10. The Soiled Waist-Cloth
CHAPTER X (a) “THE SOILED WAIST-CLOTH”
“ THUS said the Lord unto me ’ Go and acquire for thyself a linen waist-cloth and put it upon thy loins, but thou shalt not cause it to come through water ’. So I acquired the waist-cloth according to the word of the Lord, and I set it upon my loins, and the word of the Lord came unto me a second time saying ’ Take the waist-cloth which thou hast acquired, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates and bury it there in a hole of the rock ’. And I went and buried it in Euphrates according as the Lord commanded me. Then it came to pass after many days that the Lord said unto me * Arise, go to Euphrates and take thence the waist-cloth which I commanded thee to bury there ’. So I went to Euphrates and I digged and took the waist-cloth from the place wherein I had buried it, and behold, the waist-cloth was marred; it was not profitable for anything at all.
“And the word of the Lord came unto me saying ’ Thus saith the Lord; After this manner shall I mar the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. This evil people who refuse to hear my words, who walk in the stubbornness of their heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them shall be as this waist-cloth which is not profitable for anything at all. For as the waist-cloth cleaveth unto the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah,’ saith the Lord, l that they might be unto me for a people and for a name, and for a praise and for a glory; but they did not give ear. As the first among ’ Parables of Fancy,’ this interesting narrative about the waist-cloth that was marred challenges us to prove that it is such a parable rather than one of fact. Did Jeremiah really go through the action of the story, or was it given him in vision, or is it a story narrated as though it had been experienced for the purpose of teaching the nation a necessary and very urgent lesson? The answers to such questions require reference to a perplexing interpretation. The Hebrew word Perath, translated Euphrates in our text, is regarded by many modern scholars as a reference to the Wady Farah which is only a few miles distant from Anathoth, the home of Jeremiah. There are found a fountain and stream “ which soak into the sand and fissured rock of the surrounding desert.” On the other hand, Euphrates is about 250 miles distant and is not enclosed by rock as the story requires.
It is not easy to believe that the prophet walked such a great distance on two occasions in order to learn an obvious lesson and a lesson which could have been so easily demonstrated nearer home. If Euphrates is the correct rendering, then the story is a parable of fancy rather than of fact, and if the Wady Farah is intended, we have either a parable of fancy (given as vision) or a parable of fact in which the prophet acted the story under divine guidance. We are constrained to accept the conclusion of Principal G. A. Smith “ That the Wady Farah was the scene of the parable is possible, though not certain. But the ambiguity of these details does not interfere with the moral of the whole.” Remembering that the whole narrative is recorded as being under the constraint of God’s direction, and that the story has reference to the burial of Israel in a place where the nation becomes quite unprofitable, we retain in our text the word Euphrates as symbolising the land of captivity and we incline towards regarding the whole story as visionary in its inception though narrated as having been experienced.
Another word whose interpretation makes a radical difference in the meaning and application of the story is that which is given as l waistcloth.’ Cheyne holds the view that no word is so appropriate and dignified as * waistwrapper ’ and he quotes the Arabic proverb ’ He is unto me as a waist-wrapper.’ The waist-cloth was bound very close to the body under other clothing, and it must be distinguished from the girdle, which was a waist-belt wrapped around and over other garments. The girdle was often adorned and ornamented, a circumstance which might justify the description of Judah and Israel as a praise and a glory for God, but this is to read into the word * waistcloth ’ the idea of such ornamentation as necessitates the meaning waist-belt or girdle. So very clear is the command to put it upon the loins that there can scarcely be any doubt that it is the ’ waist-cloth ’ which is bound close to the skin; for it was caused ’ to cleave unto me ’ which can scarcely be said of the ordinary waist-belt or girdle.
Emphasis is laid upon the material of which the waist-cloth consists. It is linen. All the priestly garments were linen and because of that linen symbolised holiness. Possibly this does not wholly explain why linen is mentioned in the parable. Israel was indeed expected to be holy unto the Lord, but two of the useful qualities of linen are that it wears well and can be long preserved. It was used in the burial of mummies, and there have been instances in which new linen has withstood the ravages of time over many centuries. When washed it is again practically new, but if it is left soiled and contaminated in any way with damp, it will rot. Jeremiah makes good use of the recognised qualities of linen. The waistcloth which he acquires or buys must not be put in water after he has worn it. He buries it soiled in a hole or chink of rock. May not Euphrates mean simply, in the land with which the river is identified rather than mean a reference to the near presence of water? He buries it where it should be dry and long-preserved, but after many days he digs it up only to find that it is altogether useless. Is not the suggestion here that the uselessness of the linen has resulted from its earlier corruption rather than from its contact with water or damp? It was buried in an unclean and soiled condition, the consequences of which were decay and rottenness. The parable has thus a vivid application to the condition of Judah since it indicates that the corruption of the nation will not result from its exile in a distant land where it will be buried, but from the sin which has already wrought uncleanness among the people before they are removed. Their only chance of life and preservation lies in an immediate cleansing.
Once the national life is defiled, no hiding or burial even in a distant land will arrest the process of decay and death. The canker will work its deadliest havoc unless it is treated in the earliest stages when the nation is still closely bound to righteousness and purity. Thus the Lord is described as emphasising primarily that the nation is an evil people, disobedient, haughty and stubborn, idolatrous and impertinent. God had chosen them to be a peculiar people unto Himself and had bound them closely to Himself by His love and tokens of mercy. He sought them as a great praise and glory, but sin had already so corrupted their life that He foresees the final issue never again can the nation be a praise and glory for God upon the earth. We are given a glimpse of God dealing patiently and lovingly with His people, delivering to them through teachers and prophets His messages of reconciliation and restoration; pleading with them to repent and be converted, but all His appeals fall upon deaf ears and cold, stubborn hearts. They did not hear it is God’s deep grief for His people. We feel that the final words are drawn most reluctantly from Him, and they are echoed in the words of Jesus in His lament over Jerusalem “ But ye would not.” A nation which had been separated as a holy people through whom God’s name was to be praised and honoured will now be completely unprofitable in consequence of their refusal to obey and honour Him. Does the parable fail when we observe that it is God who will mar the pride of Judah? No: because the humiliation is put upon Judah and Jerusalem not by God but by their own neglect of God. He states the issue. It was their duty to seek the cleansing, not His to purify them when their hearts were turned away from Him. In a sense peculiar to the New Testament and its message of grace, God has again caused a people to cleave unto Him for the purpose “ that they might be for a people, and for a name and for a praise and for a glory “ because in Jesus He has taken His Church to be “ a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Individual members of the Church can cleave unto God by faith in Jesus Christ. A Church which neglects the call and service of God, which boasts in its own strength, which compromises with sin and which corrupts the faith once delivered through the Lord is a Church like Jeremiah’s waist-cloth. Amid the godless and irreligious where it lies in its corrupt state, it will become completely unprofitable to God and humanity. The same words apply to every professing believer in Jesus Christ whose profession means that he is knit to the Lord and that God’s Holy Name can be honoured and glorified in and through him. In modern times we seldom hear the confesison that we are unprofitable servants. Among the lessons to be derived from this parable of the Soiled WaistCloth may well be a new conception of the honour and majesty of God, a fresh sense of our responsibility to maintain the glory of God’s name, and a wish, by pure life and consecrated service, to keep ourselves closely bound to Him in that love which has manifested a desire never to let us go.