A deservedly esteemed commentator observes on this conduct of Jeremiah, "Though we must be so harmless as doves as never to tell a wilful lie, yet we must be so wise as serpents as not needlessly to expose ourselves to danger by telling all we know." But many are not satisfied with this defence, and they hesitate not to apply the terms "equivocation," "subterfuge," and other like censures to the prophet's reply to the princes. Note, therefore -

I. WHAT IS URGED AGAINST SUCH CONDUCT. One says, "The plain meaning of such words is that Jeremiah hoodwinked them. He did not lie to them, certainly; but he did not tell the truth, and left them with a false impression. It comes very near to deception; it was evasive, and certainly was not an honest act. It seems an oblique lie." And this view of the case is supported on grounds such as these:

1. Had he not been afraid, he would have told the whole truth; but fear does not justify falsehood, though it often occasions it.

2. What must the king have thought of a prophet of God so complaisant as this?

3. What would the princes say of his vaunted righteousness when they learnt how he had dealt with them?

4. Our Saviour and his apostles never did the like.

5. It had all the effect of a lie, since it left a false impression on the minds of those to whom he spoke.

6. The very fact that it needs laboured argument to justify it against our instinctive condemnation of it shows that it does not belong to the noble family of truth, etc. But audi alteram partem. Therefore note -

II. WHAT MAY BE URGED IN DEFENCE.

1. In reference to the foregoing arguments. The first assumes that there was no motive but fear. The second and third are assumptions also. The fourth is, to say the least, doubtful (cf. John 7:8, 9; Acts 20:20-26). Concerning the fifth, it is not true that all the effect of a lie, nor its worst effect, is that stated. And as to the sixth, it may be said that instinctive condemnations may be unjust as well as just.

2. Other replies to the charge against the prophet are:

(1) He spoke no untruth.

(2) Expediency, if not unlawful, is obligatory.

(3) It has been ever recognized as lawful, under certain circumstances, to mislead an enemy; of Rahab's conduct (Joshua 2:1) and its commendation (Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25). The commonly supposed case of a murderer asking you which way your friend has gone, in order that he may overtake and murder him; in such case, not only might you mislead, but would you not be bound to do so?

3. There are sacred principles on which such suppression of the truth as Jeremiah's is justified.

(1) The right to truth may be forfeited, as the right to liberty and life may be forfeited, by wrong doing. In the vast majority of cases men have a right to the truth, but in all the cases cited above they had no such right.

(2) Truth is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end, which is the honour of God and the well being of man; and there are occasions, doubtless very rare, when the end can only be secured by the sacrifice of the ordinary means. Therefore let all who presume to condemn great saints of God as guilty of lying, because they had no mere superstitious idolatry of veracity, as some have, hesitate before they bring such charge. Who are we to sit in judgment on such? But, on the other hand, let none pervert these reasonings, as the Jesuits did and many yet do, into a justification for lying and departing from the truth whenever it may be found convenient. It needs a healthy conscience to decide when these reasonings are applicable - a conscience enlightened by God's Spirit and animated by his love, and then such a one, and only such a one, may be left to do as he wills in cases like those we have considered. - C.

I remember very well, when I first went out to Australia, that one fine evening a little bird was seen to be following the ship, evidently a land-bird driven out to sea. When the little thing got tired it tried to alight on some portion of the rigging, though it seemed afraid to do so. On one occasion the captain stretched forth his hand and tried to take hold of the little bird, but it eluded his grasp and went back far away into the darkness of the night, falling upon the waves without the hope of rescue.

(T. Spurgeon.)