Jeremiah 5:7 · Bible study
Jeremiah 5:7 Commentary: God's Impossibility of Pardon
Hebrew · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why God cannot overlook persistent sin and unfaithfulness, rhetorical cross-examination, ingratitude, and the spiritual adultery of idolatry.
Research Summary
- Meaning: God challenges the possibility of pardon because His people have persistently forsaken Him, sworn by idols, abused His provision, and committed spiritual (and literal) adultery.
- Key words: 'Where?' (ei), rhetorical impossibility; 'forgive' (salach), to pardon; 'sworn' (shava) vs 'fed' (sava), wordplay on covenant-breaking; 'adultery' (na'aph), both literal and idolatrous.
- Main debate: Whether 'I fed them to the full' (Keri) or 'I bound them by oath' (Chetib) is original; the wordplay between swearing and satisfying supports the marginal reading.
- Theological theme: The tension between God's justice and mercy, how persistent sin makes pardon seem impossible, yet the rest of Scripture shows God providing a way through judgment.
- Best use: A sobering call to examine how we respond to God's goodness; a basis for explaining the necessity of the cross for sins committed against divine love.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“Why should I forgive you? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by gods that are not gods. I satisfied their needs, yet they committed adultery and assembled at the houses of prostitutes.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“How can I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me, and sworn by what are no gods. When I had fed them to the full, they committed adultery, and assembled themselves in troops at the prostitutes’ houses.
KJV King James Version 1769
How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
How can I pardon thee? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods. When I had fed them to the full, they committed adultery, and assembled themselves in troops at the harlots’ houses;
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
For this I am not propitious to thee, Thy sons have forsaken Me, And are satisfied by that which is not god, I satisfy them, and they commit adultery, And at the house of a harlot They gather themselves together.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Wherefore should I pardon thee? Thy children have forsaken me, and swear by them that are not God. I have satiated them, and they have committed adultery, and they troop to the harlots' house.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
How can I be merciful to thee? thy children have forsaken me, and swear by them that are not gods: I fed them to the full, and they committed adultery, and rioted in the harlot's house.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¿ Cómo te he de perdonar por esto? Sus hijos me dejaron, y juraron por lo que no es Dios. Saciélos, y adulteraron, y en casa de ramera se juntaron en compañías.
Como te perdoaria por isto? Teus filhos me deixaram, e juram pelo que não é Deus. Eu os saciei, porém eles adulteraram, e se aglomeraram em casa de prostitutas.
Pourquoi te pardonnerais-je?
Wie soll ich dir denn gnädig sein, weil mich meine Kinder verlassen und schwören bei dem, der nicht Gott ist? und nun ich ihnen vollauf gegeben habe, treiben sie Ehebruch und laufen ins Hurenhaus.
Hoe zou Ik over zulks u vergeven? Uw kinderen verlaten Mij, en zweren bij hen, die geen God zijn; als Ik hen verzadigd heb, zo bedrijven zij overspel, en verzamelen bij hopen in het hoerenhuis.
Perché ti perdonerei io? I tuoi figliuoli m’hanno abbandonato, e giurano per degli dèi che non esistono. Io li ho satollati ed essi si dànno all’adulterio, e s’affollano nelle case di prostituzione.
Jestże co, dlaczegobym ci miał przepuścić? Synowie twoi opuścili mię, a przysięgają przez onych, którzy nie są bogami. Jakom ich jedno nakarmił, zaraz cudzołożą, a do domu wszetecznicy hurmem się walą.
Как же Мне простить тебя за это? Сыновья твои оставили Меня и клянутся теми, которые не боги. Я насыщал их, а они прелюбодействовали и толпами ходили в домы блудниц.
我怎能 赦免 你呢？你的兒女 離棄我，又指著那不是 神 的起誓。我使他們 飽足，他們就行姦淫，成群地聚集 在娼妓 家裡。
How is it possible for you to have my forgiveness for this? your children have given me up, taking their oaths by those who are no gods: when I had given them food in full measure, they were false to their wives, taking their pleasure in the houses of loose women.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Jeremiah 5:7
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree this verse records God's rhetorical refusal to pardon Judah. Calvin calls it a 'conference', God throwing the case back at the people as if to say, 'Even you would have to agree punishment is deserved.' The Hebrew opening 'ei la'zot eslach lakh is an exclamation of impossibility: 'Wherefore should I pardon?' (Barnes). The charge is fourfold: forsaking God, swearing by false gods, ingratitude despite being fed to the full, and committing adultery at the houses of harlots. Gill and Keil & Delitzsch note that the verb 'sworn' (shava) and 'fed' (sava) form a wordplay, they swapped the true God for oaths to nothing, while He swapped curses for abundance. The 'prostitutes' houses' are understood as temples of idols where cultic prostitution occurred (Clarke, Barnes). God's bountifulness, designed to draw them to Him, instead fuelled their rebellion (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Wesley).
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Rhetorical question of impossibility: Calvin, Gill, Barnes: God is not asking for information but stating that pardon cannot occur while sin continues.
- Fixed decree of non-pardon: Targum and some Jewish exegetes (cited by Gill): take <em>'ei</em> as equivalent to 'not,' making a direct statement of refusal.
- Textual variant (Chetib vs Keri): The 'bound by oath' reading changes the emphasis from ingratitude to covenant-breaking, affecting the verse's flow.
What is clear: God holds His people accountable for their persistent unfaithfulness, and their sin is aggravated by His prior goodness to them.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| God's question: is it rhetorical or literal negation? | The question expresses impossibility of pardon given the persistent sin. | Some, like the Targum and Gill (citing Jewish commentators), take it as a fixed resolution: 'Not for this will I pardon.' Others, like Calvin, see it as a rhetorical cross-examination designed to convince the people of their guilt, leaving open the possibility of pardon if genuine repentance occurs. |
| 'Fed them to the full' vs 'Bound them by oath' | The contrast between God's action and Israel's sin is clear either way. | The Hebrew text (Chetib) reads 'I bound them by oath' (from the root <em>sheva</em>, to swear), while the margin (Keri) reads 'I fed them to the full' (from <em>sava</em>, to satisfy). Most English versions follow the Keri because of the wordplay with 'sworn' in the first half. Barnes and JFB favour the Chetib as heightening the covenant betrayal. |
| Adultery: literal or spiritual? | Adultery is condemned and linked to idolatry. | Clarke and many older commentators treat it wholly as a metaphor for idolatry ('spiritual adultery'). Barnes, Cambridge, and Keil argue that literal adultery was also practiced, especially in nature-worship cults that involved ritual prostitution. Both readings are valid within the context. |
| 'Assembled themselves in troops' or 'cut themselves' | The behaviour is public and shameful. | The Hebrew verb <em>yitgodadu</em> can mean 'they cut themselves' (as in mourning rites) or 'they gathered in troops.' The MT favours the latter. The LXX reads 'sojourned' (<em>parepikmisan</em>), suggesting a variant. Cambridge suggests emending to 'made themselves sojourners.' The conservative consensus follows the MT meaning of gathering in crowds, focusing on the brazenness of the sin. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Jeremiah prophesied in the final decades of Judah's existence (c. 627, 586 BC). King Josiah's religious reforms (2 Kings 22, 23) had suppressed overt idolatry, but after his death the people quickly returned to the old ways. Chapter 5 opens with a divine search for one honest person, none found. The corruption was universal: from the poor (who 'do not know the law') to the great (who 'burst the bonds'). Verse 7 sits in a catalogue of sins that explain why judgment is unavoidable.
The accusation 'sworn by what are no gods' echoes Deuteronomy 32:21, the Song of Moses that warns of provoking God with 'no-gods.' The phrase 'fed them to the full' (Keri reading) resonates with Deuteronomy 32:15: 'Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.' Prosperity, meant to inspire gratitude, instead produced arrogance and self-indulgence.
The 'prostitutes' houses' refer primarily to the temples of Baal and Asherah, where cultic prostitution was part of the worship. As Barnes notes, 'the prophet also had in view the unchastity which accompanied most forms of nature-worship.' But the surrounding context (especially verse 8: 'fed horses neighing after neighbour's wife') suggests literal adultery was also rampant. The people's guilt is double: spiritual infidelity toward God and marital infidelity toward spouses. Both break covenant.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note two main textual issues in verse 7. First, the Hebrew word va'asbia (Keri reading) means 'I fed them to the full,' while the Chetib could be read as 'I bound them by oath' from the same root shava. The wordplay in the verse (sworn vs. satisfied) makes the Keri likely original. Second, the verb yithgodadu (they assembled in troops) is ambiguous: the LXX reads 'made themselves sojourners,' and some scholars propose emending the text on that basis. The Cambridge Bible notes this textual difficulty but most English translations follow the MT. No other significant variants are noted in the supplied excerpts.
Reception History
Jeremiah 5:7 has been read across the history of the Church as a profound statement of God's reluctance to judge and the necessity of justice. Calvin's rhetorical 'conference' interpretation shaped Reformed understanding of divine justice. The verse was cited in debates about limited atonement, with some arguing that the impossibility of pardon without satisfaction requires Christ's substitution. In Pietist and Methodist traditions, Wesley's note on 'unsanctified prosperity' made the verse a warning against material blessing without spiritual fruit. More broadly, the passage has been used in preaching to confront complacent congregations who mistake God's patience for approval. While no single creed formally cites this verse, its logic echoes in discussions of covenant faithfulness and the serious nature of idolatry.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God confronts with a rhetorical question (v.7a), He puts the impossibility of pardon before the people, forcing them to see the hopelessness of their condition.
- Their sins are named directly (v.7b), forsaking God, swearing by false gods, ungrateful abundance, and rampant adultery.
- God's provision heightens the guilt (v.7c, d), being fed to the full did not lead to thankful loyalty but to betrayal and debauchery.
Five-point outline
- God's justice cannot be bribed (v.7a: 'How can I pardon you?')
- Abandonment of the true God is the root sin (v.7b: 'your children have forsaken me')
- False worship replaces true allegiance (v.7c: 'sworn by what are no gods')
- Ingratitude for blessings deepens the offense (v.7d: 'when I had fed them to the full')
- Sin becomes public and pervasive (v.7e, f: 'they committed adultery and assembled in troops at prostitutes' houses')
Illustration hooks
- The spoiled child: A parent gives every good gift but the child rejects the parent, preferring dangerous friends. The grieving parent asks, 'How can I keep letting you off?'
- The unfaithful spouse: After years of faithful provision and care, a spouse betrays the marriage, not in momentary weakness but in open, repeated affairs. The wronged partner finally asks, 'Why should I forgive?'
- The giver's grief: Think of someone who lent money, time, or resources to a friend, only to be betrayed and slandered. The wound is deepened by the very generosity that was abused.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God ever reach a point where He refuses to forgive?
- How do I know if my own blessings are making me complacent toward God?
- What does 'spiritual adultery' look like in everyday life?
Leading a Discussion
Jeremiah 5:7 forces us to look at the full picture of sin: it is not just a mistake, it is a personal betrayal of the God who gives us every good thing. This passage does not downplay God's mercy; it shows why mere pardon without change would dishonour His justice. As you discuss, let the weight of the verse land honestly before turning to hope.
Discussion questions
- What is the force of God's opening question, 'How can I pardon you?' Why does He ask it if He already knows the answer?
- In what ways does being 'fed to the full' sometimes lead a person away from God rather than toward Him? Give one example.
- The word 'adultery' in this verse describes both literal infidelity and spiritual unfaithfulness (idolatry). How are the two connected in the prophet's mind?
- What does it mean to 'swear by what are no gods'? Can modern Christians commit this sin in less obvious ways?
- Calvin says God is acting like a lawyer cross-examining His own case. What does that reveal about God's character, His justice, His patience, His honesty?
- If you were one of Jeremiah's hearers, how would you answer God's question? What could you possibly say in your defence?
- The chapter goes on to pronounce judgment, but the book of Jeremiah also promises a new covenant (Jer 31). How does the severity of verse 7 make the new covenant more remarkable?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 20:10 | “‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. |
| Numbers 25:1 | Israel stayed in Shittim; and the people began to play the prostitute with the daughters of Moab; |
| Numbers 25:3 | Israel joined himself to Baal Peor, and Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel. |
| Deuteronomy 32:15 | But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked. You have grown fat. You have grown thick. You have become sleek. Then he abandoned God who made him, and rejected the Rock of his salvation. |
| Deuteronomy 32:21 | They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God. They have provoked me to anger with their vanities. I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people. I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. |
| Joshua 23:7 | that you not come among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow down yourselves to them; |
| Psalms 50:18 | When you saw a thief, you consented with him, and have participated with adulterers. |
| Jeremiah 2:11 | Has a nation changed its gods, which really are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doesn’t profit. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke explains that "harlots' houses" means places devoted to idolatry, not literal brothels. He points out that prophets consistently use adultery as a metaphor for idolatry, a pattern he confirms from many scriptural examples.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes reads the question "Why should I pardon thee?" as a rhetorical challenge, emphasizing that God has no reason to forgive such persistent sin. He identifies "the harlots' houses" as idol temples, connecting the spiritual adultery of false worship with the physical unchastity common in nature-worship.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin highlights a courtroom-like scene where God appeals to the Jewish people as if asking for their own verdict on their punishment. God argues that punishing such open rebellion is not optional, because to spare them would mean denying His own glory and ceasing to be who He is.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible notes a likely textual problem at the opening of this verse, where the Hebrew may have lost a phrase like "Thus saith the Lord." On the difficult phrase "assembled themselves in troops," the editors prefer a slight emendation (supported by the Greek version) to read "made themselves sojourners," pointing to the impure rites accompanying idolatry.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Note highlights the bitter irony in God’s complaint: His people, after being fed abundantly, repaid Him not with loyalty but with adultery and idolatry. The abundance of His provision only made their betrayal more grievous, as they used His gifts to gather in houses of harlots and swear by false gods.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights the Hebrew wordplay between swearing and feeding, showing that Israel's sins were made worse by God's abundant provision. Their adultery, both spiritual and literal, was brazen and widespread, gathering in troops to harlots' houses. God's rhetorical question implies that no reason exists to pardon such aggravated, public rebellion.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB highlights a Hebrew textual variant where God bound Israel by oath in the marriage covenant at Sinai, contrasting this directly with their idolatrous adultery. He also
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch insist that God's statement about finding no righteous person in Jerusalem is not rhetorical exaggeration but simple truth from the divine perspective. Before the all-seeing eye of God, no human is pure, and the righteous are so few they cannot sway the moral state of the whole. They also note that the people's oath by God's name is condemned not for invoking false gods but for swearing falsely.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights God's shocking challenge to find even a single person in Jerusalem who pursues justice and truth, with the remarkable promise to pardon the whole city for one such person. This underlines the depth of Judah's moral collapse, where even those who claimed to know the Lord had become hardened beyond reform.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
They then - Such is the natural effect of unsanctified prosperity.