord. As a result she is in a defiled state, estranged from her first husband and incapable of mending the relationship. The language of verse 2 contains a Hebrew term so uncompromising and harsh in its depiction of adultery that the scribes who compiled the Masoretic Text provided a substitute word to be used in public reading. The NIV choice of “ravish” catches something of the physical and offensive nature of the term, but it is acceptable for public reading.

Jeremiah uses both rhetorical questions and accusations to engage his audience. Obviously the charge of flagrant prostitution and adultery is offensive to the people, as is the conclusion that once “divorced,” the people are unable on their own to effect a reconciliation.

3:6–10. In this prose section, perhaps compiled as an interpretive comment for readers of the poetic oracle in 3:1–5, the fate and infidelity of Israel are compared to the (worse) circumstances of Judah. Israel and Judah are described as sisters who have both committed adultery against their spouse (cf. Ezek. 16:44–58; 23:1–49).2 The adjective “faithless” used for Israel is m^ešuba, a form of the verb šub and a part of the wordplay on the concept of turning/repenting. Literally, one could translate the phrase as “turning Israel,” as if she is constantly turning this way and that in seeking lovers.

Surprisingly, Judah has learned nothing from the fall of Israel to the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 17). Josiah was a reforming king (2 Kings 22–23), whose covenant renewal measures were good but short-lived and ultimately inadequate. Elsewhere Jeremiah expresses admiration for Josiah (Jer. 22:15–16). Judah did not return (šub) “with all her heart” to the Lord. Such language reflects Deuteronomy 6:5 and the renewal ceremony of 2 Kings 23:3.3

3:11–13. The Lord calls faithless Israel to return (šub) to the Lord. This oracle is preserved as part of an autobiographical section, beginning with: “The LORD said to me” (3:11). The oracle is directed explicitly to the north; that is, it is intended for remnants of the former northern kingdom. God promises to be gracious and receptive, foregoing the anger proper to a spurned spouse. Although no date is given for this oracle, it probably fits early in Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry, during the time when King Josiah made overtures to remnants of the covenant people in the territory of the former northern kingdom (cf. 2 Kings 23:15–23; 2 Chron. 35:1–19). The prophet will also evidence a concern for these Israelite remnants in the hopeful prophecies in Jeremiah 30–31.

3:14–18. The analogy of Judah as an adulterous wife is here changed to that of wayward rebellious children; both analogies are part of a root metaphor that identifies the people as comprising part of the household of the Lord. The NIV attempts to keep the metaphor of marriage by translating the Hebrew term for master/owner as “husband.” The passage begins with an address to children, however, and not to a personified entity who plays the role of spouse (as in 3:1–5 and somewhat differently in 3:6–10). It assumes a form of exile and resulting loss of land. Restoration, therefore, is concrete. The Lord will bring back the prodigal children and establish them in their homeland.

These verses contain a vision in prose of restoration in the land of promise. One way to grasp the significance of the ark of the covenant is its portrayal as the throne (or royal footstool) of the cosmic Lord. Yet in the future, in a renewed Jerusalem, no one will long for the lost ark because the whole city will be “The Throne of the LORD.” Remnants from both Israel and Judah will inhabit the city and surrounding land. Even other nations will come to the city (cf. Isa. 2:1–5). This restoration will come about even though the initial passage of the section (Jer. 3:1) assumed that according to the Torah, “remarriage” was impossible.

3:19–20. Both the marriage (“unfaithful wife”) and familial metaphors (children able to inherit) are again used to indicate Judah’s sin. The covenantal term “house of Israel” is also used to describe the people.

3:21–25. The language of “returning” (šub) and of healing the people’s “faithlessness” and “backsliding” are used in the promises of these verses. The metaphor of the people as wayward children is employed in verse 22. They offer confession of sin and repentance in 3:22b–25. Apparently the passage depicts a state of affairs to come after the judgment of the Exile.

4:1–2. When that time comes, God calls for a sincere return (šub) to him. The future restoration of God’s people will lead other nations into finding a blessing in the Lord. This last element plays on the foundational promise of Genesis 12:3, that all the nations of the earth will find a blessing in Abraham’s descendants.

Bridging Contexts

PUNISHMENT AND REPENTANCE. As noted above, only a general reference to Josiah (Jer. 3:6) provides a context in Jeremiah’s own life, and it is likely that in this section we have prophecies from different stages in the prophet’s ministry, all linked by the common themes of Israel and Judah’s failure to return to their Lord. The artful collection of these prophecies is already an example of “bridging contexts,” designed for recipients of Jeremiah’s book. In their original contexts, these oracles indicated the nature of Israel and Judah’s failures and the consequences to come. For readers/hearers they indicate why Israel and Judah fell to foreign nations: God was judging his people for their failure to turn to him in true worship and heartfelt obedience.

Punishment for infidelity was inevitable. But beyond that, restoration and healing required a wholehearted return to the Lord. Perhaps this section reflects a development in Jeremiah’s message over the decades of his ministry; as a result of calls for corporate repentance, Jeremiah learns that Judah is inherently unable to change her ways. Although this makes judgment on the people unavoidable, it is not the last word. God himself will bring about change among his people and thus offer a new beginning for future generations.

In this section we have no facile preaching of repentance, as if one simply calls the people to change, and by their own efforts they do so. Judah appears heedless of the danger to its existence, taking no instruction from the failure (and exile) of her sister Israel (3:6–7). The first passage (3:1–5) indicates the impossibility of Judah’s return to the Lord because she has “married” many lovers in her apostasy, and the Torah (Deut. 24:1–4) makes remarriage an impossibility. In other words, the essential point of judgment is that Judah will not only not “return” but will finally be unable to return to the Lord.

This arrangement of oracles is designed to bridge contexts from the initial audience of Jeremiah to that of subsequent generations, who will read and reflect on the justified demise of Judah. Each generation of God’s people is asked to account for Judah’s fall as the inevitable consequence of apostasy, resulting in the Lord’s righteous judgment. Moreover, each generation is asked to search its own life to see where changes need to be made. Gracious words about the future are a reminder that God is committed to the transformation of his people.

Jesus’ public ministry too was marked by explicit calls for repentance (e.g., Matt. 4:17) and reminders of the cost of discipleship. In these actions Jesus brought a major element of prophecy under the old covenant to its culmination. Like Jeremiah, Jesus’ call for repentance was not about change for change’s sake but for the sake of knowing God and the joy of obedience to his revealed will. Like Jeremiah, Jesus spoke to a generation of God’s people who had heard the word of the Lord but who had not responded. Moreover, Jesus’ proclamation too was ignored by some and heard by others, with a result that the audiences of both would become examples for generations to come. Finally, like the proclamation of Jeremiah to his audience (3:22), Jesus taught that what God demands by way of repentance and reorientation is something he graciously enables, “because the Lord disciplines those he loves” (Heb. 12:6).

Healing and restoration. In addition to righteous judgment on Israel and Judah for their faithlessness, this section is also about healing and future restoration that only God can provide. Note the emphasis on divine activity: “I will choose … [I will] bring … I will give … I will cure” (Jer. 3:14–15, 22). As everywhere in the Bible, so here too God is the author of salvation. His depiction of restoration is a corporate one because the judgment indicated in these prophecies is a corporate one. Jerusalem is to be repopulated and become the center of divine revelation for all (cf. Isa. 2:2–4; Mic. 4:1–3). Ezekiel, Jeremiah’s younger contemporary, likewise has an expansive concluding section to his book where in visionary style he portrays Jerusalem as the holy city and medium of divine revelation (Ezek. 40–48). And John, the seer and prophet of the risen Christ, beholds the heavenly Jerusalem as the eternal home of the redeemed from every generation of God’s people (Rev. 21–22), where the Lamb dwells, and death is no more.

One encounters in these prophecies, therefore, two elements in particular that remain instructive to subsequent generations. The first is the call to turn to the living God and recognize the consequences of failure to do so. The second is the prophetic depiction that God will heal the consequences of his people’s failures and restore them again in the land promised to their ancestors. When portions of the exilic community returned to Judah and Jerusalem during the Persian period, it was understood as a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that God would restore his people (cf. Dan. 9:2). Yet that return did not exhaust the significance of the prophecy, as later Old Testament prophets and New Testament writers demonstrate.

These oracles, taken as a whole, give a radical witness to the freedom and grace of God. Legal custom forbade the remarriage of a husband and wife, once the wife had been divorced and gone to marry another man. That law is used here to demonstrate the impossibility of Israel and Judah’s removing the effects of their sinfulness by simply deciding to do better and return to their first Lord. That same law, however, will not keep God from healing the people from his side. It is important to note that his “overrule” of the Torah does not make the law bad or its principles invalid. The better analogy is the Pauline claim that what the law could not do, God has seen fit to do—all for the sake of those he loves (cf. Rom. 8:1–4).

Contemporary Significance

THE VIEW OF THE HUMAN CONDITION. Jeremiah’s words should evoke reflection in our hearts. We begin with God’s view of the human condition. God formed his people in order that they might have an intimate and exclusive relationship with him (note the analogy of Jeremiah, along with Hosea, of marriage/family). Behind this assumption of an exclusive bond lie the claims of divine choice, the “first” commandment of the Decalogue (“you shall have no other gods before me,” Deut. 5:7), and the “great” commandment (“love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength,” Deut. 6:5; cf. Mark 12:29–30).

Christians are the bride of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Christ’s disciples are bound to him through his resurrection, and the working of the Holy Spirit is present within them and the church, the corporate body of Christ. Disobedience (“sin”) is not just failure to observe a norm of behavior, but the breaking of a bond and an affront to one’s Lord. Adultery in theological terms is a crime against grace; it is infidelity against God who in Christ has called us into an intimate fellowship and who has formed a church as the holy bride of Christ.

Judgment is the inevitable consequence of failure to turn to the Lord in faith and obedience. Human beings cannot have it both ways: Either one is on intimate exclusive terms with God through Jesus Christ, or one has other gods—other things that capture one’s commitments and ultimate allegiance. In Israel’s case, God judged them by giving them over to the other lords they seemed to desire (i.e., other “deities,” the freedom of immorality, and historical deliverance through political alliances). Communal destruction and exile were the result. Christian reflection should begin with a search for those things that seduce believers from allegiance to Christ, things of a personal nature and a corporate nature. What is it, for example, about modern Western society that pulls Christians from their relationship with Christ and robs them of the joy of obedience to their Lord? What things in our lives, both personal and corporate, should be seen as warning bells announcing that not all is right in Zion? Are there not signs that warn that failure has consequences?

Repentance. Jeremiah’s repeated use of the term šub urges exploration of the nature and function of repentance in the Christian life. There are rich resources in the history of Christian piety on this subject. Fasting, self-denial, acts of charity, and spiritual disciplines such as lectio divina and frequent prayer have all been classical means for turning and returning to the Lord. But repentance first of all means turning from an activity toward God and engaging in obedience to his revealed will. In Christian terms it is not just the rejection of sinful activity but the embracing of the good revealed in Jesus Christ.

Repentance may go on to mean self-renunciation, the setting aside of idols, rejection of evil deeds, and a turning from worldly values (all classical characteristics). It also includes the positive steps of discipleship. Peter urged his hearers to “repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.… When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:19, 26). Repentance is not just a listing of vices to be avoided but the positive movement toward a new life in Christ. Repentance is not simply an act that occurs at the beginning of Christian discipleship, something in Christian experience to be relegated to the past, but a way of life, a mark of discipleship.

Repentance not only has the embrace of God as its goal; it has God as its author. Thus, repentance is not only an event and an act of the will; it is also a process, a positive lifestyle, through which God matures and strengthens his children. If Jeremiah can call on Judah to return to the Lord, he can also proclaim that God will cure Judah’s sickness and overcome its chronic infidelity. The judgment of the Exile will lead to the new beginning of restoration. Similarly, the judgment of the cross ushers in the transformation of resurrection. An acknowledgment of a sinful estate is the first step in the turning toward the living God, who makes all things new.

The unveiling of God’s character. Within the repeated call to Judah to turn resides the promise that God will do what the divine law (Deut. 24:1–4) says is legally impermissible: to restore a sinful spouse who has apostatized and legally married another. It is a profound theological claim that God’s ability to restore is not limited by human inability to heal broken relationships. Even the Deuteronomic law regulating divorce—when read prophetically—points to the God of grace beyond human culpability and its consequences. In New Testament terms, even the curse of the law on disobedience is born by God’s Son in order that the blessing promised to Abraham can be received through faith (Gal. 3:13–14). What the law weakened by human fallibility cannot do, God has done in Jesus Christ.