Introduction to Jeremiah 3:1: Covenant, Divorce, and the Question of Return
Jeremiah 3:1 opens with a rhetorical allusion to Deuteronomic law regarding divorce and remarriage (cf. Deut. 24:1–4). The core grammatical and theological tension is framed by the interrogative verb הֲיָשׁוּב—“Would he return?” This verse uses juridical imagery to confront Israel’s spiritual adultery and probes the unimaginable grace of YHWH’s invitation to return. This article will examine the verb הֲיָשׁוּב in its grammatical context, syntactic structure, and literary-theological implications in Jeremiah 3:1.
לֵאמֹ֡ר הֵ֣ן יְשַׁלַּ֣ח אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתֹּו֩ וְהָלְכָ֨ה מֵאִתֹּ֜ו וְהָיְתָ֣ה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵ֗ר הֲיָשׁ֤וּב אֵלֶ֨יהָ֙ עֹ֔וד הֲלֹ֛וא חָנֹ֥וף תֶּחֱנַ֖ף הָאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֑יא וְאַ֗תְּ זָנִית֙ רֵעִ֣ים רַבִּ֔ים וְשֹׁ֥וב אֵלַ֖י נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה׃
Grammatical Analysis of הֲיָשׁוּב
The verb הֲיָשׁוּב is an interrogative form of the verb שׁוּב (“to return, turn back”), appearing here in the Qal imperfect, third person masculine singular. It is prefixed by the interrogative particle הֲ, which transforms the verb into a yes-no rhetorical question: “Would he return?”
- Root: שׁוּב (š-w-b) – “to return, go back, turn”
- Form: Qal imperfect, 3rd masculine singular
- Prefix: הֲ – Interrogative particle
- Function: Introduces a rhetorical question expressing legal and moral impossibility
Placed in the conditional-legal context following הֵן יְשַׁלַּח (“If a man sends away…”), this verb asks whether, after divorce and remarriage, the man could rightfully return to his former wife. The expected answer, according to Torah logic, is “No.”
Phrase-by-Phrase Commentary
הֵן יְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתֹּו
- הֵן – “Behold / If” – conditional particle introducing a hypothetical scenario.
- יְשַׁלַּח – “he sends away” – Piel imperfect of שָׁלַח, indicating formal divorce.
- אִשְׁתֹּו – “his wife” – Direct object with possessive suffix (3ms).
וְהָלְכָה מֵאִתֹּו וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר
A continued condition:
- וְהָלְכָה – “and she goes” – Qal perfect with waw-consecutive.
- מֵאִתֹּו – “from him” – indicating her departure from the husband.
- וְהָיְתָה – “and she becomes” – Qal perfect, referring to remarriage.
- לְאִישׁ אַחֵר – “to another man” – a new legal marital bond.
הֲיָשׁוּב אֵלֶיהָ עֹוד
- הֲיָשׁוּב – “Would he return?” – the central legal question, grammatically formed as a rhetorical yes-no interrogative.
- אֵלֶיהָ – “to her” – directional prepositional phrase (to his former wife).
- עֹוד – “again” – adverb stressing recurrence.
This question draws from Deuteronomy 24:4, where it is forbidden for a man to remarry a wife who has married another. The rhetorical force expects a negative answer.
הֲלֹוא חָנֹוף תֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא
This phrase asserts the consequences:
- הֲלֹוא – “Would not…?” – rhetorical question expecting affirmation.
- חָנֹוף תֶּחֱנַף – “greatly polluted would be” – emphatic repetition (infinitive absolute + imperfect).
- הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא – “that land” – referring to moral and cultic defilement.
The image of the polluted land extends the metaphor from individual marital impurity to national spiritual corruption.
וְאַתְּ זָנִית רֵעִים רַבִּים
Now the metaphor applies directly to Israel:
- אַתְּ – “you” – feminine singular, addressing the nation.
- זָנִית – “you have prostituted yourself” – Qal perfect from זָנָה, expressing unfaithfulness.
- רֵעִים רַבִּים – “with many lovers” – an intensification of covenant betrayal.
וְשׁוֹב אֵלַי נְאֻם־יְהוָה
The verse ends with a shocking reversal:
- וְשׁוֹב – “but return!” – Qal imperative (2fs), inviting the unfaithful nation back.
- אֵלַי – “to Me” – divine speaker, YHWH Himself.
- נְאֻם־יְהוָה – “declares the LORD” – prophetic formula of divine speech.
This is the theological climax: though return would be unlawful in human terms, YHWH transcends legal expectations and invites Israel back, despite her many adulteries. The contrast between the expected legal answer (“No return”) and YHWH’s invitation creates a powerful tension of grace and judgment.
Theological Significance of הֲיָשׁוּב in Jeremiah 3:1
1. Prophetic Rhetoric and Legal Irony
The use of הֲיָשׁוּב introduces a legal rhetorical question. It establishes a standard from human law that serves to heighten the surprise when YHWH defies expectation. The legal impossibility intensifies the scandal of divine mercy.
2. Israel’s Covenant Adultery
By using marriage and remarriage as metaphors, the prophet condemns Israel’s alliances with other gods and nations. Yet, unlike human law, YHWH chooses to reopen the relationship, revealing a grace beyond Torah jurisprudence.
3. Divine Invitation Beyond Judgment
Despite the rhetorical “No” implied in הֲיָשׁוּב, the imperative שׁוֹב (“Return!”) changes the trajectory. The pivot from judgment to mercy embodies the prophetic role as mediator of repentance and announcer of hope.
The Role of הֲיָשׁוּב in Jeremiah 3:1
The verb הֲיָשׁוּב is more than a grammatical interrogative—it is the axis of the verse’s theological tension. It presents a case against return and then shatters that case through divine compassion. It serves to:
- Grammatically: Qal imperfect with interrogative particle – forming a rhetorical question
- Literarily: Frame the prophet’s argument with legal irony
- Theologically: Emphasize the radical mercy of YHWH in welcoming the unfaithful
