Jeremiah 13:1-11

VI. THE PRIDE OF THE NATION Jeremiah 13:1-27

Arrogant, willful, stubborn pride was at the root of all Judah's sins. In chapter thirteen Jeremiah issues five stern warnings concerning pride and its consequences. Pride results in deterioration (Jeremiah 13:1-11), drunkenness (Jeremiah 13:12-14), darkness (Jeremiah 13:15-17), dishonor (Jeremiah 13:18-19), and disgrace (Jeremiah 13:20-27).

A. WARNING: Pride Results in Deterioration

Jeremiah 13:1-11

prophets frequently relied upon object lessons to attract attention to their message and enforce the point they were trying to make. These men of God were following sound principles of teaching long before the study of pedagogy as a science. By means of an action parable (Jeremiah 13:1-7) and the application of that parable (Jeremiah 13:8-11) Jeremiah forced the nation to see the ultimate consequences of their sinful pride.

1. The action parable (Jeremiah 13:1-7)

TRANSLATION

(1) Thus said the LORD unto me: Go and purchase for yourself a girdle of linen and put it about your loins and do not put it into water. (2) And I acquired the girdle according to the word of the LORD and I put it about my loins. (3) And the word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying, Take the girdle which you acquired which is upon your loins. Arise and go to the Euphrates and hide it there in a rock crevice. (5) And I went and hid it at the Euphrates as the LORD commanded me. (6) And it came to pass at the end of many days that the LORD said to me, Arise, go to the Euphrates and take from that place the girdle which I commanded you to hide there. (7) And I went to the Euphrates and dug and took the girdle from the place in which I had hidden it; and, behold, the girdle was ruined and good for nothing.

COMMENTS

The word of the Lord comes to Jeremiah and instructs him to purchase a girdle or loin-cloth. The loincloth was a strip of cloth, sometimes leather, wound several times around the waist with its ends hanging down over the thigh. The loin-cloth served the purpose of holding up the loose upper garment when walking or working. Jeremiah is to wear his new linen loin-cloth both to attract the attention of people and to provide the basis for the symbolism which he will later explain. The prophet is specifically instructed not to put his new loincloth in water (Jeremiah 13:1). Various explanations of this prohibition have been offered. Some think he was not to wash the garment; he was to wear it until it became filthy. Others think he was not to soak the garment in order to soften it and make it more comfortable for wearing. Doubtlessly Jeremiah was puzzled by this instruction to purchase and wear a new loin-cloth. But he obeyed the Lord in full confidence that further revelation would be forthcoming (Jeremiah 13:2).

After wearing the garment about for some time Jeremiah received additional instruction from the Lord (Jeremiah 13:3). He is to take his new loin-cloth and hide it at the Euphrates river or perhaps the town of Parah in the crevice of a rock (Jeremiah 13:4). Once again Jeremiah complied with the commandment of the Lord even though he must have thought it very strange (Jeremiah 13:5). After many days Jeremiah received still further instruction from the Lord. He is to retrieve his loin-cloth (Jeremiah 13:6). Jeremiah returned to the spot where he had hidden his garment, dug away the earth with which he had covered the crevice in the rock, and removed his loin-cloth. Naturally the garment was moldy, rotted, filthy and utterly worthless (Jeremiah 13:7).

Commentators are divided into two major schools of thought as regards this episode. Some feel that the story has no foundation in fact. The account is to be interpreted as a vision or perhaps a parable which was related for purely didactic purposes. But if this were the case, would Jeremiah have represented the events as actually happening? Other commentators feel that this was an actual experience of the prophet; but these commentators are themselves divided into two schools. The point of contention is the place where the waistcloth was buried. Did Jeremiah actually make a trip to the Euphrates river as suggested in the standard English versions? Many conservative and many liberal commentators for that matter answer that question in the affirmative. Other equally competent scholars feel that two trips to the Euphrates river some 300-400 miles north of Anathoth is out of the question. These scholars translate the Hebrew word perathah, to Parah. According to this view Jeremiah buried his garment in the rocky environs of the little village of Parah a few miles from his home. They feel that in the Hebrew text at least, a trip to the Euphrates river is both unlikely and unnecessary. The position taken here is that Jeremiah did make a journey to the Euphrates to bury his waistcloth and returned later to retrieve the tattered garment. For additional comment see the special note which follows.

SPECIAL NOTE

JEREMIAH'S TRIP TO THE EUPHRATES

As one surveys the various commentaries on the Book of Jeremiah he will discover five basic arguments which are advanced to support the position taken in this work that Jeremiah actually made a trip to the Euphrates river during his ministry. Some of these arguments have little if any weight. In order to aid the student in separating the wheat from the chaff as he peruses the various commentaries on the book, the following critique of the various arguments is offered.

ARGUMENT ONE: Jeremiah was forced to go into hiding after the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:9-32) and probably would have been secure only in the far north. Another prophet who tried to take refuge from Jehoiakim in Egypt was extradited and executed (Jeremiah 26:20-23), RESPONSE: The present narrative gives not the slightest hint that Jeremiah was fleeing to the north to escape the wrath of Jehoiakim or anyone else for that matter. There are many adequate hiding places much nearer than the Euphrates river as is made clear from the narratives of Saul and David.

ARGUMENT TWO: The silence regarding the activities of Jeremiah during the last part of Jehoiakim's reign suggests that he was absent from Jerusalem. This would be the ideal time to place his trip to the Euphrates. RESPONSE: Several gaps in the knowledge of Jeremiah's activities exist. Does every silent gap indicate that Jeremiah was absent from Jerusalem? Even if the prophet was temporarily absent from the city this in itself would not prove that he made the trip to the Euphrates. Furthermore the material of this section seems to date to the late years of Josiah or, more likely, to the early years of Jehoiakim.

ARGUMENT THREE: The Chaldean officers who conquered Jerusalem seemed to know Jeremiah (Jeremiah 39:11-14). This would suggest that they had met the prophet on some previous occasion. Jeremiah's trip to the Euphrates could have been that occasion. RESPONSE: No evidence actually exists that the Chaldean officers knew Jeremiah personally. They could have learned of the prophet through those who were deported in 605 B.C. and 597 B.C. Those Jews who deserted to the Chaldeans during the siege would certainly have been interrogated by their captors. Since Jeremiah was perhaps the one most responsible for those desertions his name must have been frequently mentioned. The Chaldeans knew Jeremiah by reputation only.

ARGUMENT FOUR: The Euphrates is the essential point of the parable representing the corrupting religious influence of Mesopotamia on Judah.[196] RESPONSE: This argument is strange in that Jeremiah does not once mention the Euphrates, Babylon, Mesopotamia or the north in his inspired application of the parable. While the Euphrates may play a part in the symbolism it certainly is not the essential point.

[196] Elmer A. Leslie, Jeremiah Chronologically Arranged, Translated, and Interpreted (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), pp. 86, 87.

ARGUMENT FIVE: The normal meaning of the Hebrew word Phrath is Euphrates. Thus the word should be translated and thus the word should be understood in this passage. RESPONSE: This is perhaps the best argument to back the position that Jeremiah actually made a trip to the Euphrates river. However even this argument is not without its difficulties. The Hebrew word Phrath when it refers to the Euphrates usually has the Hebrew word for river following. This is true twelve out of the fifteen times the word Phrath occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Yet the very fact that in three passages Phrath refers to the Euphrates when the word for river is not present indicates that this is proper usage. In no other passage does the word Phrath mean anything other than the Euphrates river.

After studying all the arguments on both sides of the controversy concerning where Jeremiah hid his waist-cloth the present writer has opted for the view that Jeremiah actually made a trip to the Euphrates river. The alternate view that he buried the waistcloth near his home town at Parah cannot be ruled out altogether. The distance to the Euphrates still remains a problem for those who hold the prophet went there. Yet it should be remembered that the prophets often did curious and sometimes almost impossible acts in order to dramatize their message.

2. The application of the parable (Jeremiah 13:8-11)

TRANSLATION

(8) And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, (9) Thus says the LORD: Like this I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. (10) This evil people who refuse to hear My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their heart and follow after other gods to serve them and bow down to them shall be like this girdle which is good for nothing. (11) For as a girdle clings unto the loins of a man so I caused all the house of Israel and all the house of Judah to cling unto Me (oracle of the LORD), to be My people and a name, a praise and a glory; but they would not listen.

COMMENTS

When Jeremiah returned from the Euphrates he carried or perhaps even attempted to wear his tattered loin-cloth through the streets of Jerusalem. Naturally people would ask about the filthy piece of cloth and then Jeremiah would relate the story narrated above. Then he would begin to make the application of the parable. Judah and Jerusalem were guilty of sinful pride and self-exaltation. But their pride is about to be marred, tattered and torn, like the loin-cloth (Jeremiah 13:9). God will rend Judah to pieces as easily as a rotten piece of cloth is torn. Perhaps as Jeremiah uttered these words he actually tore the old loin-cloth to illustrate his point. He then describes the pride of Judah in more detail. That pride manifested itself in refusal to hear i.e, obey the word of God. They wanted no part of the old stern God of Sinai with His prohibitions and restrictions. That God was tolerable as long as they wandered in the wilderness. But now they had settled down to become farmers. They wanted new gods who would guarantee them fertility of the soil and at the same time condone their sensuality. For this reason the children of Israel began to follow after, bow down to and serve the gods of Canaan. The corrupting influence of idolatry had slowly eaten away at the strength of the nation until finally the nation, like Jeremiah's loin-cloth, had become utterly worthless, fit for nothing but destruction (Jeremiah 13:10).

In this action parable Jeremiah represents God and the lovely new linen loin-cloth represents the Covenant people, both Judah and Israel. In the ancient Near East the loin-cloth was the principal ornament of a man's dress. This article of clothing was one of the most prized possessions of a man.[197] As Jeremiah had chosen his waist-cloth so God had selected Israel from among all the nations as his special possession. Three times Jeremiah notes that the loin-cloth was worn close to the body. The prophet wishes to emphasize the intimate and beautiful relation ship which had once existed between God and His chosen people. Israel was His people, the means by which God's name would be made known throughout the world. They were a source of praise and glory to God. But as time went on Israel would not obey the word of God. They continued to deteriorate spiritually and morally until they were of no more value to God (Jeremiah 13:11).

[197] When Jonathan made a covenant with David he gave him his robe, his armor even his sword and his bow and his girdle (1 Samuel 18:4).

THE PARABLE OF THE RUINED WAISTCLOTH

Jeremiah 13:1-11

Jeremiah selected and purchased his waistcloth as a personal possession.

God selected Israel as His special possession.

Jeremiah wore his waistcloth about his waist for a time.

Israel cleave to God in intimate fellowship for a time.

The waistcloth was not to be washed but worn till filthy.

God maintained his relationship to Israel until the nation became utterly filthy with sin.

When removed from the waist the waistcloth no longer was performing its proper function.

When Israel departed from the Lord she was no longer fulfilling her function in the divine plan.

The garment when removed from the person of Jeremiah degenerated rapidly.

When Israel turned her back on God she rapidly deteriorated.

Jeremiah journeyed far to bury the waistcloth.

Israel had traveled a long way from God.

The waistcloth was buried near the Euphrates river.

Israel would be carried into exile to lose its glory and be despised among the nations.

When retrieved the waistcloth was damaged beyond repair.

Judah in Jeremiah's day was marred beyond recognition, good for nothing.

The rotted garment could be easily ripped and torn,

God will rip asunder the tattered remains of the nation.