¹ tn Or “This is a record of what Jeremiah prophesied”; Heb “The words [or affairs] of Jeremiah.” The phrase could refer to either the messages of Jeremiah recorded in the book or to both his messages and the biographical (and autobiographical) narratives recorded about him in the book. Since the phrase is intended to serve as the title or superscription for the whole book and recurs again in 51:64 at the end of the book before the final appendix, it is likely that it refers to the latter.
²sn The translation reflects the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the word for “Lord” for the proper name for Israel’s God which is now generally agreed to have been Yahweh. Jewish scribes wrote the consonants Yhwh but substituted the vowels for the word “Lord”. The practice of calling him “Lord” rather than using his proper name is also reflected in the Greek translation which is the oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of the name Yahweh is supposedly given in Exod 3:13-14 where God identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and tells Moses that his name is “I am” (‘ehyeh). However, he instructs Moses to tell the Israelites that Yhwh (Yahweh) sent him. That is to be his everlasting name (see further Exod 34:5-6).
³tn Heb “to whom the word of the LORD came.” The proposed translation is more in keeping with contemporary English idiom. The idea of “began to speak” comes from the context where the conclusion of his speaking is signaled by the phrases “until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah” and “until the people of Jerusalem were taken into exile” in v. 3.
⁴sn This would have been August, 586 BC according to modern reckoning.
⁵tn Heb “and it [the word of the LORD] came in the days of Jehoiakim…until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah…until the carrying away captive of Jerusalem in the fifth month.”
⁶tn Heb “the womb.” The words “your mother’s” are implicit and are added for clarity.
⁷tn Heb “I knew you.” The parallelism here with “set you apart” and “appointed you” make clear that Jeremiah is speaking of his foreordination to be a prophet. For this same nuance of the Hebrew verb see Gen 18:19; Amos 3:2.
⁸tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.”
sn The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for “God” for the proper name Yahweh in this compound name. See the study note on v. 2 for the substitution of “Lord” in a similar kind of situation.
⁹tn This is an attempt to render a Hebrew particle (hN}h!, commonly rendered “behold”) which calls attention to the presence of a person or thing, the immediacy of an act, or the reality of a fact.
¹⁰tn The words “well enough for that” are implicit and are added for clarity. Jeremiah is not claiming an absolute inability to speak.
¹¹tn Heb “I am a boy/youth.” The Hebrew word can refer to an infant (Exod 2:6), a young boy (1 Sam 2:11), a teenager (Gen 21:12), or a young man (2 Sam 18:5). The translation is deliberately ambiguous since we do not know how old Jeremiah was when he was called to begin prophesying.
¹²tn Or “For you must go and say…” The Hebrew particle yK! is likely adversative here after a negative statement (cf. BDB, yK!, 3e, p. 474). The LORD is probably not giving a rationale for the denial of Jeremiah’s objection but redirecting his focus, i.e., “do not say…but go…and say.”
¹³tn Heb “be afraid of them.” The antecedent is the “whomever” in v. 7.
¹⁴tn Heb “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.” This is an example of the Hebrew “scheduling” perfect or the “prophetic” perfect where what is future is viewed as so certain it is spoken of as past. The Hebrew particle rendered here “assuredly” (Heb hN}h!) underlines the certitude of the promise for the future. See the translator’s note on v. 6.
sn The passage is reminiscent of Deut 18:18 which refers to the LORD’s promise of future revelation through a line of prophets who, like Moses, would speak God’s word.
¹⁵tn Heb “See!” The Hebrew imperative of the verb used here (ha*r`) functions the same as the particle in v. 9. See the translator’s note there.
¹⁶tn Heb “I appoint you today over nations and kingdoms to uproot…” The phrase refers to the LORD giving Jeremiah authority as a prophet to declare what he, the LORD, will do; it does not mean that Jeremiah himself will do these things. The expression involves a figure of speech where the subject of a declaration is put for the declaration about it. Compare a similar use of the same figure in Gen 41:13.
¹⁷sn These three pairs represent the two fold nature of Jeremiah’s prophecies, prophecies of judgment and of restoration. For the further programmatic use of these pairs for Jeremiah’s ministry see Jer 18:7-10 and 31:27-28.
¹⁸tn This represents the Hebrew particle (yK!) that is normally rendered “for” or “because”. The particle here is meant to give the significance of the vision, not the rationale for the statement “you have observed correctly.”
¹⁹tn Heb “watching over my word to do it.”
sn There is a play on the Hebrew word for “almond tree” (Heb shaqed) which blossoms in January/February and is the harbinger of spring and the Hebrew word for “watching” (Heb shoqed) which refers to someone watching over someone or something in preparation for action. The play on words announces the certainty and imminency of the LORD carrying out the covenant curses of Lev 26 and Deut 28 threatened by the earlier prophets.
²⁰tn Heb “a blown upon (= heated, boiling) pot and its face from the face of the north (= it is facing away from the north).”
²¹tn There is nothing in the Hebrew text for these words but it is implicit in the connection. Once again the significance of the vision is spelled out. Compare the translator’s note on v. 12.
²²tn Heb “they will each set up.”The “they” refers back to the “kingdoms” in the preceding sentence. However, kingdoms do not sit on thrones; their kings do. This is an example of a figure of speech called metonymy where the kingdom is put for its king. For a similar use see 2 Chr 12:8.
²³tn Or “They will come and set up their thrones in the entrances of the gates of Jerusalem. They will destroy all the walls surrounding it and also destroy all the towns in Judah.” The text of v. 15b reads in Hebrew, “they will each set up his throne [near? in?] the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem and against all its walls…and against all the towns…” Commentators are divided over whether the passage refers to the kings setting up their thrones after victory in preparation for passing judgment on their defeated enemies in the city or whether it refers to setting up siege against it. There is no Hebrew preposition before the word for “the entrance” so that it could be “in” (which would imply victory) or “at/near” (which would imply siege), and the same verb + object (i.e., “they will set up their thrones”) governs all the locative statements. It is most often taken to refer to the aftermath of victory because of the supposed parallel in Jer 43:8-13 and the supposed fulfillment in Jer 39:3. Though this may fit well with the first part of the compound expression, it does not fit well with the latter part which is most naturally taken to refer to hostile attacks against Jerusalem and the other cities of Judah. The translation given in the text is intended to reflect the idea of an army setting up for siege. The alternate translation is intended to reflect the other view.
²⁴tn The Hebrew particle (the waw consecutive), which is often rendered in some translations “and” and in others is simply ignored, is rendered here epexegetically, reflecting a summary statement.
²⁵sn The Hebrew idiom (literally “I will speak my judgments against”) is found three other times in Jeremiah (4:12; 39:5; 52:9), where it is followed by the carrying out of the sentence. Here the carrying out of the sentence precedes in v. 15.
²⁶tn Heb “on them.” The antecedent goes back to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (i.e., the people in them) in v. 15.
²⁷tn I.e., idols.
²⁸tn The name “Jeremiah” is not in the text. The use of the personal pronoun followed by the proper name is an attempt to reflect the correlative emphasis between Jeremiah’s responsibility noted here and the LORD’s promise noted in the next verse. The emphasis in the Hebrew text is marked by the presence of the subject pronouns at the beginning of each of the two verses.
²⁹tn Heb “gird up your loins.” For the literal use of this idiom to refer to preparation for action see 2 Kgs 4:29; 9:1. For the idiomatic use to refer to spiritual and emotional preparation as here, see Job 38:3, 40:7, and 1 Pet 1:13 in the NT.
³⁰tn Heb “I will make you terrified in front of them.” There is a play on words here involving two different forms of the same Hebrew verb and two different but related prepositional phrases, “from before>of,” a preposition introducing the object of a verb of fearing, and “before, in front of,” a preposition introducing a spatial location.
³¹tn See the note on “Jeremiah” at the beginning of v. 17.
³²tn Heb “today I have made you.” The Hebrew verb form here emphasizes the certainty of a yet future act; the LORD is promising to protect Jeremiah from any future attacks which may result from his faithfully carrying out his commission. See a similar use of the same Hebrew verb tense in v. 9, and see the translator’s note there.
³³tn Heb “I make you a fortified city…against all the land…” The words “as strong as” and “so you will be able to stand against all the people of…” are given to clarify the meaning of the metaphor.
¹tn Heb “to/for you.” The preposition here indicates the object of advantage or benefit.
²tn lit., “the loyal love of your youth.”
sn The Hebrew word translated “how devoted you were” (ds#j#) refers here metaphorically to the devotion of a new bride to her husband. In typical Hebraic fashion contemporary Israel is identified here with Israel in her early years after she first entered into covenant with (i.e., metaphorically married) the LORD. The reference here to her earlier devotion is not absolute but relative. Compared to her unfaithfulness in worshipping other gods after she got into the land, the murmuring and complaining in the wilderness are ignored.
³sn Heb “the first fruits of his harvest.” Many commentators see the figure here as having theological significance for the calling of the Gentiles. It is likely, however, that in this context the metaphor—here rendered as a simile—is intended to bring out the special relationship and inviolability that Israel had with God. As the first fruits were the special possession of the LORD, to be eaten only by the priests and off limits to the common people, so Israel was God’s special possession and was not to be “eaten” by the nations.
⁴tn Or “I did not wrong your ancestors in any way. Yet they went far astray from me.” Both translations are an attempt to render the rhetorical question which demands a negative answer.
⁵tn Heb “They went/followed after.” This idiom probably doesn’t mean much if translated literally. It is found most often in Deuteronomy or literature related to the covenant. It refers in the first instance to loyalty to God and to his covenant or his commandments (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 14:8; 2 Chr 34:31) with the metaphor of a path or way underlying it (cf., e.g., Deut 11:28; 28:14). To “follow other gods” was to abandon this way and this loyalty (i.e., to “abandon” or “forget” God, Judg 2:12; Hos 2:13) and to follow the customs or religious traditions of the pagan nations (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:15). The classic text on “following” God or another god is 1 Kgs 18:18, 21 where Elijah taunts the people with “halting between two opinions” whether the LORD was the true God or Baal was. The idiom is often found followed by “to serve and to worship” or “they served and worshipped” such and such a god or entity (see, e.g., Jer 8:2; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 25:6; 35:15).
⁶tn The words “to me” are not in the Hebrew text but are implicit from the context: Heb “they followed after the worthless thing/things and became worthless.” There is an obvious word play on the verb “became worthless” and the noun “worthless thing”, which is probably to be understood collectively and to refer to idols as it does in Jer 8:19; 10:8; 14:22; Jon 2:8.
⁷tn This word is erroneously rendered “shadow of death” in most older translations. That translation is based on a faulty etymology. Contextual studies and comparative Semitic linguistics have demonstrated that the word is merely another word for darkness. It is confined to poetic texts and often carries, as it does here, further connotations of danger and distress. It is associated in poetic texts with the darkness of a prison (Ps 107:10, 14), a mine (Job 28:3), and a ravine (Ps 23:4). Here it is associated with the darkness of the wasteland and ravines of the Sinai desert.
⁸sn The context suggests that the question is related to a lament where the people turn to God in their troubles, asking him for help and reminding him of his past benefactions. See for example Isa 63:11-19 and Psalm 44. It is an implicit prayer for his intervention, cf. 2 Kgs 2:14.
⁹sn Note how contemporary Israel is again identified with her early ancestors. See the study note on 2:2.
¹⁰tn Heb “eat.”
¹¹sn I.e., made it ceremonially unclean. See Lev 18:19-30; Num 35:34; Deut 21:23.
¹²tn Heb “my inheritance.” Or “the land [i.e., inheritance] I gave you,” reading the pronoun as indicating source rather than possession. The parallelism and the common use in Jeremiah of the term to refer to the land or people as the LORD’s (cf., e.g., 12:7, 8, 9; 16:18; 50:11) make the possessive use more likely here.
sn The land belonged to the LORD; it was given to the Israelites in trust (or usufruct) as their heritage. See Lev 25:23.
¹³sn See the study note on 2:6.
¹⁴tn Heb “those who handle my law.”
sn The reference is likely to the priests and Levites who were responsible for teaching the law (so Jer 18:18, and see also Deut 33:10). According to Jer 8:8 it could possibly refer to the scribes who copied the law.
¹⁵tn Or “were not committed to me.” The Hebrew verb rendered “know” refers to more than mere intellectual knowledge. It carries also the ideas of emotional and volitional commitment as well intimacy. See for example its use in contexts like Hos 4:1; 6:6.
¹⁶tn Heb “by Baal.”
¹⁷tn Heb “and they followed after those things [the word is plural] which do not profit.” The poetic structure of the verse, four lines in which a distinct subject appears at the beginning followed by a fifth line beginning with a prepositional phrase and no distinct subject, argues that this line is climactic and refers to all four classes enumerated in the preceding lines. See W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:88-89. There may be a play or pun in the Hebrew text on the name for the god Baal (lu^B^) and the verb “cannot help you [do not profit]” which is spelled yaal in Hebrew (lu^y^).
¹⁸tn Or “bring charges against you.”
sn The language is that of the law court. In international political contexts it was the language of a great king charging his subject with breach of covenant. See for examples in earlier prophets, Isa 1:2-20; Mic 6:1-8.
¹⁹tn The words “your children and” are added to the translation to bring out the idea of corporate solidarity implicit in the passage. See the study note.
sn The passage reflects the Hebrew concept of corporate solidarity where what the parents did had implications for their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Compare the usage in the ten commandments, Deut 5:10, and note the execution of the children of Dathan and Abiram, Deut 11:6, and of Achan, Josh 7:24-25.
²⁰tn “For” here introduces the case against Israel. An alternative would be “Here is my case against you:”
²¹tn Heb “pass over to the coasts of Kittim.” The words “west across the sea” in this line and “east of” in the next are implicit in the text and are added to give geographical orientation.
sn The term “Kittim” originally referred to Cyprus but later was used for the lands in the west, including Macedonia (1 Macc 1:1; 8:5) and Rome (Dan 11:30). It is used here as part of a figure called merism to denote the lands in the west as opposed to Kedar which was in the east. The figure includes polar opposites to indicate totality, i.e., everywhere from west to east.
²²sn This is the home of the bedouin tribes in the Syro-Arabian desert. See Gen 25:18 and Jer 49:38. See also the previous note for the significance of the reference here.
²³tn Heb “have exchanged their glory [i.e., the God in whom they glory].” This is a case of a figure of speech where the attribute of a person or thing is put for the person or thing. Compare the common phrase in Isaiah, the Holy One of Israel, obviously referring to the LORD, the God of Israel.
²⁴tn Heb “what cannot profit.” The verb is singular and the allusion is likely to Baal. See the translator’s note on 2:8 for the likely pun or word play.
²⁵sn In earlier literature the heavens (and the earth) were called on to witness Israel’s commitment to the covenant (Deut 30:12), and were called to serve as witnesses to Israel’s fidelity or infidelity to it (Isa 1:2; Mic 6:1).
²⁶tn It is difficult to decide here whether to translate “fresh, running water” which the Hebrew term for “living water” often refers to, e.g., Gen 26:19; Lev 14:5, or “life-giving water” which the idiom “fountain of life” as source of life and vitality often refers to, e.g., Ps 36:9; Prov 13:14; 14:27. The contrast with cisterns, which collected and held rain water, suggests “fresh, running water”, but the reality underlying the metaphor contrasts the LORD, the source of life, health, and vitality, with useless idols that cannot do anything.
²⁷sn Heb “Is Israel a slave? Or is he a house born slave?” The questions are rhetorical, expecting a negative answer. The LORD is here contrasting Israel’s lofty status as the LORD’s bride and special possession, which he had earlier reminded her of (see 2:2-3), with her current status of servitude to Egypt and Assyria.
²⁸tn Heb “Lions shout over him, they give out [raise] their voices.”
sn The lion is here a metaphor for the Assyrians (and later the Babylonians, see Jer 50:17). The reference to lions roaring over their prey implies that the prey has been vanquished.
²⁹tn Heb “without inhabitant.”
³⁰tc The translation follows the reading of the Syriac version. The Hebrew text reads “have grazed [= “shaved” ?] your skulls [as a sign of disgracing them].” Note that the reference shifts here from third person, “him”, to second person, “you,” which is common in Hebrew style. The words “people of Israel” have been added to help identify the referent and ease the switch. The reading here presupposes EWuroy+ a Qal imperfect from the verb uu^r`+ (see BDB, II uu^r`, Qal 1, p. 949 and compare usage in Jer 15:2; Ps 2:9). The Masoretic text reads EWur+y] a Qal imperfect from the root hu*r` (see BDB, I hu*r`, Qal 2b, p. 945 for usage). The use of the verb in the Masoretic text is unparalleled in the sense suggested, but the resultant figure, if “graze” can mean “shave”, is paralleled in Jer 47:5; 48:37; Isa 7:20. The reading of the variant is accepted here on the basis that it is the rarer root; the scribe would have been more familiar with the root “graze” even though it is unparalleled in the figurative nuance implied here. The noun “head/skull” is functioning in either case as an accusative of further specification (see GKC, §117ll, p. 372 and compare usage in Gen 3:8), i.e., “they crack you on the skull” or “they shave you on the skull.” The verb is a prefixed form and in this context is either a preterite without waw consecutive or an iterative imperfect denoting repeated action. Some modern translations render the verb in the future tense, “they will break [or shave] your skull.”
³¹tn Heb “Are you not bringing this on yourself.” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
³²tn Heb “at the time of leading you in the way.”
³³tn Heb “What to you to the way.”
³⁴tn The Hebrew particle that introduces this verse (hT*u^w+, “and now,”) is drawing a logical conclusion and not giving a temporal indication (cf. BDB, hT*u^, 2b, p. 274).
³⁵tn Heb “to drink water from the Shihor [a branch of the Nile].” The reference is to seeking help through political alliance with Egypt as opposed to trusting in God for help. This is an extension of the figure in 2:13.
³⁶tn Heb “What to you to the way.”
³⁷tn Heb “to drink water from the River [a common designation for the Euphrates].” The reference is again to seeking help through political alliance. See the preceding note.
³⁸tn Or “teach you a lesson”; Heb “rebuke/chide you.”
³⁹tn Heb “how evil and bitter.” The reference is to the consequences of their acts. This is probably an example of a figure of speech where two nouns or adjectives joined by “and” introduce a main concept modified by the other noun or adjective (a figure called hendiadys).
⁴⁰tn Heb “to leave the LORD your God.” The change in person is intended to ease the problem of the rapid transition, which is common in Hebrew style but not in English, from third to first person between this line and the next.
⁴¹tn Heb “and no fear of me was on you.”
⁴²tn Heb “the Lord Yahweh, [the God of] hosts.” For the title Lord GOD see the study note on 1:6. For the title “who rules over all” see the following study note. The title “the LORD who rules over all” is a way of rendering the title “Yahweh of armies.”It is an abbreviation of a longer title “Yahweh the God of armies” which occurs five times in Jeremiah (see, e.g., 44:7). The abbreviated title occurs seventy seven times in the book of Jeremiah. On thirty two occasions it is further qualified by the title “the God of Israel,” showing his special relation to Israel. On six occasions it is preceded by the title “Lord” (see, e.g., 46:10) and twice it is preceded by the title “the King” (see, e.g., 51:17). Both titles emphasize his sovereignty. Twice it is said that he is the maker of all things (10:16; 51:19) and once it is said that he made the earth and the people and animals on it and gives them into the control of whomever he wishes (27:4-5). On two occasions it is emphasized that he also made the heavenly elements and controls the natural elements of wind, rain, thunder and hail (31:35; 51:14-16). All this is consistent with usage elsewhere where the “armies” over which he has charge are identified as (1) the angels which surround his throne (Isa 6:3, 5; 1 Kgs 22:19) and which he sends to protect his servants (2 Kgs 6:17), (2) the natural forces of thunder, rain, and hail (Isa 29:6; Josh 10:11; Judg 5:4, 5) through which he sends the enemy into panic and “gums” up their chariot wheels, (3) the armies of Israel (1 Sam 17:45) which he leads into battle (Num 10:34-35; Josh 5:14, 15) and for whom he fights as a mighty warrior (Exod 15:3; Isa 42:13; Ps 24:8), and even (4) the armies of the nations which he musters against his disobedient people (Isa 13:14). This title is most commonly found in the messenger formula “Thus says…” introducing both oracles of judgment (on Israel [e.g., 9:7, 15] and on the nations [e.g. 46:19; 50:18]; and see in general 25:29-32). It emphasizes his sovereignty as the king and creator, the lord of creation and of history, and the just judge who sees and knows all (11:20; 20:12) and judges each person and nation according to their actions (Jer 32:18-19). In the first instance (in the most dominant usage) this will involve the punishment of his own people through the agency of the Babylonians (cf., e.g., 25:8-9). But it will also include the punishment of all nations, including Babylon itself (cf Jer 25:17-26, 32-38), and will ultimately result in the restoration of his people and a new relation with them (30:8; 31:35-37).
⁴³tn Or “For.” The Hebrew particle (yK!) here introduces the evidence that they had no respect for him.
⁴⁴tn Heb “you broke your yoke…tore off your yoke ropes.” The metaphor is that of a recalcitrant ox or heifer which has broken free from its master.
⁴⁵tc The Masoretic text of this verse has two examples of the old second feminine singular perfect, yT!r+b^v* and yT!q=T^n], which the Masoretes mistook for first singulars leading to the proposal to read robu^a# (“I will not transgress”) for dobu^a# (“I will not serve”). The latter understanding of the forms is accepted in KJV but rejected by most all modern translations as being less appropriate to the context than the reading accepted in the translation given here.
⁴⁶tn Heb “you sprawled as a prostitute on…” The translation reflects the meaning of the metaphor.
⁴⁷tc Heb “I planted you as a choice vine, all of it true seed. How then have you turned into a putrid thing to me, a strange/wild vine.” The question expresses surprise and consternation. The translation is based on a redivision of the Hebrew words /p#G#h^ yr}Ws into /p#G# hY`r]os and the recognition of a hapax legomenon hY`r]os meaning “putrid, stinking thing.” See KB3, yr]os, p. 707.
⁴⁸tn Heb “Even if you wash with natron/lye, and use much soap, your sin is a stain before me.”
⁴⁹tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” For an explanation of this title see the study notes on 1:6.
⁵⁰tn Heb “I have not gone/followed after.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for the meaning and usage of this idiom.
⁵¹tn Heb “Look at your way in the valley.” The valley is an obvious reference to the Valley of Hinnom where Baal and Molech were worshiped and child sacrifice was practiced.
⁵²sn The metaphor is intended to depict Israel’s lack of clear direction and purpose without the LORD’s control.
⁵³tn The words, “to get the scent of a male”, are implicit and are added for clarification.
⁵⁴sn The metaphor is intended to depict Israel’s irrepressible desire to worship other gods.
⁵⁵tn Heb “Refrain your feet from being bare and your throat from being dry/thirsty.”
⁵⁶tn Heb “It is useless/ There is no hope! No, because I love strangers.”
⁵⁷tn The words, “for what they have done”, are implicit in the comparison and are added for clarification.
⁵⁸sn The reference to wood and stone is, of course, a pejorative reference to idols. See the next verse where reference is made to “the gods you have made.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “they have turned [their] backs to me, not [their] faces.”
⁶⁰tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle yK! “for, indeed” contextually.
⁶¹sn This is still part of the LORD’s case against Israel. See 2:9 for the use of the same Hebrew verb. The LORD here denies their counter claims that they do not deserve to be punished.
⁶²tn Heb “Your sword devoured your prophets like a destroying lion.” However, the reference to the sword in this and many similar idioms is merely idiomatic for death by violent means.
⁶³tn Heb “a land of the darkness of Yah [= thick or deep darkness].” The idea of danger is an added connotation of the word in this context.
⁶⁴tn Heb “my people.”
⁶⁵tn Or more freely, “free to do as we please.” There is some debate about the meaning of this verb (dWr) because its usage is rare and its meaning is debated in the few passages where it does occur. The key to its meaning may rest in the emended text (reading yT!d=r^w+ for yT!d=r^y`w+) in Judg 11:37 where it refers to the roaming of Jephthah’s daughter on the mountains of Israel.
⁶⁶tn Heb “How good you have made your ways to seek love.”
⁶⁷tn Heb “so that even the wicked women you teach your ways.”
⁶⁸tn The words “for example” are implicit and are added for clarification. This is only one example of why their death was not legitimate.
sn Killing a thief caught in the act of breaking and entering into a person’s home was pardonable under the law of Moses, cf. Exod 22.2.
⁶⁹tn KJV and ASV read this line with 2:34. ASV makes little sense and KJV again erroneously reads the archaic second feminine singular perfect as first common singular. All the modern translations and commentaries take this line with 2:35.
⁷⁰tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle often translated “behold” (hN}h!) in a meaningful way in this context. See further the translator’s note at fn 7 on 1:6.
⁷¹tn Heb “changing your way.” The translation follows the identification of the Hebrew verb here as a defective writing of a form (yl!z+T@ instead of yl!z+aT@) from a verb meaning “go/go about” (lz^a*, cf. BDB, lz^a*, p. 23). Most modern translations, commentaries, and lexicons read it from a root meaning “to treat cheaply/lightly” (yL!z}T* from the root ll^z`, cf. KB3, ll^z`, p. 261); hence, “Why do you consider it such a small matter to…”
⁷²tn Heb “You will be ashamed/disappointed by Egypt, just as your were ashamed/ disappointed by Assyria.”
⁷³tn Heb “with your hands on your head.” For the picture here see 2 Sam 13:19.
⁷⁴tn Heb “The LORD has rejected those you trust in; you will not prosper by/from them.”
¹tn Heb “May he go back to her again?” The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer.
sn For the legal background for the illustration that is used here see Deut 24:1-4.
²tn Heb “Would the land not be utterly defiled?” The stative is here rendered actively to connect better with the preceding. The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
³tn Heb “You have played the prostitute with many lovers.”
⁴tn Heb “Returning to me.” The form is the bare infinitive which KJV and ASV have interpreted as an imperative “Yet, return to me!” However, it is more likely that a question is intended, expressing surprise in the light of the law alluded to and the facts cited. For the use of the infinitive absolute in the place of a finite verb, cf. GKC §113ee. For the introduction of a question without a question marker, cf.GKC §150a.
⁵tn Heb “Where have you not been ravished?” The rhetorical question expects the answer suggests she has engaged in the worship of pagan gods on every one of the hilltops.
⁶tn Heb “You sat for them [the lovers, i.e., the foreign gods] beside the road like an Arab in the desert.”
⁷tn Heb “by your prostitution and your wickedness.” This is probably an example of a figure of speech where, when two nouns are joined by “and”, one expresses the main idea and the other qualifies it.
⁸tn Heb “you have the forehead of a prostitute.”
⁹tn Heb “Have you not just now called out to me, ‘[you are] my father!’?” The rhetorical question expects a positive answer.
¹⁰tn Heb “Will he keep angry forever? Will he maintain [it] to the end?” The questions are rhetorical and expect a negative answer. The change to direct address in the English translation is intended to ease the problem of the rapid transition, common in Hebrew style (but not in English), from second person direct address in the preceding lines to third person indirect address in these two lines. See GKC §144p.
¹¹tn “Have you seen…” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
¹²tn Heb “she played the prostitute there.” This is a metaphor for Israel’s worship; she gave herself to the worship of other gods like a prostitute gives herself to her lovers. There seems no clear way to completely spell out the metaphor in the translation.
¹³tn The words, “what she did”, are not in the text but are implicit from the context and are added for clarification.
¹⁴tc Heb “she [‘her sister, unfaithful Judah’ from the preceding verse] saw” with one Hebrew manuscript, some Greek manuscripts, and the Syriac version. The Masoretic text reads “I saw” which may be a case of attraction to the verb at the beginning of the previous verse.
¹⁵tn Literally “because she committed adultery.” The translation is intended to spell out the significance of the metaphor.
¹⁶tn The words, “Even after her unfaithful sister, Judah, had seen this”, are not in the text but are implicit in the connection and are added for clarification.
¹⁷tn Heb “she played the prostitute there.” This is a metaphor for Israel’s worship; she gave herself to the worship of other gods like a prostitute gives herself to her lovers. There seems no clear way to completely spell out the metaphor in the translation.
¹⁸tn Reading the form as a causative (Heb hiphil, [n}h&T^) with some of the versions in place of the simple stative (Heb qal, [n^h^T#) in the Masoretic text.
¹⁹tn Heb “because of the lightness of her prostitution, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.”
²⁰tn Heb “And even in all this.”
²¹tn Heb “ has not turned back to me with all her heart but only in falsehood.”
²²tn Heb “Wayward Israel has proven herself to be more righteous than unfaithful Judah.”
sn A comparison is drawn here between the greater culpability of Judah, who has had the advantage of seeing how God disciplined her sister nation for having sinned and yet ignored the warning and committed the same sin, and the culpability of Israel who had no such advantage.
²³tn Heb “Go and proclaim these words to the north.” The translation assumes that the message is directed toward the exiles of northern Israel who have been scattered in the provinces of Assyria to the north.
²⁴tn Heb “I will not cause my face to fall on you.”
²⁵tn Heb “Only acknowledge your iniquity.”
²⁶tn The words “You must confess” are repeated to convey the connection. The Hebrew text has an introductory “that” in front of the second line and a coordinative “and” in front of the next two lines.
²⁷tn Literally “scattered your ways with…”
²⁸tn Or “I am your true husband.”
sn There is a word play here involving a verb root which has the same consonants as the name of the pagan god Baal. The pronoun “I” is emphatic in Hebrew and a contrast is drawn between the LORD who is Israel’s true master and husband and Baal who was Israel’s illegitimate lover and master. See 2:23-25.
²⁹tn The words, “If you do” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection of the Hebrew verb with the preceding.
³⁰tn Heb “shepherds.”
³¹tn Heb “after/according to my [own] heart.”
³²tn Heb “you will become numerous and fruitful.”
³³tn Heb “the ark of the covenant.” It is called this because it contained the tables of the law which in abbreviated form constituted their covenant obligations to the LORD, cf. Exod 31:18; 32:15; 34:29.
³⁴tn Or “Nor will another one be made”; Heb “one will not do/make [it?] again.”
³⁵tn Heb “will gather to the name of the LORD.”
³⁶tn Heb “the stubbornness of their evil hearts.”
³⁷tn Heb “In those days.”
³⁸tn Heb “the house of Judah will walk together with the house of Israel.”
³⁹tn Heb “the land that I gave your forefathers as an inheritance.”
⁴⁰tn Heb “I, myself, said.”
⁴¹tn Heb “How I would place you among the sons.” Israel appears to be addressed here contextually as the LORD’s wife (see the next verse). The pronouns of address in the first two lines are second feminine singular as are the readings of the two verbs preferred by the Masoretes (the Qere readings) in the third and fourth lines. The verbs that are written in the text in the third and fourth lines (the Kethiv readings) are second masculine plural as is the verb describing Israel’s treachery in the next verse.
sn The imagery here appears to be that of treating the wife as an equal heir with the sons and of giving her the best piece of property.
⁴²tn The words, “What a joy it would be for me to”, are not in the text but are implied in the parallel structure.
⁴³tn Heb “the most beautiful heritage among the nations.”
⁴⁴tn Heb “my father.”
⁴⁵tn Literally “turn back from [following] after me.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “a wife unfaithful from her husband.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “A sound is heard on the hilltops, the weeping of the supplication of the children of Israel because [or, indeed] they have perverted their way.” At issue here is whether the supplication is made to Yahweh in repentance because of what they have done or whether it is supplication to the pagan gods which is evidence of their perverted ways. The reference in this verse to the hilltops where idolatry was practiced according to 3:2 and the reference to Israel’s unfaithfulness in the preceding verse make the latter more likely. For the asseverative use of the Hebrew particle (here rendered “indeed”) where the particle retains some of the explicative nuance, cf. BDB, yK!, 1e and 3c, pp. 472-73.
⁴⁸tn Heb “have forgotten the LORD their God,” but in the view of the parallelism and the context, the word “forget” (like “know” and “remember”) involves more than mere intellectual activity.
⁴⁹tn Or “I will forgive your apostasies.” Heb “I will [or want to] heal your apostasies.” For the use of the verb “heal” (ap*r`) to refer to spiritual healing and forgiveness see Hos 14:4.
⁵⁰tn Or “They say.” There is an obvious ellipsis of a verb of saying here since the preceding words are those of the LORD and the following are those of the people. However, there is debate about whether these are the response of the people to the LORD’s invitation, a response which is said to be inadequate according to the continuation in 4:1-4, or whether these are the LORD’s model for Israel’s confession of repentance to which he adds further instructions about the proper heart attitude that should accompany it in 4:1-4. The former implies a dialogue with an unmarked two fold shift in speaker between 3:22b-25 and 4:1-4:4 while the latter assumes the same main speaker throughout with an unmarked instruction only in 3:22b-25. This disrupts the flow of the passage less and appears more likely.
⁵¹tn Heb “Truly in vain from the hills the noise/commotion [and from] the mountains.” The syntax of the Hebrew sentence is very elliptical here.
⁵²tn Heb “Truly in the LORD our God is deliverance for Israel.”
⁵³tn Heb “From our youth the shameful thing has eaten up…” The shameful thing is specifically identified as Baal in Jer 11:13. Compare also the shift in certain names such as Ishbaal (“man of Baal”) to Ishbosheth (“man of shame”).
⁵⁴tn Heb “Let us lie down in…”
⁵⁵tn Heb “Let us be covered with disgrace.”
¹tn Or “If you want to turn [away from your shameful ways (those described in 3:23-25)], Israel,…then you must turn back to me.”
²tn Heb “disgusting things.”
³tn Or possibly, “If you get those disgusting idols out of my sight, you will not have to flee.” This is less probable because the normal meaning of the last verb is “to wander,” “ to stray.”
⁴tn Heb “If you [= you must, see the translator’s note on the word “do” later in this verse] swear/take an oath, ‘As the LORD lives,’ in truth, justice, and righteousness…”
⁵tn 4:1-2a consists of a number of “if” clauses, two of which are formally introduced by the Hebrew particle <a! while the others are introduced by the conjunction “and”, followed by a conjunction (“and” = “then”) with a perfect in 4:2b which introduces the consequence. The translation “You must…. If you do,” was chosen to avoid a long and complicated sentence.
⁶tn Heb “bless themselves in him and make their boasts in him.”
⁷tn The Hebrew particle is obviously asseverative here since a causal connection appears to make little sense.
⁸tn Heb “Plow up your unplowed ground and do not sow among the thorns.” The translation is an attempt to bring out the force of a metaphor which may not make sense to some readers. The idea seems to be that they are to plow over the thorns and make the ground ready for the seeds which will produce a new crop where none had been produced before.
⁹tn Heb “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskin of your heart.” The translation is again an attempt to bring out the meaning of a metaphor which may not make sense to some readers. The mention of the “foreskin of the heart” shows that the passage is obviously metaphorical and involves heart attitude, not an external rite.
¹⁰tn Heb “lest.”
¹¹tn The words “The LORD said” are not in the text, but it is obvious from v. 6 and v. 9 that he is the speaker. These words are added for clarity.
¹²tn It is unclear who the addressees of the masculine plural imperatives are here. They may be the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah who are sounding the alarm to others. However, the first person reference to the LORD in v. 6 and Jeremiah’s response in v. 10 suggest that this is a word from the LORD that he is commanded to pass on to the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah. If the imperatives are not merely rhetorical plurals they may reflect the practice referred to in Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7. A similar phenomenon also occurs in Jer 5:1 and also in Isa 40:1-2. This may also be the explanation for the plural imperatives in Jer 31:6. For further discussion see the translator’s note on Jer 5:1.
¹³tn Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.
¹⁴tn Heb “Raise up a signal towards Zion.”
¹⁵tn Heb “out of the north, even great destruction.”
¹⁶tn Heb “A lion has left its lair.” The metaphor is turned into a simile for clarification. The word translated “lair” has also been understood to refer to a hiding place. However, it appears to be cognate in meaning to the word translated “lair” in Ps 10:9; Jer 25:38, a word which also refers to the abode of the LORD in Ps 76:3.
¹⁷tn Heb “his place.”
¹⁸tn Or “wail because the fierce anger of the LORD has not turned away from us.” The translation does not need to assume a shift in speaker as the alternate reading does.
¹⁹tn Heb “In that day.”
²⁰tn The words “In response to all this” are not in the text but are added to clarify the connection.
²¹tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.
²²tn Heb “this people and Jerusalem.”
²³tn Heb “Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace.’” An alternative translation for the first part of this verse might be, “You have surely let this people be deceived by some who are saying, ‘You will be safe.’” The words “you will be safe” are, of course, those of the false prophets (cf., Jer 6:14; 8:11;14:13; 23:16-17). It is difficult to tell whether the charge here is meant literally as the emotional outburst of the prophet (compare for example, Jer 15:18) or whether it is to be understood as a figure of speech in which a verb of direct causation is to be understood as permissive or tolerative, i.e., God did not command the prophets to say this but allowed them to do so. While it is not beyond God to use false prophets to accomplish his will (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19-23), he elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah directly denies having sent the false prophets to say such things as this (cf., e.g., Jer 14:14-15; 23:21,32). For examples of the use of this figure of speech, see Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp 571, 823 and compare Ezek 20:25. The translation given does not attempt to resolve the issue. The alternate translation assumes the figure of speech.
²⁴tn Heb “touches the throat/soul.” For this use of the word usually translated “soul” or “life” cf., KB3, vp#n# 1, 2, p. 672 and compare the use in Ps 105:18.
²⁵tn Heb “this people and Jerusalem.”
²⁶tn Heb “A scorching wind from the hilltops in the desert toward…”
sn The allusion is, of course, to the destructive forces of the enemy armies of Babylon compared above in 4:7 to a destructive lion and here to the destructive desert winds of the Near Eastern sirocco.
²⁷tn Heb “daughter of my people.” The term “daughter of” is appositional to “my people” and is added as a term of sympathy and endearment. Compare the common, “daughter of Zion.”
²⁸tn Heb “not for winnowing and not for cleansing.” The words “It will not be a gentle breeze” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added here for clarification.
²⁹tn The word “No” is not in the text but is carried over from the connection with the preceding line “not for…”
³⁰tn Heb “will speak judgments against them.”
³¹tn Heb “he is coming up like clouds.” The words “The enemy” are added to identify the referent and the word “gathering” is added to try to convey the significance of the simile, i.e., that of quantity and of an approaching storm.
³²tn Heb “his chariots [are] like a whirlwind.” The words “roar” and “sound” are added to clarify the significance of the simile.
³³tn The words “I cry out” are not in the text, but the words that follow are obviously not the LORD’s. They are either those of the people or of Jeremiah. Taking them as Jeremiah’s parallels the interjection of Jeremiah’s response in 4:10 which is formally introduced.
³⁴tn Heb “Woe to us!” The words “woe to” are common in funeral laments and at the beginning of oracles of judgment. In many contexts they carry the connotation of hopelessness or apprenhensiveness of inevitable doom.
³⁵tn Heb “Oh, Jerusalem, wash your heart from evil.”
³⁶tn Heb “For a voice declaring from Dan and making heard disaster from the hills of Ephraim.”
³⁷tn The words “They are saying” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection and are added for clarification.
³⁸tn The word “surrounding” is not in the text but is implicit and is added for clarification.
³⁹tc Or “Here they come!” Heb “Look!” or “Behold!” Or “Announce to the surrounding nations, indeed [or, yes] proclaim to Jerusalem, ‘Besiegers…’” The text is very elliptical here. Some of the modern translations appear to be emending the text from hN}h!, “behold”, to either hN`h@, “these things” (so NEB), or hZ#h^, “this” (so NIV). The solution proposed here is as old as the LXX which reads, “Behold, they have come.”
⁴⁰tn The words, “this message,” are not in the text but are added to make the introduction of the quote easier.
⁴¹tn Heb “Besiegers”. For the use of this verb to refer to besieging a city compare Isa 1:8.
⁴²tn Heb “They have raised their voices against.” The verb here, a waw consecutive with an imperfect, continues the nuance of the preceding participle, “ are coming.”
⁴³tn Heb “They…” The referent is made expicit in the translation to avoid lack of clarity.
⁴⁴tn Literally “will surround her.” The antecedent is Jerusalem in the preceding verse. The referent is again made explicit in the translation to avoid any possible lack of clarity. The verb form here is a form of the verb that emphasizes the fact as as good as done (i.e., it is a prophetic perfect).
⁴⁵sn There is some irony involved in the choice of the simile since the men guarding a field were there to keep thieves from getting in and stealing the crops. Here the besiegers are guarding the city to keep people from getting out.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Your way and your deeds.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “How bitter!”
⁴⁸tn Heb “Indeed, it reaches to your heart.” The subject must be the pain alluded to in the last half of the preceding line; the verb is masculine, agreeing with the adjective translated “painful”. The only other possible antecedent “punishment” is feminine.
⁴⁹tn The words “I said” are not in the text. They are used to mark the shift from the LORD’s promise of judgment to Jeremiah’s lament concerning it.
⁵⁰tn Heb “My bowels! My bowels!”
⁵¹tn Heb “the walls of my heart!”
⁵²tn Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.
⁵³tc The translation reflects a different division of the last two lines than that suggested by the Masoretes. The written text (the Kethiv) reads “for the sound of the ram’s horn I have heard [or “you have heard,” if the form is understood as the old second feminine singular perfect] my soul” followed by “ the battle cry” in the last line. The translation is based on taking “my soul” with the last line and understanding an elliptical expression “the battle cry [to] my soul.” Such an elliptical expression is in keeping with the elliptical nature of the exclamations at the beginning of the verse (cf. the literal translations of the first two lines in fn197, 198).
⁵⁴tn The words, “I see” are not in the text here or at the beginning of the third line. They are added to show that this is Jeremiah’s vision of what will happen as a result of the invasion announced in 4:5-9, 11-17a.
⁵⁵tn Heb “my”. This is probably not a reference to Jeremiah’s own tents since he foresees the destruction of the whole land. Jeremiah so identifies with the plight of his people that he sees the destruction of their tents as though they were his very own. It would probably lead to confusion to translate literally and it is not uncommon in Hebrew laments for the community or its representative to speak of the community as an “I”. See for example the interchange between first singular and first plural pronouns in Ps 44:4-8.
⁵⁶tn Heb “my.”
⁵⁷tn It is not altogether clear what Jeremiah intends by the use of this metaphor. In all likelihood he means that the defenses of Israel’s cities and towns have offered no more resistance than nomads’ tents. However, in light of the fact that the word “tent” came to be used generically for a person’s home (cf. 1 Kgs 8:66; 12:16), it is possible that Jeremiah is here referring to the destruction of their homes and the resultant feeling of homelessness and loss of even elementary protection. Given the lack of certainty we translate rather literally here.
⁵⁸tn Heb “ram’s horns,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpets” and is more readily understandable.
⁵⁹tn These words are not in the text but are added to show clearly the shift in speaker. Jeremiah has been speaking; now the LORD answers, giving the reason for the devastation Jeremiah foresees.
⁶⁰tn Heb “For…” This gives the explanation for the destruction envisaged in 4:20 to which Jeremiah responds in 4:19, 21.
⁶¹tn Heb “They are senseless children.”
⁶²tn Heb “and behold.” The words “in a vision” are added to show clearly the visionary character of Jeremiah’s description of the future state of the land of Palestine which is described hyperbolically as the return of precreation chaos to the whole earth.
⁶³tn Heb “there was no man/human being.”
⁶⁴tn Heb “because of the LORD, because of his blazing anger.”
⁶⁵tn Heb “For this is what the LORD said,”
⁶⁶sn The heavens and earth are personified here and depicted in the act of mourning and wearing black clothes because of the destruction of the land of Israel.
⁶⁷tn Heb “has spoken and purposed.” This is probably another example of a figure of speech where two concepts are joined together by “and” but one is meant to serve as a modifier of the other.
⁶⁸tn Heb “will not turn back from it.”
⁶⁹tn These words are not in the text but are added to clarify that this is still part of the vision of destruction that Jeremiah is portraying.
⁷⁰tn Heb “And you that are doomed to destruction.” The referent is supplied from the following context and the fact that Zion/Jerusalem represents the leadership which was continually making overtures to foreign nations for help.
⁷¹tn Heb “enlarging your eyes with antimony.” Antimony was a black powder used by the Egyptians and others to make the eyes look larger.
⁷²tn Heb “they seek your life.”
⁷³tn The particle yK! is more likely asseverative here than causal.
⁷⁴tn Heb “Daughter Zion.”
⁷⁵tn Heb “spreading out her hands.” The idea of asking or pleading for help is implicit in the figure.
⁷⁶tn Heb “Woe, now to me!” See the translator’s note on 4:13 for the usage of “Woe to…”
¹tn These words are not in the text, but since the words at the end are obviously those of the LORD, they are added here to mark the shift in speaker from 4:29-31 where Jeremiah is the obvious speaker.
²tn It is not clear who is being addressed here. The verbs are plural so they are not addressed to Jeremiah per se. Since the passage is talking about the people of Jerusalem, it is unlikely they are addressed here except perhaps rhetorically. Some have suggested that the heavenly court is being addressed here as in Job 1:6-8; 2:1-3. It is clear from Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7 that the prophets had access to this heavenly counsel through visions (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19-23), so Jeremiah could have been privy to this speech through that means. Though these are the most likely addressee, it is too presumptous to supply such an explicit addressee without clearer indication in the text. The translation will just have to run the risk of the probable erroneous assumption by most English readers that the addressee is Jeremiah.
³tn Heb “who does justice and seeks faithfulness.”
⁴tn Heb “squares. If you can find…if there is one person…then I will…”
⁵tn Heb “forgive [or, pardon] it.”
⁶tn Heb “Though they say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives.” The idea of “swear on oath” comes from the second line.
⁷tc The translation follows many Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac version in reading “surely” (/k@a*) instead of “therefore” (/k@l*) in the Masoretic text.
tn Heb “Surely.”
⁸tn Heb “they swear falsely.”
⁹tn Heb “O LORD, are your eyes not to faithfulness?” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
¹⁰tn Commentaries and lexicons debate the meaning of the verb here. The Masoretic text is pointed as though from a verb meaning “to writhe in anguish or contrition” (lWj , see, e.g., BDB, lWj, 2c, p. 297) but some commentaries and lexicons repoint the text as though from a verb meaning “to be sick” > “to feel pain” (hl*j*, see, e.g., KB3, hl*j* 3, p. 304). The former appears more appropriate to the context.
¹¹tn Heb “They made their faces as hard as a rock.”
¹²tn Or “to repent”; Heb “to turn back.”
¹³tn Heb “Surely they are poor.” The translation is intended to make clear the explicit contrasts and qualifications drawn in this verse and the next.
¹⁴tn Heb “the way of the LORD.”
¹⁵tn Heb “the judgment [or, ordinance] of their God.”
¹⁶tn Or “people in power”; Heb “the great ones.”
¹⁷tn Heb “the way of the LORD.”
¹⁸tn Heb “the judgment [or, ordinance] of their God.”
¹⁹tn Heb “have broken the yoke and torn off the yoke ropes.” Compare Jer 2:20 and the note there.
²⁰tn Heb “So a lion from the thicket will kill them. A wolf from the desert will destroy them. A leopard will watch outside their cities. Anyone who goes out from them will be torn in pieces.” However, it is unlikely that, in the context of judgment that Jeremiah has previously been describing, literal lions are meant. The animals are metaphorical for their enemies. Compare Jer 4:7.
²¹tn Heb “their rebellions are so many and their unfaithful acts so numerous.”
²²tn These words are not in the text, but are added to make clear who is speaking.
²³tn Heb “How can I forgive [or, pardon] you.” The pronoun “you” is second feminine singular, referring to the city. See v. 1.
²⁴tn Heb “your children.”
²⁵tn Heb “by not gods.”
²⁶tn Heb “I satisfied them to the full.”
²⁷tn Heb “they committed adultery.” It is difficult to decide whether literal adultery with other women or spiritual adultery with other gods is meant. The word for adultery is used for both in the book of Jeremiah. For examples of its use for spiritual adultery see 3:8, 9; 9:2. For examples of its use for literal adultery see 7:9; 23:14. The context here could argue for either. The swearing by other gods and the implicit contradiction in their actions in contrast to the expected gratitude for supplying their needs argues for spiritual adultery. However, the reference to prostitution in the next line and the reference to chasing after their neighbor’s wives argues for literal adultery. The translation opts for spiritual adultery because of the contrast implicit in the concessive clause.
²⁸tn There is a great deal of debate about the meaning of this word. Most of the modern translations follow the lead of lexicographers who relate this word to a noun meaning “troop” and understand it to mean “they trooped together” (cf. BDB, dd^G` Hithpo.2, p. 151 and compare the usage in Mic 5:1 (4:16 Heb)). A few of the modern translations and commentaries follow the reading of the Greek and read a word meaning “they lodged” (reading Wrr+oGt=y] instead of Wdd=oGt=y] from IrWG (cf. KB3, Hithpo., p. 177 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 17:20)). Holladay, Jeremiah, p. 180 sees a reference here to the cultic practice of cutting oneself in supplication to pagan gods (cf. BDB, dd^G` Hithpo.1, p. 151 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 18:28). The houses of prostitutes would then be a reference to ritual prostitutes at the pagan shrines. The translation follows BDB and the majority of modern translations.
²⁹tn Heb “to a house of a prostitute.”
sn This could be a reference to temple prostitution connected with the pagan shrines. For allusion to this in the OT, see for example Deut 23:17 and 2 Kgs 23:7.
³⁰tn The meanings of these two adjectives are uncertain. The translation of the first adjective is based on assuming that the word is a defectively written participle related to the noun “testicle” ( a hiphil participle <yk!yv!a&m^, from a verb related to Ev#a#, “testicle” (cf. Lev 21:20) and hence “having testicles” (cf. KB3,hk*v*, p. 1379) instead of the Masoretic form <yK!v=m^ from a root hk*v* which is otherwise unattested in either verbal or nominal forms). The second adjective is best derived from a verb root meaning “to feed” (a hophal participle <yn]z`Wm (the Kethiv) from a root /Wz (cf.BDB, /Wz, p. 266) for which there is the cognate noun /ozm* (cf. 2 Chr 11:23)). This is more likely than the derivation from a root /z^y` (reading <yn]Z`y%m=, a pual participle with the Qere) which is otherwise unattested in verbal or nominal forms and whose meaning is dependent only on a supposed Arabic cognate (cf. KB3, /z^y`, p. 387).
³¹tn Heb “neighs after.”
³²tn Literally , “through her vine rows and destroy.” No object is given but “vines” must be implicit. The word for “vineyards” (or “vine rows”) is a hapax and its derivation is debated. BDB, hr`WV, p. 1004 repoints h*yt#orv* to h*yt#orv% and relates it to a Mishnaic Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic word meaning “row.” KB3, hr`WV, p. 1348 also repoint to h*yt#orv% and relate it to a noun meaning “wall”, preferring to see the reference here to the walled terraces on which the vineyards were planted. The difference in meaning is minimal.
³³tn In the light of the context and Jeremiah’s identification of Israel as a vine (cf., e.g., 2:21) and a vineyard (cf., e.g., 12:10), it is likely that this verse has a totally metaphorical significance. The enemy is to go through the vineyard that is Israel and Judah and destroy all those who have been unfaithful to the LORD. It is not impossible, however, that the verse has a double meaning, a literal one and a figurative one: the enemy is not only to destroy Israel and Judah’s vines but to destroy Israel and Judah, lopping off the wicked Israelites who, because of their covenant unfaithfulness, the LORD has disowned. If the verse is totally metaphorical we might translate: “Pass through my vineyard, Israel and Judah, wreaking destruction. But do not destroy all of the people. Cut down like branches those unfaithful people because they no longer belong to the LORD.”
³⁴tn Heb “have denied the LORD.” The words “What…says” are implicit in what follows.
³⁵tn Or “he will do nothing”; Heb “Not he [or it]!”
³⁶tn Heb “we will not see the sword and famine.”
³⁷tn Heb “will be wind.”
sn There is a word play on the word “wind” (j^Wr) which also means “spirit.” The prophets spoke by inspiration of the Spirit of the LORD (cf. e.g., 2 Chr 20:14); hence the prophet was sometimes called “the man of the spirit,” (cf. Hos 9:7). The people were claiming that the prophets were speaking lies and hence were full of wind, not the Spirit.
³⁸tc Heb “the word is not in them.” The Masoretic text has a highly unusual form here, the piel perfect with the definite article (rB@D]h^). We should undoubtedly read with the LXX (Greek version) and one Hebrew manuscript the article on the noun (rb*D`h^).
³⁹tn Heb “Therefore.”
⁴⁰tn Heb “The LORD God of armies.” See the translator’s note at 2:19.
sn Here the emphasis appears to be on the fact that the LORD is in charge of the enemy armies whom he will use to punish Israel for their denial of his prior warnings through the prophets.
⁴¹tn The words, “to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added for clarification.
⁴²tn The text here <k#r+B#D^ “you have spoken” is either a case of a scribal error for <r`B#D^ “they have spoken” or another example of the rapid shift in addressee which has been common in Jeremiah.
⁴³tn Heb “this word.”
⁴⁴tn Literally “like wood and it [i.e., the fire I put in your mouth] will consume them.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “Behold!”
⁴⁷tn Heb “All of them are mighty warriors.”
⁴⁸tn Heb “his quiver is/will be an open grave.” The order of the lines has been reversed to make the transition from “nation” to “their arrows” easier.
⁴⁹tn Heb “eat up.”
⁵⁰tn Or “eat up your grapes and figs”; Heb “eat up your vines and your fig trees.”
sn It was typical for an army in time of war in the ancient Near East not only to eat up the crops but to destroy the means of further production.
⁵¹tn Heb “with the sword.” However, the sword is only one weapon of many that they will use.
⁵²tn Heb “in those days.”
⁵³tn The word, “Jeremiah,” is not in the text but the second person address in the second half of the verse is obviously to him. The word is added here for clarity.
⁵⁴tn The Masoretic text reads the second masculine plural here; this is probably a case of attraction to the second masculine plural pronoun in the preceding line. An alternative would be to understand a shift from speaking first to the people in the first half of the verse and then speaking to Jeremiah in the second half where the verb is second masculine singular. E.g., “When you [people] say, “Why…?”, then you, Jeremiah, tell them…” This is not impossible, but it is awkward in English.
⁵⁵tn Heb “As you left me and…, so you will…” The translation was chosen so as to break up a rather long and complex sentence.
⁵⁶sn This is probably a case of deliberate ambiguity (double entendre). The adjective “strangers” is used for both foreign people (so Jer 30:8; 51:51) and foreign gods (so Jer 2:25; 3:13). See also Jer 16:13 for the idea of having to serve other gods in the lands of exile.
⁵⁷sn The verbs are second plural here. Jeremiah, speaking for the LORD, addresses his people, calling on them to make the message further known.
⁵⁸tn Literally “in the house of Jacob.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “it.” The referent is made explicit to avoid any possible confusion.
⁶⁰tn The words, “their own way” are not in the text but are implicit and are added for clarity.
⁶¹tn Heb “say in their hearts.”
⁶²tn Heb “who keeps for us the weeks appointed for harvest.”
⁶³tn Heb “have turned these things away.”
⁶⁴tn Heb “have withheld the good from you.”
⁶⁵tn The meaning of the last three words is somewhat uncertain. The pointing and meaning of the Hebrew word rendered here “hiding in ambush” is greatly debated. BDB relate the form here (Ev^K=) to a root Ek^v* which elsewhere means “decrease, abate” (cf. BDB, Ek^v*, p. 1013) and say this is usually understood to mean “like the crouching of fowlers”; but they say this meaning is dubious. KB3 questions the validity of the text and offers three proposals, the second of which appears to create the least textual modification, i.e. reading EcK= “as in the hiding place of (bird catchers)” (cf. KB3, Irov, p. 1345; for the word Ec see KB3, Ec 4, p. 1236 and compare Lam 2:6 for usage). The versions do not help here. The Greek does not translate the first two words of the line. KB3’s proposal is accepted here with some hesitancy.
⁶⁶tn Literally “a destroying thing.”
⁶⁷tn The words, “that have been caught” are not in the text but are implicit in the comparison.
⁶⁸tn Heb “are filled with deceit.” The translation assumes that a figure of speech is being used where the cause is put for the effect. Compare the use of the same word in the same figure in Zeph 1:9.
⁶⁹tn Heb “therefore they have gotten great and rich.”
⁷⁰tn These words are not in the text but are added to show that this line is parallel with the preceding.
⁷¹tn The meaning of this final word is uncertain. This verb occurs only here. The lexicons generally relate it to the word which is translated “plate” in Song 5:14 and see it as meaning “smooth, shiny” (so BDB, I tv#u#, p. 799) or “fat” (so KB3, II tv#u#, p. 850). The word in Song 5:14 more likely means “smooth” than “plate” (so TEV). So the idea of “sleek” would appear most likely. However, since both words only occur once there can be little certainty.
⁷²tn Heb “they cross over/transgress with respect to matters of evil.”
sn There is undoubtedly a word play here in the use of this word which has twice been applied in v. 22 to the sea not crossing the boundary set for it by God.
⁷³sn These words are repeated from 5:9 to give a kind of refrain justifying again the necessity of punishment in the light of such sins.
⁷⁴tn There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of this line. The Hebrew text reads, “they shall rule at their hands”. Since the word “hand” can be used figuratively for authority or mean “side” and the pronoun “them” can refer to the priests themselves or the prophets, the following translations have also been suggested: “the priests rule under their [the prophets’] directions”, or “the priests rule in league with them [the prophets]”. From the information in the rest of the book it would appear that the prophets did not exercise authority over the priests nor did they exercise the same authority over the people that the priests did. Hence it probably mean “by their own hand>power>authority.”
¹tn Heb “Flee for safety, people of Benjamin, out of the midst of Jerusalem.”
sn Compare and contrast Jer 4:6. There people in the outlying areas were warned to seek safety in the fortified city of Jerusalem. Here they are told to flee it because it was about to be destroyed.
²tn Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.
³sn This passage is highly emotionally charged. There are two examples of assonance or word play in the verse— “sound” (Heb “blow”) which has the same consonants as Tekoa (bit^eqo^a’ tiq^e’u) and “signal fire” which comes from the same root as “light” (Heb “lift up” s^e’u mas’et)—and an example of personification where disaster is said to “lurk” (Heb “look down on”) out of the north. The intent is to give a sense of urgency and concern for the imminency of the coming destruction.
⁴tn The verb here is another example of the Hebrew verb form that indicates the action is as good as done (a Hebrew prophetic perfect).
⁵tn Heb “Daughter Zion.”
⁶tn Heb “The beautiful and delicate one I will destroy, the daughter of Zion. The translations and commentaries are divided over the rendering of this verse. That is because there are two verbs with these same consonants, one meaning “to be like” and the other meaning “to be destroyed” (intransitive) or “to destroy” (transitive), and the word rendered here “beautiful” (hw`n`) can be understood as a noun meaning “pasture” or as a defective writing of an adjective meaning “beautiful, comely” (hw`an`). Hence some render “Fair Zion, you are like a lovely pasture,” reading the verb form as an example of the old second feminine singular perfect. However, though this may fit in well with the imagery of the next verse, that rendering must ignore the absence of a preposition, “to” (l= or la#) that normally goes with the verb “be like” and drop the conjunction in front of the adjective “delicate”. The parallel usage of the verb in Hos 4:5 argues for the meaning “destroy”.
⁷tn Heb “Shepherds will come against it with their flocks….They will graze each one his portion.” There does not appear to be any way to render the text either as a metaphor or a simile that will not be misleading or obscure to the average reader. For the use of “shepherds” to refer to rulers see BDB, hu*r` 1d(2), p. 945 and compare Jer 12:10. For the use of the verb “graze” to mean “strip” or “devastate” see BDB, hu*r` 2c, p. 945. For a similar use of the word normally meaning “hand” to mean portion compare 2 Sam 19:43 (19:44 Hebrew text).
sn There is a continued use of the word play involving “sound…in Tekoa” mentioned in a study note on v. 1. The verb “they will pitch” is from the same root as “sound” (Heb taq^e’u here and tiq^e’u in v. 1.
⁸tn These words are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added for clarity.
⁹tn Heb “Sanctify war.”
sn This is probably an attenuated usage of an idiom used in early Israel’s holy wars against her enemies in which certain religious rites were to precede the battle.
¹⁰tn These words are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added for clarity. Some commentaries and translations see these not as the words of the enemy but as those of the Israelites expressing their fear that the enemy will launch a night attack against them and further destroy them. The connection with the next verse, however, fits better with them being the words of the enemy.
¹¹tn Heb “Woe to us!” For the usage of this phrase see the translator’s note on 4:13. The usage of this particle here is a little exaggerated. They have lost the most advantageous time for attack but they are scarcely in a hopeless or doomed situation. The equivalent in English slang is “Bad news!”
¹²tn Heb “For.” The translation attempts to make the connection clearer.
¹³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For an explanation of the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
¹⁴tn Heb “Cut down its trees and build up a siege ramp against Jerusalem.” The referent has been moved forward from the second line for greater clarity.
¹⁵tn Or “must be punished.” The meaning of this line is very uncertain. The LXX reads, “Woe, city of falsehood!” The Hebrew text presents two anomalies here: a masculine singular verb with a feminine singular subject in a verbal stem (hophal) that elsewhere does not have the meaning “is to be punished.” Hence many follow the Greek which presupposes rq#V#h^ ryu! yoh instead of ryu!h* ayh! dq^p=h*. The Greek is obviously the easier reading in light of the parallelism and it would be hard to explain how the Masoretic text arose from it. KB2 suggests reading a noun meaning “licentiousness” which occurs elsewhere only in Mishnaic Hebrew, hence “this is the city, the licentious one” (attributive apposition; cf. KB2,rq#P#, p. 775). Perhaps we should revocalize the hophal perfect (dq^p=h*) as a niphal infinitive absolute (dqoP*h!); this would solve both of the anomalies in the Masoretic text since the niphal is used in this nuance and the infinitive absolute can function in place of a finite verb (cf. GKC§ 113ee, ff). This, however, is mere speculation and is supported by no Hebrew manuscript.
¹⁶tn Heb “All of it oppression in its midst.”
¹⁷tc Heb “As a well makes cool/fresh its water, she makes cool/fresh her wickedness.” The translation follows the reading proposed by the Masoretes (the Qere) which reads a rare form of the word “well” (ry]B^ for ra@B=) in place of the form written in the text (the Kethiv, roB) which means “cistern”. The latter noun is masculine and the pronoun “its” is feminine. If indeed ry]B^ is a byform of ra@B= which is feminine, it would agree in gender with the pronoun. It also forms a more appropriate comparison since cisterns do not hold fresh water.
¹⁸tn Heb “Violence and destruction are heard in it.”
¹⁹tn Heb “Sickness and wound are continually before my face.”
²⁰tn This word is not in the text but is added to show the connection. Jeremiah uses a common figure of speech here where the speaker turns from talking about someone to address him/her directly.
²¹tn Heb “lest my soul [= I] becomes alienated from you.”
sn The word play begun with “sound…in Tekoa” in v. 1 and continued with “they will pitch” in v. 3 is concluded here with “turn away” (Heb bit^eqo^a’ tiq^e’u in v. 1, taq^e’u in v. 3 and teqa’ here).
²²tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For an explanation of the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
²³tn The words “to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
²⁴tn Heb “They will thoroughly glean those who are left in Israel like a vine.” That is, they will be carried off by judgment. It is not necessary to read the verb forms here as two imperatives or an infinitive absolute followed by an imperative as some translations and commentaries do. This is an example of a third plural verb used impersonally and translated as a passive (cf. GKC §144g).
²⁵tn Heb “Pass your hand back over the branches like a grape harvester.” The translation is intended to make a little more clear the metaphorical sense that Jeremiah is to try to rescue some from the coming destruction.
²⁶tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are added for clarity.
²⁷tn Or “To whom shall I speak? To whom shall I give warning? Who will listen?” Heb “Unto whom shall I speak and give warning that they may listen?”
²⁸tn Heb “are uncircumcised.”
²⁹tn Heb “Behold!”
³⁰tn Heb “They do not take pleasure in it.”
³¹tn Heb “I am full of the wrath of the LORD.”
³²tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are added for clarity.
³³tn Heb “Pour it out.”
³⁴tn Heb “are to be captured.”
³⁵tn Heb “I will reach out my hand.” The figure here involves both comparing God to a person (anthropomorphism) and substitution where hand is put for the actions or exertions of the hand. A common use of “hand” is for the exertion of power or strength (cf. BDB, dy`, 2, p. 290, and 1e(2), pp. 389-90 and compare usage in Deut 34:12; Ps 78:42; Jer 16:21).
³⁶tn Heb “They heal the wound of my people lightly.”
³⁷tn Heb “They say, ‘Peace! Peace!’ and there is no peace!”
³⁸tn Heb “They will fall among the fallen.”
³⁹tn The words, “to his people” are not in the text but are implicit in the interchange of pronouns in the Hebrew of vv. 16-17. They are added here for clarity.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Stand at the crossroads and look.”
⁴¹tn Heb “the ancient path,” i.e., the path the LORD set out in ancient times (cf. Deut 32:7).
⁴²tn Heb “the way of/to the good.”
⁴³tn These words are not in the text but are implicit in the interchange of pronouns in the Hebrew of vv. 16-17. They are added here for clarity.
⁴⁴tn Heb “I appointed watchmen over you.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet.”
⁴⁶tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the flow of the context. They are added for clarity.
⁴⁷tn The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The Hebrew text reads, “Know, congregation [or, witness], what in [or, against] them.” The meaning of the noun of address in the second line (i.e., “witness”, rendered as an imperative in the translation, “Be witnesses”) is greatly debated. It is often taken as the word “congregation” but the lexicons and commentaries generally question the validity of reading that word here since it is nowhere else applied to the nations. BDB, hd*=u@, 3, p. 417 says that the text is dubious. KB3, Ihd*=u@, 4, p. 747 emend the text to hu*D}. Several of the modern translations (e.g., NIV, NCV, God’s Word) appear to take the word as the feminine singular noun, “witness” (cf. BDB, IIhd*=u@, p. 729) and understand it as a collective. This solution is also proposed by Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 259, fn 3 and appears to make the best sense in the context. The end of the line is very elliptical but is generally taken as either, “what I will do with/to them,” or “what is coming against them” (= “what will happen to them”) on the basis of the following context.
⁴⁸tn Heb “earth.”
⁴⁹tn Heb “Behold!”
⁵⁰tn Heb “disaster on these people, the fruit of their schemes.”
⁵¹tn Heb “my word.”
⁵²tn Heb “To what purpose is it to me?” The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer.
⁵³tn The words “for them to bring me” are not in the text but are implicit from the following context. They are added for clarity.
⁵⁴tn Heb “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable and your sacrifices are not pleasing to me.” ”The shift from “your” to “their” is undoubtedly an example of the figure of speech (called apostrophe) where the speaker turns from talking about someone to addressing him/her directly. Though common in Hebrew style, it is not common in English and creates difficulty for the average reader. The shift to the third person in the translation is an accomodation to English style.
⁵⁵tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle rendered “behold” joined to the first person pronoun.
⁵⁶tn Heb “I will put stumbling blocks in front of these people.” In this context the stumbling blocks are the invading armies. There does not appear to be any clear way to render the metaphor here in a way that would not be obscure or misleading to the average reader.
⁵⁷tn The words “and fall to their destruction” are implicit in the metaphor and are added for clarity.
⁵⁸tn Heb “Daughter Zion.”
⁵⁹tn These words are not in the text, but, from the context, someone other than God is speaking and is speaking for and to the people. These words are added for clarity.
⁶⁰tn Or “We have lost our strength to do battle”; Heb “Our hands hang limp [or helpless at our sides].” According to BDB, hp*r`, Qal 2, p. 951 this idiom is used figuratively for losing heart or energy. The best example of its figurative use of loss of strength or the feeling of helplessness is in Ezek 21:12 where it appears in the context of the heart (courage) melting, the spirit sinking and the knees becoming like water. For other examples of this figurative use compare 2 Sam 4:1; Zeph 3:16. In Neh 6:9 it is used literally of the builders “dropping their hands from the work” out of fear. We have added the words “with fear” because they are implicit in the context.
⁶¹tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the context (see the next verse). They are added for clarity.
⁶²tn Heb “For the enemy has a sword.”
⁶³tn Heb “Terror is all around!”
⁶⁴tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the translator’s note there.
⁶⁵tn Heb “suddenly.”
⁶⁶tn Heb “the destroyer.”
⁶⁷tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity. Note “I have appointed you.” Compare Jer 1:18.
⁶⁸tn The meaning of these two lines is somewhat uncertain. The assumption underlying the translation is that the line reads in Hebrew, “I appoint you an assayer among my people, a tester.” Uncertainty is created by the debate over the meaning of the words translated “assayer” (/ojB* ) and “tester” (rx*b=m! ). The word /ojB* can mean either “tower” (cf. BDB, /ojB*, p. 103 and see Isa 23:13 for the only other use) or “assayer” (cf. BDB, /ojB*, p. 103). The latter would be the more expected nuance because of the other uses of nouns and verbs from this root. The word rx*b=m! normally means “fortress” (cf. BDB, rx*b=m!, p. 131) but most modern commentaries and lexicons deem that nuance inappropriate here. KB3 follows a proposal that the word is to be repointed to rX@b^m= and is to be derived from a root rx^B* meaning “to test” (cf. KB3, IV rx^B*, p 143). That proposal makes the most sense in the context, but it should be noted that the word or the verb to which it is related appear nowhere else in the OT.
⁶⁹tn Heb “test their way.”
⁷⁰tn These words are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity. Some takes these words to be the continuation of the LORD’s commission of Jeremiah to the task of testing them. However, since this is the evaluation, the task already appears to be complete. The words are better to be taken as Jeremiah’s report after he has completed the task.
⁷¹tn Or “arch rebels,” or, “hardened rebels.” Literally “rebels of rebels.”
⁷²tn Heb “The bellows blow fiercely; the lead is consumed by the fire.” The translation tries to make sense for the average reader of a metaphor which is based on an understanding of ancient metallurgy that most modern readers probably do not have. In the ancient refining process lead was added as a flux to remove the impurities from silver ore in the process of oxidizing the lead. Here Jeremiah says that the lead has been used up and the impurities have not been removed. The literal translation is based on the recognition of an otherwise unused verb root meaning “blow” (rj^n` , cf. BDB, I rr^j*, p. 1123 and KB3, rj^n`, p. 651) and the Masoretes’ suggestion that the consonants <tvam be read <T^ va@m@ rather than as <t*V*a#m@ (“from their fire”) from an otherwise unattested noun hV*a#.
⁷³tn Heb “The refiner refines them in vain.”
⁷⁴tn This translation is intended to reflect the word play in the Hebrew text where the same root word is repeated in the two lines.
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD.”
²tn Heb “Proclaim there…”. The adverb is unnecessary in English style.
³sn That is, all those who have passed through the gates of the outer court and are standing in the courtyard of the temple.
⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God Israel.”
sn Compare the use of similar titles in 2:19; 5:14; 6:6 and see the explanation in the study note at 2:19. In this instance the title appears to emphasize the LORD as the heavenly King who hales his disobedient vassals into court (and threatens them with judgment).
⁵tn Or “Make good your ways and your actions.” J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 52 “Reform the whole pattern of your conduct” is excellent.
⁶tn Heb “place” but this might be misunderstood to refer to the temple.
⁷tn Heb “Stop trusting in lying words which say.”
⁸tn The words, “We are safe!” are not in the text but are implicit in the context. They are added for clarity.
⁹tn Heb “The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD are these (i.e., these buildings).” Elsewhere triple repetition seems to mark a kind of emphasis (cf. Isa 6:3; Jer 22:29; Ezek 21:27 (Heb 32)). The triple repetition that follows seems to be Jeremiah’s way of mocking the (false) sense of security that people had in the invincibility of Jerusalem because God dwelt in the temple. They appeared to be treating the temple as though it were some kind of magical charm. A similar feeling had grown up around the ark in the time of the judges (cf. 1 Sam 3:3) and the temple and city of Jerusalem in Micah’s day (cf. Mic 3:11). It is reflected also in some of the Psalms (cf., e.g., Ps 46, especially v. 5).
¹⁰tn The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.
¹¹tn Heb “you must do justice between a person and his fellow/neighbor.” The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.
¹²tn Heb “Stop shedding innocent blood.”
¹³tn Heb “going/following after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom involved here.
¹⁴tn Heb “going after other gods to your ruin.”
¹⁵tn The translation uses imperatives in vv. 5-6 followed by the phrase, “If you do all this,” to avoid the long and complex sentence structure of the Hebrew sentence which has a series of conditional clauses in vv. 5-6 followed by a main clause in v. 7.
¹⁶tn Heb “live in this place, in this land.”
¹⁷tn Heb “gave to your ancestors with reference to from ancient times even unto forever.”
¹⁸tn Heb “Behold!”
¹⁹tn Heb “You are trusting in lying words.” See the similar phrase in v. 4 and the note there.
²⁰tn Heb “You go/follow after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom involved here.
²¹tn Heb “over which my name is called” For this nuance of this idiom cf. BDB, ar`q*, Niph 2d(4), p. 896 and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
²²tn Or “‘We are safe!, ‘ safe you think to go on doing all those hateful things.” vv. 9-10 are all one long sentence in the Hebrew text. It has been broken up for English stylistic reasons. Somewhat literally it reads “Will you steal…then come and stand…and say, ‘We are safe’ so as to/in order to do…” The translation tries to capture in contemporary English style some of the same rhetorical flavor of the Hebrew style. The Hebrew of v. 9 has a series of infinitives which emphasize the bare action of the verb without the idea of time or agent. The effect is to place a kind of staccato like emphasis on the multitude of their sins all of which are violations of one of the Ten Commandments. The final clause in v. 8 expresses purpose or result (probably result here) through another infinitive. All of this long sentence is introduced by a marker (h interrogative in Hebrew) introducing a rhetorical question in which God expresses his incredulity that they could do the sins cataloged in v. 9, come into the temple and claim the safety of his protection, and then go right back out and commit the same sins. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 52 catches the force nicely : “What? You think you can steal, murder…and then come and stand…and say, ‘We are…’ just so that you can go right on…” But this is too long for contemporary English style.
²³tn Heb “over which my name is called” For this nuance of this idiom cf. BDB, ar`q*, Niph 2d(4), p. 896 and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
²⁴tn Heb “Is this house…a den/cave of robbers in your eyes?”
²⁵tn Heb “Behold!”
²⁶tn Heb “where I caused my name to dwell.” Though the literal translation is the traditional rendering accepted by most ancient and modern translations, it will make little sense to many modern readers who have not grown up in the Jewish or Christian tradition. The translation proposed is an accommodation to the modern reader and perhaps does not adequately represent the theology underlying the literal translation which involves the LORD’s deliberate identification with a place because that is where he chose to manifest his presence and desired to be worshipped (cf. Exod 20:25; Deut 16:2, 6, 11).
²⁷sn The incident referred to is the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines circa 1050 BC This is also alluded to in Ps 78:60. The destruction of Shiloh is pertinent to the argument here. The presence of the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant did not prevent the city of Shiloh from being destroyed. The people of Israel used the ark as a magic charm but it did not prevent them from being defeated or the ark being captured (see 1 Sam 4:3, 11, 21-22).
²⁸tn This reflects a Hebrew idiom that occurs a number of times in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., 7:25; 11:7; 25:3, 4), i.e., an infinitive of a verb meaning “to do something early [or eagerly]” followed by an infinitive of another verb of action. Cf. KB3, <k^v* , Hiph 2, p. 1384.
²⁹tn Heb “I called to you and you did not answer.” The words “to repent” are not in the text but are implicit. They are added for clarity.
³⁰tn Heb “over which my name is called” For this nuance of this idiom cf. BDB, ar`q*, Niph 2d(4), p. 896 and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28.
³¹tn Heb “I will do to this house which I…in which you put…and to this place which…as I did to Shiloh.”
³²tn Heb “the descendants of Eprhaim.” However, Ephraim here stands as it often does for all the northern tribes of Israel.
³³tn The words “Then the LORD said to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
³⁴tn The words “to save them” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
³⁵tn Or “Just look at…” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
³⁶tn The form for “queen” is unusual. It is pointed (tk#l#m= instead of tk^l=m^) as though the Masoretes wanted to read the word for “work”, (tk#al#m=) i.e., the “hosts of”, a word that several Hebrew manuscripts read here and an understanding the LXX reflects here. The other ancient and modern versions generally, however, accept it as a biform for the word “queen.”
sn This is probably the goddess known as Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Anat in Canaan, Ashtoreth in Israel. She was the goddess of love and fertility. For further discussion as well as a rather complete bibliography, see the excursus in Keown, Scalise, Smoothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 266-68.
³⁷tn There is debate among grammarians and lexicographers about the nuance of the Hebrew particle /u^m^l=. Some say it always denotes purpose, while others say it may denote either purpose or result, depending on the context. For example, BDB, /u^m^l=, Note 1, p. 775 says that it always denotes purpose, never result, but that sometimes what is really a result is represented ironically as though it were a purpose. That explanation fits nicely here in the light of the context of the next verse. The translation is intended to reflect some of that ironic sarcasm.
³⁸tn Heb “Is it not rather themselves?” I.e., the verb is left out in the Hebrew text for rhetorical effect.
³⁹tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.
⁴⁰tn Heb “this place.” Some see this as a reference to the temple but the context has been talking about what goes on in the towns of Judah and Jerusalem and the words that follow, meant as a further explanation, are applied to the whole land.
⁴¹tn Heb “the trees of/in the field and the fruit of/in the ground.”
⁴²tn The words “The LORD also said to the people of Judah” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift in addressee between vv. 16-20 and vv. 21-26. They are added for clarity.
⁴³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3.
⁴⁴tn Heb “Add your burnt offerings to your [other] sacrifices and eat the meat.” See also the study note for explanation. This is an example of the use of the imperative for a rhetorical challenge involving sarcasm. Cf. GKC §110a and see, for example, Amos 4:4, “Go to Bethel and sin.”
sn All of the burnt offering, including the meat, was to be consumed on the altar (see, e.g., Lev 1:6-9). The meat of the other sacrifices could be eaten by human beings, the priest who offered the sacrifice and the person who brought it (see, e.g., Lev 7:16-18,32). Since, however, the people of Judah were making a mockery of the sacrificial system by offering sacrifices while disobeying the law, the LORD rejected the sacrifices (see already 6:20). So they might as well go ahead and eat the meat dedicated to God as if it were their own share of the offering.
⁴⁵tn Heb “For” but this introduces a long explanation about the relative importance of sacrifice and obedience.
⁴⁶tn Verses 22-23a read in Hebrew, “I did not speak with your ancestors and I did not command them when I brought them out of Egypt about words/matters concerning burnt offering and sacrifice, but I commanded them this word:” Some modern commentators have explained this passage as an evidence for the lateness of the Pentatuechal instruction regarding sacrifice or a denial that sacrifice was practiced during the period of the wilderness wandering. However, it is better explained as an example of what Roland deVaux calls a dialetical negative, i.e., “not so much this as that” or “not this without that” (cf. deVaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 454-56). For other examples of this same argument see Isa 1:10-17; Hos 6:4-6; Amos 5:21-25.
⁴⁷tn Heb “Obey me and I will be.” The translation is equivalent syntactically but brings out the emphasis in the command.
⁴⁸tn Heb “Walk in all the way that I command you.”
⁴⁹tn Or “They went backward and not forward”; Heb “They were to the backward and not to the forward.” The two phrases used here appear nowhere else in the Bible and the latter preposition plus adverb elsewhere is used temporally meaning “formerly” or “previously”. The translation follows the proposal of J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 57. Another option is “they turned their backs to me, not their faces”, understanding the line as a variant of a line in 2:27.
⁵⁰tn Heb “from the day your ancestors…until this very day.” However, “day” here is idiomatic for “the present time”.
⁵¹tn on the Hebrew idiom see the note at 7:13.
⁵²tc There is some textual debate about the legitimacy of this expression here. The text reads merely “day” (<oy). BHS suggests the word is to be deleted as a dittography of the plural ending of the preceding word. The word is in the Greek and Latin, and the Syriac represents the typical idiom “day after day” as though the noun were repeated. Either <oy has dropped out by haplography or a < has been left out, i.e., reading <m*oy, “daily”.
⁵³tn Or “But your predecessors…”; Heb “But they…” There is a confusing interchange in the pronouns in vv. 25-26 which has led to some leveling in the ancient versions and the modern translations. What is involved here are four levels of referents, the “you” of the present generation (vv. 21-22a), the ancestors who were delivered from Egypt (i.e., the “they” of vv. 22b-24), the “you” of v. 25 which involves all the Israelites from the Exodus to the time of speaking, and the “they” of v. 26 which cannot be the ancestors of vv. 22-24 (since they cannot be more wicked than themselves) but must be an indefinite entity which is a part of the “you” of v. 25, i.e., the more immediate ancestors of the present generation. If this is kept in mind, there is no need to level the pronouns to “they” and “them” or to “you” and “your” as some of the ancient versions and modern translations have done.
⁵⁴tn Heb “hardened [or made stiff] their neck.”
⁵⁵tn The words, “Then the LORD said to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift from the second and third person plural pronouns in vv. 21-26 and the second singular in this verse. The words are added for clarity.
⁵⁶tn Heb “Faithfulness has vanished. It is cut off from their lips.”
sn For the need for faithfulness see 5:1, 3.
⁵⁷tn The word “mourn” is not in the text. It is added for clarity to explain the significance of the words “Cut your hair and throw it away.”
sn Cf. Mic 1:16; Job 1:20 for other examples of this practice which was involved in mourning.
⁵⁸tn The words, “you people of this nation” are not in the text. Many translations supply, “Jerusalem.” The address shifts from second masculine singular addressing Jeremiah (vv. 27-28a) to second feminine singular. It causes less disruption in the flow of the context to see the nation as a whole addressed here as a feminine singular entity (as, e.g., in 2:19, 23; 3:2, 3; 6:26) than to introduce a new entity, Jerusalem.
⁵⁹tn The verbs here are the Hebrew scheduling perfects. For this use of the perfect see GKC §106m.
⁶⁰tn Heb “the generation of his wrath.”
⁶¹tn The words “I have rejected them” are not in the text. The text merely says “because”. These words are added to show more clearly the connection to the preceding.
⁶²tn Heb “have done the evil in my eyes.”
⁶³sn Compare, e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3,5,7; 23:4, 6; Ezek 8:3, 5, 10-12, 16. Manasseh had desecrated the temple by building altars, cult symbols, and idols in it. Josiah had purged the temple of these pagan elements. But it is obvious from both Jeremiah and Ezekiel that they had been replaced shortly after Josiah’s death. They were a primary cause of Judah’s guilt and punishment (see beside this passage, 19:5; 32:34-35).
⁶⁴tn Heb “the house which is called by my name.” Cf. 7:10,11,14 and see the translator’s note 7:10 for the explanation for this rendering.
⁶⁵sn Heb “high places.” The “high places” were essentially open air shrines often located on hills or wooded heights. They were generally connected with pagan worship and equipped with altars of sacrifice and of incense and cult objects such as wooden poles and stone pillars which were symbols of the god and/or goddess worshiped at the sight. The Israelites were commanded to tear down these Canaanite places of worship (Num 33:52) but they did not do so, often taking over the site for the worship of Yahweh but even then incorporating some of the pagan cult objects and ritual into their worship of Yahweh (1 Kgs 12:31, 32; 14:23). The prophets were especially opposed to these places and to this kind of syncretism (Hos 10:8; Amos 7:9;) and to the pagan worship that was often practiced at them (Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). A good source for further information on the “high places” is the article on “High Place” in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2:648-50.
⁶⁶tn Heb “the high places of/in Topheth.”
sn The noun Topheth is generally explained as an artificial formation of a word related to the Aramaic word for “cooking stove” combined with the vowels for the word for “shame.” Hence, Jewish piety viewed it as a very shameful act, one that was contrary to the law (see Lev 18:21; 20:2-6). Child sacrifice was practiced during the reigns of the wicked kings Ahaz and Manasseh and apparently during Jeremiah’s day (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; Jer 32:35).
⁶⁷tn Heb “Therefore, behold!”
⁶⁸tn Heb “it will no longer be said ‘Topheth’ or ‘the Valley of Ben Hinnom’ but ‘the valley of slaughter.’
⁶⁹tn Heb “And they will bury in Topheth so there is not room.”
⁷⁰tn Heb “Their dead bodies will be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.”
¹tn Heb “At that time.”
²tn Heb “the host of heaven.”
³tn Heb “the sun, moon, and host of heaven which they…”
⁴tn Heb “followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the idiom.
⁵tn Heb “they will not” but the referent is far enough removed that it might be ambiguous.
⁶tn Heb “like dung/manure on the surface of the ground.”
⁷tn Heb “Death will be chosen rather than life by the remnant who are left from this wicked family in all the places where I have banished them.” The sentence is broken up and restructured to avoid possible confusion because of the complexity of the English to some modern readers. There appears to be an extra “those who are left” that was inadvertently copied from the preceding line. It is missing from one Hebrew manuscript and from the Greek and Syriac versions and is probably not a part of the original text.
⁸tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
⁹tn The words “the LORD said to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added to make clear who is speaking and who is being addressed.
¹⁰sn There is a play on two different nuances of the same Hebrew word that means “turn” and “return”, “turn away” and “turn back”.
¹¹tc The text is quite commonly emended (from <u*h* hb*b=ov to <u*h* bb*ov and the omission of <]l^v*Wry+) due to the anomaly of a feminine singular verb with a masculine singular subject and the fact that the word “Jerusalem” is absent from one Hebrew manuscript and the LXX (Greek version). However, it is possible that this is a case where the noun “Jerusalem” is a defining apposition to the word “these people”, an apposition which GKC §131k calls “permutation”. In this case the verb could be attracted to the appositional noun and there would be no reason to emend the text. The Masoretic text is undoubtedly the harder reading and is for that reason to be preferred.
¹²tn Or “to their allegiance to false gods,” or “to their false professions of loyalty”; Heb “to deceit.” Either “to their mistaken beliefs” or “to their allegiance to false gods” would fit the preceding context. The former is more comprehensive than the latter and was chosen for that reason.
¹³sn There is a continuing play on the same root word used in the preceding verse. Here the words “turn away from me”, “apostasy” and “turn back to me” are all forms from the root that was translated “go the wrong way” and “turn around” in v. 4. The intended effect is to contrast Judah’s recalcitrant apostasy with the usual tendency to try and correct one’s mistakes.
¹⁴tn Heb “I have paid attention and I have listened.” This is another case of two concepts being joined by “and” where one expresses the main idea and the other acts as an adverbial or adjectival modifier (a figure called hendiadys).
¹⁵tn Heb “What have I done?” The addition of the word “wrong” is implicit in the context and is added for clarity.
¹⁶tn Heb “each one of them turns aside into their own running course.”
sn The word play begun in v. 4 is continued here. The word translated “turns aside” in the literal translation and “wayward” in the translation is from the same root as “go the wrong way”, “turn around”, “turn away from me”, “apostasy”, “turn back to me”. What God hoped for were confessions of repentance and change of behavior; what he got was denial of wrongdoing and continued turning away from him.
¹⁷tn Heb “its appointed time.” The translation is contextually motivated to avoid lack of clarity.
¹⁸tn There is debate in the commentaries and lexicons about the identification of some of these birds, particularly regarding the identification of the “swallow” which is more likely the “swift” and the “crane” which some identify with the “thrush.” For a discussion see the Bible encyclopedias and the UBS handbook, Fauna and Flora of the Bible. The identity of the individual birds makes little difference to the point being made and “swallow” is more easily identifiable to the average reader than the “swift”.
¹⁹tn Heb “do not know.” But here as elsewhere the word “know” is more than an intellectual matter. It is intended here to summarize both “know” and “follow” (Heb “observe”) in the preceding lines.
²⁰tn Heb “the ordinance/requirement of the LORD.”
²¹tn Heb “Surely, behold!”
²²tn Heb “the scribes.”
²³tn Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the JPS Tanakh, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.
²⁴tn Heb “be trapped.” However, the word “trapped” generally carries with it the connotation of divine judgment. See BDB, dk^l*, Niph 2, p. 540 and compare usage in Jer 6:11 for support. The verbs in the first two lines are again the form of the Hebrew verb that emphasizes that the action is as good as done (Hebrew prophetic perfects).
²⁵sn See Jer 6:12-15 for parallels to 8:10-12. The words of Jeremiah to the people may have been repeated on more than one occasion or have been found appropriate to more than one of his collection of messages in written and edited form. See Jer 36:4 and Jer 36:22 for reference to at least two of these collections.
²⁶tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
²⁷tn Heb “They heal the wound of my people lightly.”
²⁸tn Heb “They say, ‘Peace! Peace!’ and there is no peace!”
²⁹tn Heb “They will fall among the fallen.”
³⁰tn The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. Another possible rendering is: “I will completely destroy them.” The translation which is adopted is based on the revocalization of the Masoretic text which appears to mean literally “gathering I will sweep them away,” a rather improbable grammatical combination. It follows the suggestion found in KB3, [Ws, (hip), p. 705 of reading <p*ys!a& [s@ao (a first singular qal imperfect of [s^a* followed by a noun [ys!a* with possessive suffix) instead of the Masoretic text <p@ys!a& [soa* (a qal infinitive absolute of [s^a* followed by the hiphil imperfect of [Ws plus suffix). For parallel usage of the verb [s^a* see BDB, [s^a* Qal 4, p. 62 and for a similar form of the verb see Mic 4:6. The alternate translation follows the suggestion in BDB, [Ws, Hiph, p. 692 that [soa* is to be interpreted as a form of the hiph infinitive absolute ([s@h* would be expected) chosen for assonance with the following form. This suggestion would gain more credence if the Masoretic text is to be retained in Zeph 1:2 where parallel forms are found. However, that text too has been questioned on lexical and grammatical grounds. The translation adopted fits the following context better than the alternate one and is based on less questionable lexical and grammatical parallels. The Greek translation which reads “they shall gather their fruits” supports the translation chosen.
³¹tn The meaning of this line is very uncertain. A possible alternate translation is: “They have broken the laws that I gave them.” The line reads rather literally “And I gave them they passed over them.” The translation adopted treats the first expression as a noun clause (cf. GKC §155n) which is the subject of the following verb, i.e., “the things I gave them [contextually, the grapes, etc.] passed over from them.” The alternate translation treats the expression as a dangling object (a Hebrew casus pendens) resumed by the pronoun “them” and understands “the things that I gave them” to be the law or some related entity which is often the object of this verb (see BDB, rb^u*, Qal 1i, p. 717). Neither of these translations is without its weakness. The weakness of the translation which has been adopted is the unusual use it assigns to the object suffix of the verb translated “pass over”. The weakness of the alternate translation is the rather abrupt and opaque introduction of a new topic of reference (i.e., the laws) into the context. On the whole the latter weakness would appear to outweigh the former. This line is missing from the Greek version and Bright, Jeremiah, and Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, despair of giving a translation. For other possible suggestions see, Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 285-86.
³²tn The words “The people say” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift of speakers between vv. 4-13 and vv. 14-16. They are added for clarity.
³³tn Heb “Gather together and let us enter into the fortified cities.”
³⁴tn Heb “Let us die there.” The words “at least” and “fighting” are intended to bring out the contrast of passive surrender to death in the open country and active resistance to the death implicit in the context.
³⁵tn The words “of judgment” are not in the text but are intended to show that “poison water”is not literal but figurative of judgement at the hands of God through the agency of the enemy mentioned in v. 16.
³⁶tn Heb “against the LORD.” The switch is for the sake of smoothness in English.
³⁷tn Heb “[We hoped] for a time of healing but behold terror.”
³⁸tn The words “They are coming to destroy” are not in the text. They are inserted to break up a long sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.
³⁹tn These words which are at the end of the Hebrew verse are brought forward to show at the outset the shift in speaker.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Indeed [or, For] behold!” The translation is intended to convey some of the connection that is suggested by the Hebrew particle yK! at the beginning of the verse.
⁴¹tn Heb “I am sending against you snakes, poisonous ones which cannot be charmed.” In the light of the context literal snakes are scarcely meant. So the metaphor is turned into a simile to prevent possible confusion. For a similar metaphorical use of animals for enemies see 5:6.
⁴²tn Heb “they will bite you.” There does not appear to be any way to avoid the possible confusion that literal snakes are meant here except to paraphrase. Possibly one could say “And they will attack you and ‘bite’ you,” but the enclosing of the word “bite” in quotations might lead to even further confusion.
⁴³tn The words, “Then I said” are not in the text but there is a general consensus that the words of vv. 18-19a are the words of Jeremiah. These words are added for clarity.
⁴⁴tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. The translation is based on the redivision and repointing of a word that occurs only here in the Masoretic text and whose pattern of formation is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text reads yt!yg]yl!b=m^ which BDB provisionally derives from a verb root meaning “to gleam” or “to shine”. However, BDB notes that the text is dubious (cf. BDB, tyg]yl!b=m^, p. 114). The text is commonly emended to thoG= yl!B=m! which is a qal infinitive from a verb meaning “to heal” preceded by a compound negative “for lack of” “to be at a loss for” (cf. e.g., KB3, tyg]yl!b=m^, p. 514 and hhG, p. 174). This reading is supported by the Greek text which has an adjective meaning “incurable” which is, however, connected with the preceding verse, i.e., “they will bite you incurably.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Behold the voice of the crying of the daughter of my people.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “Land of distances, i.e., of wide extent.” For parallel usage cf. Isa 33:17.
⁴⁸tn Heb “her King” but this might be misunderstood by some to refer to the Davidic ruler even with the capitalization.
⁴⁹tn The words, “The LORD would answer” are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are added for clarity. Another option would be to add “And I can just hear the LORD reply.”
⁵⁰sn The people’s cry and the LORD’s interruption reflect the same argument that was set forth in the preceding chapter. They have misguided confidence that the LORD is with them regardless of their actions and he responds that their actions have provoked him to the point of judging them. See especially 7:4 and 7:30.
⁵¹tn The words “They say” are not in the text; they are added to make clear that the lament of the people begun in v. 19b is continued here after the interruption of the LORD’s words in v. 19c.
⁵²tn Heb “Harvest time has passed, the summer is over.”
sn This appears to be a proverbial statement for “time marches on.” The people appear to be expressing their frustration that the LORD hasn’t gone about his business of rescuing them as they expected. For a similar misguided feeling based on the offering of shallow repentance see Hos 6:1-3 (and note the LORD’s reply in 6:4-6).
⁵³tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
⁵⁴tn Heb “Because of the crushing of the daughter of my people I am crushed.”
⁵⁵tn Heb “I go about in black [mourning clothes]. Dismay has seized me.”
⁵⁶tn Heb “balm.”
sn Balm was the gum or resin from a tree that grows in Egypt and Palestine and was thought to have medicinal value (see also Jer 46:11).
⁵⁷tn Heb “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?” In this context the questions are rhetorical and expect a positive answer.
sn The prophet means by this metaphor that there are still means available for healing the spiritual ills of his people, mainly repentance, obedience to the law, and sole allegiance to God, and still people available who will apply this medicine to them, namely prophets like himself.
⁵⁸tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
⁵⁹tn Or more clearly, “restored to spiritual health”; Heb “Why then has healing not come to my dear people?”
sn Jeremiah is lamenting that though there is a remedy available for the recovery of his people they have not availed themselves of it.
¹tn Jer 9:1 in English versions is 8:23 in the Hebrew text.
²tn Heb “I wish that my head were water.”
³tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
⁴tn Heb “I wish I had in the desert a lodging place [inn, or place to spend the night] for travelers.”
⁵tn Or “bunch,” but this loses the irony; the word is used for the solemn assemblies at the religious feasts.
⁶tn Heb “they are all adulterers, a congregation of unfaithful people.” However, spiritual adultery is, of course, meant, not literal adultery. So the literal translation would be misleading.
⁷tn The words “The LORD says” have been moved up from the end of the verse to make clear that a change in speaker has occurred.
⁸tn Heb “They have readied [or, strung] their tongue as their bow for lies.”
⁹tn Heb “but not through honesty.”
¹⁰tn Heb “they go from evil to evil.”
¹¹tn Or “do not acknowledge me”; Heb “do not know me.” But knowing in Hebrew thought often involves more than intellectual knowledge; it involves emotional and volitional commitment as well. For ud^y` meaning “acknowledge” see 1 Chr 28:9; Isa 29:21; Hos 2:20; Prov 3:6. This word is also found in ancient Near Eastern treaty contexts where it has the idea of a vassal king ackowledging the sovereignty of a greater king (cf. H. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yada,” BASOR 181(1966):31-37).
¹²tn Heb “Be on your guard…Do not trust.” The verbs are second masculine plural of direct address and there seems no way to translate literally and not give the mistaken impression that Jeremiah is being addressed. This is another example of the tendency in Hebrew style to turn from description to direct address (a figure of speech called apostrophe).
¹³ Heb “cheating, each of them will cheat”.
sn There is perhaps an intentional pun and allusion here to Gen 27:36 and the word play on the name Jacob there. The text here reads ‘aqob ya’qob.
¹⁴tn Heb “their tongues.” However, this is probably not a natural idiom in contemporary English and the tongue may stand as a part for the whole anyway.
¹⁵tc An alternate reading for vv. 5d-6b is: “They wear themselves out doing wrong. Jeremiah, you live in the midst of deceitful people. They deceitfully refuse to take any thought of/acknowledge me.” The translation which has been adopted is based on a redivision of the lines, a redivision of some of the words, and a revocalization of some of the consonants. The Masoretic text reads literally “doing wrong they weary themselves. Your sitting in the midst of deceit; in deceit they refuse to know me” (yt!oa tu^d^ Wna&m@ hm*r+m!B= hm*-r+m! EotB= ;T=b=v! .Wal=n] hw}u&h^). The Greek version reads literally: “they do wrong and they do not cease to turn themselves around. Usury upon usury and deceit upon deceit. They do not want to know me.” This suggests that we should read Wal=n] hw}u&h^ yt!oa tu^d^ Wna&m@ hm*-r+m!B= hm*-r+m! EotB= ETo .bv% which yields literally “doing evil [= “they do evil” using the hiphil infinitive absolute as a finite verb (cf. GKC §113ff)] they are not able [cf. KB2, ha*l*, Niph 3, p. 468 and see Exod 7:18 for parallel use] to repent. Oppression on oppression [cf. BDB,ETo, IIEot, p. 1067]; deceit on deceit. They refuse to know me.” This reading has ancient support and avoids the introduction of an unexpected second masculine suffix into the context. It has been adopted here along with a number of modern commentaries (cf., e.g., McKane, Jeremiah, 1:201) and translations as the more likely reading.
¹⁶tn Or “do not acknowledge me”; Heb “do not know me.” See the note on the phrase “do not take any thought of me” in 9:3.
¹⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
¹⁸tn Heb “I will refine/purify them.” The words “in the fires of affliction” are added to give clarity to the metaphor.
¹⁹tn Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.
²⁰tc Heb “For how else shall I deal because of the wickedness of the daughter of my people.” The Masoretic text does not have the word “wickedness.” The word, however, is read in the Greek version. This is probably a case of a word dropping out because of its similarities to the consonants preceding or following it (i.e., haplography). The word “wickedness” (tu^r^) has dropped out before the words “my dear people” (yM!u^ tB^). The causal nuance which is normal for yn}P=m! does not make sense without some word like this and the combination of tu^r^ yn}P=m! does occur in Jer 7:12 and one very like it occurs in Jer 26:3.
²¹tc This reading follows the Masoretic consonants (the Kethiv, a qal active participle from fj^v*). The Masoretes preferred to read “a sharpened arrow” (the Qere, a qal passive participle from the same root or a homonym, meaning “hammered, beaten”). See KB3, II fj^v*, p. 1354 for discussion. The exact meaning of the word makes little difference to the meaning of the metaphor itself.
²²tn Heb “They speak deceit.”
²³tn Heb “With his mouth a person speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he sets an ambush for him.”
²⁴sn See 5:9, 29. This is somewhat of a refrain at the end of a catalog of Judah’s sins.
²⁵tn The words “I said” are not in the text, but there is general agreement that Jeremiah is the speaker. Cf. the lament in 8:18-9:1. These words are added for clarity. Some translations follow the Greek text which reads a plural imperative here. Since this reading would make the transition between 9:10 and 9:11 easier it is probably not original but a translator’s way of smoothing over a difficulty.
²⁶tn Heb “I will lift up weeping and mourning.”
²⁷tn Heb “for the mountains.” However, the context makes clear that it is the grasslands or pastures on the mountains that are meant. The words “for the grasslands” are added for clarity.
²⁸tn The words “the LORD said” are not in the text, but it is obvious from the content that he is the speaker. These words are added for clarity.
²⁹tn Heb “a heap of ruins, a haunt for jackals.”
³⁰tn The words, “I said” are not in the text. It is not clear that a shift in speaker has taken place.However, the words of the verse are very unlikely to be a continuation of the LORD’s threat. It is generally assumed that these are the words of Jeremiah and that a dialogue is going on between him and the LORD in vv. 9-14. That assumption is accepted here.
³¹tn Heb “Who is the wise man that he may understand this?”
³²tn Heb “And [who is the man] to whom the mouth of the LORD has spoken that he may explain it?”
³³tn Heb “and they have not walked in it (with “it” referring to “my law”).
³⁴tn Heb “they have gone/followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the idiom.
³⁵tn Or “forefathers”, or “ancestors.”
³⁶tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See the study notes on 2:9 and 7:3.
³⁷ Heb “Therefore, thus says the LORD…” The person is shifted to better conform with English style.
³⁸ Heb “I am going to feed this people wormwood and make them drink poison water.” “Wormwood” and “poison water” are not to be understood literally here but are symbolic of judgment and suffering. See, e.g., BDB, hn`u&l^, p. 542.
³⁹tn Heb “I will send the sword after them.” The sword here is probably not completely literal but refers to death by violent means, including death by the sword.
⁴⁰sn He will destroy them but not completely. See Jer 5:18; 30:11; 46:28.
⁴¹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
⁴²tn Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” However, without some addition it is not clear to whom the command is addressed. The words are added for clarity and to help resolve a rather confusing issue of who is speaking throughout vv. 16-21. See the translator’s note for further explanation. As has been evident throughout the translation, the speaker is not always indicated. Sometimes it is not even clear who the speaker is. In general the translation and the notes have reflected the general consensus in identifying who it is. Here, however, there is a good deal of confusion about who is speaking in vv. 18, 20-21. The Greek translation has the LORD speaking throughout with second plural pronouns in vv. 18, 21 and the absence of the first line in v. 22. It would be hard to explain how the Masoretic text arose if it were the original text. Critical commentators such as J. Bright, W. Holladay, and W. McKane resolve the issue by dropping out the introductory formula in v. 17 and the first line of v. 22 and assigning the whole lament to Jeremiah. It seems obvious from the first plural pronouns and the content of v. 18 (and probably v. 21 as well) and the fact that the LORD is referred to in other than the first person in v. 20 that he is not the speaker of those verses. I have attempted to resolve the issue by having Jeremiah report the LORD’s command in v. 17 and have the rest of the speech be essentially that of Jeremiah. It should be admitted, however, that the issue is far from resolved. Most translations simply ignore the problem. GNB/TEV is a rare exception.
⁴³tn Heb “Consider!”
⁴⁴tn Heb “Call for the mourning women that they may come and send for the wise/skilled women that they may come.” The verbs here are masculine plural, addressed to the people.
⁴⁵tn The words “And I said, ‘Indeed” are not in the text. They have been added to try and help clarify who the speaker is who identifies with the lament of the people.
⁴⁶tn The words “They will wail” are not in the text. They are added to make clear that this is the wailing that will be heard.
sn The destruction is still in the future, but it is presented graphically as though it had already taken place.
⁴⁷tn Heb “How we are ruined!”
⁴⁸tn The order of these two lines has been reversed for English stylistic reasons. The text reads in Hebrew “because we have left our land because they have thrown down our dwellings.” The two clauses offer parallel reasons for the cries “How ruined we are! [How] we are greatly disgraced!” But the first line must contain a prophetic perfect (because the lament comes from Jerusalem) and the second a perfect referring to a destruction that is itself future. This seems the only way to render the verse that would not be misleading.
⁴⁹tn The words “I said” are not in the text. The text merely has “Indeed, Yes”. The words are added to indicate that the speaker is still Jeremiah though he now is not talking about the mourning woman but is talking to them. See the notes on 9:17-18 for further explanation.
⁵⁰tn It is a little difficult to explain how the Hebrew particle yK! is functioning here. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:311 may be correct in seeing it as introducing the contents of what those who call for the mourning women are to say. In this case, Jeremiah picks up the task as representative of the people.
⁵¹tn Heb “Listen to the word of the LORD.”
sn In this context the word of the LORD that they are to listen for is the word of the lament that they are to teach their daughters and neighbors.
⁵²tn Heb “Teach…mournful song, and each woman her neighbor lady…”
⁵³sn Death is treated as though it were a person. Some have seenas possible background to this lament an allusion to Mesopotamian mythology where the demon Lamastu climbs in through the windows of houses and over their walls to kill children and babies.
⁵⁴tn Or “‘Death has climbed…city squares. And the dead bodies of people lie scattered…They lie scattered…but has not been gathered.’ The LORD has told me to tell you this.”” Or “For death will climb…It will enter…It will take away…who gather in the city squares. So tell your daughters and neighbors, ‘The LORD wants you to say, “The dead bodies of people lie scattered…They lie scattered…has not been gathered.”’ The main causes of ambiguity are the particle yK! introducing v. 21 and the verb form rB@D^ at the beginning of v. 22. yK! may be interpreted as introducing a causal sentence giving Jeremiah’s grounds for the commands of v. 19 in which case the verbs would best be understood as prophetic perfects (as in the second alternate translation). Or it may be interpreted as introducing the content of the lament the women are to teach their daughters and neighbors (as in the translation adopted and in the first alternate translation). The form rB@D^ may be interpreted as a piel masculine singular imperative addressed to Jeremiah (as in the first alternate translation where it is placed at the end for the sake of clarity) or as a piel infinitive absolute either explaining what the woman are to teach their daughters and neighbors (as in the second alternate translation; cf. GKC §113h,i for this use of the infinitive absolute) or as equivalent to an imperative addressed to the women telling them to tell their daughters and neighbors the reason for the lament, i.e., the LORD’s promise of widespread death (cf. GKC §113bb for this use of the infinitive absolute). The translation chosen has opted for v. 21 as the content of the lament and v. 22 as the further explanation that Jeremiah has the women pass on to their neighbors and daughters. This appears to this interpreter to create the least confusion and dislocation in the flow of the passage.
⁵⁵sn It is not always clear why verses were placed in their present position in the editorial process of collecting Jeremiah’s sermons and the words the LORD spoke to him (see Jer 36:4, 32 for reference to two of these collestions). Here it is probable that vv. 23-26 were added as a further answer to the question raised in v. 12.
⁵⁶tn Or “Strong people should not brag that they are strong.”
⁵⁷tn Literally “…in their wisdom…in their power…in their riches.”
⁵⁸tn Or “fairness and justice, because these things give me pleasure.” Verse 24 reads in Hebrew “But let the one who brags brag in this: understanding and knowing me that I, the LORD, do faithfulness, justice, and righteousness in the earth for/that I delight in these.” It is uncertain whether the Hebrew particle yK! before the clause “I delight in these things” is parallel to the yK! introducing the clause “that I, the LORD, act…” or causal giving the grounds for the LORD acting the way he does. In the light of the contrasts in the passage and the emphasis that Jeremiah has placed on obedience to the covenant and ethical conduct in conjunction with real allegiance to the LORD not mere lip service, it is probable that the clauses are parallel. For the use of yK! to introduce clauses of further definition after a direct object as here see GKC §117h and see BDB, ud^y`, Qal 1a, p. 393. For parallels to the idea of Yahweh requiring these characteristics in people see Hos 6:6, Mic 6:8.
⁵⁹tn Heb “Behold!”
⁶⁰tn Heb “punish all who are circumcised in the flesh.” The translation is contextually motivated to better bring out the contrast that follows.
⁶¹tn Heb “all those who are cut off on the side of the head who live in the desert.” KJV and some other older translations have followed the interpretation that this is a biform of an expression meaning “end or remote parts of the [far] corners [of the earth].” This interpretation is generally abandoned by the modern commentaries and lexicons (see, e.g. BDB, ha*P@, 1, p. 802 and KB3, ha*P@, 1(b), p. 858). It occurs also in 25:33; 49:32.
⁶²tn Heb “For all of these nations are uncircumcised.”
sn A contrast is drawn between circumcision as a mere external cutting of the flesh and a sign of commitment to the covenant and the God of the covenant. The people of these nations practiced circumcision but not as a sign of the covenant. The people of Israel engaged in it as a religious practice but without any obedience to the covenant that it was a sign of or any real commitment to the LORD.
⁶³tn Literally “And all the house of Israel is uncircumcised of heart.”
¹tn Heb “Do not learn the way of the nations.” For this use of the word “ways” (Er#D#) compare for example Jer 12:16 and Isa 2:6.
²tn Heb “signs.”
sn The word translated here “things that go on in the sky” (totoa) refers both to unusual disturbances such as eclipses, comets, meteors, etc but also to such things as the changes in the position of the sun, moon, and stars in conjunction with the changes in seasons (cf. Gen 1:14). The people of Assyria and Babylonia worshiped the sun, moon, and stars, thinking that these heavenly bodies had some hold over them.
³tn Heb “statutes.” According to BDB, hQ*j%, 2b, p. 350 it refers to the firmly established customs or practices of the pagan nations. Compare the usage in Lev 20:23; 2 Kgs 17:8. Here it is essentially equivalent to Er#D# in v. 1 which we have already translated “religious practices.”
⁴sn This passage is dripping with sarcasm. It begins by talking about the “statutes” of the pagan peoples as a “vapor” using a singular copula and singular predicate. Then it suppresses the subject, the idol, as though it were too horrible to mention, using only the predications about it. The last two lines read literally: “[it is] a tree which one cuts down from the forest; the work of the hands of a craftsman with his chisel.”
⁵tn The pronoun is plural in Hebrew referring to the parts.
⁶tn Heb “And it is not in them to do good either.”
⁷tn The words “I said” are not in the text but there appears to be a shift in speaker. Someone is now addressing the LORD. The likely speaker is Jeremiah, so these words are added for clarity.
⁸tn The form that introduces this line has raised debate. The form /ya@m@ normally means “without” and introduces a qualification of a term expressing desolation or “so that not” and introduces a negative result (cf BDB, II /y]a^, 6b, p. 35). Neither of these nuances fit either this verse or the occurrence in v. 7. BDB, II /y]a^, 6bg, p. 35 note that some have explained this as a strengthened form of /y]a^ which occurs in a similar phrase five other times (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:23). Though many including BDB question the validity of this solution it is probably better than the suggestion that BDB gives of repointing to /y]a^m@ “whence” which scarcely fits the context of v. 7 or the solution of KB3, I /y]a^, p. 41 which suggests that the m is a double writing (dittograph) of the final consonant from the preceding word. That would assume that the scribe made the same error twice or was influenced the second time by the first erroneous writing.
⁹tn Heb “Great is your name in power.”
¹⁰tn Heb “Who should not revere you…?”. The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer.
¹¹tn Heb “For it is fitting to you.”
¹²tn Heb “their royalty/dominion.” This is a case of substitution of the abstract for the concrete “royalty, royal power” for “kings” who exercise it.
¹³sn The word order of the last sentence is a little awkward in English but it reflects the rhetoric of the Hebrew where the same phrase occurs at the beginning of v. 6 and the end of v. 7 to bracket the intervening material emphasizing the incomparability of the LORD.
¹⁴tn Or “Those wise people and kings are…” It is unclear whether the subject is the “they” of the nations in the preceding verse, or the wise people and kings referred to. The text merely has “they”.
¹⁵tn The meaning of this line is a little uncertain. The text reads in Hebrew “The instruction of vanities [worthless idols] is wood.” Various proposals have been made to make sense out of this line, most of which involve radical emendation of the text. For some examples see Thompson, Jeremiah, pp. 323-24, fn 6. However, this is probably a case of the bold predication that GKC discusses in §141d, some examples of which may be seen in Ps 109:4 “I am prayer,” and Ps 120:7 “I am peace.”
¹⁶tn This is a place of unknown location. It is mentioned again in Dan 10:5. Many emend the word to “Ophir” following the Syriac version and the Aramaic Targum. Ophir was famous for its gold (cf. 1 Kgs 9:28; Job 28:16).
¹⁷tn The words “to cover those idols” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
¹⁸tn The words “They are” are not in the text. The text reads merely, “the work of the carpenter and of the hands of the goldsmith.” The words are added for clarity.
¹⁹tn Heb “Blue and purple their clothing.”
²⁰sn These is an ironic pun in this last line. The word “skillful workers” is the same word that is translated “wise people” in v. 7. The artisans do their work skillfully but they are not “wise”.
²¹tn Heb “The gods who did not make…earth will disappear…” The sentence is broken up to avoid a long, complex English sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.
²²tn This verse is in Aramaic. It is the only Aramaic sentence in Jeremiah. Scholars debate the appropriateness of this verse to this context. Many see it as a gloss added by a post-exilic scribe which was later incorporated into the text. Both R.E. Clendenen, “Discourse Strategies in Jeremiah 10,” JBL 106 (1987):401-8 and W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:324-25, 334-35 have given detailed arguments that the passage is not only original but the climax and center of the contrast between the LORD and idols in vv. 2-16. Holladay shows that the passage is a very carefully constructed chiasm (see accompanying study note) which argues that “these” at the end is the subject of the verb “will disappear” not the attributive adjective modifying heaven. He also makes a very good case that the verse is poetry and not prose as it is rendered in the majority of modern translations.
sn This passage is carefully structured and placed to contrast the LORD who is living and eternal (v. 10) and made the heavens and earth (v. 12) with the idols who did not and will disappear. It also has a very careful concentric structure in the original text where “the gods” is balanced by “these”, “heavens” is balance by “from under the heavens”, “the earth” is balanced by “from the earth” and “did not make” is balanced and contrasted in the very center by “will disappear”. The structure is further reinforced by the sound play/word play between “did not make” (Aramaic la’ ‘abadu) and “will disappear” (Aramaic ye’badu). This is the rhetorical climax of Jeremiah’s sarcastic attack on the folly of idolatry.
²³tn The words “The LORD is” are not in the text. They are implicit from the context. They are added here because of the possible confusion of who the subjec t is due to the parenthetical address to the people of Israel in v. 11. The first two verbs are participles and should not merely be translated as the narrative past. They are predicate nominatives of an implied copula intending to contrast the LORD as the one who made the earth with the idols which did not.
²⁴tn Heb “At the voice of his giving.” The idiom “to give the voice” is often used for thunder (cf. BDB, /t^n`, Qal 1x, p. 679).
²⁵tn Heb “from the ends of the earth.”
²⁶tn Heb “he brings out the winds from his storehouses.”
²⁷tn Heb “Every man.” But in the context this is not a reference to all people without exception but to all idolators. The referent is made explicit for the sake of clarity.
²⁸tn Or “nothing but a phony god”; Heb “a lie/falsehood.”
²⁹tn Literally “There is no breath in them.” The referent is made explicit so that no one will mistakenly take it to refer to the idolators or goldsmiths.
³⁰tn Or “objects of mockery.”
³¹tn The words “The LORD who is” are not in the text. They are added for clarity. For the significance of the words that follow them see the study note that follows.
sn The phrase “the Portion of Jacob,” which is applied to God here, has its background in the division of the land where each tribe received a portion of the land of Palestine except the tribe of Levi whose “portion” was the LORD. As the other tribes lived off what their portion of the land provided, the tribe of Levi lived off what the LORD provided, i.e., the tithes and offerings dedicated to him. Hence to have the LORD as one’s portion is to have him provide for all one’s needs (see Ps 16:5 in the context of vv. 2, 6 and Lam 3:24 in the context of vv. 22-23).
³²tn Heb “The Portion of Jacob.”
³³tn Heb “And Israel is the tribe of his possession.”
³⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies is his name.”
sn For this rendering of the name for God and its significance see 2:19 and the study note there.
³⁵tn Heb “you who are living in/under siege.” The pronouns in this verse are feminine singular in Hebrew. Jerusalem is being personified as a single woman. This personification carries on down through v. 19 where she speaks in the first person. It is difficult, however, to reflect this in a translation that conveys any meaning without being somewhat paraphrastic like this.
³⁶tn The meaning of this last line is somewhat uncertain: Heb “I will cause them distress in order that [or, with the result that] they will find.” The absence of an object for the verb “find” has led to conjecture that the text is wrong. Some commentators follow the lead of the Greek and Latin versions which read the verb as a passive, “they will be found,” i.e., be caught and captured. Others follow a suggestion by G.R. Driver (“Linguistic and Textual Problems: Jeremiah,” JQR 28(1937/38):107) that the verb be read not as “they will find” (Wax*m=y] from ax*m*) but “they will be squeezed/drained” (Wxm=y] from hx*m*). The translation adopted assumes that this is an example of the ellipsis of the object supplied from the context (cf. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 8-12). For a similar nuance for the verb “find” = “feel/experience” see BDB, ax*m*, Qal 1f, p. 592 and compare the usage in Ps 116:3.
³⁷tn The words, “And I cried out” are not in the text. It is not altogether clear who the speaker is in vv. 19-25. The words of vv. 19-20 would best be assigned to a personified Jerusalem who laments the destruction of her city (under the figure of a tent) and the exile of her children (under the figure of children). However, the words of v. 21 which assign responsibility to the rulers do not fit well in the mouth of the people but do fit Jeremiah. The words of v. 22 are very appropriate to Jeremiah being similar to the report in 4:19-20. Likewise the words of v. 23 which appear to express man’s incapacity to control his own destiny and his resignation to the fate which awaits him in the light of v. 24 seem more appropriate to Jeremiah than to the people. There has been no indication elsewhere that the people have shown any indication of being resigned to their fate or willing to accept their punishment. Though the issue is far from resolved a majority of commentators see Jeremiah as the speaker so identifying himself with their fate that he speaks as though he were this personified figure. It is not altogether out of the question, however, that the speaker throughout is personified Jerusalem though I know of no commentator who takes that view. For those who are interested, the most thorough discussion of the issue is probably to be found in W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:230-35, especially 233-35. Rendering the pronouns throughout as “we” and “our” alleviates some of the difficulty but some speaker needs to be identified in the introduction to allay any possible confusion. Hence I have opted for what is the majority view.
³⁸tn Heb “Woe to me on account of my wound.” The words “woe to” in many contexts carry the connotation of hopelessness and of inevitable doom (cf. 1 Sam 4:7,8; Isa 6:5), hence a “deadly blow.” See also the usage in 4:13, 31; 6:4 and the notes on 4:13. For the rendering of the pronoun as “we” and “our” here and in the verses to follow see the preceding note.
³⁹tn Some interpret this as a resignation to the punishment inflicted and translate “But I said, ‘This is my punishment and I will just have to bear it.’” This is unlikely given the meaning and usage of the word rendered “sickness” (yl!j^), the absence of the pronoun “my,” and the likelihood that the particle Ea^ means “only” not “indeed” (cf. BDB, Ea^, 2b and compare its usage in v. 24).
sn What is being referred to here is the feeling that was encouraged by the false prophets that the ill fortunes of the nation were just temporary setbacks and everything would soon get better (cf 6:14; 8:11).
⁴⁰tn Heb “My tent has been destroyed and my tent cords have been ripped apart.” For a very similar identification of Jeremiah’s plight with the plight of the personified community see 4:20 and the notes there.
⁴¹tn Heb “my children have gone from me and are no more.”
sn What is being referred to is the exile of the people of the land. This passage could refer to the exiles of 605 BC, 597 BC or more probably be anticipatory of the exile of 588 BC since the “tent,” (i.e., the city) is pictured as torn down. The picture of devastation and desolation here should be contrasted with that in Isa 54:2-3.
⁴²tn Heb “the shepherds.”
⁴³tn Heb “They have not sought the LORD.”
sn This idiom quite commonly refers to inquiring for the LORD’s guidance through a prophet. See for example Exod 18:15; 1 Sam 9:9; 1Kgs 22:8. It would not exclude consulting the law.
⁴⁴tn Heb “all their flock (or “pasturage”).”
sn This verse uses the figure of rulers as shepherds and the people they ruled as sheep. It is a common figure in the Bible. See Ezek 34 for an extended development of this metaphor.
⁴⁵tn Heb “The sound of a report, behold, it is coming.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “ coming, even a great quaking.”
⁴⁷sn Compare 6:22.
⁴⁸tn Heb “Not to the man his way.” For the nuance of “fate, destiny, or the way things turn out” for the Hebrew word “way” see Hag 1:5, Isa 40:27 and probably Ps 49:13 (cf. KB2, Er#D#, 5, p. 218). For the idea of “control” or “hold in one’s power” for the preposition “to” see Ps 3:8 (cf. BDB, l=,5b(a), p. 513).
⁴⁹tn Heb “Not to a man the walking and the establishing his step.”
⁵⁰tn Heb “with justice.”
⁵¹tn The words, “to almost nothing” are not in the text. They are implicit from the general context and are added by almost all translations.
⁵²tn Heb “know you.” For this use of the word “know” (ud^y*) see the note on 9:3.
⁵³tn Heb “tribes/clans.”
⁵⁴tn Heb “call on your name.” For the significance of “calling on the name” see the study note.
sn This idiom refers to prayer (mainly) and praise. See 1Kgs 18:24-26 and Ps 116:13, 17. Here “calling on your name” is parallel to “acknowledging you.” In many locutions in the OT “name” is equivalent to the person. In the OT, the “name” reflected the person’s character (cf. Gen 27:36; 1 Sam 25:25) or his reputation (Gen 11:4; 2 Sam 8:13). To speak in a person’s name was to act as his representative or carry his authority (1 Sam 25:9; 1 Kgs 21:8). To call someone’s name over something was to claim it for one’s own (2 Sam 12:28).
⁵⁵tn Heb “have devoured Jacob.”
⁵⁶tn Or “have almost completely destroyed them”; Heb “they have devoured them and consumed them.” The figure of hyperbole is used here; elsewhere Jeremiah and God refer to the fact that they will not be completely consumed. See for example 4:27; 5:10, 18.
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:”. The proposed translation is more in keeping with contemporary English idiom. Cf. 1:2 and 7:1 and footnotes there.
²tn The form is a second masculine plural which is followed in the Masoretic text of vv. 2-3 by second masculine singulars. This plus the fact that the whole clause “listen to the terms of this covenant” is nearly repeated at the end of v. 3 has led many modern scholars to delete the whole clause (cf., e.g. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:236-37). However, this only leads to further adjustments in the rest of the verse which are difficult to justify. The form has also led to a good deal of speculation about who these others were that are initially addressed here. The juxtaposition of second plural and singular forms has a precedent in Deuteronomy, where the nation is sometimes addressed with the plural and at other times with a collective singular.
³sn Traditionally, “covenant.” However, apart from the legal profession and Jewish and Christian tradition the term “covenant” may not be too familiar. There were essentially three kinds of “covenants” that were referred to under the Hebrew term used here: 1) “Parity treaties” or “covenants” between equals in which each party pledged itself to certain agreed upon stipulations and took an oath to it in the name of their god or gods (cf. Gen 31:44-54), 2) “Suzerain-vassal treaties” or “covenants” in which a great king pledged himself to protect the vassal’s realm and his right to rule over his own domain in exchange for sovereignty over the vassal, including the rendering of absolute loyalty and submission to the great king’s demands spelled out in detailed stipulations, 3) “Covenants of grant” in which a great king granted to a loyal servant or vassal king permanent title to a piece of land or dominion over a specified realm in recognition of past service. It is generally recognized that the Mosaic covenant which is being referred to here is of the second type and that it resembles in kind the ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties. These treaties typically contained the following elements: 1) a preamble identifying the great king (cf. Exod 20:2a; Deut 1:1-4); 2) a historical prologue summarizing the great king’s past benefactions as motivation for future loyalty (cf. Exod 20:2b; Deut 1:5—4:43); 3) the primary stipulation of absolute and unconditional loyalty (cf. Exod 20:3-8; Deut 5:1—11:32); 4) specific stipulations governing future relations between the vassal and the great king and the vassals relation to other vassals (cf. Exod 20:22—23:33; Deut 12:1—26:15); 5) the invoking of curses on the vassal for disloyalty and the pronouncing of blessing on him for loyalty (cf. Lev 26; Deut 27-28); 5) the invoking of witnesses to the agreement often the great king’s and the vassal’s gods (cf. Deut 30:19; 31:28 where the reference is to the “heavens and the earth” as enduring witnesses). It is also generally agreed that the majority of the threats of punishment by the prophets refer to the invocation of these covenant curses for disloyalty to the basic stipulation, that of absolute loyalty. A good overview of the biblical covenants and their relation to the ancient Near Eastern treaties and covenants of grant is provided on p. 19 of the NIV Study Bible.
⁴tn Heb “this covenant.” The referent of “this” is left dangling until it is further defined in vv. 3-4. Leaving it undefined in the translation may lead to confusion hence the anticipatory nature of the demonstrative is spelled out explicitly in the translation.
⁵ Heb “and speak/tell them.” However, the translation chosen is more appropriate to modern idiom.
⁶tn Or “those living in Jerusalem”; Heb “inhabitants of.”
⁷tn Heb “Cursed is the person who does not listen to the terms of this covenant.” “This covenant” is further qualified in the following verse by a relative clause. The form of the sentence and the qualification “my” before covenant were chosen for better English idiom and to break up a long sentence which really extends to the middle of v. 5.
⁸tn Heb “does not listen…this covenant which I commanded your fathers.” The sentence is broken up this way in conformity with contemporary English style.
⁹tn Heb “out of the land of Egypt, out of the iron smelting furnace.”
¹⁰tn In place of the words “I said at that time” the Hebrew text has “saying.” The sentence is again being restructured in English to avoid the long, confusing style of the Hebrew original.
¹¹tn Heb “Obey me and carry them out.” The “them” refers back to the terms of the covenant which they were charged to keep according to the preceding. The referent is made specific to avoid ambiguity.
¹²tn The words, “If you do” are not in the text. They have been added to break up a long sentence consisting of an imperative followed by a consequential sentence.
¹³sn This refers to the Mosaic law which was instituted at Sinai and renewed on the Plains of Moab before Israel entered into the land. The words “the terms of the covenant” are explicitly used for the Ten Commandments in Exod 34:28 and for the additional legislation given in Deut 28:69; 29:8. The formulation here is reminiscent of Deut 29:9-14 (29:10-15 Hebrew text). The book of Deuteronomy is similar in its structure and function to an ancient Near Eastern treaty. In these the great king reminded his vassal of past benefits that he had given to him, charged him with obligations (the terms or stipulations of the covenant) chief among which was absolute loyalty and sole allegiance, promised him future benefits for obeying the stipulations (the blessings), and placed him under a curse for disobeying them. Any disobedience was met with stern warnings of punishment in the form of destruction and exile. Those who had witnessed the covenant were called in to confirm the continuing goodness of the great king and the disloyalty of the vassal. The vassal was then charged with a list of particular infringements of the stipulations and warned to change his actions or suffer the consequences. This is the background for Jer 11:1-9. Jeremiah is here functioning as a messenger from the LORD, Israel’s great king, and charging both the fathers and the children with breach of covenant.
¹⁴tn Heb “flowing with milk and honey.” This phrase is very familiar to readers in the Jewish and Christian traditions as a proverbial description of the agricultural and pastural abundance of the land of Israel. However, it may not mean too much to readers outside those traditions and an equivalent expression has been substituted for that reason. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 626 identifies this as a figure of speech called synecdoche where the species is put for the genus, “a region…abounding with pasture and fruits of all kinds.”
¹⁵tn Heb “‘a land flowing with milk and honey,’ as at this day.” However, the literal reading is too elliptical and would lead to confusion.
¹⁶tn The words “Let it be so” are not in the text; they are an explanation of the significance of the term “Amen” for those who may not be part of the Christian or Jewish tradition.
sn This word is found at the end of each of the curses in Deut 27 where the people express their agreement with the appropriateness of the curse for the offense mentioned.
¹⁷tn Heb “the terms of this covenant.” However, this was a separate message and the ambiguity of “this” could still cause some confusion.
¹⁸tn Heb “warned them…saying, ‘Obey me.’” However, it allows the long sentence to be broken up easier if the indirect quote is used.
¹⁹tn For the explanation for this rendering see the note on 7:13.
²⁰tn Heb “So I brought on them all the terms of this agreement which I commanded to do and they did not do.” There is an interesting polarity that is being exploited by two different nuances implicit in the use of the word “terms” (yr}b=D], literally “words”), i.e., what the LORD “brings on” them, namely, the curses that are the penalty for disobedience and the stipulations that they are “to do,” that is, to carry out. The sentence is broken up this way in keeping with contemporary English style to avoid the long and complicated style of the original.
²¹tn Heb “Conspiracy [a plot to rebel] is found [or, exists] among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
²²tn Or “They have repeated the evil actions of…”
²³tn Heb “have walked/followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the idiom.
²⁴tn Heb “Therefore, thus, says the LORD.” The person has been shifted in the translation in accordance with the difference between Hebrew and English style.
²⁵tn Heb “Then the towns of Judah and those living in Jerusalem will…”
²⁶tn The Hebrew construction is emphatic involving the use of an infinitive of the verb before the verb itself (Heb “saving they will not save”). For this construction to give emphasis to an antithesis, cf. GKC §113p.
²⁷tn This is again an attempt to render the Hebrew particle yK! contextually. The nuance is a little hard to establish due to the nature of the rhetoric of the passage which utilizes the figure of apostrophe where the LORD turns from talking about Judah to addressing her directly, probably in condemnatory tones. Something like “the very idea that you should…” might best represent the mood. The yK! is probably asseverative or intensive (cf. BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472).
²⁸sn Cf. 2:28.
²⁹tn Heb “For [or, Indeed] the number of your [sing.] cities are your [sing.] gods, Judah, and the number of the streets of Jerusalem [or, perhaps (your) streets, Jerusalem] you [plur.] have set up altars to the shameful thing, altars to sacrifice to Baal.” This passage involves a figure of speech where the speaker turns from describing something about someone to addressing him/her directly (a figure called apostrophe). This figure is not common in contemporary English literature or conversation and translating literally would lead to confusion on the part of some readers. Hence, the translation retains the third person in keeping with the rest of the context. The shift from singular “your cities” to plural “you have set up” is interpreted contextually to refer to a shift in addressing Judah to addressing the citizens of Jerusalem whose streets are being talked about. The appositional clause, “altars to sacrifice to Baal” has been collapsed with the preceding clause to better identify what the shameful thing is and to eliminate a complex construction. The length of this sentence runs contrary to the usual practice of breaking up long complex sentences in Hebrew into shorter equivalent ones in English. However, breaking up this sentence and possibly losing the connecting link with the preceding used to introduce it might lead to misunderstanding.
³⁰tn The words “to save them” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
sn Cf. 7:16 where this same command is addressed to Jeremiah.
³¹tc The rendering “when disaster strikes them” is based on reading “at the time of” (tu@B=) with a number of Hebrew manuscripts and the versions instead of “on account of” (du^B=). Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:347 is probably right in assuming that the Masoretic text has been influenced by “for them” (<d*u&b^) earlier in the verse.
³²tn The words “The LORD says to the people of Judah” are not in the text. It is, however, clear from the words that follow that he is the speaker and Judah the addressee. The words are added for the sake of clarity.
³³tn Heb “What to my beloved [being] in my house?” The text has been restructured to avoid possible confusion by the shift from third person in the first two lines to second person in the last two lines and the lines of the following verse. The reference to Judah as his “beloved” is certainly ironic and perhaps even sarcastic.
³⁴tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The text reads somewhat literally either “her doing the wicked thing the many” or “doing it, the wicked thing, the many.” The text, relationship between words, and meaning of this whole verse have been greatly debated. Wholesale emendation based on the versions is common in both the commentaries and the translations. Many follow the lead of the Greek version which in many cases offers a smoother reading but for that very reason may not be original. The notes that follow will explain some of these emendations but will also attempt to explain the most likely meaning of the Masoretic text which is the more difficult and probably the more original text. Since it is presumed to be the original the text will be dealt with in the notes line for line in the Masoretic text even though the emendations often relate to more than one line. For example the Greek of the first two lines reads: “Why has the beloved done abomination in my house?” This ignores the preposition before “my beloved” (yd]yd]yl!) and treats the form “her doing” (Ht*ocu&, qal infinitive plus suffix) as a finite verb (ht*c=u*, qal perfect third feminine). The forms are similar but the Greek is smoother. Moreover, it is difficult to explain the presence of “to” in the Masoretic text if the Greek is the original. The Greek text likewise does not have the difficulty that is exhibited in the Masoretic text by the word “the many” (<yB!r^h*). It reads a word for “vows/votive offerings” (eujcaiV regularly = <yr]d`n+) in place of the word “many” (<yB!r^h*) and takes it as part of a compound subject of the verb in the following line meaning “take away.” However, this word is far removed graphically from that in the Masoretic text and it would be difficult to explain how the Masoretic text arose from it. The Old Latin apparently reads a word for “fat” (adipes = <yb!l*j&) which is closer in script to the Masoretic text and would be more likely original than the Greek. However, both of these resolutions look like attempts to smooth out a difficult text. Because there is no solid support for any single reading it is probably best to retain the Masoretic “the many.” Many do retain it and take it as a second accusative of “doing it” and read “she does the wicked thing with many [i.e., many false gods],” a use of the accusative which is hard to justify. Another alternative, taking the adjective “the many” to modify the noun “the wicked thing” is sometimes suggested but is not possible because the adjective is masculine plural and the noun is feminine singular which is contrary to Hebrew style. Hence we cannot read “she has done many wicked things.” The translation given above follows the suggestion in the UBS, Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Project, 4:209 that it is the subject of the infinitive construct with an object suffix which is anticipatory of the noun “wickedness” that follows (cf. GKC §131m), i.e., “the many do it, namely the wickedness” (for the meaning of the noun see BDB, hM*z]m=, 3b, p. 273).
³⁵tn The meaning of this line is also uncertain. The Hebrew text reads somewhat literally, “holy meat they pass over from upon you.” The question of the subject of the verb is the main problem here. The verb is masculine plural and the only subject available is “holy meat” which is singular, a “they” which goes back to “the many,” or a noun from the end of the preceding line which is combined with “holy meat.” The latter is the solution of the Greek version which reads “Will votive offerings [or, pieces of fat (following the Old Latin)] and holy meats take away from you your wickedness?” However, that resolution has been rejected in the preceding note as smoothing out the difficulties of the first two lines. It also leaves out the yK! at the beginning of the following line and takes the noun “your wickedness” as the object of the verb. That certainly would make for an easier reading of both this line and the next and the assumption that yK! may not be in the text is possible because it could be explained as a double writing of the pronoun on the end of the preceding phrase “from upon you” (Ey]l*u*m@). However, besides being the smoother reading it leaves the last line too short poetically. The solution of the UBS, Preliminary Report, 4:209 is that “they” (referring back to “the many”?) is the subject. They read: “so that they carry away from you even sacrificial flesh.” But who are “they” and “you?” Is the “they” the priests and the “you” the people? (See 1 Sam 2:10-17 for a possible parallel.) This, however, introduces too many unknowns into the text. The translation adopted is based on a revocalization of the form “from upon you” (Ey]l*u*m@) to “your treacherous acts” (Ey]l*u&m^; for this noun cf BDB, I lu^m^, 2, p. 591), a solution which is also proposed in the margin of the JPS Tanakh which reads: “Can your treacheries be canceled by sacral flesh?” For the nuance of the verb presupposed here (= be removed, cease to exist) see BDB, rb^u*, Qal 6c, p. 718 and compare usage in Job 30:15. While this solution does preserve the consonantal text and is accepted here, it should be acknowledged that there is no ancient support for it and the reading of the noun “treacheries” in place of the compound preposition “from upon” is purely speculative.
³⁶tn The meaning of this line is also uncertain: Heb “for [or when] your wickedness then you rejoice.” The Greek translation which reads “or will you escape by these things” (presupposing a Hebrew text yz]WuT* toz lu^ <a!?) is far removed from the reading in the Masoretic text (yz]Ou&T^ za*; the rest of the Hebrew line has been left out because the Greek reads it with the preceding line) and again appears to be an attempt to smooth out a difficult text. The translation retains the Masoretic text but rewords it so it makes better sense in English. The translation presupposes that the phrase “your wickedness” is the object of the verb “take joy” and the adverb “then” refers back according to sense to the offering of sacred flesh, i.e., “even then [or, at that time].” For a similar use of the adverb (za*) compare Gen 13:7. For the use of yK! meaning “that” after a question see BDB, yK! ,1f, p. 472. A possible alternative would be to read as UBS, Preliminary Report, 4:209 do: “When trouble reaches you, then will you exult?” If the text of the whole verse followed here, the more difficult text, is not the original one, the most likely alternative would be: “What right does my beloved have to be in my house? She has does wicked things [reading tMoz]m= ht*c=u*]. Can fat pieces [reading <yb!l*j&h^] and sacred meat take away your wickedness from you [reading yk!t@u*r* Ey]l^u*m@ Wrb!u&y^]. [If it could] then you could rejoice.” It should be emphasized that the text of the verse is uncertain in a number of places and open to more than one interpretation. However, regardless of which text or interpretation of it is followed, the Masoretic as interpreted here, the Greek as given in the notes, or an emended text based on both, the overall meaning is much the same. Judah has done evil and the LORD rejects their superficial attempts to placate him through ritual without change of behavior. The particulars are different; the point is the same.
sn For the argument of this verse compare the condemnatory questions in 7:9-11.
³⁷tn Heb “The LORD once called you…” This is another example of the rapid shift in person that is common to Hebrew style which is not common in English and could lead to confusion for some readers. Here and in the verses that follow the person has been shifted to first person for consistency in English.
³⁸tn The verb form used here is another example of a verb expressing that the action is as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect).
³⁹tn Heb “At the sound of a mighty roar he will set fire to it.” For the shift from third person “He” to the first person “I” see the preceding note. The Hebrew use of the pronouns in vv. 16-17 for the olive tree and the people that it represents is likely to cause confusion if retained. In v. 16 the people are “you” and the olive tree is “it.” The people are again “you” in v. 17 but part of the metaphor is carried over, i.e., “he ‘planted’ you.” It creates less confusion in the flow of the passage if the metaphorical identification is carried out throughout by addressing the people/plant as “you.”
⁴⁰tn The verb here has most commonly been derived from a root meaning “to be broken” (II uu^r`, cf. BDB, p. 949) which fits poorly with the metaphor of setting the plant on fire. Another common option is to emend it to a verb meaning “to be burned up” (ru^B*). However, it is better to follow the lead of the Greek version which translates “be good for nothing” (hjcreiwvqhsan) and derive the verb from uu^r` meaning “be bad/evil” (cf. BDB, p. 949 and compare the nuance of the adjective from this verb in BDB, ur^, 5, p. 948).
⁴¹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of the term see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
⁴²tn The words “in the land” are not in the text but are added to clarify the meaning of the metaphor.
⁴³tn Heb “For Yahweh of armies who planted you speaks disaster upon you.” Because of the way the term LORD of armies has been rendered this sentence has been restructured to avoid confusion in English style.
⁴⁴tn Heb “pronounced disaster…on account of the evil of the house of Israel and the house of Judah which they have done to make me angry [or, thus making me angry] by sacrificing to Baal.” The lines have been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style.
⁴⁵tn Heb “caused me to know that I might know.” Many translations supply an unstated object “their plots” which is referred to later in the context (cf. v. 19). The presupposition of this kind of absolute ellipsis is difficult to justify and would create the need for understanding an ellipsis of “it” also after “I knew.” It is better to see a bipolar use of the verb “know” here. For the second use of the verb “know” meaning “have understanding” see BDB, ud^y` , Qal 5, p. 394.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Then you showed me their deeds.” This is another example of the rapid shift in person which is common in Jeremiah. As elsewhere, it has been resolved for the sake of avoiding confusion for the English reader by leveling the referent to the same person throughout. The text again involves an apostrophe, talking about the LORD to addressing him.
⁴⁷tn Heb “against me.” The words “to kill me” are implicit from the context and are added for clarity.
⁴⁸tn The words “I did not know that they were saying” are not in the text. The quote is without formal introduction in the original. These words are added for clarity.
⁴⁹tn This word and its pronoun (omj=l^, “its bread”) is often emended to read “in/with its sap” = “in its prime” (either ojl@ or omj=l@, the latter would be more likely and the om could be explained as a rare use of the old poetic third plural suffix for the third singular (cf. GKC §91l for general use and Ps 11:7 and Job 27:23 for third singular use)). Though this fits the context nicely the emendation is probably unnecessary since the word “bread” is sometimes used of other foodstuff than grain or its products (cf BDB, <j#l#, 2a, p. 537).
sn The word “fruit” refers contextually here to the prophecies that Jeremiah was giving not as some suppose his progeny. Jeremiah was not married and had no children.
⁵⁰tn Heb “cut it [or, him] off.” The metaphor of the tree may be continued, though the verb “cut off” is used also of killing people. The rendering clarifies the meaning of the metaphor.
⁵¹tn Literally , “so that his name will not be remembered any more.”
⁵²tn The words “So I said to the LORD” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity to show the shift in address.
⁵³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of the term see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
⁵⁴tn Heb “LORD of armies, just judge, tester of kidneys and heart.” The sentence has been broken up to avoid a long and complex English sentence. The translation is more in keeping with contemporary English style. For explanation of the figures see the study note.
sn In Hebrew thought the kidneys were the seat of the emotions and passions and the heart was the seat of intellect, conscience, and will. The heart and the kidneys are often used figuratively for the thoughts, emotions, motives, and drives that are thought to be seated in them.
⁵⁵tn Heb “Let me see your retribution [i.e., see you exact retribution] from them because I reveal my cause [i.e., plea for justice] to you.”
⁵⁶tn Heb “Therefore thus says the LORD.” This phrase is anticipatory of the same phrase at the beginning of v. 22 and is introductory to what the LORD says about them. The translation seeks to show the connection of the “therefore” which is sometimes rather loose (cf. BDB, /K@, 3d(b), p. 487) with the actual response which is not given until v. 22.
⁵⁷tn Heb “the men of Anathoth.” However, this does not involve all of the people, only the conspirators. The literal might lead to confusion later since v. 21 mentions that there won’t be any of them left alive. However, we know from Ezra 2:23 that there were survivors.
⁵⁸tn Heb “who were seeking my life, saying…” The sentence is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style.
⁵⁹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of the term see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3.
⁶⁰tn Heb “Behold I will.” For the function of this particle see the translator’s note on 1:6.
⁶¹tn Heb “will die by the sword.” Here “sword” stands contextually for “battle” while “starvation” stands for death by starvation during siege.
⁶²tn Heb “the men of Anathoth.” For the rationale for adding the qualification see the notes on v. 21.
⁶³tn Heb “I will bring disaster on…, the year of their punishment.”
⁶⁴tn Heb “There will be no survivors for/among them.”
¹tn Or “LORD, you are fair when I present my case before you.”
²tn Heb “judgments” or “matters of justice.” For the nuance of “complain to,” “fair,” “disposition of justice” assumed here see BDB, byr], Qal 4, p. 936. See also Judg 21:22; qyD]x^, 1d, p. 843 (cf. Ps7:12;11:7) and fP*v=m!,1f (compare Isa 26:8; Ps 10:5; Ezek 7:27).
³tn Heb “Why does the way [= course of life] of the wicked prosper?”
⁴tn Heb “You planted them and they took root.”
⁵tn Heb “they grow and produce fruit.” For the nuance “grow” for the verb which normally means “go, walk” cf. BDB, El^j* ,Qal I3, p. 232 and compare Hos 14:7.
⁶tn Heb “You are near in their mouths, but far from their kidneys.” The figure of substitution is being used here, “mouth” for “words” and “kidneys” for passions and affections. We might say with a contemporary equivalent , “your name is always on their lips, but their hearts are far from you.”
⁷tn Heb “You, LORD, know me. You watch me and you test my heart toward you.”
sn Jeremiah appears to be complaining like Job that God cares nothing about the prosperity of the wicked but watches his every move. The reverse ought to be true. He shouldn’t be suffering the onslaughts of his fellow countrymen as he is. The wicked who are prospering should be experiencing punishment.
⁸tn Heb “set aside for them a day of killing.”
⁹tn The verb here is often translated “mourn.” However, this verb is from a homonymic root meaning “to be dry” (cf. KB3, II lb^a*, p. 7 and compare Hos 4:3 for usage).
¹⁰tn The words “How long” are not in the text. They are carried over from the first line.
¹¹tn Heb “because of the wickedness of those who live in it.”
¹²tn Heb “He.” The referent is usually identified as God and is supplied here for clarity. Some identify the referent with Jeremiah. If that is the case, then he returns to his complaint about the conspirators. It is more likely, however, that it refers to God and Jeremiah’s complaint that the people live their lives apart from concern about God.
¹³tc Or reading with the Greek version, “God does not see what we are doing.” In place of “what will happen to us (Wnyt@yr]j&a^, “our end”) the Greek version reads “our ways” (wnt@ojr+a*) which is graphically very close to the Masoretic text. The Masoretic is supported by the Latin and is retained here on the basis of external evidence. Either text makes good sense in the context. Some identify the “he” with Jeremiah and understand the text to be saying that the conspirators are certain that they will succeed and he will not live to see his prophecies fulfilled.
sn The words here may be an outright rejection of the LORD’s words in Deut 32:20, which is part of a song that was to be taught to Israel in the light of their predicted rejection of the LORD.
¹⁴tn The words “The LORD answered” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
¹⁵tn Some commentaries and translation follow the suggestion given in KB3, II jf^B*, p. 116 that a homonym meaning “to stumble, fall down” is involved here and in Prov 14:16. The evidence for this homonym is questionable because both passages can be explained on other grounds with the usual root.
¹⁶tn Heb “a land of tranquility.” The expression involves a figure of substitution where the feeling engendered is substituted for the conditions that engender it. For the idea see Isa 32:18. The translation both here and in the following line is intended to bring out the contrast implicit in the emotive connotations connected with “peaceful country” and “thicket along the Jordan.”
¹⁷tn Heb “the thicket along the Jordan.”
sn This refers to the thick woods and underbrush alongside the Jordan where lions were known to have lived and hence was considered dangerous. See Jer 49:14; 50:44. The LORD here seems to be telling Jeremiah that the situation will only get worse. If he has trouble contending with the plot from his fellow townsmen, what will he do when the whole country sets up a cry against him?
¹⁸tn This is an attempt to give some contextual sense to the particle “for, indeed” (yK!).
sn If the truth be known, Jeremiah wasn’t safe even in the context of his own family. They were apparently part of the plot by the people of Anathoth to kill him.
¹⁹tn Or “have lifted up loud voices against you”; Heb “they have called after you fully.” “Against” does not seem quite adequate for the preposition “after”. The preposition “against” would be Hebrew lu^. The idea appears to be that they are chasing after him, raising their voices along with those of the conspirators to have him killed.
²⁰tn Heb “good things.” See BDB, II bof, 2, p 373 for this nuance and compare Prov 12:25 for usage.
²¹tn Heb “my house.” Or “I have abandoned my nation.” The word “house” has been used throughout Jeremiah for both the temple (e.g., 7:2, 10), the nation or people of Israel or of Judah (e.g. 3:18, 20), or the descendants of Jacob (i.e., the Israelites, e.g., 2:4). Here the parallelism argues that it refers to the nation of Judah. The translation throughout vv. 5-17 assumes that the verb forms are prophetic perfects, the form that conceives of the action as being as good as done. It is possible that the forms are true perfects and refer to a past destruction of Judah. If so, it may have been connected with the assaults against Judah in 598/7 BC by the Babylonians and the nations surrounding Judah recorded in 1 Kgs 24:14. We know of no other translation that reflects these as prophetic perfects other than the NIV and the NCV which does not use the future until v. 10. Hence the translation is somewhat tentative. C. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” EBC, 6:459 takes them as prophetic perfects and H. Friedman, Jeremiah, Soncino, p. 88 mentions that as a possibility for explaining the presence of this passage here. For another example of an extended use of the prophetic perfect without imperfects interspersed see Isa 8:23-9:6. The translation assumes they are prophetic and are part of the LORD’s answer to the complaint about the prosperity of the wicked; both the wicked Judeans and the wicked nations God will use to punish them will be punished.
²²tn Heb “my inheritance.”
²³tn Heb “the beloved of my soul.” Here “soul” stands for the person and is equivalent to “my.”
²⁴tn Heb “will give…into the hands of.”
²⁵tn See the note on the previous verse.
²⁶tn Heb “have become to me like a lion.”
²⁷tn Heb “have given against me with her voice.”
²⁸tn Or “so I will reject her.” The word “hate” is sometimes used in a figurative way to refer to being neglected, i.e., treated as though unloved. In these contexts it does not have the same emotive connotations that we associate with hate. See Gen 29:31, 33 and Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 556.
²⁹tn Or “like speckled birds of prey.” The meanings of these words are uncertain. In the Hebrew text sentence is a question: “Is not my inheritance to me a bird of prey [or] a hyena/a speckled bird of prey?” The question expects a positive answer and so is rendered here as an affirmative statement. The meaning of the word “speckled” is debated. It occurs only here. BDB, u^Wbx*, p. 840 relate it to another word that occurs only once in Judg 5:30 which they translate “dyed stuff.” KB3, u^Wbx*, p. 936 relate a word found in the cognates meaning “hyena.” This is more likely and is the interpretation followed by the Greek which reads the first two words as “cave of hyena.” This translation has led some scholars to posit a homonym for the word “bird of prey” meaning “cave” which is based on Arabic parallels. The metaphor would then be of Israel carried off by hyenas and surrounded by birds of prey. The evidence for the meaning “cave” is weak and would involve a word play of a rare homonym with another word that is better known. For a discussion of the issues see J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, pp. 128-29, 153.
³⁰tn Heb “Are birds of prey around her?” The question is again rhetorical and expects a positive answer. The birds of prey are of course the hostile nations surrounding her. The metaphor involved in these two lines may be interpreted differently. I.e., God considers Israel a proud bird of prey (hence the word for speckled) but one who is surrounded and under attack by other birds of prey. The fact that the sentences are divided into two rhetorical questions speaks somewhat against this.
³¹tn Heb “Go, gather all the beasts of the field [= wild beasts]. Bring them to devour.” The verbs are masculine plural imperatives addressed rhetorically to some unidentified group (the heavenly counsel?) Cf. the notes on 5:1 for further discussion. Since translating literally would raise question about who the commands are addressed to, they have been turned into passive third person commands to avoid confusion. The metaphor has likewise been turned into a simile to help the modern reader. By the way, the imperatives here implying future action argue that the passage is future and that it is correct to take the verb forms as prophetic perfects.
³²tn Heb “Many shepherds.” For the use of the term “shepherd” as a figure for rulers see the notes on 10:21.
³³tn Heb “my vineyard.” See the study note.
sn The figure of Israel as God’s vine and the land as God’s vineyard is found several times in the Bible. The best known of these is the extended metaphor in Isa 5:1-7. This figure also appears in Jer 2:20. To translate literally would presuppose an unlikely familiarity of this figure on the part of some readers. To translate as “vineyards” as some do would be misleading because that would miss the figurative nuance altogether.
³⁴tn Heb “my portion.”
³⁵tn For the use of this verb see the notes on 12:4. Some understand the homonym here meaning “it [the desolated land] will mourn to me.” However, the only other use of the preposition lu^ with this root means “to mourn over” not “to” (cf. Hos 10:5). For the use of the preposition here see BDB, lu^, II1b, p. 753 and compare the use in Gen 48:7.
³⁶tn Heb “But there is no man laying it to heart.” For the idiom here see BDB, bl@, II3d, p. 525 and compare the usage in Isa42:25; 47:7.
sn There is a very interesting play on words and sounds in this verse that paints a picture of desolation and the pathos it envokes. Part of this is reflected in the translation. The same Hebrew word referring to a desolation or a waste (Heb “sh^emamah”) is repeated three times at the end of three successive lines and the related verb is found at the beginning of the fourth (Heb “nashammah”). A similar sounding word is found in the second of the three successive lines (Heb “samah” = “he (>they) will make it”). This latter word is part of a further play because it is repeated in a different form in the last line (Heb “sam” = “laying”); they lay it waste but no one lays it to heart. There is also an interesting contrast between the sorrow the LORD feels and the inattention of the people.
³⁷tn Liteally, “destroyers.”
³⁸tn Heb “For a sword of the LORD will devour…” See the study note for explanation.
sn The sword is often symbolic for destructive forces of all kinds. Here and in Isa 34:6; Jer 47:6 it is symbolic of the enemy armies that the LORD uses to carry out destructive punishment against his enemies. A similar figure is use in Isa 10:5 where the figure is more clearly identified; Assyria is the rod/club that the LORD will use to discipline unfaithful Israel.
³⁹tn Heb “There is no peace to all flesh.”
⁴⁰sn Invading armies used up all the produce and destroyed everything they could not consume.
⁴¹tn The pronouns here are actually second plural: Heb “Be ashamed/disconcerted because of your harvests.” Because the verb form (WvBoW) can either be qal perfect third plural or qal imperative masculine plural many emend the pronoun on the noun to third plural (see, e.g., BHS). However, this is the easier reading and is not supported by either the Latin or the Greek which have second plural. This is probably another case of the shift from description to direct address that has been met with several times already in Jeremiah (the figure of speech called apostrophe; for other examples see, e.g., 9:4; 11:13). As in other cases the translation has been leveled to third plural to avoid confusion for the contemporary English reader. For the meaning of the verb here see BDB, voB, Qal 2, p. 101 and compare the usage in Jer 48:13.
⁴²tn Heb “be disappointed in their harvests from the fierce anger of the LORD.” The translation makes explicit what is implicit in the elliptical poetry of the Hebrew original.
⁴³tn Heb “Thus says the LORD concerning…” This structure has been adopted to prevent a long dangling introduction to what the LORD has to say that does not begin until the middle of the verse in Hebrew. The first person address was adopted because the speaker is still the LORD as in vv. 7-13.
⁴⁴tn Heb “my wicked neighbors.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “touched.” For the nuance of this verb here see BDB, ug^n`, Qal 3, p. 619 and compare the usage in 1 Chr 16:22 where it is parallel to “do harm to” and Zech 2:8 where it is parallel to “plundered.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “the inheritance which I caused my people Israel to inherit.” Compare 3:18.
⁴⁷tn Heb “I will uproot the house of Judah from their midst.” See the study note.
sn There appears to be an interesting play on the word “uproot” in this verse. In the first instance it refers to “uprooting the nations from upon their lands,” i.e., to exiling them. In the second instance it refers to “uprooting the Judeans from the midst of them,” i.e., to rescue them.
⁴⁸tn For the use of the verb “turn” (bWv) in this sense see BDB, bWv, Qal 6g, and compare the usage in Pss 90:13; 6:4; and Joel 2:14. It does not simply mean “again” as several of the translations render it.
⁴⁹sn The LORD is sovereign over the nations and has alloted each of them their lands. See Deut 2:5 (Edom), Deut 2:9 (Moab), Deut 2:19 (Ammon). He promised to restore not only his own people Israel to their land (Jer 32:37) but also Moab (Jer 48:47) and Ammon (Jer 49:6).
⁵⁰tn Heb “the ways of my people.” For this nuance of the word “ways” compare 10:2 and the notes there.
⁵¹tn Heb “taught my people to swear by Baal.”
⁵²tn The words “I swear” are not in the text but are implicit to the oath formula. They are added for clarity.
⁵³tn The words “If they do this” are not in the text. They are part of an attempt to break up a Hebrew sentence which is long and complex into equivalent shorter sentences consistent with contemporary English style. Verse 16 in Hebrew is all one sentence with a long complex conditional clause followed by a short consequence: “If they carefully learn the ways of my people to swear by name, ‘By the life of the LORD’, as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they will be built up in the midst of my people.” The translation strives to create the same contingencies and modifications by breaking up the sentence into shorter sentences in accord with contemporary English style.
⁵⁴tn Heb “they will be built up among my people.” The expression “be built up among” is without parallel. However, what is involved here is conceptually parallel to the ideas expressed in Isa 19:23-25 and Zech 14:16-19. That is, these people will be allowed to live on their own land, to worship the LORD there, and to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts. To translate literally would be meaningless or misleading for many readers.
⁵⁵tn Heb “But if they will not listen, I will uproot that nation, uprooting and destroying.” Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §35.2.d, p. 590 are likely right in seeing the double infinitive construction here as an intensifying infinitive followed by an adverbial infinitive qualifying the goal of the main verb, “uproot it in such a way as to destroy it.” However, to translate that way “literally” would not be very idiomatic in contemporary English. The translation strives for the equivalent. Likewise, to translate using the conditional structure of the original seems to put the emphasis of the passage in its context on the wrong point.
¹tn The term here (roza@) has been rendered in various ways: “girdle” (KJV, ASV), “waistband” (NASB), “waistcloth” (RSV), “sash” (NKJV), “belt” (NIV), and “loincloth” (NRSV, NJPS, REB). The latter is more accurate according to the discussion in IDB, “Dress,” 1:870, and Holladay, Jeremiah,1:399. It was a short, skirt like garment reaching from the waist to the knees and worn next to the body (cf. v. 9). See The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, “Dress,” 1:394-95 for further details and illlustration. The modern equivalent is “shorts” as in TEV/GNB.
sn The linen shorts (Heb “loincloth”) were representative of Israel and the wearing of them was to illustrate the LORD’s close relation to his people (v. 11). Since the priests’ garments were to be made wholly of linen (cf. Exod 28; Ezek 44:17-18), the fact that the shorts were to be made of linen probably was to symbolize the nature of Israel’s calling: they were to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:5-6). Just as the linen garments of the priest were to give him special honor and glory (Exod 28:40), so the linen garment was to be a source of praise and glory to the LORD (v. 11).
²tn Heb “upon your loins.” The “loins” were the midriff of the body from the waist to the knees. For a further discussion including the figurative uses see, IDB, “Loins,” 3:149.
³tn Or “Do not ever put them in water,” i.e., “Do not even wash them.”
sn The fact that the garment was not to be put in water is not explained. A possible explanation within the context is that it was to be worn continously, not even taken off to wash it. That would illustrate that the close relationship that the LORD had with his people was continuous and indissoluble. Other explanations are that it was not to be gotten wet because 1) that would have begun the process of rotting (This assumes that the rotting was done by the water of the Euphrates. But it was buried in a crack in the rocks not in the river.), 2) that would have made it softer and easier to wear, 3) that showed that the garment was new, clean, and fresh from the merchant. For this latter interpretation see J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 64. For a fuller discussion of most of the issues connected with this acted out parable see W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:285-92. The truth is the reason is not explained and there is not enough evidence in the text to come to a firm conclusion though the most likely possibility is that it was not to be taken off and washed but worn continuously.
⁴tn Heb “according to the word of the LORD.”
⁵tn Heb “upon your loins.” The “loins” were the midriff of the body from the waist to the knees. For a further discussion including the figurative uses see, IDB, “Loins,” 3:149.
⁶tn Heb “The word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying.”
⁷tn Heb “which are upon your loins.” See further the notes on v. 1.
⁸tn Heb “Get up and go.” The first verb is not literal but is idiomatic for the initiation of an action.
⁹tn There has been a great deal of debate about whether the place referred to here is a place (Parah, [= Perath] mentioned in Josh 18:23, modern Khirbet Farah, near a spring ‘ain Farah) about three and a half miles from Anathoth which was Jeremiah’s home town or the Euphrates River. Elsewhere the word “Perath” always refers to the Euphrates but it is either preceded by the word “river of” or there is contextual indication that the Euphrates is being referred to. Because a journey to the Euphrates and back would involve a journey of better than 700 miles and take some months scholars both ancient and modern have questioned whether “Perath” refers to the Euphrates here and if it does whether a real journey was involved. Most of the attempts to identify the place with the Euphrates involve misguided assumptions that this action was a symbolic message to Israel about exile or the corrupting inluence of Assyria and Babylon. However, unlike the other symbolic acts in Jeremiah (and in Isaiah and Ezekiel) the symbolism is not part of a message to the people but to Jeremiah; the message is explained to him (vv. 9-11) not the people. In keeping with some of the word plays that are somewhat common in Jeremiah it is likely that the reference here is to a place, Parah, which was near Jeremiah’s hometown, but whose name would naturally suggest to Jeremiah later in the LORD’s explanation in vv. 9-11 Assyria-Babylon as a place connected with Judah’s corruption (see the notes on vv. 9-10). For further discussion the reader should consult the commentaries, especially W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:396 and W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:285-292 who take opposite positions on this issue.
¹⁰sn The significance of this act is explained in vv. 9-10. See the notes there for explanation.
¹¹tc Reading ht*r`p=B! with 4 QJer^a as noted in Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:393 instead of tr`p=B! in the Masoretic text.
¹²tn Heb “Get from there.” The words “from there” are not necessary to the English sentence. They would lead to a redundancy later in the verse, i.e., “from there”…”bury there”.
¹³tn Heb “dug and took.”
¹⁴tn Heb “And behold.”
¹⁵tn Heb “Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying.”
¹⁶tn Heb “Thus says the LORD.”
¹⁷tn In a sense this phrase which is literally “according to thus” or simply “thus” points both backward and forward: backward to the acted out parable and forward to the explanation which follows.
¹⁸tn Many of the translations have erred in rendering this word “pride” or “arrogance” with the resultant implication that the LORD is going to destroy Israel’s pride, i.e., humble them through the punishment of exile. However, BDB, /oaG*, 1, pp. 144-45 are on the right track when they classify this passage among those that deal with the “‘majesty, excellence’ of nations, their wealth, power, magnificence of buildings…” The closest parallels to the usage here are in Zech 10:11 (parallel to scepter of Egypt); Psa 47:4 (47:5 Hebrew text; parallel to “our heritage” = “our land”); Isa 14:11 and Amos 8:7. The term is really further defined in v. 11 where it refers to their special relationsip and calling. To translate it “pride” or “arrogance” also ruins the word play on “ruin” (Heb “nishkhat” in v. 7 and “‘ahhkhit” in v. 9).
sn Scholars ancient and modern are divided over the significance of the statement “I will ruin the pride of Judah and Jerusalem.” Some feel that it refers to the corrupting influence of Assyria and Bablyon and others feel that it refers to the threat of Babylonian exile. However, F. B. Huey, Jeremiah-Lamentations, 144 is correct in observing that the Babylonian exile did not lead to the rottenness of Judah, the corrupting influence of the foreign nations did. In Jeremiah’s day these came through the age old influences of the Canaanite worship of Baal but also the astral worship introduced by Ahaz and Manasseh. For an example of the corrupting influence of Assyria on Judah through Ahaz’s political alliances see 2 Kgs 16 and also compare the allegory in Ezek 23:14-21. It was while the “linen shorts” were off Jeremiah’s body and buried in the rocks that the linen shorts were ruined. So the LORD “ruined” the privileged status that resulted from Israel’s close relationship to him (cf. v. 11). For the “problem” created by the LORD ruining Israel through corrupting influence compare the notes on Jer 4:10 and compare also passages like Isa 63:17 and Isa 6:10.
¹⁹tn Heb “to listen to my words.”
²⁰tn Heb “and [they follow] after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the idiom.
²¹tn The structure of this verse is a little unusual. It consists of a subject, “this wicked people” qualified by several “which” clauses preceding a conjunction and a form which would normally be taken as a third person imperative (a Heb jussive; yh!yw]). This construction, called casus pendens by Hebrew grammarians, lays focus on the subject, here calling attention to the nature of Israel’s corruption which makes it rotten and useless to God. See GKC §143d for other examples of this construction.
²²tn The words “I say” are Heb “Oracle of the LORD,” and are located at the end of this statement in the Hebrew text rather than the beginning. However, they are rendered in the first person and placed at the beginning for smoother English style.
²³tn Heb “all the house of Israel and all the house of Judah.”
²⁴sn It would be somewhat unnatural in English to render the play on the word translated here “cling tightly” and “bound tightly” in a literal way. They are from the same root word in Hebrew (qb^D`), a word that emphasizes the closest of personal relationships and the loyalty connected with them. It is use, for example of the relationship of a husband and a wife and the loyalty expected of them (cf. Gen 2:24; for other similar uses see Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam 20:2; Deut 11:22).
²⁵tn Heb “I bound them…in order that they might be to me for a people and for a name and for praise and for honor.” The sentence has been separated from the preceding and an equivalent idea expressed which is more in keeping with contemporary English style.
²⁶tn Heb “So you shall say this word [or, message] to them.”
²⁷tn Heb “Every wine jar is supposed to be filled with wine.”
sn Some scholars understand this as a popular proverb like that in Jer 31:29 and Ezek 18:2. Instead this is probably a truism; the function of wine jars is to be filled with wine. This may relate to the preceding where the LORD has set forth his intention for Israel. It forms the basis for a ironic threat of judgment because they have failed to fulfill his purpose.
²⁸tn This is an attempt to render a construction which involves an infinitive of a verb being added before the same verb in a question which expects a positive answer. There may, by the way, be a pun being passed back and forth here involving the sound play been “fool” (Heb “nabal”) and “wine bottle” (Heb “nebel”).
²⁹tn The Greek version is likely right in interpreting the construction of two perfects preceded by the conjunction as contingent or consequential here, i.e., “and when they say…then say.” See GKC §159g. However, to render literally would create a long sentence. Hence, the words “And they will probably” say have been added to set up the contingency/consequential sequence in the English sentences.
³⁰sn It is probably impossible to convey in a simple translation all the subtle nuances that are wrapped up in the words of this judgment speech. The word translated “stupor” here is literally “drunkeness” but the word has in the context an undoubted intended double reference. It refers first to the drunken like stupor of confusion on the part of leaders and citizens of the land which will cause them to clash with one another. But it also probably refers to the reeling under God’s wrath that results from this (cf. Jer 25:15-29, especially vv. 15-16). Morever there is still the subtle little play on wine jars. The people are like the wine jars which were supposed to be filled with wine. They were to be a special people to bring glory to God but they had become corrupt. Hence, like wine jars they would be smashed against one another and broken to pieces (v. 14). All of this cannot be conveyed in one translation both “ fill them with the stupor of confusion” and the “ make them reel under God’s wrath”.
³¹tn Heb “who sit on David’s throne.”
³²tn In Hebrew this is all one long sentence with one verb governing compound objects. It is broken up here in conformity with English style.
³³tn Or “children along with their parents”; Heb “fathers and children together.”
³⁴tn Heb “I will no show…so as not to destroy them.”
³⁵tn The words “Then I said to the people of Judah” are not in the text but are implicit from the address in v. 15 and the content of v. 17. They are added for clarity to show the shift from the LORD speaking to Jeremiah.
³⁶tn Heb “Give glory/respect to the LORD your God.” For this nuance of the word “glory” (dobK*) see BDB, dobK*, 6b, p. 459 and compare the usage in Mal 1:6 and Josh 7:19.
³⁷tn The words “of disaster” are not in the text. They are added to explain the significance of the metaphor to readers who may not be acquainted with the metaphorical use of light and darkness for salvation and joy and distress and sorrow respectively.
sn For the metaphorical use of these terms the reader should consult IDB, “Light,” 3:130-31. For the association of darkness with the Day of the LORD, the time when he will bring judgment, see, e.g., Amos 5:18-20. For the association of darkness with exile see Isa 9:1-2 (8:23-9:1 Hebrew text).
³⁸tn Heb “your feet stumble.”
³⁹tn Heb “you stumble on the mountains at twilight.” The added words are again to help explain the metaphor to the uninitiated reader.
⁴⁰tn Heb “and while you hope for light he will turn it into deep darkness and make [it] into gloom.” The meaning of the metaphor is again explained through the addition of the “of” phrases for readers who are unacquainted with the metaphorical use of these terms.
sn For the meaning and usage of the term “deep darkness” (tw#m*l=x^) see the notes on Jer 2:6. For the association of the term with exile see Isa 9:2 (9:1 Hebrew text). For the association of the word gloom with the Day of the LORD see Isa 60:2; Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15.
⁴¹tn Heb “If you will not listen to it.” For the use of the feminine singular pronoun to refer to the idea(s) expressed in the preceding in the preceding verse(s) see GKC §135p.
⁴²tn Heb “Tearing [my eye] will tear and my eye will run down [= flow] with tears.”
sn The depth of Jeremiah’s sorrow for the sad plight of his people, if they refuse to repent, is emphasized by the triple repetition of the word “tears” twice in an emphatic verbal expression (Hebrew infinitive before finite verb) and once in the noun.
⁴³tn Heb “because the LORD’s flock will…” The pronoun “you” is added to avoid the shift in English from the second person address at the beginning to the third person affirmation at the end. It also helps explain the metaphor of the people of Israel as God’s flock for some readers who may be unfamiliar with that metaphor.
⁴⁴tn The verb is once again in the form of “as good as done” (the Hebrew prophetic perfect).
⁴⁵tn The words “The LORD told me” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift from second plural pronouns in vv. 15-17 to second singular in the Hebrew text of this verse. These words are added for clarity.
⁴⁶tn Or “You will come down from your thrones”; Heb “Make low! Sit!” This is a case of a construction where two forms in the same case, mood, or tense are joined in such a way that one (usually the first) is intended as an adverbial or adjectival modifier of the other (a figure called hendiadys). This is also probably a case where the imperative is used to express a distinct assurance or promise. See GKC §110b and compare the usage in Isa 37:30 and Psa 110:2.
sn The king and queen mother are generally identified as Jehoiachin and his mother who were taken into captivity with many of the leading people of Jerusalem in 597 BC. See Jer 22:26; 29:2; 2 Kgs24:14-16.
⁴⁷tn Heb “have come down.” The verb here and those in the following verses are further examples of the “as good as done” form of the Hebrew verb (the prophetic perfect).
⁴⁸tc The translation follows the common emendation of a word normally meaning “place at the head” (tova&r^m= plus pronoun = <k#yt@voa&r^m=) to “from your heads” (<k#yv@ar`m@) following the ancient versions. The meaning “tiara” is nowhere else attested for this word.
⁴⁹tn Heb “The towns of the Negev will be shut.”
⁵⁰tn Heb “There is no one to open them.” The translation is based on the parallel in Josh 6:1 where the very expression in the translation is used. Opening the city would have permitted entrance (of relief forces) as well as exit (of fugitives).
⁵¹sn The statements are poetic exaggerations (hyperbole) as most commentaries note. Even in the exile of 587 BC not “all” of the people of Jerusalem or of Judah were exiled. Cf. the context of 2 Kgs 24:14-16 again.
⁵²tn The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are added to show the shift in speaker from vv. 18-19 where the LORD is speaking to Jeremiah.
⁵³tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the Hebrew text. It is added in the Greek text and is generally considered to be the object of address because of the second feminine singular verbs here and throughout the following verses. The translation follows the consonantal text (the Kethiv)and the Greek text in reading the second feminine singular here. The verbs and pronouns in vv. 20-22 are all second feminine singular with the exception of the suffix on the word “eyes” which is not reflected in the translation here (“Look up” = “Lift up your eyes”) and the verb and pronoun in v. 23. The text may reflect the same kind of alternation that takes place in Isa 7 where the pronouns refer to Ahaz as an individual and his entourage, the contemporary ruling class (cf., e.g., Isa 7:4-5 [singular], 9 [plural], 11 [singular], 13-14 [plural]). Here the connection with the preceding may suggest that it is initially the ruling house (the king and the queen mother), then Jerusalem personified as a woman in her role as a shepherdess (i.e., leader). However, from elsewhere in the book the leadership has included the kings, the priests, the prophets, and the citizens as well (cf., e.g., 13:13). In v. 27 Jerusalem is explicitly addressed. It may be asking too much of some readers who are not familiar with biblical metaphors to understand an extended metaphor like this. If it is helpful to them, they may substitute plural referents for “I” and “me.”
⁵⁴tn The word “enemy” is not in the text but is implicit. It added for clarity.
sn For the enemy from the north see Jer 1:14-15; 4:6; 6:1,22; 10:22.
⁵⁵ Heb “the flock that was given to you.”
⁵⁶ Heb “the sheep of your pride.” The word “of your people” and the quotes around “sheep” are intended to carry over the metaphor in such a way that readers unfamiliar with the metaphor will understand it.
⁵⁷tn Or perhaps more rhetorically equivalent, “Won’t your be surpised?”
⁵⁸tn The words “The LORD” are not in the text. Some commentators make the enemy the subject, but they are spoken of as “them”.
⁵⁹tn Or “to be rulers.” The translation of these two lines is somewhat uncertain. The sentence structure of these two lines raises problems in translation. The Hebrew text reads: “What will you do when he appoints over you [or, punishes you (see BDB, dq^P*, Qal B.2, p. 823 for the former, Qal A3, p. 823 for the latter)] and you, yourself, taught them over you friends [or, chiefs (see BDB, I [WLa^, 2, p. 48 and Ps 55:13 for the former and BDB, II [WLa^, p. 49 and Exod 15:15 for the latter)] for a head.” The translation assumes that the clause “and you, yourself, taught them [= made them accustomed] [to be] over you” is parenthetical coming between the verb “appoint” and its object and object modifier (i.e., “appointed over you allies for rulers”). A quick check of other translations will show how varied the translation of these lines has been. Most translations seem to ignore the second “over you” after “you taught them”. Some translations rearrange the text to get what they think is a sensible meaning. For a fairly thorough treatment see W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:308-10.
sn What is being alluded to here is the political policy of vacillating alliances through which Judah brought about her own downfall, allying herself first with Assyria, then Egypt, then Babylon, and then Egypt again. See 2 Kgs 23:29—24:7 for an example of this policy and the disastrous consequences.
⁶⁰tn Heb “Will not pain [here = mental anguish] take hold of you like a woman giving birth.” The question is rhetorical expecting a positive answer.
⁶¹tn Heb “say in your heart.”
⁶²tn Heb “Your skirt has been uncovered and your heels have been treated with violence.” This is the generally accepted interpretation of these phrases. See, e.g., BDB, bq@u*, a, p. 784 and KB3, I sm^j*, Nif, 329. The significance of the actions here are part of the metaphor (i.e., personification) of Jerusalem as an adulteress having left her husband and have been explained in the translation for the sake of readers unfamiliar with the metaphor. See the study note.
sn The actions here were part of the treatment of an adulteress by her husband, intended to shame her. See Hos 2:3, 10 (2:5, 12 Hebrew text); Isa 47:4.
⁶³tn The translation has been restructured to break up a long sentence involving an conditional clause and an elliptical consequential clause. It has also been restructure to define more clearly what “these things” are. The Hebrew text reads: “And if you say, ‘Why have these things happened to me?’ Because of the greatness of your iniquity your skirts [= what your skirt covers] have been uncovered and your heels have been treated with violence.”
⁶⁴tnThis is a common proverb in English coming from this biblical passage. For cultures where it is not proverbial perhaps it would be better to translate “Can black people change the color of their skin?”
sn Strictly speaking these are “Cushites” inhabitants of a region along the Nile south of Egypt. The Greek text is responsible for the identification with Ethiopia. The term in Greek is actually a epithet = “burnt face.”
⁶⁵tn Heb “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? [Then] you also will be able to do good who are accustomed to do evil.” The English sentence has been restructured and rephrased in an attempt to produce some of the same rhetorical force the Hebrew original has in this context.
⁶⁶tn The words, “The LORD says” are not in the text at this point. The words “an oracle of the LORD” does, however, occur in the middle of the next verse and it is obvious the LORD is the speaker. The words have been moved up from the next verse to enhance clarity.
⁶⁷tn Heb “them.” This is another example of the rapid shift in pronouns seen several times in the book of Jeremiah. The pronouns in the preceding and the following are second feminine singular. It might be argued that “them” goes back to the “flock”/”sheep” in v. 20, but the next verse refers the fate described here to “you” (feminine singular). This may be another example of the kind of metaphoric shifts in referents discussed in the notes on 13:20 above. Besides, it would sound a little odd in the translation to speak of scattering one person like chaff.
⁶⁸sn Compare the threat using the same metaphor in Jer 4:11-12.
⁶⁹tn Heb “over your face and your shame will be seen.” The words “like a disgraced adulteress” are not in the text but are added to explain the metaphor. See the notes on 13:22.
⁷⁰tn Heb “Jerusalem.” This word has been pulled up from the end of the verse to help make the transition. The word “people of” have been added here to ease the difficulty mentioned earlier of sustaining the personification throughout.
⁷¹tn Heb “[I have seen] your adulteries, your neighings, and your shameless prostitution.” The meanings of the metaphorical references have been incorporated in the translation for the sake of clarity for readers of all backgrounds.
sn The sentence is rhetorically loaded. It begins with three dangling objects of the verb all describing their adulterous relationship with the false gods under different figures and which are resumed later under the words “your disgusting acts.” The Hebrew sentence reads: “Your adulteries, your neighings, your shameful prostitution, upon the hills in the fields I have seen your disgusting acts.” This sentence drips with explosive disgust at their adulterous betrayal.
⁷²tn Heb “your disgusting acts.” This word is almost always used of idolatry or of the idols themselves. See BDB, JWQ%v!, p. 1055 and Deut 29:17 and Jer 4:1; 7:30.
⁷³tn Heb “Woe to you!”
sn See 4:13,31; 6:4;10:19 for usage and the notes on 4:13 and 10:19.
⁷⁴sn The form of 14:1—15:9 is very striking rhetorically. It consists essentially of laments and responses to them. However, what makes it so striking is its deviation from normal form (cf. 2 Chr 20:5-17 for what would normally be expected). The descriptions of the lamentable situation come from the mouth of God not the people (cf.14:1-6, 17-18). The prophet utters the petitions with statements of trust (14:7-9, 19-22) and the LORD answers not with oracles promising deliverance but promising doom (14:10; 15:1-9). In the course of giving the first oracle of doom, the Lord commands Jeremiah not to pray for the people (14:11-12) and Jeremiah tries to provide an excuse for their actions (14:13). The LORD responds to that with an oracle of doom on the false prophets (14:14-16).
¹sn Drought was one of the punishments for failure to adhere to the terms of their agreement with God. See Deut 28:22-24; Lev 26:18-20.
²tn Heb “That which came [as] the word of the LORD to Jeremiah.” The introductory formula here is a variation of that found in 7:1; 10:1; 11:1, i.e., “The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah.” The relative “which” (rv#a&) actually precedes the noun it modifies. See BDB, rv#a&, 6a, p. 82 for discussion and further examples.
³tn Heb “Judah mourns, its gates pine away, they are in mourning on the ground.” There are several figures of speech involved here. The basic figure is that of personification where Judah and it cities are said to be in mourning. However, in the third line the figure is a little hard to sustain because “they” are in mourning on the ground. That presses the imagination of most moderns a little too far. Hence the personification has been interpreted “people of” throughout. The term “gates” here is used as part for whole for the “cities” themselves as in several other passages in the OT (cf. BDB, ru^v^, 2b, c, p. 1045 and see, e.g., Isa 14:31).
⁴tn The words “to me” are not in the text. They are implicit from the fact that the LORD is speaking. They are added for clarity.
⁵tn Though the concept of “cisterns” is probably not familiar to some readers, it would be a mistake to translate this word as “well”. Wells have continual sources of water. Cisterns were pits dug in the ground and lined with plaster to hold rain water. The drought had exhausted all the water in the cisterns.
⁶tn The word “containers” is a generic word in Hebrew = “vessels”. It would probably in this case involve water “jars” or “jugs”. But since we normally associate those terms with smaller vessels, “containers” may be safer.
⁷tn Heb “they cover their heads.” Some of the translations have gone wrong here because of the “normal” use of the words translated here “disappointed” and “dismayed”. They are regularly translated “ashamed” and “disgraced,” “humiliated,” “dismayed” elsewhere (see e.g., Jer 22:22); they are somewhat synonymous terms which are often parallel or combined. The key here, however, is the expression “they cover their heads” which is used in 2 Sam 15:30 for the expression of grief. Moreover, the word translated here “disappointed” (voB) is used that way several times. See for example Jer 12:13 and consult examples in BDB, voB, Qal 2, p. 101. A very similiar context with the same figure is found in Jer 2:36-37.
⁸tn For the use of the verb “is cracked” here see BDB, tt^j*, Qal 1, p. 369 and compare the usage in Jer 51:56 where it refers to broken bows. The form is a relative clause without relative pronoun (cf., GKC §155f). The sentence as a whole is related to the preceding through a particle meaning “because of” or “on account of”. Hence the subject and verb have been repeated to make the connection.
⁹tn Heb “she gives birth and abandons.”
¹⁰tn Heb “their eyes are strained because there is no verdure.”
¹¹sn The words “Then I said” are not in the text. However, it cannot be a continuation of the LORD’s speech and the people have consistently refused to acknowledge their sin. The fact that the prayer here and in vv. 19-22 are followed by an address from God to Jeremiah regarding prayer (cf. 4:11 and the interchanges there between God and Jeremiah and 15:1) also argues that the speaker is Jeremiah. He is again identifying with his people (cf. 8:18-9:2). Here he takes up the petition part of the lament which often contains elements of confession of sin and statements of trust. In 14:1-6 God portrays to Jeremiah the people’s lamentable plight instead of their decribing it to him. Here Jeremiah prays what they should pray. The people are strangely silent throughout.
¹²tn Heb “Act for the sake of your name.” The usage of “act” in this absolute, unqualified sense cf. BDB, hc*ou*, Qal Ir, p. 794 and compare the usage, e.g., in 1 Kgs 8:32 and 39. For the nuance of “for the sake of your name” compare the usage in Isa48:9 and Ezek 20:9, 14.
¹³tn Or “bear witness against us,” or “can be used as evidence against us,” to keep the legal metaphor. Heb “testify against.”
¹⁴tn The Hebrew particle yK! can scarcely be causal here; it is either intensive (BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472) or concessive (BDB, yK!, 2c, p. 473). The parallel usage in Gen 18:20 argues for the intensive force as does the fact that the concessive has already been expressed by <a!.
¹⁵sn It would be a mistake to translate this word as “stranger.” This word (rG@) refers to a resident alien who stays in a country not his own. He is accorded the privilege of protection through the common rights of hospitality but he does not have the rights of the native born or citizen. The simile here is particularly effective. The land was the LORD’s land; they were but aliens and tenants on it (Lev 25:23). Jeremiah’s complaint here is particularly bold. For further information on the status of “aliens” see IDB, “Sojourner,” 4:397-99.
¹⁶tn This is the only time this word occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The lexicons generally take it to mean “confused” or “surprised” (cf. e.g., BDB, <h^D`, p. 187). However, the word has been found in a letter from the seventh century in a passage where it must mean something like “be helpless” (See W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:433 for discussion and bibliography of an article where this letter is dealt with.).
¹⁷tn Heb “mighty man, warrior.” For this nuance see 1 Sam 17:51 where it parallels a technical term used of Goliath used earlier in 17:4, 23.
¹⁸tn Heb “in our midst.”
¹⁹tn Heb “Your name is called upon us.” See Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30 for this idiom with respect to the temple and see the notes on Jer 7:10.
²⁰tn Heb “Thus said the LORD concerning this people.”
sn The LORD answers indirectly, speaking neither to Jeremiah directly nor to the people. Instead of an oracle of deliverance which was hoped for (cf. 2 Chr 20:14-17; Pss 12:5 [12:6 Hebrew text]; 60:6-8 [60:8-10 Hebrew text]) there is an oracle of doom.
²¹tn It is difficult to be certain how the particle /K@ usually used for “thus, so” is to be rendered here. BDB, /K@, 1b, p. 485 says that the force sometimes has to be elicited from the general context and points back to the line of v. 9. Waltke, O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §39.3.4e, p. 666 say that when there is no specific comparative clause preceding a general comparison is intended. They point to Judg 5:31 as a parallel. Ps 127:2 may also be an example if, indeed, yK! is not to be read (cf. BHS fn). “Truly” seemed the best way to render this idea in contemporary English.
²²tn Heb “They do not restrain their feet.” The idea of “away from me” is implicit in the context and is added for clarity.
²³tn Heb “remember.”
²⁴tn Heb “their iniquities.”
²⁵tn Heb “on behalf of these people for benefit.”
²⁶sn See 6:16-20 for parallels.
²⁷tn Heb “through sword, starvation, and plague.”
sn These were penalties (curses) that were to be imposed on Israel for failure to keep her agreement with God (cf. Lev 26:23-26). These three occur together fourteen other times in the book of Jeremiah.
²⁸tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.
²⁹tn Heb “Behold.” See the translator’s note on usage of this particle in 1:6.
³⁰tn The words “that you said” are not in the text but are implicit from the first person in the affirmation that follows. They are added for clarity.
³¹tn Heb “You will not see sword and you will not have starvation [or, hunger].”
³²tn Heb “I will give you unfailing peace in this place.” The translation opts for “peace and prosperity” here for the word <olv* because in the context it refers both to peace from war and security from famine (and plague). The word translated “lasting” (tm#a^) is a little hard to render here because it has broad uses of “truth,” “reliability,” “stability,” “steadfastness,” etc. “Guaranteed” or “lasting” seem to fit the context the best.
³³tn Heb “Falsehood those prophets are prophesying in my name.” For the significance of “prophesying in…name” see the study note.
sn In the OT, the “name” reflected the person’s character (cf Gen 27:36; 1 Sam 25:25) or his reputation (Gen 11:4; 2 Sam 8:13). To speak in someone’s name was to act as his representative or carry his authority (1 Sam 25:9; 1 Kgs 21:8).
³⁴tn Heb “I did not command them.” Compare 1 Chr 22:12 for usage.
³⁵tn Heb “divination and worthlessness.” The noun “worthlessness” stands as a qualifying “of” phrase (= to an adjective; an attributive genitive in Hebrew) after a noun in Zech 11:17; Job 13:4. It is here functioning in that construction where two nouns are joined by “and” with one serving as the qualifier of the other (the figure called hendiadys).
sn The word translated “predictions” here is really the word “divination.” Divination was prohibited in Israel (cf. Deut 18:10,14). The practice of divination involved various mechanical means to try to predict the future. The word was used here for its negative connotations in a statement that is rhetorically structured to emphasize the falseness of the promises of the false prophets. It would be unnatural to contemporary English style to try to capture this emphasis in English. In the Hebrew text the last sentence reads: “False vision, divination and worthlessness and the deceitfullness of their heart they are prophesying to them.” For the emphasis in the preceding sentence see the note there.
³⁶tn Heb “those prophets who are prophesying in my name.”
³⁷tn Heb “Thus says the LORD about.” The first person construction has been used in the translation for better English style.
³⁸tn Heb “Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who are prophesying in my name and I did not send them [= whom I did not send] and they are saying [= who are saying], ‘Sword and famine…’, by sword and famine those prophets will be killed.” This sentence has been restructured to conform to contemporary English style.
sn The rhetoric of the passage is again sustained by an emphatic word order which contrasts what they say will not happen to the land, “war and famine,” with the punishment that the LORD will inflict on them, i.e., “war and starvation [or, famine].”
³⁹tn Heb “And the people to whom they are prophesying will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem and there will not be anyone to bury them, they, their wives, and their sons and their daughters.” This sentence has been restructured to break up a long Hebrew sentence and to avoid some awkwardness due to differences in the ancient Hebrew and contemporary English styles.
⁴⁰tn Heb “their evil.” Hebrew words often include within them a polarity of cause and effect. Thus the word for “evil” includes both the concept of wickedness and the punishment for it. Other words that function this way are “iniquity” = “guilt [of iniquity]” = “punishment [for iniquity].” Context determines which nuance is proper.
⁴¹tn The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text but the address is to a second person singular and is a continuation of 14:14 where the quote starts. The word is added for clarity.
⁴²tn Many of the translations and commentaries render this an indirect or third person imperative, “Let my eyes overflow…” because of the particle la^ which introduces the phrase translated “without ceasing” (hn`ym#d=T! la^). However, this is undoubtedly an example where the particle introduces an affirmation that something cannot be done (cf. GKC §109e, p. 322). Clear examples of this are found in Pss 41:2 (41:3 Hebrew text); 50:3; Job 40:32 (41:8). God here is describing again a lamentable situation and giving his response to it. See 14:1-6 above.
sn Once again it is the LORD lamenting the plight of the people, now directed to them, not the people lamenting their plight to him. See 14:1-6 and the study notes on the introduction to this section and on 14:7.
⁴³tn Heb “virgin daughter, my people.” The last noun here is appositional to the first two (genitive of apposition). Hence it is not ‘literally’ “virgin daughter of my people.”
sn This is a metaphor which occurs several times with regard to Israel, Judah, Zion, and even Zidon and Babylon. It is the poetic personification of the people, the city, or the land. Like other metaphors the quality of the comparison being alluded to must be elicited from the context. This is easy in Isa 23:21 (oppressed) and Isa 47:1 (soft and delicate) but not so easy in other places. From the nature of the context the suspicion here is that the protection the virgin was normally privileged to is being referred to and there is a reminder that the people are forfeiting it by their actions. Hence God laments for them.
⁴⁴tn This is a poetic personification. To translate with the plural “serious wounds” might mislead some into thinking of literal wounds.
sn Compare 10:19 for a similar use of this metaphor.
⁴⁵tn The word “starvation” has been translated “famine” elsewhere in this passage. It is the word which refers to hunger. The “starvation” here may be war induced and not simply that which comes from famine per se. “Starvation” will cover both.
⁴⁶tn The meaning of these last two lines is somewhat uncertain. The meaning of these two lines is debated because of the uncertainty of the meaning of the verb rendered “go about their business” (rj^s*) and the last phrase translated here “without any real understanding.” The verb in question most commonly occurs as a participle meaning “trader” or “merchant” (cf., e.g., Ezek 27:21, 36; Prov 31:14). It occurs as a finite verb elsewhere only in Gen 34:10, 21; 42:34 and there in a literal sense of “trading,” “doing business.” While the nuance is metaphorical here it need not extend to “journeying into” (cf., e.g., BDB, rj^s*, Qal 1, p. 695) and be seen as a reference to exile as is sometimes assumed. That seems at variance with the causal particle which introduces this clause, the tense of the verb, and the surrounding context. People are dying in the land (vv. 17-18a) not because prophet and priest have gone (the verb is the Hebrew perfect or past) into exile but because prophet and priest have no true knowledge of God or the situation. The clause translated here “without having any real understanding” (Heb “and they do not know) is using the verb in the absolute sense indicated in BDB, ud^y`, Qal 5, p. 394 and illustrated in Isa 1:3; 56:10. For a more thorough discussion of the issues one may consult W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:330-31.
sn For the “business” of the prophets and priest see 2:8; 5:13; 6:13; 8:10. In the context it refers to the prophets prophesying lies (see vv. 13-15).
⁴⁷sn The words, “Then I said, ‘LORD” are not in the text. It is obvious from the context that the LORD is addressee. The question of the identity of the speaker is the same as that raised in vv. 7-9 and the arguments set forth there are applicable here as well. Jeremiah is here identifying with the people and doing what they refuse to do, i.e., confess their sins and express their trust in him.
⁴⁸tn Heb “does your soul despise.” Here as in many places the word “soul” stands as part for whole for the person himself emphasizing emotional and volitional aspects of the person. However, in normal English we do not regularly speak of the “soul” in contexts such as this but of the person.
sn There is probably a subtle allusion to the curses called down on the nation for failure to keep their agreement with God. The word used here is somewhat rare (lu^G`). It is used of Israel’s rejection of God’s stipulations and of God’s response to their rejection of him and his stipulations in Lev 26:11,15,30,43-44. That the allusion is intended is probable when account is taken of the last line of v. 21.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Why have you struck us and there is no healing for us.” The statement involves poetic exaggeration (hyperbole) for rhetorical effect.
⁵⁰tn Heb “[We hope] for a time of healing but behold terror.”
sn The last two lines of this verse are repeated word for word from 8:15. There they are spoken by the people.
⁵¹tn Heb “We acknowledge our wickedness [and] the iniquity of our forefathers.” For the use of the word “know” to mean “confess,” “acknowledge” cf. BDB, ud^y`, Qal 1f, p. 394 and compare the usage in Jer 3:13.
sn For a longer example of an individual identifying with the nation and confessing their sins and the sins of their forefathers see Ps 106.
⁵²tn This is another example of the intensive use of yK!, BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472.
⁵³tn Literally “For the sake of your name.”
⁵⁴tn Translations quite commonly supply “us” as an object for the verb in the first line. This is probably wrong. The Hebrew text reads: “Do not treat with contempt for the sake of your name; do not treat with disdain your glorious throne.” This is case of poetic parallelism where the object is left hanging until the second line. For an example of this see Prov 13:1 in the original and consult Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 103ff. There has also been some disagreement whether “your glorious throne” refers to the temple (as in 17:12) or Jerusalem (as in 3:17). From the beginning of the prayer in v. 19 where a similar kind of verb has been used with respect to Zion/Jerusalem it would appear that the contextual referent is Jerusalem. The absence of an object from the first line makes it possible to retain part of the metaphor in the translation and still convey some meaning.
sn The place of God’s glorious throne was first of all the ark of the covenant where God was said to be enthroned between the cherubim, then the temple that housed it, then the city itself. See 2 Kgs 19:14-15 in the context of Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem.
⁵⁵tn Heb “Remember, do not break your agreement [or, covenant] with us.”
⁵⁶tn Heb “Is it not you, O LORD our God.” The words “who does” are added for English style. The word “vanities” is a common pejorative epithet for idols or false gods. See already in 8:19 and 10:8.
sn The questions here are all rhetorical. The first two expect negative answers. They are balanced by one that expects a positive answer. It should be recalled that this whole section began with a lament over conditions brought on by a drought (see 14:1-6). It is also interesting to read this verse in the light of two earlier references to God as the giver of rain. In 5:24 the LORD laments that none of the people ackowledge him as the giver of rain. In 10:18 Jeremiah describes the LORD as the giver of rain in the midst of his contrasting the all powerful LORD with worthless idols. What the people will not do, Jeremiah does here for them.
⁵⁷tn Heb “Is it not you, O LORD our God?” The rhetorical negatives are balanced by a rhetorical positive.
¹tn The words “interceding for” have been added in the translation to explain the idiom (a metonymy). For parallel usage see BDB, dm^u*, Qal 1a, p. 763 and compare usage in Gen 19:27, Deut 4:10.
sn Moses and Samuel were well known for their successful intercession on behalf of Israel. See Ps 99:6-8 and see, e.g., Exod 32:11-14,30-34; 1 Sam 7:5-9. The LORD is here rejecting Jeremiah’s intercession on behalf of the people (14:19-22).
²tn Heb “my soul would not be toward them.” For the usage of “soul” presupposed here see BDB, vp#n#, 6, p. 660 in the light of the complaints and petitions in Jeremiah’s prayer in 14:19, 21.
³tn Literally “Send them away from my presence and let them go away.”
⁴tn It is difficult to render the rhetorical force of this passage in meaningful English. The text answers the question “Where should we go?” with four brief staccato-like expressions with a play on the preposition “to”: Heb “Who to the death, to the death and who to the sword, to the sword and who to the starvation, to the starvation and who to the captivity, to the captivity.” The word “death” here is commonly understood to be a poetic substitute for “plague” because of the standard trio of sword, famine, and plague (see, e.g., 14:12 and the notes there). This is likely here and in 18:21. For further support see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:440. The nuance “starvation” rather than “famine” has been chosen in the translation because the referents here are all things that accompany war.
⁵tn The translation attempts to render in meaningful English terms some rather unusual uses of terms here. The verb translated “punish” is often used that way (cf. BDB, dq^P*, Qal A.3, p. 823 and compare usage in Jer 11:22, 13:21). However, here it is accompanied by a direct object and a preposition meaning “over” which is usually used in the sense of appointing someone over someone (cf. BDB, dq^P*, Qal B.1, p. 823 and compare usage in Jer 51:27). Morever the word translated “different ways” normally refers to “families,” “clans” or “guilds” (cf. BDB, hj*P*v=m!, pp. 1046-47 for usage). Hence the four things mentioned are referred to figuratively as officers or agents into whose power the LORD consigns them. The Hebrew text reads: “I will appoint over them four guilds, the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, the birds of the skies and the beasts of the earth to devour and to destroy.”
⁶tn The length of this sentence runs contrary to the normal policy followed in the translation of breaking up long sentences. However, there does not seem any way to break it up here without losing the connections.
sn For similar statements see 2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4 and for a description of what Manasseh did see 2 Kgs 21:1-16. Manasseh was the leader, but they willingly followed (cf. 2 Kgs 21:9).
⁷tn The words “The LORD cried out” are not in the text. However, they are necessary to show the shift in address between speaking to Jeremiah in vv. 1-4 about the people and addressing Jerusalem in vv. 5-6 and the shift back to the address to Jeremiah in vv. 7-9. The words “oracle of the LORD” are, moreover, found at the beginning of v. 6.
⁸tn The words, “in the world” are not in the text but are the translator’s way of trying to indicate that this rhetorical question expects a negative answer.
⁹tn Heb “turn aside.”
¹⁰tn Or “about your well being”; Heb “about your welfare” (<olv*, shalom).
¹¹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.” In the original text this phrase is found between “you have deserted me” and “you keep turning your back on me.” It is put at the beginning and converted to first person for sake of English style and clarity.
¹²tn Heb “you are going backward.” This is the only occurrence of this adverb with this verb. It is often used with another verb meaning “turn backward” (= abandon; Heb gWs in the niphal). For examples see Jer 38:22; 46:5. The only other occurrence in Jeremiah has been in the unusual idiom in 7:24 where it was translated “they got worse and worse instead of better.” That is how J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 109 translates it here. However it is translated, it has connotations of apostasy.
¹³tn Heb “stretched out my hand against you.” For this idiom see notes on 6:12.
¹⁴tn There is a difference of opinion on how the verbs here and in the following verses are to be rendered, whether past or future. KJV, NASB, NIV for example render them as future. ASV, RSV, TEV render them as past. JPS Tanakh has past here and future in vv. 7-9. This is perhaps the best solution. The imperfect + waw consecutive here responds to the perfect in the first line. The imperfects + waw consecutives followed by perfects in vv. 7-9 and concluded by an imperfect in v. 9 pick up the perfects + waw consecutives in vv. 3-4. Verses vv. 7-9 are further development of the theme in vv. 1-4. Verses 5-6 have been an apostrophe or a turning aside to address Jerusalem directly. For a somewhat similar alternation of the tenses see Isa 5:14-17 and consult GKC §111w. One could of course argue that the imperfects +waw consecutive in vv. 7-9 continue the imperfect + waw consecutive here. In this case, vv. 7-9 are not a continuation of the oracle of doom but another lament by God (cf. 14:1-6, 17-18).
¹⁵sn It is difficult to be sure what intertextual connections are intended by the author in his use of vocabulary. The word “grow weary” is not very common. It has been used twice before. In 9:5-6b where it refers to the people being unable to repent and in 6:11 where it refers to Jeremiah being tired or unable to hold back his anger because of that inability. Now God too has worn out his patience with them (cf. Isa 7:13).
¹⁶tn The words “The LORD continued” are not in the text. They have been added to show the shift back to talking about the people instead of addressing them. The obvious speaker is the LORD; the likely listener is Jeremiah as in vv. 1-4.
¹⁷tn Heb “I have winnowed them with a winnowing fork in the gates of the land.” The word “gates” is here being used figuratively for the cities, the part for the whole. See 14:2 and the notes there.
sn A figurative use of the process of winnowing is referred to here. Winnowing was the process whereby a mixture of grain and straw was thrown up into the wind to separate the grain from the straw and the husks. The best description of the major steps in threshing and winnowing grain in the Bible is seen in another figurative passage in Isa 41:15-16.
¹⁸tn Or “did not repent of their wicked ways”; Heb “They did not turn back from their ways.” There is no casual particle here either yK! which is more formally casual or w+ which sometimes introduces casual circumstantial clauses. The causal idea is furnished by the connection of ideas. If the verbs throughout this section are treated as pasts and this section seen as a lament, then the clause could be sequential, “but they still did not turn…”
¹⁹tn Heb “to me.” BDB, l, 5a(d), p. 513 compares the usage of the preposition “to” here to that in Jon 3:3, “Nineveh was a very great city to God [in God’s estimation].” NEB/REB interpret as though it were the agent after a passive verb, “I have made widows more numerous.” Most translations ignore it. The translation follows BDB though the emphasis on God’s agency has been strong in the passage.
²⁰tn The translation of this line is a little uncertain because of the double prepositional phrase which is not represented in this translation or most of the others. The Hebrew text reads: “I will bring in to them, against mother of young men, a destroyer at noon time.” Many commentaries delete the phrase with the Greek text. If the preposition read “against” like the following one this would be a case of apposition of nearer definition. There is some evidence of that in the Targum and the Syriac according to BHS. Both nouns “mothers” and “young men” are translated as plural here though they are singular; they are treated by most as collectives. It would be tempting to translate these two lines “In broad daylight I have brought destroyers against the mothers of her fallen young men.” But this may be too interpretive. In the light of 6:4, noontime was a good time to attack. JPS Tanakh has “I will bring against them—young men and mothers together—…” In this case “mother” and “young men” would be a case of asyndetic coordination
²¹tn This word is used only here and in Hos 11:9. It is related to the root meaning “to rouse” (so BDB, I ryu!, p. 735). Here it refers to the excitement or agitation caused by terror. In Hos 11:9 it refers to the excitement or arousal of anger.
²²tn The “them” in the Hebrew text is feminine referring to the mothers.
²³tn Heb “who gave birth to seven.”
sn To have seven children was considered a blessing and a source of pride and honor (Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam 2:5).
²⁴tn The meaning of this line is debated. Some understand this line to mean “she has breathed out her life” (cf. e.g., BDB, jp^n`, p. 656 and vp#n#, 1c, p. 656). However, as several commentaries have noted (e.g., W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:341, J. Bright, Jeremiah,109) it makes little sense to talk about her suffering shame and embarassment if she has breathed her last. Both the Greek and Latin versions understand “soul” not as the object but as the subject and the idea being one of fainting under despair. This idea seems likely in light of the parallelism. Bright suggests the phrase means either “she gasped out her breath” or “her throat gasped.” The former is more likely. We might also render “she fainted dead away” but that idiom might not be familiar to all readers.
²⁵tn Heb “Her sun went down while it was still day.”
sn The sun was the source of light and hence has associations with life, prosperity, health, and blessing. The primature going down of the sun which brought these seems apropos as metaphor for the loss of her children which were not only a source of joy, help, and honor. Two references where “sun” is used figuratively, Ps 84:11 (84:12 Hebrew text) and Mal 4:2, may be helpful here.
²⁶sn She has lost her position of honor and the source of her pride. For the concepts here see 1 Sam 2:5.
²⁷tn Heb “I will deliver those of them that survive to the sword before their enemies.” The referent of “them” is ambiguous. Does it refer to the children of the widow (nearer context) or the people themselves (more remote context, v. 7)? Perhaps it was meant to include both. Verse seven spoke of the destruction of the people and the killing off of the children.
²⁸tn The words “I said” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to mark a shift in the speaker.
²⁹tn Heb “Woe to me, my mother.” See the comments on 4:13 and 10:19.
³⁰tn Heb “A man of strife and a man of contention with all the land.” The “of” relationship (Hebrew and Greek genitive) can convey either subjective or objective relationships, i.e., he instigates strife and contention or he is the object of it. A study of usage elsewhere, e.g., Isa 41:11; Job 31:35; Prov 12:19; 25:24; 26:21; 27:15, is convincing that it is subjective. In his role as God’s covenant messenger charging people with wrong doing he has instigated counterarguments and stirred about strife and contention against him.
³¹tc The translation follows the almost universally agreed upon correction of the Masoretic text. Instead of reading yn]l^l=q^m= h)LK% (“all of him is cursing me”) as the Masoretes proposed (Qere) we should read ynWll=q! with the written text (Kethiv) and redivide and repoint with the suggestion in BHS <h#L=K% (“all of them are cursing me”).
³²tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the text. It is added for clarity to identify the referent of “you.” A comparison of three or four translations will show how difficult this verse is to interpret. The primary difficulty is with the meaning of the verb rendered here “I will surely send you out [;t!wr]v@].” The text and the meaning of the word are debated (for a rather full discussion see W. Hollady, Jeremiah, 1:446-47 fn b-b). Tied up with that is the meaning of the verb in the second line and the identification of who the speaker and addressee are. One of two tacks are usually followed. Some follow the Greek version which has Jeremiah speaking and supporting his complaint that he has been faithful. In this case the word “said” is left out, the difficult verb is taken to mean “I have served you” (;yT!r^v@, from tr^v* [BDB, p. 1058]) and the parallel verb means “I have made intercession for my enemies.” The second tack is to suppose that God is speaking and is promising Jeremiah deliverance from his detractors. In this case the troublesome word is taken to mean “deliver” (cf. BDB, Ihr*v*, p. 1056), “strengthen” (see BDB’s discussion) or read as a noun “remnant” (;t=yr]v@ = ;t=yr]v@; again see BDB’s discussion). In this case the parallel verb is taken to mean “I will cause your enemies to entreat you,” a meaning it has nowhere else. Both of these tacks are probably wrong. The Greek text is the only evidence for leaving out “said.” The problem with making Jeremiah the addressee is twofold. First, the word “enemy” is never used in the book of Jeremiah’s foes, always of political enemies. Second, and more troublesome, we must assume a shift in the addressee between v. 11 and vv.13-14 or assume that the whole is addressed. The latter would be odd if he is promised deliverance from his detractors only to be delivered to captivity. If, however, we assume that the whole is addressed to Jerusalem, we have no such problem. A check of earlier chapters will show that the second maculine pronoun is used for Judah/Jerusalem in 2:28-29; 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 11:13. In 2:28-28 and 4:1-2 the same shift from second singular to second plural takes place as does here in vv. 13-14. Moreover, vv. 13-14 continue much of the same vocabulary and is addressed to Jerusalem. The approach followed here is similar to that taken in REB except “for good” is taken in the way it is always used rather to mean “utterly.” The nuance suggested by BDB, Ihr*v*, p. 1056 is assumed and the meaning of the parallel verb is assumed to be similar to that in Isa 53:6 (see BDB, ug^P*, Hiph 1, p. 803). The Masoretic text is retained and demonstrable meanings. For the concept of “for good” see Jer 24:5-6. This assumes that the ultimate goal of God’s discipline is here announced.
sn The LORD interrupts Jeremiah’s complaint with a further word for Jerusalem. Compare a similar interruption in his discussion with Jeremiah in vv. 5-6.
³³tn “Surely” represents a construct in Hebrew that indicates a strong oath of affirmation. Cf. BDB, <a!, 1b(2), p. 50 and compare usage in 2 Kgs 9:26.
³⁴tn Or “Can iron and bronze break iron from the north?” The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer. The translation and meaning of this verse are debated. See note for further details. The two main difficulties here involve the relation of words to one another and the obscure allusion to iron from the north. To translate “literally” is difficult since one does not know whether “iron” is subject of “break” or object of an impersonal verb. Likewise, the dangling “and bronze” fits poorly with either understanding. Options: “Can iron break iron from the north and bronze?” Or “Can one break iron, even iron from the north and bronze.” This last is commonly opted for, but why add “and bronze”? And what does “iron from the north” refer to? A long history of interpretation relates it to the foe from the north (see already 1:14; 4:6; 6:1; 13:20). The translation follows the lead of NRSV and takes “and bronze” as a compound subject. I have no ready parallels for this syntax but the reference to “from the north” and the comparison to the stubbornness of the unrepentant people to bronze and iron in 6:28 suggests a possible figurative allusion. There is no evidence in the Bible that Israel knew about a special kind of steel like iron from the Black Sea mentioned in later Greek sources. The word “fist” is added to the translation to try to give some hint that it refers to a hostile force.
sn Compare Isa 10:5-6 for the idea here.
³⁵tc This reading follows the Greek and Syriac versions and several Hebrew manuscripts. Other Hebrew manuscripts read “I will cause the enemy to pass through a land.” The difference in the reading is between one Hebrew letter, a d (d)and an r (r).
³⁶tn The words “I said” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to mark the shift from the LORD speaking to Jerusalem to Jeremiah speaking to God.
³⁷tn The words “how I suffer” are not in the text but are implicit from the continuation. They are added for clarity. Jeremiah is not saying “you are all knowing.”
³⁸sn Heb “Your words were found and I ate them.” This along with Ezek 2:8—3:3 is a poetic picture of inspiration. The prophet accepted them, assimilated them, and made them such a part of himself that he spoke with complete assurance what he knew were God’s words.
³⁹tn Heb “Your name is called upon us.”
sn See 14:9 where this idiom is applied to the people of Israel as a whole and 7:10 where it is applied to the temple. For discussion cf. notes on 7:10.
⁴⁰tn Literally “because of your hand.”
⁴¹tn Heb “Will you be to me like a deceptive (brook), like waters which do not last [or, are not reliable].”
sn Jeremiah is speaking of the wadis which fill with water after the spring rains but often dry up in the summer time. A fuller picture is painted in Job 6:14-21. This contrasts with the earlier metaphor that God had used of himself in 2:13.
⁴²tn Heb “So the LORD said thus.”
⁴³tn Heb “If you return [ = repent], I will restore [more literally, ‘cause you to return’] that you may stand before me.” For the idiom of “standing before” in the sense of serving see BDB, dm^u*,Qal 1e, p. 764 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 10:8; 12:8; 17:1; Deut 10:8.
⁴⁴tn Heb “you shall be as my mouth.”
sn For the classic statement of the prophet as God’s “mouth/mouthpiece,” = “spokesman,” see Exod 4:15-16; 7:1-2.
⁴⁵tn Heb “They must turn/return to you and you must not turn/return to them.”
sn Once again the root “return” (bWv, shub) is being played on as in 3:1—4:4. See the three fold call to repentance in 3:12, 14, 22. The verb is used here four times “repent,” “restore,” and “become” twice. He is to serve as a model of repentance, not an imitator of their apostasy. In accusing God of being unreliable he was coming dangerously close to their kind of behavior.
⁴⁶sn See 1:18. The LORD renews his promise of protection and reiterates his call to Jeremiah.
¹tn Heb “For thus says the LORD concerning…”
²tn Heb “Thus says the LORD concerning the sons and daughters who are born in the place and concerning their mothers who give them birth and their fathers who fathered them in this land.”
³tn Heb “For thus says the LORD…”
⁴tn My shalom, “peace,” “prosperity,” “well being,” (wholeness or health of body and soul).
⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶sn These were apparently pagan customs associated with mourning (Isa 15:2; Jer 47:5) which were forbidden in Israel (Lev 19:8; 21:5) but apparently practiced anyway (Jer 41:5).
⁷tn Heb “For thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel.” The introductory formula which appears three times in vv. 1-9 (vv. 1, 3, 5) has been recast for smoother English style.
sn For the title “the LORD God of Israel who rules over all” see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
⁸tn Literally “before your eyes and in your days.” The pronouns are plural including others than Jeremiah.
⁹tn Heb “all these words/things.”
sn The actions of the prophet would undoubtedly elicit questions about his behaviour and he would have occasion to explain the reason.
¹⁰tn These two sentences have been recast in English to break up a long Hebrew sentence and incorporate the oracular formula “says the LORD (Heb ‘oracle of the LORD’)” which occurs after “Your fathers abandoned me.” In Hebrew the two sentences read: “When you tell them these things and they say, ‘…’, then tell them, ‘Because your ancestors abandoned me,’ oracle of the LORD.”
¹¹tn Heb “followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the explanation of the idiom.
¹²tn Heb “But me they have abandoned and my law they have not kept.” The objects are thrown forward to bring out the contrast which has rhetorical force. However, such a sentence in English would be highly unnatural.
¹³sn For the argumentation here compare 7:23-26.
¹⁴tn The particle translated here “Yet” (/k@l*) is regularly translated “So” or “Therefore” and introduces a consequence. However, in a few cases it introduces a contrasting set of conditions. Compare its use in Judg 11:8; Jer 48:12; 49:2; 51:52; and Hos 2:14 (2:16 Hebrew text).
¹⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” The LORD has been speaking; the first person has been utilized in translation to avoid a shift which might create confusion.
¹⁶tn Heb “Behold the days are coming.”
¹⁷tn These two verses which constitute one long sentence with compound, complex subordinations has been broken up for sake of English style. It reads, “Therefore, behold the days are coming, says the LORD [Heb ‘oracle of the LORD’] and it will not be said any longer, ‘By the life of the LORD who…Egypt’ but ‘by the life of the LORD who…’ and I will bring them back…”
¹⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” The LORD has been speaking; the first person has been utilized in translation to avoid a shift which might create confusion.
¹⁹tn Heb “Behold I am about to send for many fishermen and they will catch them. And after that I will send for many hunters and they will hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the cracks in the rocks.”
sn The picture of rounding up the population for destruction and exile is also seen in Amos 4:2 and Hab 1:14-17.
²⁰tn Heb “For my eyes are upon all their ways. They are not hidden from before me. And their sin is not hidden away from before my eyes.”
²¹tn Heb “First.” Many translations and commentaries delete this word because it is missing from the Greek version and is considered a gloss added by a post-exilic editor who is said to be responsible also for vv. 14-16. This is not the place to resolve issues of authorship and date. It is the task of the translator to translate the “original” which in this case is the Masoretic text supported by the other versions. The word here refers to order in rank or order of events. Compare Gen 38:28; 1 Kgs 28:25. Here allusion is made to the restoration previously mentioned. First in order of events is the punishment of destruction and exile, then restoration.
²²tn Heb “double.” However, usage in Deut 15:18 and probably Isa 40:2 argues for “full compensation.” This is supported also by usage in a tablet from Alalakh in Syria. See Craigie, Kelly, Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 218 for bibliography.
²³tn Heb “my inheritance.”
sn For earlier references to the term used here see 2:7 where it applies as here to the land, 10:16; 12:8-9 where it applies to the people, and 12:7 where it applies to the temple.
²⁴tn Many of the translations take “lifeless statues of their detestable idols” with “filled” as a compound object. This follows the Masoretic punctuation but violates usage. The verb “fill” never takes an object preceded by the preposition B=.
²⁵tn The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are added to show the shift from God, who has been speaking to Jeremiah, to Jeremiah, who here addresses God.
sn The shift here is consistent with the interruptions that have taken place in chapters 14 and 15 and in Jeremiah’s response to God’s condemnation of the people of Judah’s idolatry in chapter 10 (note especially vv. 6-16).
²⁶tn Heb “O LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of trouble. The literal which piles up attributes is of course more forceful than the predications. However, piling up poetic metaphors like this adds to the length of the English sentence and risks lack of understanding on the part of some readers. Some rhetorical force has been sacrificed for the sake of clarity.
²⁷tn Once again the translation has sacrificed some of the rhetorical force for the sake of clarity and English style: Heb “Only falsehood did our ancestors possess, vanity and [things in which?] there was no one profiting in them.”
sn This passage offers some rather forceful contrasts. The LORD is Jeremiah’s source of strength, security, and protection. The idols are false gods, worthless idols, that can offer no help at all.
²⁸tn Heb “and they are ‘no gods.’” For the construction here compare 2:11 and a similar construction in 2 Kgs 19:18 and see BDB, aO, 1b(b), p. 519.
²⁹tn The words “The LORD said” are not in the text. However, it is obvious that he is the speaker. These words are added for clarity.
³⁰tn Or “So I will make known to those nations, I will make known to them at this time my power and my might. Then they will know that my name is the LORD.”
tn There is a decided ambiguity in this text about the identity of the pronoun “them.” Is it his wicked people he has been predicting judgment upon or the nations that have come to recognize the folly of idolatry? The nearer antecedent would argue for that. However, usage of “hand” (translated here “power”) in 6:12; 15:6 and later 21:5 and especially the threatening motif of “at this time” (or, “now”) in 10:18 suggest that the “So” goes back logically to vv. 16-18, following a grounds of judgment with the threatened consequence as it has in at least 16 out of 18 occurrences thus far. Moreover it makes decidedly more sense that the Jews will know that his name is the LORD as the result of the present (“at this time”) display of his power in judgment than that the idolators will at some later (cf. Isa 2:2-4 for possible parallel) time. There has been a decided emphasis that the people of Israel do not “know” him (cf. 2:8; 4:22; 9:3,6). Now they will, but in a way they did not wish to. There is probably an allusion (and an ironic reversal) here to Exod 3:13-15; 34:5-7. They have presumed upon his graciousness and forgotten that his name not only involves being with them to help but being against them to punish sin. Even if the alternate translation is followed the reference is still to God’s mighty power made known in judging the wicked Judeans. The words “power” and “might” are here again a case of two nouns joined by “and” in which one modifies the other (hendiadys).
¹tn The chapter division which was not a part of the original text but was added in the middle ages obscures the fact that there is no new speech here. The division may have resulted from the faulty identification of the “them” in the preceding verse. See the translator’s note on that verse.
²tn The word “stone hearted” is not in the text. It is implicit in the metaphor and is added for clarity. Cf. Ezek 11:19; 36:26; and Job 19:24 for the figure.
³tn The word “diamond” is an accomodation to modern times. There is no evidence that diamond was known in ancient times. The stone (which some think was emery), however, was hard and became metaphorical for hardness. See Ezek 3:9 and Zech 7:12 and for further discussion see IDB, “Adamant,”1:45.
⁴tn This verse has been restructured for the sake of the English poetry: Heb “The sin of Judah is engraved [or, written] with an iron pen, inscribed with a point of a diamond [or, adamant] upon the tablet of their hearts and on the horns of their altars.”
sn There is biting sarcasm involved in the use of the figures here. The law was inscribed on the tablets of stone by the “finger” of God (Exod 31:18; 32:16). Later under the new covenant it would be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). Blood was to applied to the horns of the altar in offering the sin offering (cf., e.g., Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 20) and on the bronze altar to cleanse it from sin on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:18). Here their sins are engraved (permanently written, cf. Job 19:24) on their hearts (i.e., control their thoughts and actions) and on their altars (permanently polluting them).
⁵tn It is difficult to convey in good English style the connection between this verse and the preceding. The text does not have a finite verb but a temporal preposition with an infinitive: Heb “while their children remember their altars…” It is also difficult to translate the verb “literally.” (i.e., what does “remember” their altars mean?). Hence it has been rendered “always think about.” Another possibility would be “have their altars…on their minds.”
sn There is possibly a sarcastic irony involved here as well. The Israelites were to remember the LORD and what he had done and were to commemorate certain days, e.g., the passover and the sabbath which recalled their deliverance. Instead they resorted to the pagan altars and kept them in mind.
⁶tc This reading follows many Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions. Many other Hebrew manuscripts read “your” [masc. pl.].
⁷tc This reading follows some of the ancient versions. The Masoretic text reads, “hills. My mountain in the open field [alluding to Jerusalem] and your wealth…I will give.” The vocalization of the noun plus pronoun and the unusualness of the expression to allude to Jerusalem calls into question the originality of the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text reads yr]r`h& which combines the suffix for a singular noun with a pointing of the noun in the plural, a form which would be without parallel (compare the forms in Ps 30:8 for the singular noun with suffix and Deut 8:9 for the plural noun with suffix). Likewise, Jerusalem was not “in the open field.” For a similar expression compare Jer 13:27.
⁸tc Or “I will give away your wealth, all your treasures and your places of worship…” The translation follows the emendation suggested in the fn in BHS, reading ryj!m=B! in place of ;yt#moB*. The forms are graphically very close and one could explain the origin of either from the other. The parallel in 15:13-14 reads ryj!m=B! aO. The text here may be a deliberate play on that one. The emended text makes decidedly better sense contextually than the Masoretic text unless some sardonic reference to their idolatry is intended.
⁹tc Or “Through your own fault you will lose the land…” As McKane, Jeremiah, 1:386 notes the ancient versions do not appear to be reading ;b=W as in the Masoretic text but possibly ;D+b^l= (see BHS fn). The translation follows the suggestion in BHS fn that ;d+y` (literally “your hand”) be read for MT ;b=W. This has the advantage of fitting the idiom of this verb with “hand” in Deut 15:2 (see also v. 3 there). The Hebrew text thus reads: “You will release your hand from your heritage.”
¹⁰tc A few Hebrew manuscripts and two Greek manuscripts read “a fire is kindled in my anger” (reading hj*d+q*) as in 15:14 in place of “you have kindled a fire in my anger” (reading <T#j=d^q*) in the majority of Hebrew manuscripts and versions. The variant may be explained on the basis of harmonization with the parallel passage.
tn Heb “you have started a fire in my anger which will burn forever.”
¹¹sn Vv 5-11 are a collection of wisdom-like sayings (cf. Ps 1) which set forth the theme of the two ways and their consequences. It has as its background the blessings and the curses of Deut 28 and the challenge to faith in Deut 29-30 which climaxes in Deut 30:15-20. The nation is sinful and God is weary of showing them patience. However, there is hope for individuals within the nation if they will trust in him.
¹²tn Heb “who make flesh their arm.”
sn The arm is the symbol of strength and the flesh is the symbol of mortal man in relation to the omnipotent God.
¹³sn In the psychology of ancient Hebrew thought the heart was the center not only of the emotions but of the thoughts and motivations. It was also the seat of moral conduct (cf. its placement in the middle of the discussion of moral conduct in Prov 4:20-27, i.e., in v. 23).
¹⁴tn This word occurs only here and in Jer 48:6. It has been identified as a kind of juniper which is a short shrub with minute leaves that look like scales. For a picture and more discussion see UBS, Fauna and Flora of the Bible, p. 131.
¹⁵tn Heb “Blessed is the person who trusts in the LORD, and whose confidence is in the LORD.” However, because this is a statement of the LORD and the translation chooses to show that the blessing comes from him, the first person is substituted for the divine name.
¹⁶tn Or “incurably deceitful”; Heb “It is incurable.” For the word “deceitful” compare the usage of the verb in Gen 27:36 and a related noun in 2 Kgs 10:19. For the adjective “incurable” compare the usage in Jer 15:18. It is most commonly used with reference to wounds or of pain. In Jer 17:16 it is used metaphorically for a “woeful day” (i.e., day of irreparable devastation).
sn The background for this verse is Deut 29:18-19 (29:17-18 Hebrew text) and Deut 30:17.
¹⁷tn The term rendered “mind” here and in the previous verse is actually the Hebrew word for “heart.” However, in combination with the word rendered “heart” in the next line, which is the Hebrew for “kidneys,” it is best rendered “mind” because the “heart” was considered the center of intellect, conscience, and will and the “kidneys” the center of emotions.
sn For an earlier reference to this motif see 11:20. For a later reference see 20:12. See also Ps 17:2-3.
¹⁸tn The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The word translated “broods over” occurs only here and Isa 34:15. It is often defined on the basis of an Aramaic cognate which means “to gather” with an extended meaning of “to gather together under her to hatch.” Many commentators go back to a Rabbinic explanation that the partridge steals the eggs of other birds and hatches them out only to see the birds depart when they recognize that she is not the mother. Modern studies question the validity of this zoologically. Moreover, Holladay contests the validity on the basis of the wording “and she does hatch them” (Heb “bring them to birth”). See W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:498 and see also Craigie, Kelly, Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 229. The point of the comparison is that the rich gather their wealth but they do not get to see the fruits of it.
¹⁹tn The Hebrew text merely says “it.” But the antecedent might be ambiguous in English so the reference to wealth gained by unjust means is here reiterated for clarity.
²⁰tn Heb “he will be [= prove to be] a fool.”
²¹tn The words, “Then I said” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to show the shift in speaker.
sn The LORD is no longer threatening judgment but is being addressed. For a similar doxological interruption compare 16:19-20.
²²tn Heb “O glorious throne, O high place from the beginning, O hope of Israel, O LORD.” Commentators and translators generally understand these four lines (which are three in the Hebrew original) as two predications, one eulogizing the temple and the other eulogizing God. However, that does not fit the context very well and does not take into account the nature of Jeremiah’s doxology in Jeremiah 16:19-20 (and compare also 10:6-7). There the doxology is context motivated, focused on God, and calls on relevant attributes in the form of metaphorical epithets. That fits nicely here as well. For the relevant parallel passages see the study note.
sn As King and Judge seated on his heavenly throne on high the LORD metes out justice. For examples of this motif see Jer 25:30; Psa 11:4; 9:4, 7 (9:5, 8 Hebrew text). As the place of sanctuary he offers refuge for those who are fleeing for safety. Ezek 11:16 and Isa 18:14 are examples of passages using that motif. Finally, the LORD has been referred to earlier as the object of Israel’s hope (Jer 14:8). All of these are relevant to the choices that the LORD has placed before them, trust or turn away, and the threat that as all-knowing Judge he will reward people according to their behavior.
²³tc The translation is based on an emendation suggested in W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:500, fn b-b.The emendation involves following the reading preferred by the Masoretes (the Qere) and understanding the preposition with the following word as a corruption of the suffix on it. Thus we read Jr#a# ;yr#WsW instead of Jr#a#B* yr^WsW (“and those who leave me will be written in the earth”), a reading which is highly improbable since all the other pronouns are second singular.
²⁴tn Or “to the world of the dead.” An alternative interpretation is: “will be as though their names were written in the dust”; Heb “will be written in the dust.” The translation follows the nuance of “earth” listed in KB3, Jr#a#, 4, p. 88 and found in Jon 2:6 (2:7 Hebrew text); Job 10:21-22. For the nuance of “enrolling, registering among the number” for the verb translated here “consign” see BDB, bt^K*, Qal 3, p. 507 and Niph 2, p. 508 and compare usage in Ezek 13:9 and Ps 69:28 (69:29 Hebrew text).
²⁵tn Heb “The fountain of living water.” For an earlier use of this metaphor and the explanationof it see Jer 2:13 and the notes there. There doesn’t appear to be any way to retain this metaphor in the text without explaining it. In the earlier text the context would show that literal water was not involved. Here it might still be assumed that the LORD merely gives life-giving water.
²⁶tn The translation fills in the details of the metaphor from a preceding context (15:18) and from the following context (17:18). The literal translation “Heal me and I will be healed. Rescue me and I will be rescued.” does not make much sense if these details are not filled in. The metaphor is filled in for clarity for the average reader.
²⁷tn Heb “Behold, they are saying to me.”
²⁸tn Heb “Where is the word of the LORD. Let it come [or, come to pass] please.”
²⁹tc Heb “I have not run after you for the sake of disaster.” The translation follows the suggestion of some ancient versions. The Hebrew text reads “I have not run from being a shepherd after you.” The translation follows two Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus) and the Syriac in reading the word “evil” or “disaster” here in place of the word “shepherd” in the Hebrew text. The issue is mainly one of vocalization. The versions mentioned are reading a form hu*r`m@ instead of hu#orm@. There does not appear to be any clear case of a prophet being called a shepherd, especially in Jeremiah where it is invariably used of the wicked leaders/rulers of Judah, the leaders/rulers of the enemy that he brings to punish them, or the righteous ruler that he will bring in the future. Moreover, there are no cases where the preposition “after” is used with the verb “shepherd.” Parallelism also argues for the appropriateness of this reading; “disaster” parallels the “incurable day.” The thought also parallels the argument thus far. Other than 11:20; 12:3; 15:15 where he has prayed for vindication by the LORD punishing his persecutors as they deserve, he has invariably responded to the LORD’s word of disaster with laments and prayers for his people (see 4:19-21; 6:24;8:18; 10:19-25; 14:7-9, 19-22).
³⁰tn Heb “the incurable day.” For the use of this word see the note on 17:9.
³¹tn Heb “that which goes out of my lip is right in front of your face.”
³²tn Heb “do not be a source of dismay for me.” For this nuance of hT*j!m= rather than “terror” as many of the translations have it see BDB, hT*j!m=, 1b, p. 370 and the usage in Prov 21:15. Compare also the usage of the related verb which occurs in the next verse (see also BDB, tt^j*, Qal 2, p. 369).
³³tn Or “complete destruction.” See the translator’s note on 16:18.
sn Jeremiah now does what he says he has not wanted to do or been hasty to do. He is, however, seeking his own vindication and that of God whose threats they have belittled.
³⁴sn Observance of the Sabbath Day (and the Sabbatical Year) appears to have been a litmus test of the nation’s spirituality since it is mentioned in a number of passages besides this one (cf., e.g., Isa 56:2,6; 58:13; Neh 13:15-18). Perhaps this is because the Sabbath Day was the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exod 31:13-17) just as the rainbow was the sign of the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:12, 13, 17) and circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:11). This was not the only command they failed to obey, nor was their failure to obey this one the sole determining factor in the LORD’s decision to destroy Judah (cf. 7:23- 24; 11:7-8 in their contexts).
³⁵sn The identity and location of this gate is uncertain since it is mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Some identify it with the Benjamin Gate mentioned in Jer 37:13; 38:7 but there is no textual support for this in the Hebrew Bible or in any of the ancient versions.
³⁶tn The words “As you stand there” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added for clarity.
³⁷tn Heb “Listen to the word of the LORD, kings of Judah…Jerusalem who enter through these gates.” This sentence has been restructured to avoid a long complex English sentence and to put “Listen to what the LORD says” closer to the content of what he says.
³⁸tn Heb “Be careful at the risk of your lives.” The expression with the preposition B= is unique. Elsewhere the verb “be careful” is used with the preposition l= in the sense of the reflexive. Hence the word “soul” cannot be simply reflexive here. BDB, rm^v*, Niph 1, p. 1037 understands this a case where the preposition B= introduces the cost or price (cf. BDB, B, III 3a, p. 90).
³⁹sn Comparison with Neh 13:15-18 suggests that these loads were merchandise or agricultural produce which were being brought in for sale. The loads that were carried out of the houses in the next verse were probably goods for barter.
⁴⁰tn Heb “carry loads on the Sabbath and bring [them] in through.” The translation treats the two verbs “carry” and “bring in” as another case of hendiadys (see the note on “Be careful…by carrying’). This is supported by the next line where only “carry out” of the houses is mentioned.
⁴¹tn Heb “Do not carry any loads out of your houses on the Sabbath Day and do not do any work.” Translating literally might give the wrong impression that they were not to work at all. The phrase “on the Sabbath Day” is, of course, intended to qualify both prohibitions.
⁴²tn Heb “But sanctify [or, set apart as sacred] the Sabbath Day.” The idea of setting it apart as something sacred to the LORD is implicit in the command. See the explicit statements of this in Exod 20:10; 31:5; 35:2; Lev 24:8. For some readers the idea of treating the Sabbath Day as something sacred won’t mean much without spelling the qualification out specifically. Sabbath observance was not just a matter of not working.
⁴³tn Heb “They.” The antecedent is spelled out to avoid any possible confusion.
⁴⁴tn Heb “They hardened [or, made stiff] their neck so as not to.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “If you will carefully obey me by not bringing…and by sanctifing…by not doing…, then kings will….” The structure of prohibitions and commands followed by a brief “if” clause has been used to break up a long condition and consequence relationship which is contrary to contemporary English style.
⁴⁷tn Heb “who sit [or, are to sit] on David’s throne.”
⁴⁸tn Heb “There will come through the gates of this city the kings and princes…riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials…” The structure of the original text is broken up here because of the long compound subject which would make the English sentence too long. The term “princes” is often omitted as a supposed double writing of the word that follows it and looks somewhat like it (the Hebrew reads here <yb!v=yo <yr]c*w+) or the same word which occurs later in the verse and is translated “officials” (the word can refer to either). It is argued that “princes” are never said to sit on the throne of David (translated here “follow in the succession of David”). However, the word is in all texts and versions and the concept of sitting on the throne of someone is descriptive of both past, present, and future and is even used with the participle in a proleptic sense of “the one who is to sit on the throne” (cf. Exod11:15; 12:29).
⁴⁹tn Heb “will be inhabited forever.”
⁵⁰tn Heb “There will come from the cities of Judah and from the environs of Jerusalem and from…those bringing…incense and those bringing thank offerings.” This sentence has been restructured from a long complex original to conform to contemporary English style.
⁵¹tn Heb “carry loads on the Sabbath and bring [them] in through.” The translation treats the two verbs “carry” and “bring in” as another case of hendiadys (see the note on “through” in 17:21).
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:” This same formula occurs ten other times in Jeremiah. It has already occurred at 7:1 and 11:1.
²tn Heb “Get up and go down.” The first verb is not literal but is idiomatic for the initiation of an action. See 13:4, 6 for other occurrences of this idiom.
³tn Heb “And I will cause you to hear my word there.”
⁴tn Heb “And behold he was working.”
⁵sn Literally “at the two stones.” The Hebrew is very descriptive of the construction of a potter’s wheel which consisted of two stones joined by a horizontal shaft. The potter rotated the wheel with his feet on the lower wheel and worked the clay with his hands on the upper. For a picture of a potter working at his wheel see IDB, “Potters Wheel,” 3:846. See also the discussion regarding the making of pottery in the same volume pp. 846-53 under “Pottery.”
⁶tn The verbs here denote repeated action. They are the Hebrew perfect with the waw consecutive. The text then reads somewhat literally, “Whenever the vessel he was moulding…was ruined, he would remould…” For this construction see P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §118n (pp. 393-94) , 167b (pp. 628-29) and compare the usage in Amos 4:7-8.
⁷sn Something was wrong with the clay, either there was a lump in it, or it was too moist or not moist enough, or it had some other imperfection. In any case the vessel was “ruined” or “spoiled” or defective in the eyes of the potter. This same verb has been used of the linen shorts that were “ruined” and hence were “good for nothing” in Jer 13:7. The nature of the clay and how it responded to the potter’s hand determined the kind of vessel that he made of it. He did not throw the clay away. This is the basis for the application in vv. 7-10 to any nation and to the nation of Israel in particular vv. 10-17.
⁸tn The usage of the preposition B= to introduce the material from which something is made in Exod 38:8; 1 Kgs 15:22 should lay to rest the rather forced construction that some like J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 121 put on the variant rm#joK^ found in a few Hebrew manuscripts. Bright renders that phrase as an elliptical “as clay sometimes will.” The phrase is missing from the Greek version.
⁹tn Heb “he would turn and work.” This is another example of the construction called hendiadys where one of the two verbs joined by “and” becomes the adverbial modifier of the other. The verb “turn” is very common in this construction (see BDB, bWv, Qal 8, p. 998 for references).
¹⁰tn Heb “as it was right in his eyes to do [or, work it].” For this idiom see Judg 14:3, 7; 1 Sam 18:20,26; 2 Sam 17:4.
¹¹tn Heb “Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying.”
¹²tn This phrase (literally “Oracle of the LORD”) has been handled this way on several occasions when it occurs within first person addresses where the LORD is the speaker. See, e.g., 16:16; 17:24.
¹³tn The words “deals with the clay” are not in the text. They are part of an elliptical comparison and are added here for clarity.
¹⁴tn The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text but it is implicit from the introdution in v. 5 that he is being addressed. It is important to see how the rhetoric of this passage is structured. The words of vv. 7-10 lead up to the conclusion “So now” in v. 11 which in turns leads to the conclusion “Therefore” in v. 13. The tense of the verb in v. 12 is very important. It is a waw consecutive perfect indicating the future (cf. GKC §112p, r); their response is predictable. The words of vv. 7-10 are addressed to Jeremiah (v. 5) in fulfillment of the LORD’s promise to speak to him (v. 2) and furnish the basis for the LORD’s words of conditional threat to a people who show no promise of responding positively (vv. 11-12). Verse six then must be seen as another example of the figure of apostrophe (the turning aside from description about someone to addressing them directly; cf., e.g., Ps 6:8-9 (6:9-10 Hebrew text). Earlier examples of this figure have been seen in 6:20; 9:4; 11:13; 12:13; 15:6.
¹⁵tn Heb “One moment I may speak about a nation or kingdom to…” So also in v. 9. The translation is structured this way to avoid an awkward English construction and to reflect the difference in disposition. The constructions are, however, the same.
¹⁶ Heb “turns from its wickedness.”
¹⁷tn There is a good deal of debate about how the word translated here “revoke” should be translated. There is a good deal of reluctance to translate it “change my mind” because some see that as contradicting Num 23:19 and thus prefer “relent.” However, the English word “relent” suggests the softening of an attitude but not necessarily the change of course. It is clear that in many cases (including here) an actual change of course is in view (see, e.g., Amos 7:3, 6; Jon 3:9; Jer 26:19; Exod 13:17; 32:14). Several of these passages deal with “conditional” prophecies where a change in behavior of the people or the mediation of a prophet involves the change in course of the threatened punishment (or the promised benefit) “Revoke” or “forgo” may be the best way to render this in contemporary English idiom.
sn There is a word play here involving the word “evil” (hu*r`) which refers to both the crime and the punishment. This same play is carried further in Jon 3:10-4:1 where Jonah becomes very displeased (Heb “it was very evil to Jonah with great evil”) when God forgoes bringing disaster (evil) on Nineveh because they have repented of their wickedness (evil).
¹⁸sn Heb “plant.” The terms “uproot,” “tear down,” “destroy,” “build” and “plant” are the two sides of the ministry Jeremiah was called to (cf. Jer 1:10).
¹⁹sn Literally “I am forming disaster and making plans against you.” The word translated “forming” is the same as that for “potter.” There is a word play taking us back to v. 5. They are in his hands like the clay in the hands of the potter. Since they have not been pliable he forms new plans. He still offers them opportunity to repent; but their response is predictable.
²⁰tn Heb “Turn, each one from his wicked way.” See v. 8.
²¹tn Or “Make good your ways and your actions.” See the same expression in 7:3, 5.
²²sn See the same expression in a similar context in 2:25.
²³tn Heb “We will follow our own plans and do each one according to the stubbornness of his own wicked heart.”
sn This has been the consistent pattern of their behavior. See 7:24; 9:13; 13:10; 16:12.
²⁴tn The precise translation of this verse is somewhat uncertain. Two phrases in this verse are the primary cause of discussion and the source of numerous emendations, none of which has gained consensus. The phrase which is rendered here “rocky slopes” is in Hebrew yd^c* rWx which would normally mean something like “rocky crag of the field” (see BDB, yd^c*, 1g, p. 961). Numerous emendations have been proposed, most of which are listed in the footnotes of J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 436. We have chosen to follow the proposal of several that the word here is related to the Akkadian word shadu meaning mountain. The other difficulty is the word translated “cease” which in the Masoretic text is literally “be uprooted” (Wvt=N`y]). The word is usually emended to read Wtv=N`y] “are dried up” as a case of transposed letters (cf., e.g., BDB, vt^n`, Niph, p. 684). I suspect rather that this is a case of an error in hearing and the word vf^n` which is often parallel to bz^u*, translated here “vanish,” should be read in the sense that it has in 1 Sam 10:2. Whether one reads “are plucked up” and understands it figuratively of ceasing, “are dried “ or “cease” the sense is the same. For the sense of “distant” for the word <yr]z` see 2 Kgs 19:24.
sn Israel’s actions are contrary to nature. See the same kind of argumentation in 2:11; 8:7.
²⁵sn Heb “the ancient path.” This has already been referred to in 6:16. There is another “old way” but it is the path trod by the wicked (cf. Job 22:15).
²⁶sn Heb “ways that are not built up.” Reference is to the built up highways. See Isa 40:4 for the figure. The terms “way,” “by-paths,” “roads” are, of course, being used here in the sense of moral behavior or action.
²⁷tn There may be a deliberate double meaning involved here. The word translated here “an object of horror” refers both to destruction (cf. 2:15; 4:17) and the horror or dismay that accompanies it (cf. 5:30; 8:21). The fact that there is no conjunction or preposition in front of the noun “hissing” that follows this suggests that the reaction is in view here, not the cause.
²⁸tn Heb “an object of lasting hissing. All who pass that way will be appalled and shake their head.”
sn The shaking of the head and hissing were obviously gestures of scorn and derision. See Lam 2:15-16.
²⁹tc Heb “I will show them [my] back and not [my] face.” This reading follows the suggestion of some of the versions and some of the Masoretes. The Masoretic text reads “I will look on their back and not on their faces.”
sn To turn the back is universally recognized as a symbol of rejection. The turning of the face toward one is the subject of the beautiful Aaronic blessing in Num 6:24-26.
³⁰tn Heb “They.” The referent is unidentified.
³¹tn Heb “Let us make plans against Jeremiah.” See 18:18 where this has sinister overtones as it does here.
³²tn Heb “Instruction will not perish from priest, counsel from the wise, word from the prophet.”
sn These are the three channels through whom God spoke to his people in the OT. See 8:8-10 and Ezek 7:26.
³³tn Heb “Let us smite him with our tongues.” It is clear from the context that this involved plots to kill him.
³⁴tn The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to show that Jeremiah turns from description of the peoples’ plots to his address to God to deal with the plotters.
³⁵tn Heb “the voice of my adversaries.”
sn Jeremiah’s prayers against the unjust treatment of his enemies here and elsewhere (see 11:18-20; 12:1-4; 15:15-18; 17:14-18 have many of the elements of the prayers of the innocent in the book of Psalms: an invocation of the LORD as just judge, a lament about unjust attacks, an appeal to innocence, and a cry for vindication which often calls for the LORD to pay back in kind those who unjustly attack the petitioner. See for examples Pss 5, 7, 17, 54 among many others.
³⁶tn Or “They are plotting to kill me”; Heb “They have dug a pit for my soul.” This is a common metaphor for plotting against someone. See BDB, hr`K*, Qal, p. 500 and for an example see Pss 7:16 (7:15 Hebrew text) in its context.
³⁷tn Heb “to speak good concerning them” going back to the concept of “good” being paid back with evil.
³⁸tn Heb “to turn back your anger from them.”
sn See 14:7-9, 19-21 and 15:1-4 for the idea.
³⁹tn Literally “be poured out to the hand [= power] of the sword.” For this same expression see Ezek 35:5; Ps 63:10 (63:11 Hebrew text). Comparison with those two passages show that it involved death by violent means, perhaps death in battle.
⁴⁰tn Literally “be slain by death.” The commentaries are generally agreed that this refers to death by disease or plague as in 15:2. Hence, we have the deadly trio of sword, starvation, and disease which were often connected with war. See the notes on 15:2.
⁴¹tn Heb “when you bring marauders in against them.” For the use of the noun translated here “bands of raiders to plunder them” see 1 Sam 30:3, 15, 23 and BDB, dWdG=, 1, 151.
⁴²sn Heb “Do not blot out their sins from before you.” For this anthropomorphic figure which looks at God’s actions as though connected with record books, i.e., a book of wrong doings to be punished, and a book of life for those who are to live, see e.g., Exod 32:32, 33, Ps 51:1 (51:3 Hebrew text); 69:28 (69:29 Hebrew text).
⁴³tn Heb “in the time of your anger.”
¹tn The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text. Some Hebrew manuscripts and some of the versions have “to me.” This section, 19:1—20:6 appears to be one of the biographical sections of the book of Jeremiah where incidents in his life are reported in third person. See clearly 9:14 and 20:1-3. The manuscripts and versions do not represent a more original text but are translational or interpretive attempts to fill in a text which had no referent. They are like the translational addition we have added on the basis of contextual indicators.
²tn Heb “an earthenware jar of the potter.”
sn The word translated here “clay” refers to a clay which has been baked or fired in a kiln. In Jer 18 the clay was still soft and pliable, capable of being formed into different kinds of vessels. Here the clay is set, just as Israel is set in its ways. The word for jar refers probably to a water jug or decanter and is onomatopoeic, baqbuq, referring to the gurgling sound made by pouring out the water.
³tc The words “Take with you” follow the reading of the Syriac version and to a certain extent the reading of the Greek version (it does not have “with you”). The Hebrew text does not have these words but they are undoubtedly implicit.
⁴tn Heb “elders” both here and before “of the people.”
sn The civil and religious leaders are being referred to. They were to be witnesses of the symbolic act and of the message that Jeremiah proclaimed to the leaders of Jerusalem and its citizens (see v. 3).
⁵sn The exact location of this gate is unknown since it is nowhere else mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes identified with the Dung Gate mentioned in Neh 2:13; 3:13-14; 12:31 on the basis of the Jerusalem Targum. It is probably called “Potsherd’s Gate” because that is where the potter threw out the broken pieces of pottery which were no longer of use to him. The Valley of Ben Hinnom has already been mentioned in 7:31-32 in connection with the illicit religious practices, including child sacrifice, which took place there. The Valley of Ben Hinnom (or sometimes Valley of Hinnom) runs along the west and south sides of Jerusalem.
⁶tn Heb “the words that I will speak to you.”
⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this title.
⁸sn Careful comparison of the use of this term throughout this passage and comparison with 7:31-33 which is parallel to several verses in this passage will show that the reference is to the Valley of Ben Hinnom which will become a Valley of Slaughter (see v. 6 and 7:32).
⁹tn Heb “which everyone who hears it [or, about it] his ears will ring.” This is proverbial for a tremendous disaster. See 1 Sam 3:11; 2 Kgs 21:12 for similar prophecies.
¹⁰tn The text merely has “they.” But since a reference is made later to “they” and “their ancestors,” the referent must be to the people that the leaders of the people and leaders of the priests represent.
¹¹sn Heb “have made this city foreign.” The verb here is one that is built off of the noun and adjective which relate to foreign nations. Comparison may be made to Jer 2:21 where the adjective refers to the strange, wild vine as opposed to the choice vine the LORD planted and to 5:19 and 8:19 where the noun is used of worshipping foreign gods. Israel through its false worship has “denationalized” itself in its relation to God.
¹²tn Heb “the blood of innocent ones.” This must be a reference to child sacrifice as explained in the next verse. Some have seen a reference to the sins of social injustice alluded to in 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4 but those are connected with the city itself. Hence the word children is added to make the referent explicit.
¹³tn The word “here” is not in the text. However, it is implicit from the rest of the context. It is added for clarity.
¹⁴tn The words “such sacrifices” are not in the text. The text merely says “to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal which I did not command.” The command obviously refers not to the qualification “to Baal” but to burning the children in the fire as burnt offerings. The words are added to avoid a possible confusion that the reference is to sacrifices to Baal. Likewise the words should not be translated so literally that they leave the impression that God never said anything about sacrificing their children to other gods. The fact is he did. See Lev 18:21; Deut 12:30; 18:10.
¹⁵tn This phrase (Heb “Oracle of the LORD”) has been handled this way on several occasions when it occurs within first person addresses where the LORD is the speaker. See, e.g., 16:16; 17:24; 18:6.
¹⁶tn Heb “it will no longer be called to this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom but the Valley of Slaughter.”
sn See Jer 7:31-32 for an almost word for word repetition of vv. 5-6.
¹⁷sn There is perhaps a two-fold word play in the use of this word. One involves the sound play with the word for jar which we have explained as a water decanter. The word here is baqqoti. The word for jar in v. 1 is baqbuq. There may also be a play on the literal use of this word to refer to the laying waste or destruction of a land (see Isa 24:3; Nah 2:3). Many modern commentaries think that at this point Jeremiah emptied out the contents of the jar symbolizing the “emptying” out of their plans.
¹⁸sn This refers to the fact that they will die in battle. The sword would be only one of the weapons that strikes them down. It is one of the trio of “sword,” “starvation,” and “disease” which were the concomitants of war referred to so often in the book of Jeremiah. Starvation is referred to in v. 9.
¹⁹tn Heb “I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and in the hand of those who seek their soul [= life].” In this context the two are meant as obvious qualifications of one entity, not two. Some rearrangement of the qualifiers had to be made in the English translation to convey this.
²⁰sn See 18:16 and the study note there.
²¹tn Heb “all its smitings.” This word has been used several times for the metaphorical “wounds” that Israel has suffered as a result of the blows from its enemies. See, e.g., 14:17. It is used in the Hebrew Bible of scourging, both literally and metaphorically (cf. Deut 25:3; Isa 10:26), and of slaughter and defeat (1 Sam 4:10; Josh 10:20). Here it refers to the results of the crushing blows at the hands of her enemies which has made her the object of scorn.
²²tn This verse has been restructured to try to bring out the proper thought and subordinations reflected in the verse without making the sentence too long and complex in English: Heb “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. And they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the straits which their enemies who are seeking their lives reduce them to.” This also shows the agency through which God’s causation was effected, i.e., the siege.
sn This is one of the penalties for disobedience to their agreement with the LORD effected through the Mosaic covenant. See Deut 28:53, 55, 57. For examples of this being carried out see 2 Kgs 6:28-29; Lam 4:10.
²³tn The words “And the LORD continued” are not in the text. However, they are necessary to take us clearly back to the flow of the narrative begun in vv. 1-2 and interrupted by the long speech in vv. 3-9.
²⁴tn Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” For this title see the study note on 2:19. The translation attempts to avoid the confusion of embedding quotes within quotes by reducing this one to an indirect quote.
²⁵tn The adverb “Thus” or “Like this” normally points back to something previously mentioned. See, e.g., Exod 29:35; Num 11:15; 15:11; Deut 25:9.
²⁶tn Heb “Like this I will break this people and this city, just as one breaks the vessel of a potter which is not able to be repaired.”
²⁷sn See 7:22-23 for parallels.
²⁸tn This phrase (Heb “Oracle of the LORD”) has been handled this way on several occasions when it occurs within first person addresses where the LORD is the speaker. See, e.g., 16:16; 17:24; 18:6.
²⁹tn The words “by dead bodies” is not in the text but is implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
³⁰tn Heb “the host of heaven.”
³¹tn Heb “And Jeremiah entered from Topheth where the LORD had sent him to prophesy and he stood in the courtyard of the LORD’s temple.”
³²tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God Israel.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this title.
³³tn Heb “all its towns.”
³⁴tn Heb “They hardened [or, made stiff] their neck so as not to.”
¹tn Heb “chief overseer/officer.” The translation follows the suggestion of Cragie, Kelly, Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, p. 267 based on the parallel passage in 29:26-27 where this official appears to have been in charge of maintaining order in the temple.
sn Judging from a comparison of this passage with Jer 29:26-27 and that passage in turn with 2 Kgs 25:18 Pashur held an office second in rank to only the high priest. He was in charge of keeping order in the temple and took offense at what he heard Jeremiah saying.
²tn Heb “And Pashur son of Immer, the priest and he [= who] was chief overseer [or, officer] in the house of the LORD heard Jeremiah prophesying these words/things 20:2 and Pashur had the prophet Jeremiah flogged.” This verse and the previous one has been restructured in the translation to better conform with contemporary English style.
³tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. It occurs only here, in 29:26 where it is followed by a parallel word that occurs only there and is generally translated “collar,” and in 2 Chr 16:10 where it is preceded by the word “house of.” It is most often translated “stocks” and explained as an instrument of confinement for keeping prisoners in a crooked position (from its relation to a root meaning “to turn”. See BDB, tk#P#h=m^, p. 246 and KB2_,tk#P#h=m^, p. 500 for definition and discussion.) For a full discussion including the interpretation of the ancient versions see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:542-43.
⁴sn A comparison of Ezek 8:3 and 9:2 in their contexts will show that this probably refers to the northern gate to the inner court of the Temple. It is called Upper because it was on higher ground above the gate in the outer court. It is qualified by “in the LORD’s Temple” to distinguish it from the Benjamin Gate in the city wall (cf. 37:13; 38:7). Like the Benjamin Gate in the city wall it faced north toward the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.
⁵tn This name is translated rather than transliterated to aid the reader in understanding this name and connect it clearly with the explanation that follows in the next verse. For a rather complete discussion on the significance of this name and an attempt to explain it as a pun on the name “Pashur” see J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 455, fn 35.
sn This name is essentially a curse pronounced by Jeremiah invoking the LORD’s authority. The same phrase occurs in 6:25; 46:5; 49:29 which are all in the context of war. In ancient Israelite culture the change in name denoted a change in status or destiny. See, for example, the shift from Jacob (“He grabs the heel” and “Cheater” or “Deceiver,” Gen 25:26; 27:36) to Israel (“He perseveres with God,” Gen 32:28).
⁶tn Heb “I will make you an object of terror to both you and your friends.”
⁷tn Heb “And they will fall by the sword of their enemies and [with] your eyes seeing [it].”
⁸tn Heb “Take them [the goods, etc.] as plunder and seize them.”
⁹tn Heb “all who live in your house.” This included his family and his servants.
¹⁰sn As a member of the priesthood and the protector of order in the Temple Pashur was undoubtedly one of those who promulgated the deceptive belief that the LORD’s presence in the Temple was a guarantee of Judah’s safety (cf. 7:4, 8). Judging from the fact that two other men held the same office after the leading men in the city were carried into exile in 597 BC (see Jer 29:25-26 and compare 29:1-2 for the date and 2 Kgs 24:12-16 for the facts), this prophecy was probably fulfilled in 597. For a similar kind of oracle of judgment see Amos 7:10-17.
¹¹tn The translation is admittedly interpretive but so is every other translation that tries to capture the nuance of the verb rendered here “coerced.” Here the Hebrew text reads: “You ‘…’ed me and I let myself be ‘…’ed. You overpowered me and prevailed.” The value one assigns to ‘…’ is in every case interpretive based on what one thinks the context is referring to. The word is rendered “deceived” or “tricked” by several translations (see, e.g., KJV, NASB, TEV, ICV) as though God had misled him. It is rendered “enticed” by some (see, e.g., NRSV, NJPS Tanakh) as though God had tempted him with false hopes. Some go so far as to accuse Jeremiah of accusing God of metaphorically “raping” him (see, e.g., the fn in Harper Collins Study Bible, p. 1151). It is true that the word is used of “seducing” a virgin in Exod 22:15 and that it is used in several places to refer to “deceiving” someone with false words (Prov 24:28; Ps 78:36). It is also true that it is used of “coaxing” someone to reveal something he does not want to (Judg 14:15; 16:5) and of “enticing” someone to do something on the basis of false hopes (1 Kgs 22:20-22; Prov 1:10). However, it does not always have negative connotations or associations. In Hos 2:14 (2:16 Hebrew text) God “charms” or “woos” Israel, his estranged ‘wife,’ into the wilderness where he hopes to win her back to himself. What Jeremiah is alluding to here is crucial for translating and interpreting the word. There is no indication in this passage that Jeremiah is accusing God of misleading him or raising false hopes; God informed him at the outset that he would encounter opposition (1:17-19). Rather, he is alluding to his call to be a prophet, a call which he initially resisted but was persuaded to undertake because of God’s persistence (Jer 1:7-10). The best single word to translate ‘…’ with is thus “persuaded” or “coerced.” The translation spells out the allusion explicitly so the reader is not left wondering about what is being alluded to when Jeremiah speaks of being “coerced.” The translation “I let you do it” is a way of rendering the Niphal of the same verb which must be tolerative rather than passive since the normal passive for the Piel would be the Pual (See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §23.4f, g, pp. 389-90 for discussion and examples.). The translation “you overcame my resistance” is based on allusion to the same context (1:7-10) and the parallel use of qz^j* as a transitive verb with a direct object in 1 Kgs 16:22.
¹²tn Heb “speak,” but the speaking is in the context of speaking as a prophet.
¹³tn Heb “I cry out, I proclaim.”
¹⁴tn Heb “Violence and destruction.”
¹⁵tn Heb “the word of the LORD.” For the use of the two yK!s here in the sense of “for…and” see KB2, yK, 10, p. 432.
sn The words “Violence and destruction” are a synopsis of his messages of judgment. Jeremiah is lamenting that his ministry up to this point has been one of judgment and has brought him nothing but ridicule because the LORD has not carried out his threats. He appears in the eyes of the people to be a false prophet.
¹⁶ Heb “speak in his name.” For an explanation of the idiom see the translator’s fn. This idiom occurs in passages where someone functions as the messenger under the authority of another. See Exod 5:23; Deut 18:19, 29, 20; Jer 14:14. The antecedent in the first line is quite commonly misidentified as being “him,” i.e., the LORD. Comparison, however, with the rest of the context, especially the consequential clause “then it becomes” (hy`h*w+), and Jer 23:36 shows that it is “the word of the LORD.”
¹⁷tn The English sentence has again been restructured for the sake of English style. The Hebrew construction involves two waw consecutive perfects in a condition and consequence relation, “If I say to myself…then it [his word] becomes.” See GKC §112kk, p. 337 for the construction.
¹⁸sn Heb “It is in my heart like a burning fire, shut up in my bones.” In addition to standing as part for the whole, the “bones” for the person (e.g., Ps 35:10), the bones were associated with fear (e.g., Job 4:14) and with pain (e.g., Job 33:19, Ps 102:3 [102:4 Hebrew text]) and joy or sorrow (e.g., Ps 51:8 [51:10 Hebrew text]). As has been mentioned several times, the heart was connected with intellectual and volitional concerns.
¹⁹tn It would be difficult to render accurately the Hebrew particle yK! that introduces this verse without lengthening the English line unduly. It probably means something like “This is true even though I…,” i.e., the particle is concessive (cf. BDB, yK!, 2c). No other nuance seems appropriate. The particle is left out of the translation, but its presence is acknowledged here.
²⁰tn The phrase translated “Those who would cause me terror are everywhere” has already occurred in 6:25 in the context of the terror caused by the enemy from the north and in 20:3 in reference to the curse pronounced on Pashur who would experience it first hand. Some have seen the phrase here not as Jeremiah’s ejaculation of terror but of his assailant’s taunts of his message or even their taunting nickname for him. But comparison of this passage with the first two lines of Ps 31:13 (31:14 Hebrew text) which are word for word the same as these two will show that it refers to the terror inspired by the plots of his enemies to do away with him. It is also clear from the context of that passage and the following context here that the “whispering of many” (the literal translation of “many whispering words of intrigue against me) refers to intrigues to take vengeance on him and do away with him.
²¹tn Heb “Denounce and let us denounce him.” The verb which is translated “denounce” (dg^n`) does not take an accusative object of person as it does here very often. When it does it usually means to inform someone. The only relevant passage appears to be Job 17:5 where it means something like “denounce.” What is probably involved here is the attempts to portray Jeremiah as a traitor (Jer 26:10) and a false prophet (see his conflict with Hananiah in Jer 28).
²²tn Heb “the men of my peace [who are concerned about my welfare].” For this phrase compare Ps 41:9 (41:10 Hebrew text); Jer 38:22. It is generally agreed that irony is being invoked here, hence “so-called” is added to the text to bring out the irony.
²³tn Heb “watching my stumbling [for me to stumble].” Metaphorically they were watching for some slip-up that would lead to his downfall. Compare the use in Pss 35:15 and 38:17 (38:18 Hebrew text).
²⁴tn All the text says literally is “Perhaps he can be enticed so that we can prevail over him.” However the word “enticed” needs some qualification. As W. McKane, Jeremiah, 1:479 notes it should probably be read in the context of the “stumbling” (= “something that would lead to my downfall”). Hence we have supplied “slipping up” as an object. It is vague enough to avoid specifics as the original text does but suggests some reference to “something that would lead to my downfall.”
sn There is an interesting ironical play on words here with the earlier use of these same Hebrew words in v. 7 to refer to the LORD coercing him into being his spokesman and overcoming his resistance. Jeremiah is lamenting that it was God’s call to speak his word which he could (and still cannot) resist that has lead ironically to his predicament which is a source of terror to him.
²⁵sn This line has some interesting ties with 15:20-21 where Jeremiah is assured by God that he is indeed with him as he promised him when he called him (1:8, 19) and will deliver him from the clutches of wicked and violent people. The word translated here “awe-inspiring” is the same as the word “violent people” there. Jeremiah is confident that his “awe-inspiring” warrior will overcome “violent people.” The statement of confidence here is, by the way, a common element in the psalms of petition in the psalter. The common elements of that type of psalm are all here: invocation (v. 7), lament (vv. 7-10), confession of trust/confidence in being heard (v. 11), petition (v. 12), thanksgiving or praise (v. 13). For some examples of this type of psalm see Pss 3, 7, 26.
²⁶tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of this title for God.
²⁷tn Heb “LORD of armies, the one who tests the righteous, who sees kidneys and heart.” The sentence has been broken up to avoid a long and complex English sentence. The translation is more in keeping with contemporary English style.
sn This verse is almost an exact duplication of the petition in one of Jeremiah’s earlier prayers and complaints. See 11:20 and notes there for explanation of the Hebrew psychology underlying the use of “kidneys and heart” here. For the thoughts expressed here see Ps 17.
²⁸sn While it may be a little confusing to modern readers to see the fluctuation in moods and the shifts in addressee in a prayer and complaint like this, it was not at all unusual for Israel where these were often offered in the temple in the conscious presence of God before fellow worshippers. For another example of these same shifts see Ps 22 which is a prayer of David in a time of deep distress.
²⁹sn From the heights of exaltation, Jeremiah returns to the depths of despair. For similar mood swings in the psalms of lament compare Ps 102. Vv14-18 are similar in tone and mood to Job 3:1-10. They are very forceful rhetorical ways of Job and Jeremiah expressing the wish that they had never been born.
³⁰tn Heb “Cursed be the man who brought my father the news saying, ‘A son, a male, has been born to you,’ making glad his joy.” This verse has been restructured for English stylistic purposes.
sn The birth of a child was an occasion of great joy. This was especially true if the child was a boy because it meant the continuance of the family line and the right of retention of the family property. See Ruth 4:10, 13-17.
³¹sn The cities alluded to are Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the Jordan plain which had become proverbial for their wickedness and for the destruction that the LORD brought on them because of it. See Isa 1:9-10; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18.
³²tn Heb “because he did not kill me from the womb so that my mother might be to me for my grave and her womb eternally pregnant.” The sentence structure has been modified and the word “womb” has been moved from the last line to the next to the last line for English stylistic purposes and for greater clarity.
³³tn Heb “Why did I come forth from the womb to see [= so that I might see] trouble and grief and that my days might be consumed in shame.”
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD.”
²sn Zedekiah was the last king of Judah. He ruled from 597 BC when he was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:17) until the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC. He acquiesced to some of his antiBabylonian counselors, rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and sought help from the Egyptians (Ezek 17:12-15). This brought Nebuchadnezzar against the city in 588 BC. This is the first of two delegations to Jeremiah. The later one was sent after Nebuchadnezzar withdrew to take care of the Egytian threat (cf. Jer 37:1-9).
³sn The Pashur referred to here is not the same as the Pashur referred to in 20:1-6 who was the son of Immer. This Pashur is referred to later in 38:1. The Zephaniah referred to here was the chief of security referred to later in 29:25-26. He appears to have been favorably disposed to Jeremiah.
⁴tn Heb “sent to him…Maaseiah, saying,…”
⁵tn The verb used here is often used of seeking information through a prophet (e.g., 2 Kgs 1:16; 8:8) and hence many translate “inquire of the LORD for us.” However, it is obvious from the following that they were not seeking information but help. The word is also used for that in Pss 34:4 (34:5 Hebrew text); 77:2 (77:3 Hebrew text).
⁶tn The dominant spelling of this name is actually Nebuchadrezzar which is closer to his Babylonian name Nebu kudduri uzzur. An alternate spelling which is found 6 times in the book of Jeremiah and 17 times elsewhere is Nebuchadnezzar which is the name that is usually used in English translations.
sn Nebuchadnezzar was the second and greatest king of Babylon. He is known in the Bible both for his two conquests of Jerusalem in 597 BC (2 Kgs 24:10-17) and 587 BC (2 Kgs 25:1-7) and for his having built Babylon the Great (Dan 4:28-30).
⁷tn Heb “Perhaps the LORD will do according to his miracles that he may go up from against us.”
sn The miracles that they may have had in mind would have included the Exodus, the conquest of Jericho, the deliverance of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1-30), etc. but predominant in their minds was probably the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib in the times of Hezekiah (Isa 37:33-38).
⁸tn Heb “Tell Zedekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel.’” Using the indirect quote eliminates one level of embedded quotation and makes it easier for the reader to follow.
⁹tn Heb “the weapons which are in your hand.” Weapons stands here by substitution for the soldiers who wield them.
¹⁰sn Heb “the Chaldeans.” The Chaldeans were a group of people in the country south of Babylon from which Nebuchadnezzar came. The Chaldean dynasty his father established became the name by which the Babylonians are regularly referred to in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s contemporary Ezekiel uses both terms.
¹¹tn The structure of the Hebrew sentence of this verse is long and complex and has led to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. There are two primary points of confusion: 1) the relation of the phrase “outside the walls,” and 2) the antecedent of “them” in the last clause of the verse that reads in Hebrew: “I will gather them back into the midst of the city.” Most take the phrase “outside the walls” with “the Babylonians….” Some take it with “turn back/bring back” to mean “from outside….” However, the preposition “from” is part of the idiom for “outside….” The phrase goes with “fighting” as J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 215 notes and as JPS Tanakh suggest. The antecedent of “them” has sometimes been taken mistakenly to refer to the Babylonians. It refers rather to “the forces at your disposal” which is Heb “the weapons which are in your hands.” This latter phrase is a figure involving substitution (called metonymy) as Bright also correctly notes. The whole sentence reads in Hebrew: “I am going to bring back the weapons of war which are in your hand with which you are fighting Nebucadrezzar the King of Babylon and the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside your wall and I will gather them into the midst of the city.” The sentence has been restructured to better reflect the proper relationships and to make the sentence conform more to contemporary English style.
¹²tn Heb “with outstretched hand and with strong arm.” These are, of course, figurative of God’s power and might. He does not literally have hands and arms.
sn The phrases in this order are unique but a very similar phrase “by strong hand and outstretched arm” are found several times with reference to God’s mighty power unleashed against Egypt at the exodus (cf., Deut 4:34; 5:15; 26:8; Jer 32:21; Ps 136:12). Instead of being directed at Israel’s enemies it will now be directed against her.
¹³tn Heb “And afterward.”
¹⁴tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁵tn Heb “And/But unto this people you shall say…” “But” is suggested here by the unusual word order which offsets what they are to say to Zedekiah (v. 3).
¹⁶tn Heb “these people.”
¹⁷tn Heb “Behold I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death.”
¹⁸tn Heb “his life will be to him for spoil.”
sn Spoil was what was carried off by the victor (see, e.g., Judg 5:30). Those who surrendered to the Babylonians would lose their property, their freedom, and their citizenship but would at least escape with their lives. Jeremiah was branded a traitor for this counsel (cf. 38:4) but it was the way of wisdom since the LORD was firmly determined to destroy the city (cf v. 10).
¹⁹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
²⁰tn Heb “I have set my face against this city for evil [i.e., disaster] and not for good [i.e., wellbeing].” For the use of the idiom “set one’s face against/toward” see, e.g., usage in 1 Kgs 2:15; 2 Kgs 2:17; Jer 42:15, 17 and note the interesting interplay of usage in Jer 44:11-12.
²¹tn Heb “he will burn it with fire.”
²²tn The words “The LORD told me to say” are not in the text. They have been added for clarity. This text has been treated in two very different ways depending upon how one views the connection of the words “and to/concerning the household of the King of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the LORD:…’” with the preceding and following. Some treat the words that follow as a continuation of Jeremiah’s response to the delegation sent by Zedekiah (cf. vv. 3, 8). Others treat this as introducing a new set of oracles parallel to those in 23:9-40 which are introduced by the heading “to/concerning the prophets.” There are three reasons why this is the more probable connection 1) the parallelism in expression with 23:9; 2) the other introductions in vv. 3, 8 use the preposition la# instead of l= used here and they have the formal introduction “you shall say…;” 3) the warning or challenge here would mitigate the judgment pronounced on the king and the city in vv. 4-7. Verses 8-9 are different. They are not a mitigation but an offer of escape for those who surrender. Hence, these words are a title “Now concerning the royal court.” (The w+ that introduces this is disjunctive = “Now.”) However, since the imperative that follows is masculine plural and addressed to the royal house, something needs to be added to introduce it. Hence the translation adds “The LORD told me to say” to avoid confusion or mistakenly connecting it with the preceding.
²³tn Heb “house” or “household.” It is clear from 22:1-6 that this involved the King, the royal family, and the court officials.
²⁴tn Heb “house of David.” This is essentially equivalent to the royal court in v. 11.
²⁵tn Literally “to the morning” = “morning by morning” or “each morning.” See Isa 33:2 and Amos 4:4 for parallel usage.
²⁶sn The kings of Israel and Judah were responsible for justice. See Pss 122:5. The king himself was the final court of appeals judging from the incident of David with the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14), Solomon and the two prostitutes (1 Kgs 3:16-28), and Absalom’s attempts to win the hearts of the people of Israel by interfering with due process (2 Sam 15:2-4). How the system was designed to operate may be seen from 2 Chr 19:4-11.
²⁷tn Heb “from the hand [or power] of.”
²⁸tn Heb “Lest my wrath go out like fire and burn with no one to put it out because of the evil of your deeds.”
²⁹tn Or “Listen, Jerusalem, you…”; Heb text of v. 21a-b reads, “Behold I am against you [fem. sg.], O inhabitant [fem. sg.] of the valley [and of] the rock of the plain, oracle of the LORD, who are saying [masc. pl.].” Verses 13-14 are generally treated as a separate oracle addressed to Jerusalem. The basis for this is (1) the appropriateness of the description here to the city of Jerusalem; (2) the rather similar reference to Jerusalem smugly living in her buildings made from cedars of Lebanon in 22:23; (3) the use of the second feminine singular pronoun “you” in other places in reference to Jerusalem (cf. clearly in 4:14; 6:8; 13:20; 15:5-6); (4) the use of the feminine singular particple to refer to personified Jerusalem in 10:17 as well as 20:23. However, the description in 21:13 is equally appropriate to the royal household that the LORD has been addressing; the palace stood on the Ophel or fill between the northern and southern hill just south of the temple and overlooked the Kidron valley (For more on the topography of Jerusalem see C. Rasmussen, NIV Atlas of the Bible, pp. 189-200 especially pp. 192-94.). Moreover, the word “enthroned” is even more fitting to the royal household than to Jerusalem. The phrase “enthroned above the valley” is literally “inhabitant of the valley.” But since the literal is inappropriate for either Jerusalem or the royal palace, the phrase is regularly interpreted after the parallel phrase referring to the LORD “enthroned above the cherubim.” The royal house was “enthroned” more literally than Jerusalem was. Taking this to refer to the royal court rather than Jerusalem also introduces one less unintroduced entity by the shift in pronoun in vv. 11-14 as well as eliminating the introduction of an otherwise unintroduced oracle. The “you” of “you brag” is actually the masculine plural participle (Heb “who say”) that modifies the feminine singular participle “you who sit enthroned” and goes back to the masculine plural imperatives in v. 12 rather than introducing a new entity, the people of the city. The participle “you who sit enthroned” is to be interpreted as a collective referring to the royal court not a personification of the city of Jerusalem (cf. GKC §122s, p. 394 and see, e.g., Isa 12:6; Mic 1:11). Morever, taking the referent to be the royal court makes the reference to the word translated “palace” much more natural. The word is literally “forest” and is often seen to be an allusion to the armory which was called the “Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2; 10:17; 10:21; Isa 22:8 and see also Ezek 17:3 in an allegory (17:2-18) which may have been contemporary with this oracle). Taking the oracle to refer to the royal court also makes this oracle more parallel with the one that follows where destruction of the palace leads also to the destruction of the city.
³⁰tn Heb “I am against you.”
³¹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
³²tn Heb “Who can swoop…Who can penetrate…?” The questions are rhetorical and expect a negative answer. They are rendered as negative affirmations for clarity.
sn What is being expressed here is the belief in the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem gone to seed. Signal deliverances of Jerusalem such as those experienced under Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20) and Hezekiah (Isa 37:36-37) in the context of promises to protect it (Isa 31:4-5; 37:33-35; 38:6) led to a belief that Zion was unconquerable. This belief found expression in several of Israel’s psalms (Pss 46, 48, 76) and led to the mistaken assumption that God would protect it regardless of how the people treated God or one another. Micah and Jeremiah both deny that (cf. Mic 3:8-12; Jer 21:13-14).
³³tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹tn Heb “I will set fire in its forest and it will devour its surroundings.” The pronouns are actually third feminine singular going back to the participle “you who sit enthroned above the valley.” However, this is another example of those rapid shifts in pronouns typical of the biblical Hebrew style which are uncommon in English. They have regularly been leveled to the same person throughout in the translation to avoid possible confusion for the English reader.
²tn The word “me “ is not in the text. It is, however, implicit and is added for clarity.
³sn The allusion here is to going down from the temple to the palace which was on a lower eminence. See 36:12 in its context.
⁴tn Heb “And speak there this word:” The translation is intended to eliminate an awkward and lengthy sentence.
⁵tn Literally “who sits on David’s throne.”
⁶tn Heb “Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah who sits on the throne of David, you, and your officials and your people who pass through these gates.”
⁷tn Heb “from the hand [or power] of.”
⁸tn Heb “aliens, orphans, or widows” treating the terms as generic or collective. However, the term “alien” carries faulty connotations and the term “orphan” is not totally appropriate because the Hebrew term does not necessarily mean that both parents have died.
sn These were classes of people who had no one to look out for their rights. The laws of Israel, however, were careful to see that their rights were guarded (cf. Deut 10:18) and that provision was made for meeting their needs (cf. Deut 24:19-21). The LORD promised to protect them (cf. Ps 146:9) and a curse was called down on any who deprived them of justice (cf. Deut 27:19).
⁹tn Heb “Do not shed innocent blood.”
sn For an example of one of the last kings who did this see Jer 36:20-23. Manasseh was notorious for having done this and the book of 2 Kgs attributes the ultimate destruction of Judah to this crime and his sin of worshipping false gods (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4).
¹⁰tn The translation here reflects the emphasizing infinitive absolute before the verb.
¹¹tn Heb “There will come through the gates of this city the kings…riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials…” The structure of the original text is broken up here because of the long compound subject which would make the English sentence too long. Compare 17:25 for the structure and wording of this sentence.
¹²sn Heb “I swear by myself.” Oaths were guaranteed by invoking the name of a god or swearing by “his life.” See Jer 12:16; 44:26. Since the LORD is incomparably great, he could swear by no higher (see Heb 6:13-16) than to swear by himself or his own great name.
¹³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁴tn Heb “Gilead you are to me, the height of Lebanon, but I will surely make you a wilderness [with] cities uninhabited.” The points of comparison are made explicit in the translation for the sake of clarity. See the study note for further explanation. For the use of the preposition l= = “in my eyes/in my opinion” see BDB, l=, 5a(d), p. 513 and compare Jon 3:3; Est 10:3. For the use of the particles aO <a! to introduce an emphatic oath see BDB, <a!, 1b(2), p. 50.
sn Lebanon was well known for its cedars and the palace (and the temple) had used a good deal of such timber in its construction (see 2 Kgs 5:6,8-10; 7:2-3). In this section several references are made to cedar (see vv. 7, 14, 15, 23) and allusion has also been made to the paneled and colonnade armory of the Forest of Lebanon (2:14). It appears to have been a source of pride and luxury, perhaps at the expense of justice. Gilead was also noted in antiquity for its forests as well as for its fertile pastures. See C. Rasmussen, NIV Atlas of the Bible, 52.
¹⁵sn Heb “I will sanctify destroyers against it.” If this is not an attenuated use of the term “sanctify” the traditions of Israel’s holy wars are being turned against her. See also 6:4. In Israel’s early wars in the wilderness and in the conquest, the LORD fought for her against the enemies (cf., e.g., Josh 10:11,14,42; 24:7; Judg 5:20; 1 Sam 7:10). Now he is going to fight against them (21:5, 13) and use the enemy as his instruments of destruction. For a similar picture of destruction in the temple see the lament in Ps 74:3-7.
¹⁶tn The word “king” is not in the original text of either the first or the third line. It is implicit in the connection and is added for clarity. See the study note.
sn As the next verse makes clear, the king who will never return to see his native land is Shallum also known as Jehoahaz (cf. 1 Chr 3:15; 1 Kgs 23:30, 33-34). He was made king by popular acclaim after the death of his father, Josiah, who was killed at Megiddo trying to stop Pharaoh Necho from going to the aid of the Assyrians. According to 2 Kgs 23:32 he was a wicked king. He was deposed by Necho and carried into exile where he died. The dead king alluded to is his father, Josiah, who was a godly king and was accordingly spared from seeing the destruction of his land (2 Kgs 22:20).
¹⁷tn Heb “For thus said the LORD concerning Shallum son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of his father who went away from this place: He will not return there again.”
¹⁸sn This prophecy was fulfilled according to 2 Kgs 23:34.
¹⁹sn Heb “Woe.” This particle is used in laments for the dead (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 13:30; Jer 34:5) and as an introductory particle in indictments against a person on whom judgment is pronounced (cf., e.g., Isa 5:8, 11; Jer 23:1). The indictment is found here in vv. 13-17 and the announcement of judgment in vv. 18-19.
²⁰tn Heb “Woe to the one who builds his house by unrighteousness and its upper rooms with injustice using his neighbor [= countryman] as a slave for nothing and not giving to him his wages.”
sn This was a clear violation of covenant law (cf. Deut 24:14-15) and a violation of the requirements set forth in Jer 22:3. The allusion is to Jehoiakim who is not mentioned until v. 18. He was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho and ruled from 609-598 BC. He became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar but rebelled against him, bringing about the siege of 597 BC in which his son and many of the Judean leaders were carried off to Babylon (2 Kgs 23:34—24:16). He was a wicked king according to the author of the book of Kings (2 Kgs 23:37). He had Uriah the prophet killed (Jer 26:23) and showed no regard for Jeremiah’s prophecies, destroying the scroll containing them (Jer 36:23) and ordering Jeremiah’s arrest (Jer 36:23).
²¹tc The Masoretic text should be emended to read /ops*w+ wyn*oLj^ instead of /Wps*w+ yn*oLj^, i.e., the plural noun with third singular suffix rather than the first singular suffix and the infinitive absolute rather than the passive participle. The latter form then parallels the form for “paints” and functions in the same way (cf. GKC §113z, p. 345 for the infinitive with waw continuing a perfect). The errors in the Masoretic text involve reading the w+ once instead of twice (haplography) and reading the W for the o.
²²tn The word translated “red” only occurs here and in Ezek 23:14 where it refers to the pictures of the Babylonians on the wall of the temple. Evidently this was a favorite color for decoration. It is usually identified as vermillion, a mineral product from red ocher (cf. IDB, “Vermillion,” 4:748).
²³tn For the use of this verb see Jer 12:5 where it is used of Jeremiah “competing” with horses. The form is a rare Tiphel (see GKC §55h, p. 153).
²⁴tn Heb “Your father, did he not eat and drink and do justice and right.” The copulative waw in front of the verbs here (all Hebrew perfects) shows that these actions are all coordinate not sequential (see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §33.1.1a, p. 520). The contrast drawn here between the actions of Jehoiakim and Josiah show that the phrase eating and drinking should be read in the light of the same contrasts in Eccl 2 which ends with the note of contentment in Eccl 2:24 (see also Eccl 3:13; 5:18 [5:17 Hebrew text]; 8:15). The question is, of course, rhetorical setting forth the positive role model against which Jehoiakim’s actions are to be condemned. The key terms here are “then things went well with him” which is repeated in the next verse after the reiteration of Josiah’s practice of justice.
²⁵sn The father referred to here is the godly king Josiah. He followed the requirements for kings set forth in 22:3 in contrast to his son who did not (22:13).
²⁶tn The words “for Judah” are not in the text, but the absence of the preposition plus object as in the preceding verse suggests that this is a more general statement, i.e., “things went well for everyone.”
²⁷tn Heb “Is that not what it means to know me.” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. It is translated in the light of the context.
sn Comparison of the usage of the words “know me” in their context in 2:8; 9:3, 6, 24 and here will show that more than mere intellectual knowledge is involved. It involves also personal commitment to God and obedience to the demands of the agreements with him. The word “know” is used in ancient Near Eastern treaty contexts of submission to the will of the overlord. See further the notes on 9:3.
²⁸tn Heb “Your eyes and your heart do not exist except for dishonest gain and for innocent blood to shed [it] and for fraud and for oppression to do [them].” The sentence has been broken up to conform more to English style and the significance of “eyes” and “heart” explained before they are introduced into the translation.
²⁹sn This is the regular way of introducing the announcement of judgment after an indictment of crimes. See, e.g., Isa 5:13, 14; Jer 23:2.
³⁰tn The translation follows the majority of scholars who think that the address of brother and sister are the address of the mourners to one another, lamenting their loss. Some scholars feel that all four terms are parallel and represent the relation that the king had metaphorically to his subjects; i.e., he was not only Lord and Majesty to them but like a sister or a brother. In that case something like: “How sad it is for the one who was like a brother to us! How sad it is for the one who was like a sister to us.” This makes for poor poetry and is not very likely. The lover can call his bride sister in Song of Solomon (Song 4:9, 10) but there are no documented examples of a subject ever speaking of a king in this way in Israel or the ancient Near East.
³¹sn A similar judgment against this ungodly king is pronounced by Jeremiah in 36:30. According to 2 Chr 36:6 he was bound over to be taken captive to Babylon but apparently died before he got there. According to the Jewish historian Josephus Nebuchadnezzar had his body thrown outside the wall in fulfillment of this judgment. The Bible itself, however, does not tell us that.
³²tn The words “people of Jerusalem” are not in the text. They are added to clarify the referent of the imperative. The imperative is feminine singular and it is generally agreed that personified Zion/Jerusalem is in view. The second feminine singular has commonly been applied to Jerusalem or the people of Judah throughout the book. The reference to allies (v. 20, 22) and to leaders (v. 22) make it very probable that this is the case here too.
³³tn Heb “from Abarim.” This was the mountain range in Moab from which Moses viewed the promised land (cf. Deut 32:49).
³⁴tn Heb “your lovers.” For the usage of this term to refer to allies see 30:14 and a semantically similar term in 4:30.
sn If the passages in this section are chronologically ordered this refers to the help that Jehoiakim relied on when he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.
³⁵tn Heb “I spoke to you in your security.” The reference is to the sending of the prophets. Compare this context with the context of 7:25. For the nuance “security” for this noun (hw`l=v^) rather than “prosperity” as many translate see Pss 122:7; 30:6 and the related adjective (wl@v*) in Jer 49:31; Job 16:2; 21:23.
³⁶tn Heb “from your youth.” Compare the usage in 2:2; 3:24 and compare a similar idea in 7:25.
³⁷tn Heb “A wind will shepherd away all your shepherds.” The figures have all been interpreted for the sake of clarity. For the use of the word “wind” as a metaphor or simile for God’s judgment (using the enemy forces) see 4:11-12; 13:24; 18:17. For the use of the word “shepherd” to refer to rulers/leaders 2:8; 10:21; and 23:1-4. For the use of the word “shepherd away” in the sense of carry off/drive away see BDB, hu*r`, 2d, p. 945 and compare Job 20:26.
sn There is an obvious word play involved in two different senses of the word “shepherd,” (see the accompanying translator’s note for the formal equivalent translation) one referring to their leaders and one referring to the loss of those leaders by the wind driving them off. There may even be a further play involving the word “wickedness” which comes from a word having the same consonants. If the oracles in this section are chronologically ordered this threat was fulfilled in 597 BC when many of the royal officials and nobles were carried away captive with Jehoachin (see 2 K 24:15) who is the subject of the next oracle.
³⁸tn The use of the Hebrew particle yK! is intensive here and probably also at the beginning of the last line of v. 21. (See BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472.)
³⁹tn Heb “You who dwell in Lebanon, you who are nested in its cedars, how you…” The metaphor has been interpreted for the sake of clarity. The figure here has often been interpreted of the people of Jerusalem living in paneled houses or living in a city dominated by the temple and palace which were built from the cedars of Lebanon. Some even interpret this as a reference to the king who has been characterized as living in a cedar palace, in a veritable Lebanon (cf. vv. 6-7, 14 and see also the alternate interpretation of 21:13-14). However, the reference to “nesting in the cedars” and the earlier reference to “feeling secure” suggests that the figure is rather like that of Ezek 31:6 and Dan 4:12. See also Hab 2:9 where a related figure is used. The forms for “you who dwell” and “you who are nested” in the literal translation are feminine singular participles referring again to personified Jerusalem. (The written forms of these participles are to be explained as participles with a hireq campaginis according to GKC §90m, p. 253. The use of the participle before the preposition is to be explained according to GKC §130a, p. 421.)
⁴⁰tn The verb here should be identified as a Niphal perfect of the verb jn^a* with the a left out (so BDB, /n^j*, Niph, p. 336 and GKC §23fN, p. 80). The form is already translated that way by the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions.
⁴¹sn This simile has already been used in 4:31; 6:24 in conjunction with Zion/Jerusalem’s judgment.
⁴²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴³tn Heb “Coniah.” This is the spelling of this king’s name here and in v. 28 and 37:1. Elsewhere in Jeremiah he is called Jeconiah (24:1; 27:20; 28:4; 29:2 [see also 1 Chr 3:16, 17; Esth 2:6]) and Jehoaichin (52:31, 33 [see also 2 Kgs 24:6, 8, 12, 15; 25:27, 29; 2 Chr 36:8, 9; Ezek 1:2]). For the sake of consistency this translation of Jeremiah will use the name Jeconiah throughout.
sn According to 2 Kgs 24:8-9 Jeconiah (= Jehoiachin) succeeded his father Jehoiakim and evidently followed in his anti-Babylon, anti-God stance. He surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar shortly after he became king and along with his mother, his family, his officials, and some of the leading men of Jerusalem and Judah was carried into exile in 597 BC. According to Jer 28:4, 10 there were popular hopes that he would be restored from exile and returned to the throne. This oracle flatly denies that hope. Allusion has already been made to the loss of regal authority by this king and his mother in 13:18-19.
⁴⁴tn Heb “As surely as I live, Jeconiah, King of Judah, son of Jehoiakim will not be a signet ring on my right hand. Indeed I will tear you off from it [i.e., pull you off of my finger as a signet ring].” See the study note for the significance of the signet ring. The figure has been interpreted for the sake of clarity. The particles <a! yK! that stand after the oath formula, “As I live” introduce a negative statement according to the usage of Hebrew grammar (cf. BDB, <a! yK!, 1a, p. 474 and <a!, 1.b[2], p. 50 and compare 2 Sam 3:35). The particle yK! that stands in front of “I will tear you off” introduces a positive affirmation according to the same rules of Hebrew grammar (cf. BDB, yK!, 1.c, p. 472 and compare 1 Sam 14:39, 44). The LORD is swearing emphatically that Jeconiah will not be the earthly representative of his rule; i.e., not carry the authority of the signet ring bearer. As in several other places in Jeremiah there is a sudden shift from the third person to the second person which runs throughout vv. 24-27. The pronouns are leveled in the translation to the second person to avoid confusion. The figures are interpreted in the translation to convey the proper significance. See the study note for explanation.
sn The signet ring was the king’s seal by which he verified all his legal and political transactions. To have the signet ring was to exercise authority in the king’s name. For examples of this see Gen 41:42, 43; 1 Kgs 21:8; Est 3:10; 8:2. According to the Davidic Covenant the Davidic king sat on God’s throne over God’s kingdom, Israel (cf. 2 Chr 29:30; 28:5). As God’s representative he ruled in God’s stead and could even be addressed figuratively as God (cf. Ps 45:6 (v7 in Heb) and compare the same phenomenon for the earthly judges, Exod 22:7-8; Ps 82:1,6). Jeconiah is being denied the right to function any longer as the Davidic king and any hopes of ever regaining that right in his lifetime or through the succession of his sons is also denied. This oracle is reversed by the later oracle of the prophet Haggai to his grandson Zerubbabel in Hag 2:20-23 and both Jeconiah and Zerubbabel are found in the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:12-13.
⁴⁵tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4.
⁴⁶tn Heb “I will hurl you and your mother…into another land where…” The verb used here is very forceful. It is the verb used for Saul throwing a spear at David (1 Sam 18:11) and for the LORD unleashing a violent storm on the sea (Jon 1:4). It is used both here and in v. 28 for the forceful exile of Jeconiah and his mother.
⁴⁷tn Heb “And unto the land to which they lift up their souls to return there, there they will not return.” Once again there is a sudden shift in person from the second plural to the third plural. As before the translation levels the pronouns to avoid confusion. For the idiom “to lift up the soul to” = “to long/yearn to/for” see BDB, ac*n`, 1b(9), p. 670.
⁴⁸tn This word occurs only here. Its meaning, however, is assured on the basis of the parallelism and on the basis of the verb root which is used for shaping or fashioning in Job 10:8. KJV renders it as “idol” but that word, while having the same consonants, never appears in the singular. The word is missing in the Greek version but is translated “vessel” in the Latin version.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Is this man, Coniah, a despised, broken vessel or a vessel that no one wants?” The question is rhetorical expecting a positive answer in agreement with the preceding oracle.
sn For the image of the rejected, broken vessel see Jer 19:1-13 (where, however, the vessel is rejected first and then broken) and compare also the image of the linen shorts which are good for nothing in Jer 13 (see especially vv. 10-11).
⁵⁰sn The question “Why?” is a common rhetorical feature in the book of Jeremiah. See Jer 2:14, 31; 8:5, 19, 22; 12:1; 13:22; 14:19. In several cases like this one no answer is given, leaving a sense of exasperation and hopelessness with the sinfulness of the nation that calls forth such punishment from God.
⁵¹tn There is no certain explanation for the triple repetition of the word “land” here. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 209 suggests the idea of exasperation, but exasperation at what? Their continued apostasy which made these exiles necessary? Or exasperation at their pitiful hopes of seeing Jeconiah restored? Perhaps “pitiful, pitiful, pitiful land of Judah” would convey some of the force of the repetition without being any more suggestive of why the land is so addressed.
⁵²tn Heb “Write this man childless.” For the explanation see the study note. The word translated “childless” has spawned some debate because Jeconiah was in fact not childless. There is record from both the Bible and ancient Near Eastern texts that he had children (see, e.g., 1 Chr 3:17). G.R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Jeremiah,” JQR NS28 (1937-38):115 has suggested that the word both here and in Lev 20:20-21 should be translated “stripped of honor.” While that would relieve some of the difficulties here, the word definitely means “childless” in Gen 15:2 and also in Sir 16:3 where it is contrasted with having godless children. The issue is not one of childlessness but of having “one of his sons” succeed to the Davidic throne. The term for “one of his sons” is literally “from his seed a man” and the word “seed” is the same one that is used to refer to his “children” who were forced into exile with him (v. 28).
sn The figure here is of registering a person on an official roll of citizens, etc. (cf. Num 11:26; 1 Chr 4:41; Ps 87:6). Here it probably refers to the “king list” of dynastic succession. While Jeconiah did have children (2 Chr 3:17) none of them ever returned to Judah or ruled over it. What is being denied here is his own succession and that of his immediate sons contrary to the popular hopes expressed in Jer 28:4. His grandson Zerubbabel did return to Judah, became governor (Hag 1:1; 2:2) and along with the high priest Joshua was responsible for rebuilding the second temple (e.g., Ezra 5:2).
¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²sn Heb This particle once again introduces a judgment speech. The indictment is found in v. 1 and the announcement of judgment in v. 2. This leads into an oracle of deliverance in vv. 3-4. See the study note on 22:13 for the use of this particle and an explanation of this form.
³tn Heb “Woe to the shepherds who are killing and scattering the sheep of my pasture.” See the study note on 22:13 for the significance of “Sure to be judged” (Heb “Woe”) See the study note for the significance of the metaphor introduced here.
sn 23:1-4 are an extended metaphor in which the rulers are compared to shepherds and the people are compared to sheep. This metaphor has already been met with in 10:21 and is found elsewhere in the context of the LORD’s covenant with David (cf. 2 Sam 7:7-8; Ps 78:70-72). The sheep are God’s people and he is the ultimate shepherd who is personally concerned about their care (cf. Pss 23:1; 80:2). He has set rulers over them as his undershepherds and they are responsible to him for the care of his sheep (see 22:3-4). They have been lax shepherds, allowing the sheep to be scatterd and destroyed. So he will punish them. As the true shepherd of Israel he will regather his scattered flock and place new shepherds (rulers) over them. These verses lead to a promise of an ideal ruler set over an Israel which has experienced a new and better Exodus (vv. 6-8). For a more complete development of this metaphor with similar messianic and eschatological implications see Ezek 34. The metaphor has been interpreted in the translation but some of the flavor left in the simile.
⁴tn Heb “about the shepherds who are shepherding my people. ‘You have caused my sheep…’” For the metaphor see the study note on the previous verse.
⁵tn Heb “Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who should be shepherding my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away and you have not taken care of them. Behold I will visit upon you the evil of your deeds.” “Therefore” announces the judgment which does not come until “Behold.” It is interrupted by the messenger formula and a further indictment. The original has been broken up to conform more to contemporary English style, the metaphors have been interpreted for clarity and the connections between the indictments and the judgments have been carried by “So.”
⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷tn Heb “my sheep.”
⁸tn Heb “their fold.”
⁹tn Heb “shepherds.”
¹⁰tn For the various nuances of the word paqad which are represented in vv. 2, 4 see Ps 8:4 (8:5 Hebrew text); Zech 10:3 for “care for/take care of “ (cf. BDB, dq^P*, Qal A1a, p. 823), Exod 20:5, Amos 3:2; Jer 9:24; 11:22) for “punish” (cf. BDB, dq^P*, Qal A3, p. 823), and 1 Kgs 20:39; 2 Kgs 10:19 for “be missing” (cf. BDB, dq^P*, Niph 1, p. 823).
sn There is an extended play on the Hebrew word paqad which is a word with rather broad English equivalents. Here the word refers to the fault of the shepherds/rulers who have not “taken care” of the sheep/people (v. 2), the “punishment” for the evil they have done in not taking care of them(v. 2), and the fact that after the LORD assigns new shepherds/rulers over them they will be cared for in such a way that none of them “will turn up missing” (v. 4).
¹¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹³tn Heb “Behold the days are coming.”
¹⁴tn Heb “sprig” or “shoot.” For the significance of this term here see the study note.
sn This passage and the parallel in Jer 33:15 are part of a growing number of prayers and prophecies regarding an ideal ruler to come forth from the Davidic line who will bring the justice, security, and well being that the continuing line of Davidic rulers did not. Though there were periodic kings like Josiah who did fulfill the ideals set forth in Jer 22:3 (see Jer 22:15), by and large they were more like Jehoiakim who did not (see Jer 22:13). Hence the LORD brought to an end the Davidic rule. The potential for the ideal, however, remained because of God’s promise to David (2 Sam 7:16). The Davidic line became like a tree which was cut down, leaving only a stump. But from that stump God would bring forth a “shoot,” a “sprig” which would fulfill the ideals of kingship. See Isa 11:1-6 and Zech 3:8, 6:12 for this metaphor and compare Dan 4:14-15, 23, 26 for a different but related use of the metaphor.
¹⁵tn Heb “he will reign as king and act wisely.” This is another example of the use of two verbs joined by “and” where one becomes the adverbial modifier of the other (hendiadys). For the nuance of the verb “act wisely” rather than “prosper” see Amos 5:13; Ps 2:10 (cf. BDB, lk^c*, Hiph 5, p. 968).
¹⁶sn This has been the constant emphasis in this section. See 22:3 for the demand, 22:15 for its fulfillment, and 22:13 for its abuse. The ideal king would follow in the footsteps of his illustrious ancestor David (2 Sam 8:15) who set this forth as an ideal for his dynasty (2 Sam 23:3) and prayed for it to be true of his son Solomon (Ps 72:1-2).
¹⁷tn Heb “In his days [= during the time he rules].”
¹⁸tn Parallelism and context (cf. v. 4) suggest this nuance for the word often translated “be saved.” For this nuance elsewhere see Ps 119:117; Prov 28:18 for the verb (uv^y` in the Niphal) and Ps 12:6; Job 5:4, 11 for the related noun (uv^y#).
¹⁹sn It should be noted that this brief oracle of deliverance implies the reunification of Israel and Judah under the future Davidic ruler. Jeremiah has already spoken about this reunification earlier in 3:18 and will have more to say about it in 30:3; 31:27, 31. This same ideal was espoused in the prophecies of Hosea (1:10-11 [2:1-2 Hebrew text]), Isaiah (11:1-4, 10-12) and Ezek (37:15-28) all of which have messianic and eschatological significance.
²⁰tn Heb “his name will be called ‘The LORD our righteousness.’” For the significance see the study note.
sn The word translated here “justice” is very broad in its usage and it is hard to catch all the relevant nuances for this word in this context. It is used for “vindication” in legal contexts (see, e.g., Job 6:29), for “deliverance” or “salvation” in exilic contexts (see, e.g., Isa 58:8), and in the sense of ruling, judging with “justice” (see, e.g., Lev 19:15; Isa 32:1). Here it probably sums up the justice that the LORD provides through raising up this ruler as well as the safety, security, and well-being that result (see vv. 5-6a). In the NT this takes on soteriological connotations (see 1 Cor 1:31 in its context).
²¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²²tn Heb “Behold the days are coming.”
²³tn Heb “descendants of the house of Israel.”
²⁴tc We should probably read the third masculine singular plus suffix (<j*yD]h!) here with the Greek version and the parallel passage in 16:15 rather than the first singular plus suffix in the Masoretic text (<yT!j=D^h!). If this is not a case of mere graphic confusion, the Masoretic could have arisen under the influence of the first person in v. 3. Though sudden shifts in person have been common in the book of Jeremiah, that is unlikely in a context reporting an oath.
²⁵tn This passage is the same as 16:14-15 with a few minor variations in Hebrew wording. The notes on that passage should be consulted for the rendering here. This passage has the Niphal of the verb “to say” rather than the impersonal use of the Qal. It adds the idea of “bringing out” to the idea of “bringing up out” and (Heb “who brought up and who brought out,” probably a case of hendiadys) before “the people [here “seed” rather than “children”] of Israel [here “house of Israel”] from the the land of the north.” These are minor variations and do not affect the sense in any way. So the passage is rendered in much the same way.
sn This passage looks forward to a new and greater Exodus, one that so outstrips the earlier one that the earlier will not serve as the model of deliverance anymore. This same ideal was the subject of Isaiah’s earlier prophecies in Isa 11:11-12, 15-16; 43:16-21; 49:8-13; 51:91-11.
²⁶sn Jeremiah has already had a good deal to say about the false prophets and their fate. See 2:8, 26; 5:13, 31; 14:13-15. Here he parallels the condemnation of the wicked prophets and their fate (23:9-40) with that of the wicked kings (21:11-22:30)
²⁷tn The word “false” is not in the text, but it is clear from the context that these are whom the sayings are directed against. The words “Here is what the LORD says” are also not in the text. But comparison with 46:2; 48:1; 49:1, 7, 23, 28; and 21:11 will show that this is a heading. The words are added for clarity.
²⁸tn Heb “My heart is crushed within me. My bones tremble.”
sn It has already been noted several times that the heart in ancient Hebrew psychology was the intellectual and volitional center of the person, the kidneys were the emotional center, and the bones the locus of strength and also the subject of joy, distress and sorrow. Here Jeremiah is speaking of his distress of heart and mind in modern psychology, a distress that leads him to trembling of body which he compares to that of a drunken person staggering around under the influence of wine.
²⁹tn Heb “wine has passed over him.”
³⁰tn Heb “wine because of the LORD and because of his holy word.” The words that are added are implicit from the context and are added for clarity.
sn The way the LORD and his word are being treated is clarified in the verses that follow.
³¹tn Heb “adulterers.” But spiritual adultery is clearly meant as also in 3:8-9; 9:2 and probably also 5:7.
³²tn For the word translated “They live…lives” see usage in Jer 8:6. For the idea of “misusing” their power (Heb “their power is not right” i.e., used in the wrong way) see 2 Kgs 7:9; 17:9. In the original text this line (really two lines in the Hebrew poetry) are at the end of the verse. However, this places the antecedent too far away and could lead to confusion. The lines have been rearranged to avoid such confusion.
³³tn For the use of this verb see 12:4 and the note there.
³⁴tc The translation follows the majority of Hebrew manuscripts (hl*a*m@) rather than the Greek and Syriac version and a few Hebrew manuscripts which read “because of these” (hL#a@m@, referring to the people unfaithful to him).
sn The curse is, of course, the covenant curse. See Deut 29:20-21 (29:19-20 Hebrew text) and for the specific curse see Deut 28:23-24. The curse is appropriate since their “adultery” lay in attributing their fertility to the god Baal (see Hos 2:9-13 (2:11-15 Hebrew text) and violating the covenant (see Hos 4:1-3).
³⁵tn The particle yK! which begins this verse is parallel to the one at the beginning of the preceding verse. However, the connection is too distant to render it “for.” “Moreover” is intended to draw the parallel. The words “the LORD says” (Heb “Oracle of the LORD”) have been drawn up to the front to introduce the shift in speaker from Jeremiah who desribes his agitated state to God who describes the sins of the prophets and priest and his consequent judgment on them.
³⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁷tn For the last two lines see 11:23 and the notes there.
³⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁹tn The words “The LORD says” are not in the text, but it is clear from the content that he is the speaker. These words are added for clarity.
⁴⁰tn According to BDB, hl*p=T!, p. 1074 this word means “unseemly, unsavory.” The related adjective is used in Job 6:6 of the tastelessness of something that is unseasoned.
⁴¹tn Literally “by Baal.”
sn Such was a clear violation of Mosaic law and punishable by death (see Deut 13:1-5). For an example of the apostasy encouraged by prophets of Baal in the northern kingdom of Israel see 1 Kgs 18:16-40.
⁴²tn Or “they commit adultery and deal falsely.” The word “shocking” only occurs here and in 5:30 where it is found in the context of prophesying lies. This almost assures that the reference to “walking in lies” (Heb “in the lie”) is referring to false prophesy. Moreover the references to the prophets in 5:13 and in 14:13-15 are all in the context of false prophesy as are the following references in this chapter in 23:24, 26, 32 and in 28:15. This appears to be the theme of this section. This also makes likely that the reference to adultery is not literal adultery though two of the false prophets in Babylon were guilty of this (29:23). The reference to “encouraging those who do evil” that follows also makes more sense if they were preaching messages of comfort rather than messages of doom. The verbs here are infinitive absolutes in place of the finite verb are probable to place greater emphasis on the action. (See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §35.5.2, p. 595 and compare Hos 4:2 in a comparable judgment speech.)
⁴³tn Literally “So they strengthen the hands of those doing evil so that they do not turn back from their evil.” For the use of the figure “strengthen the hands” meaning “encourage” see Judg 9:24; Exek 13:22 (and cf. BDB, qz^j*, Piel 2, p. 304). The waw consecutive on the front of the form gives the logical consequence equivalent to “so” in the translation.
⁴⁴tn Heb “All of them are to me like Sodom and its [Jerusalem’s] inhabitants like Gomorrah.”
sn The rhetoric of this passage is very forceful. Like Amos who focuses attention on the sins of the surrounding nations to bring out more forcefully the heinousness of Israel’s sin, God focuses attention on the sins of the prophets of Samaria to bring out the even worse sin of the prophets of Jerusalem. (The oracle is directed at them, not at the prophets of Samaria. See the announcement of judgment that follows.) The LORD has already followed that tack with Judah in Jeremiah 2 (cf. 2:11). Moreover, he here compares the prophets and the evil doing citizens of Jerusalem who they were encouraging through their false prophesy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who were proverbial for their wickedness (Deut 32:32; Isa 1:10).
⁴⁵ Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of this title.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Therefore, thus says the LORD…concerning the prophets.” The person is shifted to better conform with English style and the word “of Jerusalem” is added to avoid the possible misunderstanding that the judgment applies to the prophets of Samaria who had already been judged long before.
⁴⁷tn Heb “I am going to feed this people wormwood and make them drink poison water.” For these same words of judgment on another group see 9:15 (9:14 Hebrew text). “Wormwood” and “poison water” are not to be understood literally here but are symbolic of judgment and suffering. See, e.g., BDB, hn`u&l^, p. 542.
⁴⁸tn The compound preposition ta@m@ expresses source or origin (see BDB, ta@@, 4c, p. 86). Context shows that the origin is in their false prophesying which encourages people in their evil behavior.
⁴⁹sn A word that derives from this same word is used in v. 11 at the beginning of the LORD’s criticism of the prophet and priest. This is a common rhetorical device for bracketing material that belongs together. The criticism has, however, focused on the false prophets and the judgment due them.
⁵⁰tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of this title.
⁵¹tn The words “to the people of Jerusalem” are not in the Hebrew text but are added to reflect the masculine plural form of the imperative and the second masculine plural form of the pronoun. These words have been added for clarity.
⁵²tn Heb “They tell of a vision of their own heart [= mind] not from the mouth of the LORD.”
⁵³tn The translation reflects an emphatic construction where the infinitive absolute follows a particple (cf. GKC §113r, p. 343).
⁵⁴tc The translation follows the Greek version. The Hebrew text reads, “who reject me, ‘The LORD has spoken, “Things…”’” The Greek version is to be preferred here because of (1) the parallelism “reject what the LORD has said” // “follow the stubborn inclinations of their own hearts;” (2) the preceding context which speaks of “visions of their own imaginations not of what the LORD has given them;” (3) the following context which denies that they have ever had access to the LORD’s secrets; (4) the general contexts earlier regarding false prophecy where rejection of the LORD’s word is in view (6:14 [see there v. 10]; 8:11 [see there v. 9]); (5) the meter of the poetic lines (the Hebrew meter is 3/5/4/3; the meter presupposed by the translation is 5/3/4/3 with the 3’s being their words). The difference is one of vocalization of the same consonants (Hebrew: hwhy rB#D] yx^a&næm= and the Greek: hwhy rb^D+ yx@a&næm=).
⁵⁵tn Heb “You will have peace.” But see the note on 14:13. See also 6:14 and 8:11.
⁵⁶tn Or “has been the LORD’s confidant.”
sn Reference here is to the council of angels (Ps 89:7 [89:8 Hebrew text]; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1-2; Job 15:8) where God made known his counsel/plans (Amos 3:7). They and those they prophesied to will find out soon enough what the purposes of his heart are, and they are not “peace” (see v. 20). By their failure to announce the impending doom they were not turning the people away from their wicked course (vv. 21-22).
⁵⁷tn The form here is a jussive with a waw of subordination introducing a purpose after a question (cf. GKC §109f, p. 322).
⁵⁸tc Heb “his word.” In the second instance (“what he has said” at the end of the verse) the translation follows the suggestion of the Masoretes (Qere) and many Hebrew manuscripts rather than the consonantal text (Kethiv) of the Leningrad Codex.
⁵⁹tn Heb “Behold!”
⁶⁰tn The syntax (relation of words to one another) in this line have generally been misunderstood, sometimes to the point that some want to delete the word wrath. Both here and in 30:23 where these same words occur the word “anger” stands not as an accusative of attendant circumstance but an apposition, giving the intended referent to the figure. Comparison should be made with Jer 25:15 where “this wrath” is appositional to “the cup of wine” (cf. GKC §121k, p. 425).
⁶¹tn The translation is deliberate, intending to reflect the repetition of the Hebrew root which is “swirl/swirling.”
⁶²tn Heb “until he has done and until he has carried out the purposes of his heart.”
⁶³tn Heb “in the latter days.” However, as BDB, tyr]j&a^, b, p. 31 the meaning of this idiom must be determined from the context. Sometimes it has remote, even eschatological, reference and other times it has more immediate reference as it does here and in Jer 30:23 where it refers to the coming days of Babylonian conquest and exile.
⁶⁴tn The translation is intended to reflect a Hebrew construction where a noun functions as the object of a verb from the same root word (the Hebrew cognate accusative).
⁶⁵tn Heb “Yet they ran.” For the imagery see the study note.
sn The image is that of a messenger bearing news from the king. See 2 Sam 18:19-24; Jer 51:31; Isa 40:9; 52:7; Hab 2:2 (the tablet/scroll bore the message the runner was to read to the intended recipients of his message). Their message has been given in v. 17 (see notes there for cross references).
⁶⁶tn Or “had been my confidant.” See the note on v. 18.
⁶⁷tn The words “Do you people think” at the beginning of this verse and “Do you really think” at the beginning of the next verse are not in the text but are a way of trying to convey the nature of the rhetorical questions which expect a negative answer. They are also a way of trying to show that the verses are still connected with the preceding discussion addressed to the people (cf 23:16, 20).
⁶⁸tn Heb “Am I a god nearby and not a god far off?” See the study note for explanation. The question is sometimes translated as though there is an alternative being given in v. 23, one that covers both the ideas of immanence and transcendence (i.e., “Am I only a god nearby and not also a god far off?”). However, the hey interrogative (h^) at the beginning of this verse and the particle (<a!) at the beginning of the next show that the linkage is between the question in v. 23 and that in v. 24a. According to BDB, h&, 1d, p. 210 both questions in this case expect a negative answer.
sn The thought that is expressed here is against the background of ancient Near Eastern thought where gods were connected with different realms, e.g., Baal, the god of wind, rain, and fertility, Mot, the god of drought, infertility, and death, Yam, the god of the sea and of chaos. Moreover, Baal was worshipped in local manifestations as the Baal of Peor, Baal of Gad, etc. Hence, Baal is sometimes spoken of in the singular and sometimes in the plural. The LORD is the one true God (Deut 6:4). Moreover, he is the maker of heaven and earth (Gen 14:12; 2 Kgs 19:15; Ps 115:15), sees into the hearts of all men (Ps 33:13-15), and judges men according to what they do (Ezek 7:3, 7, 28). There is no hiding from him (Job 34:22; Ps 139:7-12) and no escape from his judgment (Amos 9:2-4). God has already spoken to the people and their leaders through Jeremiah along these lines (Jer 16:17; 21:14). Lurking behind the thoughts expressed here is probably Deut 29:19-21 where God warns that one “bad apple” who thinks he can get away with sinning against the covenant can lead to the destruction of all. The false prophets were the “bad apples” that were encouraging the corruption of the whole nation by their words promoting a false sense of security unconnected with loyalty to God and obedience to his covenant. The first question deals with the issue of God’s transcendence, the second with his omniscience, and the third with his omnipresence.
⁶⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁰tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷¹tn The words “Don’t you know” are not in the text. They are a way of conveying the idea that the question which reads literally “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” expects a positive answer. They follow the pattern used at the beginning of the previous two questions and continue that thought. The words are added for clarity.
⁷²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷³tn The words, “The LORD says” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to show that the LORD continues speaking.
⁷⁴sn Dreams were not an illegitimate means of receiving divine revelation. God had revealed himself in the past to his servants through dreams (e.g., Jacob (Gen 31:10-11) and Joseph (Gen 37:6, 7, 9)) and God promised to reveal himself through dreams (Num12:6; Joel 2:28 (3:1 in Heb)). What was illegitimate was to use the dream to lead people away from the LORD (Deut 13:1-5 (13:2-6 in Heb)). That was what the prophets were doing through their dreams which were “lies” and “the delusions of their own minds.” Through them they were making people forget who the LORD really was which was just like what their ancestors had done through worshipping Baal.
⁷⁵sn See the parallel passage in 14:13-15.
⁷⁶tn The relation of the words to one another in v. 26 and the beginning of v. 27 has created difficulties for translators and commentators. The proper solution is reflected in the NJPS Tanakh. Verses 26-27 read somewhat literally, “How long is there in the hearts of the prophets who are prophesying the lie and [in the hearts of] the prophets of the delusions of their [own] heart the plotting to cause my people to forget my name…” Most commentaries complain that the text is corrupt, that there is no subject for “is there.” However, the long construct qualification “in the hearts of” has led to the lack of observation that the proper subject is “the plotting to make my people forget.” There are no exact parallels but Jer 14:22; Neh 5:5 follow the same structure. The “How long” precedes the other means of asking a question for the purpose of emphasis (cf. BDB, h&, 1b, p. 210 and compare for example the usage in 2 Sam 7:7). There has also been a failure to see that “the prophets of the delusion of…” is a parallel construct noun after “heart of.” Stripping the syntax down to its barest minimum and translating literally, the sentence would read “How long will the plotting…continue in the hearts of the prophets who…and [in hearts of] the prophets of…” The sentence has been restructured in the translation to conform to contemporary English style but attempt has been made to maintain the same subordinations.
⁷⁷tn Heb “my name.” For explanation of the significance of “name” see the study note.
sn In the OT, the “name” reflected the person’s character (cf. Gen 27:36; 1 Sam 25:25) or his reputation (Gen 11:4; 2 Sam 8:13). To speak in someone’s name was to act as his representative or carry his authority (1 Sam 25:9; 1 Kgs 21:8). To call someone’s name over something was to claim it for one’s own (2 Sam 28:8). Hence, here to forget the name is equivalent to forgetting who he was in his essential character (cf. Exod 3:13-15; 6:3; 34:5-7). By preaching lies they had obliterated part of his essential character and caused people to forget who he really was.
⁷⁸tn Heb “through Baal.” This is an elliptical expression for the worship of Baal. See 11:17; 12:16; 19:5 for other references to their relation to Baal. There is a deliberate paralleling in the syntax here between “through their dreams” and “through Baal.”
⁷⁹tn Heb “What to the straw with [in comparison with] the grain?” This idiom represents an emphatic repudiation or denial of relationship. See, for example, the usage in 2 Sam 16:10 and note BDB, hm*, 1.d(c), p. 553.
⁸⁰tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸¹tn The words “that purges dross” are not in the text but are implicit to the metaphor. They are added for clarity.
⁸²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁴tn Heb “who are stealing my words from one another.” However, context shows that it is their own word which they claim is from the LORD (cf. next verse).
⁸⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁶tn The word “The LORD” is not actually in the text but is implicit in the idiom. It is generally supplied in all the translations. For the possible rhetorical significance of its absence see the study note.
sn 23:30-33 are just filled with biting sarcasm. They all begin with “Behold I am against the prophets who…” and go on to describe their reprehensible behavior. They “steal” one another’s messages which the LORD sarcastically calls “my words” (The passage shows that they are not; compare Marc Anthony’s use of “noble” to describe the ignoble men who killed Caesar.). Here the use of the idiom translated “to use their own tongue” is really the idiom that refers to taking something in preparation for action, i.e., “they take their tongue” and “declare.” The verb “declare” is only used here and is derived from the idiom “oracle of “ which is almost universally used in the idiom “oracle of the LORD” which occurs 176 times in Jeremiah. I.e., it is their tongue that is “declaring not his mouth (v. 16). Moreover in the report of what they “declare” the LORD has left out the qualifying “of the LORD” to suggest the delusiveness of their message, i.e. they mislead people into believing that their message is from the LORD. Elsewhere in the discussion of the issue of false prophecy the LORD will use the full formula (Ezek 13:6-7). How ironic that their “Oracle of…” is punctuated by the triple “Oracle of the LORD” (vv. 30, 31, 32; translated here “I, the LORD, affirm that…).
⁸⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁸tn Heb “with their lies and their recklessness.” This is a good example of the figure called hendiadys where two nouns (in this case a concrete and an abstract one) are joined by “and” but one is intended to be the adjectival modifier of the other.
⁸⁹sn In the light of what has been said this is a rhetorical understatement; they are not only “not helping” they are leading them to their doom (cf. vv. 19-22). See the term “litotes” in an English dictionary; e.g., “this is no small problem.”
⁹⁰tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁹¹tn The words “The LORD said to me, ‘Jeremiah” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to show the shift between the LORD addressing the people (second masculine plural) and the LORD addressing Jeremiah (second masculine singular).
⁹²tn The meaning of vv. 33-40 is debated. The translation given here follows the general direction of NRSV and REB rather than that of NIV and the related direction taken by NCV and God’s Word. The meaning of vv. 33-40 are debated because of (1) the ambiguity involved in the word aC*m*, which can mean either “burden” (as something carried or weighing heavily on a person; see, e.g., Exod 23:5; Num 4:27; 2 Sam 15:33; Ps 38:4) or “oracle” (of doom; see, e. g., Isa 13:1; Nah 1:1); (the translation is debated due to etymological concerns), (2) the ambiguity of the line in v. 36 which we have rendered “For what is ‘burdensome’ really pertains rather to what a person himself says” (Heb “the burden is to the man his word”), and (3) the text in v. 33 of “you are the burden.” Many commentaries see a word play on the two words “burden” and “oracle” which are homonyms. However, from the contrasts that are drawn in the passage, it is doubtful whether the nuance of “oracle” ever is in view. The word is always used in the prophets of an oracle of doom or judgment; it is not merely revelation of God which one of the common people would have been uttering (contra NIV). Jeremiah never uses the word in that sense nor does anyone else in the book of Jeremiah.
sn What is in view is the idea that the people consider Jeremiah’s views of loyalty to God and obedience to the covenant “burdensome.” I.e., what burdensome demands is the LORD asking you to impose on us (See Jer 17:21, 22, 24, 27 where this same word is used regarding sabbath observance which they chafed at.). The LORD answers back that it is not he who is being burdensome to them; they are burdensome to him (See 15:6: “I am weary” and compare Isa 1:14 where the verb rather than the noun is used.).
⁹³tc The translation follows the Latin and Greek versions. The Hebrew text reads “What burden [i.e., burdensome message]?” The syntax of “what message?” is not in itself objectionable; the interrogative can function as an adjective (cf.BDB, hm*, 1.a[a], p. 552). What is objectionable to virtually all the commentaries and lexicons is the unparalleled use of the accusative particle in front of the interrogative and the noun (see, e.g., BDB, IIIaC*m*, p. 672 and GKC §117mN, p. 366). The emendation only involves the redivision and revocalization of the same consonants: aC*M*-hm^-ta# becomes aC*M*h^ <T#a^. This also makes a much more natural connection for the waw consecutive perfect that follows (cf. GKC §112x and compare Isa 6:7;Jedg 13:3).
⁹⁴tn The meaning “cast you away” is questioned by some because the word is regularly used of “fosaking” or “abandoning” (see, e.g., Jer 7:29; 12:7; 15:6). However, it is clearly use of “casting down” or “throwing away” in Ezek 29:5; 32:4 and that meaning is virtually assured in v. 39 where the verb is combined with the phrase “from my presence” which is elsewhere used in rejection contexts with verbs like “send away,” “throw out,” or “remove” (see BDB, hn#P*, II 8a, p. 819). This is another example of the bracketing effect of a key word and should be rendered the same in the two passages. Moreover, it fits in nicely with the play on “burden” here.
⁹⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁹⁶tn Heb “burden of the LORD.”
⁹⁷tn Heb “And the prophet or the priest or the people [common person] who says, ‘The burden of the LORD,” I will visit upon [= punish] that man and his house.” This is an example of the Hebrew construction call nominative absolute or casus pendens (cf. GKC §143d, p. 458).
⁹⁸tn The words “So, I, Jeremiah tell you” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to show that it is he who is addressing the people, not the LORD. See “our God” in v. 38 and “Here is what the LORD says…” which indicate the speaker is other than He.
⁹⁹tn This line is sometimes rendered as a description of what the people are doing (cf. NIV). However, repetition with some slight modification referring to the prophet in v. 37 followed by the same kind of prohibition that follows here shows that what is being contrasted is two views toward the LORD’s message, i.e., one of openness to recieve what the LORD says through the prophet and one that already characterizes the LORD’s message as a burden. Allusion to the question that started the discussion in v. 33 should not be missed. The prophet alluded to is Jeremiah. He is being indirect in his reference to himself.
¹⁰⁰tn Heb “burden of the LORD.”
¹⁰¹tn Heb “the burden.”
¹⁰²tn Heb “The burden is [or, will be] to a man his word.” There is a good deal of ambiguity regarding how this line is to be rendered. For the major options and the issues involved W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:651-52 should be consulted. Most of them are excluded by the observation that aC*M* probably does not mean “oracle” anywhere in this passage (see note on v. 33 regarding the use of this word). Hence it does not mean “every man’s word becomes his oracle” as in NIV or “for that ‘burden’ [= oracle] is what he entrusts to the man of his word” (McKane, Jeremiah, 1:600-601). The latter is also ruled out by the fact that the antecedent of “his” on “his word” is clearly the word “man” in front of it. This would be the only case where the phrase “man of his word” occurs. There is also no textual reason for repointing the noun with the article as the noun with the interrogative to read “For how can his word become a burden to anyone?” There are, of course, other options but this is sufficient to show that the translation has been chosen after looking at other alternatives.
¹⁰³tn Heb “turning.” See BDB, Ep^h*, Qal 1c, p. 245 and Lev 13:55; Jer 13:33 “changing, altering.”
¹⁰⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study note on 2:19 for the explanation of the signficance of this title.
¹⁰⁵tn See the note on v. 35.
sn As noted in v. 35 the prophet is Jeremiah. The message is directed against the prophet, priest, or common people who have characterized his message as a “burden from the LORD.”
¹⁰⁶tn The translation of v. 38 and the first part of v. 39 represents the restructuring of a long and complex Hebrew sentence: Heb “But if you say, ‘The burden of the LORD,’ therefore this is what the LORD says, ‘Because you said this word, “The burden of the LORD,” even though I sent unto saying, “you shall not say, ‘The burden of the LORD,’ therefore…” The first “therefore” picks up the “if” (BDB, /K@, 3d, p. 487) and the second answer the “because” (BDB, /u^y^, 1, p. 774).
¹⁰⁷tc The translation follows a few Hebrew manuscripts and the major versions. The majority of Hebrew manuscripts read “I will totally forget [or, certainly forget] you.” In place of yt!yv!n*w+ a few Hebrew manuscripts, LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read yt!ac*n`w+. For the infinitive absolute which follows a number of Hebrew manuscripts, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read a)cn` in place of a)vn*. For the confusion of III a and III h verbs presupposed by the miswriting of the Hebrew text see GKC §75qq and compare the forms of ab*n` in Jer 26:9 and1 Sam 10:6. While the verb “forget” would not be totally inappropriate here it does not fit the concept of “throwing away from my presence”as well as “pick up” does. For the verb ac*n* meaning “carry you off” compare the usage in 1 Kgs 15:22; 18:12 (and see BDB, ac*n*, 3b, p. 671). Many see the nuance “pick you up” carrying through on the word play in v. 33. While that may be appropriate for the repetition of the verb “throw away” (vf^n`) that follows, it does not seem as appropriate for the use of the infinitive absolute that follows the verb which expresses some kind of forcefulness (see GKC §113q, p. 343).
¹⁰⁸tn Heb “throw you and the city that I gave you and your ancestors out of my presence.” The English sentences have been broken down to conform to contemporary English style.
¹sn See 2 Kgs 24:10-17 (especially vv. 14-16). Nebuchadnezzar left behind the poorest people of the land under the puppet king Zedekiah. Jeconiah has already been referred to earlier in 13:18; 22:25-26. The deportation referred to here occurred in 597 BC and included the priest Ezekiel.
²sn See Isa 28:4; Hos 9:10.
³tn Heb “The word of the LORD came to me.”
⁴tn Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4.
⁵tn Heb “I will set my eyes upon them for good.” For the nuance of “good” see Jer 21:10; Amos 9:4 (in these cases the opposite of harm; see BDB, hb*of, 1, p. 375).
⁶tn The words “There” and “firmly in the land” are not in the text but are implicit from the connection and the metaphor. They are added for clarity.
⁷sn For these terms see Jer 1:10.
⁸tn Heb “I will give them a heart to know me that I am the LORD.” For the use of “heart” here referring to “inclinations, resolutions and determinations of the will” see BDB, bl@, 4, p. 525 and compare the usage in 2 Chr 12:14. For the use of “know” to mean “acknowledge” see BDB, ud^y`, Qal 1f, p. 384 and compare the usage in Jer 39:4. For the construction “know ‘someone’ that he…” = “know that ‘someone’…” see GKC §117h, p. 365 and compare the usage in 2 Sam 3:25.
⁹tn Heb “with all their heart.”
¹⁰tn Heb “Like the bad figs which cannot be eaten from badness [= because they are so bad] surely [emphatic yK!] so I regard Zedekiah, king of Judah, and his officials and the remnant of Jerusalem which remains in this land and those who are living in Egypt.” The sentence has been restructured in the translation to conform more to contemporary English style. For the use of /t^n* meaning “regard” or “treat like” see BDB, /t^n*, 3c, p. 681 and compare the usage in Ezek 28:6;Gen 42:30.
¹¹ Or “an object of reproach in peoples’ proverbs…an object of ridicule in people’s curses.” The alternate translation treats the two pairs which are introduced without waws but are joined by waws as examples of hendiadys. This is very possible here but the chain does not contain this pairing in 25:18; 29:18.
sn For an example of how the “example used in curses” worked see Jer 29:22. Sodom and Gomorrah evidently function much that same way (see 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Deut 29:23; Zeph 2:9).
¹²tn Heb “I will make them for a terror for disaster to all the kingdoms of the earth, for a reproach and for a proverb, for a taunt and a curse in all the places which I banish them there.” The complex Hebrew sentence has been broken down into equivalent shorter sentences to conform more with contemporary English style.
¹³sn See Jer 14:12 and the study note there.
¹tn Heb “The word was to Jeremiah.” It is implicit from the context that it was the LORD’s word. The verbal expression is more in keeping with contemporary English style.
²sn The year referred to would be 605 BC Jehoiakim had been placed on the throne of Judah as a puppet king by Pharaoh Necho after the defeat of Josiah at Megiddo in 609 BC (2 Kgs 23:34-35). According to Jer 46:2 Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish in that same year. After defeating Necho, Nebuchadnezzar had hurried back to Babylon where he was made king. After being made king he then returned to Palestine and attacked Jerusalem (Dan 1:1. The date given there is the third year of Jehoiakim but scholars are generally agreed that the dating there is based on a different system than the one here. It did not count the part of the year before New Year’s day as an official part of the king’s official rule. Hence, the third year there is the fourth year here.) The identity of the foe from the north referred to in general terms (4:6; 6:1; 15:12) now becomes clear.
³sn The year referred to would be 627 BC. The same year is referred to in 1:2 in reference to his call to be a prophet.
⁴tn For the idiom involved here see the notes at 7:13 and 11:7.
⁵tn The words “what he said” are not in the text but are implicit. They are added for clarity.
⁶tn For the idiom involved here see the notes at 7:13 and 11:7.
⁷tn The waw consecutive with the perfect in a past narrative is a little unusual. Here it is probably indicating repeated action in past time in keeping with the idiom that precedes and follows it. See GKC §112f, p. 332 for other possible examples.
⁸tn Heb “inclined your ear to hear.” This is idiomatic for “paying attention.” It is often parallel with “listen” as here or with “pay attention” (see, e.g., Prov 4:20; 51:1).
⁹tn Heb “saying.” The infinitive goes back to “he sent”; i.e., “he sent, saying.”
¹⁰tn Heb “Turn [masc. pl.] each person from his wicked way and from the evil of your [masc. pl.] doings.” See the same demand in 23:22.
¹¹tn Heb “gave to you and your ancestors with reference to from ancient times even unto forever.” See the same idiom in 7:7.
¹²tn Heb “follow after.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for this idiom.
¹³tn Heb “make me angry with the work of your hands.” The term “work of your own hands” is often interpreted as a reference to idolatry as is clearly the case in Isa 2:8; 37:19. However, the parallelism in 25:14 and the context in 32:30 show that it is more general and refers to what they have done. That is likely the meaning here as well.
¹⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁵tn This is a rather clear case where the Hebrew particle /u^m^l= introduces a consequence and not a purpose contrary to the dictum of BDB, /u^m^, Note 1, p. 775. They have not listened to him in order to make him angry but with the result that they have made him angry by going their own way. Jeremiah appears to use this particle for result rather than purpose on several other occasions (see, e.g., 7:18, 19; 27:10, 15; 32:29).
¹⁶tn Literally “make me angry with the work of your hands.” The term “work of your own hands” is often interpreted as a reference to idolatry as is clearly the case in Isa 2:8; 37:19. However, the parallelism in 25:14 and the context in 32:30 show that it is more general and refers to what they have done. That is likely the meaning here as well.
¹⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study note on 2:19 for an explanation of this title.
¹⁸tn Heb “You have not listened to my words.”
¹⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁰sn The many allusions to trouble coming from the north is now clarified; it is the armies of Babylon which included within it contingents from many nations. See 1:14, 15; 4:6; 6:1, 22; 10:22;13:20 for earlier allusions.
²¹sn Nebuchadnezzar is called the LORD’s servant also in 27:6; 43:10. He was the LORD’s servant in that he was the agent of the LORD’s punishment of his disobedient people. Assyria was earlier referred to as the LORD’s “rod” (Isa 10:5-6) and Cyrus is called his “shepherd” and his “anointed” (Isa 44:28; 45:1). Craigie, Kelly, Drinkard make the interesting observation that the terms here are very similar to the terms in v. 4 (Jeremiah 1-25, p. 364). The people of Judah ignored the servants, the prophets, he sent to turn them away from evil. So he will send other servants whom they cannot ignore.
²²tn The word used here was used in the early years of Israel’s conquest for the action of killing all the men, women, and children in the cities of Canaan, destroying all their livestock, and burning their cities down. This policy was intended to prevent Israel from being corrupted by paganism (Deut 7:2; 20:17-18; Josh 6:18,21). It was to be extended to any city that led Israel away from worshipping God (Deut 13:15) and any Israelite who brought an idol into his house (Deut 7:26). Here the policy is being directed against Judah as well as against her neighbors because of her persistent failure to heed God’s warnings through the prophets. For further usage of this term in application to foreign nations in the book of Jeremiah see 50:21, 26; 51:3.
²³sn “Them” refers to “this land, its inhabitants, and the nations surrounding it.” This is essentially the introduction to the “judgment on the nations” in vv. 15-29 which begins with Jerusalem and Judah (v. 18) and ultimately ends with Babylon itself (Sheshach v. 26; see note there for explanation of the term.).
²⁴sn The term rendered “everlasting” is the word often translated “eternal.” However, it sometimes has a more limited time reference. For example it refers to the lifetime of a person who became a “lasting slave” to another person (see Exod 21:6; Deut 15:17). It is also used to refer to the long life wished for a king (1 Kgs 1:31; Neh 2:3). The time frame here is to be qualified at least with reference to Judah and Jerusalem as seventy years (see 29:10-14 and compare v. 12).
²⁵tn Heb “I will make them an object of horror and a hissing and everlasting ruins.” The sentence has been broken up to separate the last object from the first two which are of slightly different connotation, i.e., they denote the reaction to the latter.
sn Compare 18:16 and 19:8 and the study note at 18:16.
²⁶sn Compare 7:24 and 16:9 for this same dire prediction limited to Judah and Jerusalem.
²⁷sn The sound of people grinding meal and the presence of lamps shining in their houses were signs of everyday life. The LORD is going to make these lands desolate (v. 11) destroying all signs of life. (The statement is, of course, hyperbolic or poetic exaggeration; even after the destruction of Jerusalem many people were left in the land.) For these same descriptions of everyday life applying to the end of life see the allegory in Eccl 12:3-6.
²⁸tn Heb “All this land.”
²⁹sn It should be noted that the text says that the nations will be subject to the king of Babylon for seventy years, not that they will lie desolate for seventy years. Though several proposals have been made for dating this period, many ignore this fact. This most likely refers to the period beginning with Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Pharaoh Necho at Carcemish in 605 BC and the beginning of his rule over Babylon. At this time Babylon became the dominant force in the area and continued to be so until the fall of Babylon in 538 BC. More particularly Judah became a vassal state (cf. Jer 46:2; 2 Kgs 24:1) in 605 BC and was allowed to return to her homeland in 538 when Cyrus issued his edict allowing all the nations exiled by Babylon to return to their homelands. (See 2 Chr 23:22-23 and Ezra 1:2-4; the application there is made to Judah but the decree of Cyrus was broader.)
³⁰tn Heb “that nation.”
³¹tn Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the use of the term “Chaldeans.”
³²tn Heb “I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation, oracle of the LORD, their iniquity even upon the land of the Chaldeans and I will make it everlasting ruins.” The sentence has been restructured to avoid ambiguity and to conform the style more to contemporary English.
sn Compare Isa 13:19-22 and Jer 50:39-40.
³³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁴tn Or “I will bring upon it everything that is to be written in this book. I will bring upon it everything that Jeremiah is going to prophesy concerning all the nations.” The reference to “this book” and “what Jeremiah has prophesied against the nations” raises issues about the editorial process underlying the current form of the book of Jeremiah. As the book now stands there is no earlier reference to any judgments against Babylon or any book (really “scroll”; books were a development of the first or second century AD) containing them. A common assumption is that this “book” of judgment refers to the judgments against Babylon and the other nations contained at the end of the book of Jeremiah (46:1—51:58). The Greek version actually inserts the prophecies of 46:1—51:58 here (but in a different order) and interprets “Which (= What) Jeremiah prophesied concerning all the nations” as a title. It is possible that the Greek version may represent an earlier form of the book. We know of at least two earlier forms of the book that date roughly to the period dealt with here (Compare 36:1 with 25:1 and see 36:2,4 and 36:28, 32). Whether reference here is made to the first or second of these scrolls and whether the Greek version represents either is impossible to determine. It is not inconceivable that the referent here is the prophecies which Jeremiah has already uttered in vv. 8-12 and is about to utter in conjunction with the symbolical act that the LORD commands him to perform (vv. 15-26, 30-38) and that these are proleptic of the latter prophecies which will be given later and will be incorporated in a future book. That is the tenor of the alternate translation. The verb forms involved are capable of either a past/perfect translation or a proleptic/future translation. For the use of the participle (in the alternate translation = Heb “that is to be written”; bWtK*h^) to refer to what is proleptic see GKC §116d,e, and compare usage in Jon 1:3; 2 Kgs 11:2. For the use of the perfect to refer to a future act (in the alternate translation “is going to prophesy”, aB*n]) see GKC §106m and compare usage in Judg 1:2. In support of this interpretation is the fact that the first verb in the next verse (Heb “they will be subjected”, Wdb=u*) is undoubtedly prophetic (it is followed by a waw consecutive perfect; cf. GKC §1125 and Isa 5:14). Reading the text this way has the advantage of situating it within the context of the passage itself which involves prophecies against the nations and against Babylon. Babylon is both the agent of wrath (the cup from which the nations drink (cf. 51:7)) and the recipient of it (cf v. 26). However, this interpretation admittedly does not explain the reference to “this book,” except as a proleptic reference to some future form of the book and there would be clearer ways of expressing this view if that were what was definitely intended.
³⁵tn Heb “make slaves of them.” The verb form here indicates that the action is as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). For the use of the verb rendered “makes slaves” see parallel usage in Lev 25:39, 46 (cf. BDB, db^u*, 3, p. 713).
³⁶tn Heb “according to their deeds and according to the work of their hands.” The two phrases are synonymous; it would be hard to represent them both in translation without being redundant. The translation attempts to represent them by the qualifier “all” before the first phrase.
³⁷tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle yK! which is probably being used in the sense that BDB, yK!, 3c, pp 473-74 note. I.e., the causal connection is somewhat loose, related here to the prophecies against the nations. “So” seems to be the most appropriate way to represent this.
³⁸tn Heb “Thus said the LORD, the God of Israel, to me.” It is generally understood that the communication is visionary. God does not have a “hand” and the action of going to the nations and making them drink of the cup are scarcely literal. The words are added to show the figurative nature of this passage.
³⁹sn Drinking from the cup of wrath is a common figure to represent being punished by God. Isaiah had used it earlier to refer to the punishment which Judah was to suffer and from which God would deliver her (Isa 51:17, 22) and Jeremiah’s contemporary Habbakuk uses it of Babylon “pouring out its wrath” on the nations and in turn being forced to drink the bitter cup herself (Hab 2:15-16). In Jer 51:7 the LORD will identify Babylon as the cup which makes the nations stagger. In v. 16 drinking from the cup will be identified with the sword (i.e., wars) that the LORD will send against the nations. Babylon is also to be identified as the sword (cf. Jer 51:20-23). What is being alluded to here in highly figurative language is the judgment that the LORD will wreak on the nations listed here through the Babylonians. The prophecy given here in symbolical form is thus an expansion of the one in vv. 9-11.
⁴⁰tn There is some debate about the meaning of the verb here. Both BDB (vu^G`, Hithpo, p. 172) and KB2 (vu^G`, Hitpol, p. 191) interpret this of the back and forth movement of staggering. KB3 (vu^G`, Hitpo, p. 192) interprets it as vomiting. The word is used elsewhere of the up and down movement of the mountains (2 Sam 22:8) and the up and down movement of the rolling waves of the Nile (Jer 46:7, 8). The fact that a different verb is used in v. 27 for vomiting would appear to argue against it referring to vomiting (contra W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:674; it is “they” that do this not their stomachs).
⁴¹tn Literally “because of the sword that I will send among them.” For explanation see the study note.
sn Here, as often elsewhere in Jeremiah, the sword is figurative for warfare which brings death. See, e.g., 15:2. The causal particle here is found in verbal locutions where it is the cause of emotional states or action. Hence there are really two “agents” which produce the effects of “staggering” and “going out of their mind,” the cup filled with God’s wrath and the sword. The sword is the “more literal” and the actual agent by which the first agent’s action is carried out.
⁴²tn The words “the wine of his wrath” are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor (see vv. 15-16). They are added for clarity.
⁴³tn The words “I made” and “drink it” are not in the text. The text from v. 18 to v. 26 contains a list of the nations that Jeremiah “made drink it.” The words are added here and at the beginning of v. 19 for the sake of clarity. See also the note on v. 26.
⁴⁴tn Heb “in order to make them a ruin, an object of…” The sentence is broken up and the antecedents are made specific for the sake of clarity and English style.
⁴⁵tn See the study note on 24:9 for explanation.
⁴⁶tn Heb “as it is today.” This phrase would obviously be more appropriate after all these things had happened as is the case in 44:6, 23 where the verbs referring to these conditions are past. Some see this phrase as a marginal gloss added after the tragedies of 597 BC or 586 BC. However, it may refer here to the beginning stages where Judah has already suffered the loss of Josiah, of its freedom, of some of its temple treasures and of some of its leaders (Dan 1:1-3. The different date for Jehoakim there is due to the different method of counting the king’s first year; the third year there is the same as the fourth year in 25:1).
⁴⁷sn See further Jer 46:2-28 for the judgment against Egypt.
⁴⁸tn The meaning of this term and its connection with the preceding is somewhat uncertain. This word is used of the mixture of foreign people who accompanied Israel out of Egypt (Exod 12:38) and of the foreigners that the Israelites were to separate out of their midst in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 13:3). Most commentators interpret it here of the foreign people who were living in Egypt. (See BDB, I br#u#, p. 786 and KB2, II br#u#, p. 733.)
⁴⁹sn This was Job’s homeland (Job 1:1). The exact location is unknown but its position here between Egypt and the Philistine cities suggests it is south of Judah, probably in the Arabian peninsula. Lam 4:21 suggests that it was near Edom.
⁵⁰sn See further Jer 47:1-7 for the judgment against the Philistines. The Philistine cities were west of Judah.
⁵¹sn The Greek historian Herodotus reports that Ashdod had been destroyed under the Pharaoh who preceded Necho, Psammetichus.
⁵²sn See further Jer 49:7-22 for the judgment against Edom. Edom, Moab, and Ammon were east of Judah.
⁵³sn See further Jer 48:1-47 for the judgment against Moab.
⁵⁴sn See further Jer 49:1-6 for the judgment against Ammon.
⁵⁵sn Tyre and Sidon are mentioned within the judgment on the Philistines in Jer 47:4. They were Phoenician cities to the north and west of Judah on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in what is now Lebanon.
⁵⁶sn The connection with Tyre and Sidon suggests that these were Phoenician colonies. See also Isa 23:2.
⁵⁷sn Dedan and Tema are mentioned together in Isa 21:13-14 and located in the desert. They were located in the northern part of the Arabian peninsula south and east of Ezion Geber. Buz is not mentioned anywhere else and its location is unknown. Judgment against Dedan and Tema is mentioned in conjunction with the judgment on Edom in Jer. 47:7-8.
⁵⁸tn For the discussion regarding the meaning of the terms here see the notes on 9:26.
sn See Jer 9:26 where these are mentioned in connection with Moab, Edom, and Ammon.
⁵⁹tc Or “and all the kings of people of mixed origin who.” The Greek version gives evidence of having read the term only once; it refers to the “people of mixed origin” without reference to the kings of Arabia. While the term translated “people of mixed origin” seems appropriate in the context of a group of foreigners within a larger entity, e.g. Israel in Exod 12:38; Neh 13:3; Egypt in Jer 50:57 it seems odd to speak of them as a separate entity under their own kings. The presence of the phrase in the Hebrew text and the other versions dependent upon it can be explained as a case of dittography.
sn See further Jer 49:28-33 for judgment against some of these Arabian peoples.
⁶⁰sn This kingdom is mentioned nowhere else so its location is unknown.
⁶¹sn See further Jer 49:34-39 for judgment against Elam.
⁶²sn Elam and Media were east of Babylon; Elam in the south and Media in the north. They were in what is now western Iran.
⁶³tn The words “have drunk the wine of the LORD’s wrath” are not in the text. They are added for clarity at the end of the list to serve as a transition to the next sentence which does not directly mention the cup or the LORD’s wrath.
⁶⁴sn Literally “the king of Sheshach.” “Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew sh is substitued for Hebrew b and Hebrew ch is substitued for Hebrew l. On the same principle Leb Kamai in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name Sheshach for Babylon also occurs in 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it.
⁶⁵tn The words “Then the LORD said to me” are not in the text. They are added for clarity to connect this part of the narrative with vv. 15, 17 after the long intervening list of nations who were to drink the cup of God’s wrath in judgment.
⁶⁶tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this extended title.
⁶⁷tn Heb “Tell them, ‘Thus says the LORD…’” The translation is intended to eliminate one level of imbedded quotation marks to help avoid confusion.
⁶⁸tn The words “this cup” are not in the text but are implicit to the metaphor and the context. They are added for clarity.
⁶⁹tn Heb “Drink, and get drunk, and vomit and fall down and don’t get up.” The imperatives following drink are not parallel actions but consequent actions. For the use of the imperative plus the conjunctive “and” to indicate consequent action, even intention see GKC §110f, p. 325 and compare usage in 1 Kgs 22:12; Prov 3:3b-4a.
⁷⁰tn Heb “because of the sword that I will send among you.” See the notes on 2:16 for explanation.
⁷¹tn Heb “Tell them, ‘Thus says the LORD…’” The translation is intended to eliminate one level of imbedded quote marks to help avoid confusion.
⁷²tn The translation attempts to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute preceding the finite verb which is here an obligatory imperfect. (See Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §113m, p. 371 and §123h, p. 423 and compare usage in Gen 15:13.)
⁷³tn Heb “which is called by my name.” See translator’s note on 7:10 for support.
⁷⁴tn This is an example of a question without the formal introductory particle following a conjunctive waw introducing an opposition. (See Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §161a, p. 609.) It is also an example of the use of the infinitive before the finite verb in a rhetorical question involving doubt or denial. (See Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §123f, p. 422 and compare usage in Gen 37:8.)
⁷⁵tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this extended title.
⁷⁶tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.”
⁷⁷tn The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text. It is added to make clear who is being addressed.
⁷⁸tn Heb “Prophesy against them all these words.”
⁷⁹tn The words “like a lion about to attack” are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor. The explicit comparison of the LORD to a lion is made at the end of the passage in v. 38. The words are added here for clarity.
sn For the metaphor of the LORD going forth against his enemies like an attacking lion see Jer 49:19; 50:44; Isa 31:4 in all of which the LORD comes against the nations in defense of his people. In Hos 5:14 the metaphor is turned against his own people. The figure of a lion ravaging people has already been used in Jer 4:7 of the enemy from the north (Babylon).
⁸⁰sn The word used here (Heb “his habitation”) refers to the land of Canaan which the LORD chose to make his earthly dwelling (Exod 15:13) and which was the dwelling place of his chosen people (Jer 10:25; Isa 32:18). Judgment would begin at the “house of God” (v. 29; 1 Pet 4:17) but would extend to the rest of the earth (v. 29).
⁸¹sn The metaphor shifts from God as a lion to God as a mighty warrior (Jer 20:11; Isa 42:13; Zeph 3:17) shout ing in triumph over his foes. Within the metaphor is a simile where the warrior is compared to a person stomping on grapes to remove the juice from them in the making of wine. The figure will be invoked later in a battle scene where the sounds of joy in the grape harvest are replaced by the sounds of joy of the enemy soldiers (Jer 48:33). The picture is drawn in more gory detail in Isa 63:1-6.
⁸²tn For the use of this word see Amos 2:2; Hos 10:14; Ps 74:23. See also the usage in Isa 66:6 which is very similar to the metaphorical usage here.
⁸³tn Heb “the LORD has a lawsuit against the nations.” For usage of the term see Hos 4:1; Mic 6:2 and compare the usage of the related verb in Jer 2:9; 12:1.
⁸⁴tn Heb “give the wicked over to the sword.”
sn There is undoubtedly a deliberate allusion here to the reference to the “wars” (Heb “sword”) that the LORD had said he would send raging through the nations (vv. 16, 27) and the “war” (Heb “sword”) that he is proclaiming against them (v. 29).
⁸⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁶tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this extended title.
⁸⁷tn Heb “will go forth from nation to nation.”
⁸⁸tn The words “of martial destruction” have been added to the translation to make the metaphor clear. See the study note for further clarification.
sn The metaphor has shifted from that of God as a lion, to God as a warrior, to God as a judge, to God as the author of the storm winds of destruction. For the use of this word in a literal sense see Jon 1:4. For its use to refer to the wrath of the LORD which will rage over the wicked see Jer 23:19; 30:23. Here it refers to the mighty Babylonian army which will come bringing destruction over all the known world. The same prophecy has just been given under the figure of the nations drinking the wine of God’s wrath (vv. 15-29).
⁸⁹sn The intent here is to emphasize the large quantity of those who are killed; there will be too many to insure proper mourning rites and proper burial.
⁹⁰tn Heb “Wail and cry out, you shepherds. Roll in the dust, you leaders of the flock.” The terms have been reversed to explain the figure. For the significance of the figure here see the study note.
sn The term “shepherd” has been used several times in the book of Jeremiah to refer to the leaders of the people who were responsible for taking care of their people who are compared to a flock. (See 23:1-4 and the study notes there.) Here the figure has some irony involved in it. It is the shepherds who are to be slaughtered like sheep. They may have considered themselves “choice vessels” (the literal translation of “fine pottery”), but they would be slaughtered and lie scattered on the ground (v. 33) like broken pottery.
⁹¹tn The meaning of this line is debated. The Greek version does not have the words “lie scattered” and it reads the words “like broken pieces of fine pottery” (Heb “like choice vessels”; hD`m=j# yl!K=) as “like choice rams” (hD`m=j# yl@ya@K=); i.e., “the days have been completed for you to be slaughtered and you will fall like choice rams.” The reading of the Greek version fits the context better, but is probably secondary for that very reason. The word translated “lie scattered” (hx*WpT=) occurs nowhere else and the switch to the simile of “choice vessels” is rather abrupt. However, this section has been characterized by switching metaphors. The key to the interpretation and translation here is the consequential nature of the verbal actions involved. “Fall” does not merely refer to the action but the effect, i.e., “lie fallen” (cf. BDB, lp^n`, 7, p. 657 and compare Judg 3:25; 1 Sam 31:8). Though the noun translated “lie scattered” does not occur elsewhere, the verb does. It is quite commonly used of dispersing people and that has led many to see that as the reference here. The word, however, can be used of scattering other things like seed (Isa 28:25), arrows (2 Sam 22:15; metaphorical for lightning), etc. Here it follows “slaughtered” and refers to their dead bodies. The simile (Heb “ fallen like choice vessels”) is elliptical, referring to “broken pieces” of choice vessels. In this sense the simile fits in perfectly with v. 33.
⁹²tn Heb “Flight [or, “place of escape”] will perish from the shepherds.”
sn Judging from Gen 14:10 and Judg 8:12 among many others, it was not uncommon for the leaders to try to save their own necks at the expense of their soldiers.
⁹³tn Heb “their pastures,” i.e., the place where they “shepherd” their “flocks.” The verb tenses in this section are not as clear as in the preceding. The participle in this verse is followed by a waw consecutive perfect like the imperatives in v. 34. The verbs in v. 38 are perfects but they can be and probably should be understood as prophetic like the perfect in v. 31 (<n*t*n+) which is surrounded by imperfects, participles and waw consecutive perfects.
sn 25:36-38 shift to the future as though the action were already accomplished or going on. It is the sound that Jeremiah hears in his “prophetic ears” of something that has begun (v. 29) but will find its culmination in the future (vv. 13, 16, 27, 30-35).
⁹⁴tn For this meaning of the verb used here see KB3, <m^D*, Nif, p. 217. Elsewhere it refers to people dying (see, e.g., Jer 49:26; 50:30) hence some see a reference to “lifeless.”
⁹⁵tn Heb “because of the burning anger of the LORD.”
⁹⁶tn Heb “Like a lion he has left his lair.”
sn The text comes back to the metaphor alluded to in v. 30. The bracketing of speeches with repeated words or motifs is a common rhetorical device in ancient literature.
⁹⁷tn This is a way of rendering the Hebrew particle yK! which is probably here for emphasis rather than indicating cause (see BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 473 and compare usage in Jer 22:22).
⁹⁸tc Heb “by the sword of the oppressors.” The reading here follows a number of Hebrew manuscripts and the Greek version. The majority of Hebrew manuscripts read “the anger of the oppressor.” The reading “the sword of the oppressors” is supported also by the parallel use of this phrase in Jer 46:16; 50:16. The error in the Masoretic text may be explained by confusion with the following line which has the same beginning combination (/orj& yn}P=m! confused for br#j# yn}P=m!). This reading is also supported by the Targum, the Aramaic paraphrase of the OT. According to BDB, hn*y`, Qal, p. 413 the feminine singular participle (hn`oYh^) is functioning as a collective in this idiom (see GKC §122s, p. 394 for this phenomenon).
sn The connection between “war” (Heb “the sword”) and the wrath or anger of the LORD has already been made in vv. 16, 27 and the sword has been referred to also in vv. 29, 31. The sword is of course a reference to the onslaughts of the Babylonian armies (see later Jer 51:20-23).
⁹⁹sn Beginning with Jer 26 up to Jer 45 the book narrates in third person style incidents in the life of Jeremiah and prophecies (or sermons) he gave in obedience to the LORD’s commands. Baruch is the probable narrator, passing on information gleaned from Jeremiah himself. (See Jer 36:4, 18, 32; 45:1 and also 32:13-14 where it is clear that Baruch is Jeremiah’s scribe or secretary.) Chapters 26-29 contain narratives concerning reactions to Jeremiah’s prophecies and his conflict with the prophets who were prophesying that things would be all right (see, e.g., 14:14-15; 23:21).
¹tn The words “to Jeremiah” are not in the Hebrew text. They are added by the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and the Syriac translations. They are implicit, however, to the narrative style which speaks of Jeremiah in the third person (cf. vv. 7, 12). They have been added for clarity.
²tn It is often thought that the term here is equivalent to a technical term in Akkadian (reshsharruti) which refers to the part of the year remaining from the death or deposing of the previous king until the beginning of the calendar year when the new king officially ascended the throne. In this case it would refer to the part of the year between September, 609 BC when Jehoiakim was placed on the throne as a puppet king by Pharaoh Necho (2 Kgs 23:34-35) and April, 608 BC when he would have been officially celebrated as king. However, it will be suggested below in conjunction with the textual problems in 27:1 and 28:1 that the term does not necessarily refer to this period.
³sn It is generally agreed that the incident recorded in this chapter relates to the temple message that Jeremiah gave in 7:1-15. The message there is summarized here in vv. 3-6. The primary interest here is in the response to that message.
⁴tn Heb “will turn from his wicked way.”
⁵tn For the idiom and translation of terms involved here see 18:8 and the translator’s note there.
sn The LORD is being consistent in the application of the principle laid down in Jer 18:7-8 that reformation of character will result in the withdrawal of the punishment of “uprooting, tearing down, destroying.” His prophecies of doom are conditional threats, open to change with change in behavior.
⁶tn Heb “because of the wickedness of their deeds.”
⁷tn Heb “thus says the LORD, ‘…” The use of the indirect quote eliminates one level of embedded quotation to avoid confusion.
⁸tn Heb “by walking in my law which I set before you.”
sn Examples of those laws are found in Jer 7:5-6, 9. The law was summarized or epitomized in the ten commandments which are called the “words of the covenant” in Exod 34:28 but it contained much more. However, when Israel is taken to task by God, it often relates to their failure to live up to the standards of the ten commandments (Heb “the ten words”; see Hos 4:1-3; Jer 7:9).
⁹tn See the translator’s note on 7:13 for the idiom here.
¹⁰tn 26:4-6 are all one long sentence containing a long condition with subordinate clauses (vv. 4-5) and a compound consequence in v. 6: Heb “If you will not obey me by walking in my law…by paying heed to the words of the prophets which…and you did not pay heed, then I will make…and I will make…” The sentence has been broken down in conformity to contemporary English style but an attempt has been made to reflect all the subordinations in the English translation.
¹¹sn See the study note on Jer 7:13.
¹²tn The translation again represents an attempt to break up a long complex Hebrew sentence into equivalent English ones that conform more to contemporary English style: Heb “And as soon as Jeremiah finished saying all that…the priests…grabbed him and said…” The word “some” has been added to the text, because obviously it was not all the priests, the prophets, and all the people, but only some of them. There is, of course, rhetorical intent here to show that all were implicated, although all may not have actually participated. (This is a common figure called synecdoche where all is put for a part— all for all kinds or representatives of all kinds. See Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 614-19 and compare usage in Acts 10:12; Matt 3:5.)
¹³tn Or “You must certainly die!” The construction here is again emphatic with the infinitive preceding the finite verb (cf. Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §123h, p. 424 and compare usage in Exod 21:28).
¹⁴tn Heb “Why have you prophesied in the LORD’s name, saying, ‘This house will become like Shiloh and this city will become a ruin without inhabitant?’” It is clear from the context here and in 7:1-15 that the emphasis is on “in the LORD’s name” and that the question is rhetorical. The question is not a quest for information but an accusation, a remonstrance. (For this figure see Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 953-54 who calls a question like this a rhetorical question of remonstrance or expostulation. For good examples see Pss 11:1; 50:16.) For the significance of “prophesying in the LORD’s name” see the study note on 14:14. The translation again utilizes the indirect quote to eliminate one level of embedded quotation.
sn They are questioning his right to claim the LORD’s authority for what they see as a false prophecy. They believed that the presence of the LORD in the temple guaranteed their safety (7:4, 10, 14) and that the LORD could not possibly be threatening its destruction. Hence they were ready to put him to death as a false prophet according to the law of Moses (Deut 18:20).
¹⁵sn These were officials from the royal court. They may have included some of the officials mentioned in Jer 36:12-25. They would have been concerned about any possible “illegal” proceedings going on in the temple.
¹⁶tn Heb “these things.”
¹⁷tn Heb “they sat” or “they took their seats.” However, the context is one of judicial trial.
snThe gateway of the city was often used for court assemblies (cf. Deut 21:19; 22:15; Ruth 4:1; Isa 29:21). Here the gate of the temple was used for the convening of a court to try Jeremiah for the charge of being a false prophet.
¹⁸tn The translation follows many Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions in reading the word “house” (= temple) here. The majority of Hebrew manuscripts do not have this word. It is, however, implicit in the construction “the New Gate of the LORD.”
sn The location of this gate is uncertain. It is mentioned again in Jer 36:10 where it is connected with the upper (i.e., inner) court of the temple. Some equate it with the Upper Gate that Jotham rebuilt during his reign (2 Kgs 15:35; Jotham reigned from 750-735 BC). That gate, however, has already been referred to as the Upper Gate of Benjamin in Jer 20:2 (for more detail see the study note there) and would not likely have been called something different here.
¹⁹tn Heb “the priests and prophets said to the leaders and the people, ‘…” The long sentence has been broken up to conform better with contemporary English style and the situational context is reflected in “laid their charges.”
²⁰tn Heb “a sentence of death to this man.”
²¹tn Heb “it.”
²²tn Heb “Jeremiah said to all the leaders and all the people, ‘…” See the marginal note at the beginning of the preceding verse.
²³tn Heb “Make good your ways and your actions.” For the same expression see 7:3, 5; 18:11.
²⁴tn For the idiom and translation of terms involved here see 18:8 and the translator’s note there.
sn The LORD is being consistent in the application of the principle laid down in Jer 18:7-8 that reformation of character will result in the withdrawal of the punishment of “uprooting, tearing down, destroying.” His prophecies of doom are conditional threats, open to change with change in behavior.
²⁵tn Heb “And I, behold I am in your hand.” Hand is quite commonly used for “power” or “control” in biblical contexts.
²⁶tn Heb “For in truth the LORD has sent me to you to speak in your ears all these words/things.”
²⁷tn Heb “Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “…”
²⁸sn Contrast v. 11.
²⁹sn Heb “For in the name of the LORD our God he has spoken to us.” The emphasis is on “in the name of…” The priests and false prophets claimed that they were speaking in the LORD’s name (i.e., as his representatives and with his authority [see 1 Sam 25:9; 1 Kgs 21:8 and cf. the study note on 23:27]) and felt that Jeremiah’s claims to be doing so were false (see v. 9). Jeremiah (and the LORD) charged that the opposite was the case (cf. 14:14-15; 23:21). The officials and the people, at least at this time, accepted his claims that the LORD had sent him (vv. 12, 15).
³⁰tn Heb “elders of the land.”
sn The elders were important land owning citizens, separate from the “heads” or leaders of the tribes, the officers and the judges. They were very influential in both the judicial, political, and religious proceedings of the cities and the state. (See e.g., Josh 24:1; 2 Sam 19:11; 2 Kgs 23:1 for elders of Israel/Judah and Deut 21:1-9; Ruth 4:1-2 for elders of the cities.)
³¹sn Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah (compare Mic 1:1 with Isa 1:1) from the country town of Moresheth in the hill country southwest of Jerusalem. The prophecy referred to is found in Mic 3:12. This is the only time in the OT where an OT prophet is quoted verbatim and identified.
³²sn Hezekiah was co-regent with his father Ahaz from 729-715 BC and sole ruler from 715-686 BC. His father was a wicked king who was responsible for the incursions of the Assyrians (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28). Hezekiah was a godly king, noted for his religious reforms and for his faith in the LORD in the face of the Assyrian threat (2 Kgs 18—19; 2 Chr 32:1-23). The deliverance of Jerusalem in response to his prayers of faith (2 Kgs 19:14-19, 29-36) was undoubtedly well known to the people of Jerusalem and Judah and may have been one of the prime reasons for their misplaced trust in the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem (see Ps 46, 76) though the people of Micah’s day already believed it too (Mic 3:11).
³³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For an explanation of this title for God see the study note on 2:19.
³⁴sn Zion was first of all the citadel that David captured (2 Sam 5:6-10), then the city of David and the enclosed temple area, then the whole city of Jerusalem. It is often in poetic parallelism with Jerusalem as it is here (see, e.g., Ps 76:2; Amos 1:2).
³⁵sn There is irony involved in this statement. The text reads literally “high places of a forest/thicket.” The “high places” were the illicit places of worship that Jerusalem was supposed to replace. Because of their sin, Jerusalem would be like one of the pagan places of worship with no sacrosanctness. It would even be overgrown with trees and bushes. So much for its inviolability!
³⁶tn This Hebrew idiom (<yn]P* hl*j*) is often explained in terms of “stroking” or “patting the face” of someone, seeking to gain his favor. It is never used in a literal sense and is found in contexts of prayer (Exod 32:11; Ps 119:158), worship (Zech 8:21-22), humble submission (2 Chr 3:12), or amendment of behavior (Dan 9:13). All were true to one extent or another of Hezekiah.
³⁷tn The he interrogative with the negative governs all three of the verbs, the perfect and the two waw consecutive imperfects that follow it. The next clause has disjunctive word order and introduces a contrast. The question expects a positive answer.
³⁸tn For the translation of the terms involved here see the translator’s note on 18:8.
³⁹ Or “great harm to ourselves.” The word “disaster” (or “harm”) is the same one that has been translated “destroying” in the preceding line and in vv. 3 and 13.
⁴⁰sn This is a brief parenthetical narrative about an otherwise unknown prophet who was executed for saying the same things Jeremiah did. It is put here to show the real danger that Jeremiah faced for saying what he did. There is nothing in the narrative here to show any involvement by Jehoiakim. This was a “lynch mob” instigated by the priests and false prophets which was stymied by the royal officials supported by some of the elders of Judah. Since it is disjunctive or parenthetical it is unclear whether this incident happened before or after that in the main narrative being reported.
⁴¹tn Heb “in the name of the LORD,” i.e., as his representative and claiming his authority. See the study note on v. 16.
⁴²tn Heb “Now also a man was prophesying in the name of the LORD, Uriah son of…, and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah.” The long Hebrew sentence has been been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the major emphasis brought out by putting his prophesying first, then identifying him.
⁴³tn Heb “all his mighty men/soldiers.” It is unlikely that this included all the army. It more likely was the palace guards or royal body guards (see 2 Sam 23 where the same word is used of David’s elite corps).
⁴⁴tn Heb “his words.”
⁴⁵tn Heb “But Uriah heard and feared and fled and entered Egypt.”
⁴⁶sn He was one of the officials who urged Jeremiah and Baruch to hide after they heard Jeremiah’s prophecies read before them (Jer 36:11-19). He was also one of the officials who urged Jehoiakim not to burn the scroll containing Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jer 36:25). He may have been Jehoiakim’s father-in-law (2 Kgs 24:6, 8).
⁴⁷tn Heb “from Egypt.”
sn A standard part of international treaties at this time was a stipulation of mutual extradition of political prisoners. Jehoiakim was a vassal of Pharoah Necho (see 2 Kgs 23:34-35) and undoubtedly had such a treaty with him.
⁴⁸sn This was the public burial grounds, distinct from the family tombs, where poor people without any distinction were buried. It was in the Kidron Valley east of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:6). The intent of reporting this is to show the ruthlessness of Jehoiakim.
⁴⁹sn He was an official during the reign of Jehoiakim’s father, Josiah (2 Kgs 22:12, 14). He was also the father of Gedaliah who became governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:5). The particle at the beginning of the verse is meant to contrast the actions of this man with the actions of Jehoiakim. The impression created by this verse is that it took more than just the royal officials’ opinion and the elders’ warnings to keep the priests and prophets from swaying popular opinion to put Jeremiah to death.
⁵⁰tn Heb “Nevertheless, the hand of Ahikam son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah so that he would not be given (even more literally, ‘so as not to give him’) into the hand of the people to kill him.” “Hand” is often used for “aid,” “support,” “influence,” “power,” “control.”
¹sn The name of Jeremiah and that of Nebuchadnezzar are spelled differently in the Hebrew of chapter 27-29. That and other literary features show that these three chapters are all closely related. The events of these three chapters all take place within the space of one year (cf. 28:1; 29:17).
²tc The reading here is based on a few Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac and Arabic versions. The majority of Hebrew manuscripts and most of the versions read “At the beginning of the reign of Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim king of Judah” as in 26:1. The LXX does not have this whole verse. It has long been recognized that the text of 27:1 is textually corrupt. The date formula in the majority of Hebrew manuscripts at 27:1 is contradictory both with the context of the passage which deals with an event in the reign of Zedekiah (see vv. 3, 13 and v. 20 which presupposes that Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s has been taken captive (i.e., after the death of Jehoaikim!!!)) and the date formula in 28:1 which refers to an event “in that same year” and then qualifies it with “Early in the reign of Zedekiah.” Hence it is preferable to read “Zedekiah” here in place of “Jehoiakim” and explain the error in the Hebrew manuscipts as an erroneous copying of 26:1.
sn If the text of 28:1 is correct, the date here would be sometime in the fourth year of Zedekiah which would be 594/3 BC. Zedekiah had been placed on the throne as a puppet king by Nebuchadnezzar after he deposed Zedekiah’s nephew, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and sent him, his family, some of the temple treasures, and some of the Judean leaders away to Babylon (2 Kgs 23:8-17). We are not told directly why the envoys from the nations mentioned in v. 3 were in Jerusalem, but the implication is that they were there trying to interest Zedekiah in rebelling. Modern scholars have used the data here and in 28:1 and in the Babylonian Chronicles (it contains a record of major events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) to suggest a plausible background for such a meeting. Nebuchadnezzar had to put down an uprising in the east and quell a rebellion in Babylon itself in the two years prior to this meeting. Some “prophets” in the nation of Israel and in these other nations (see vv. 9-10) saw in these events hopes for not having to pay tribute to (i.e., submit to the yoke of) Nebuchadnezzar and were counseling rebellion. Jeremiah saw this as foolhardy and counseled otherwise. Again, there is a conflict between “prophets” which is what this whole section (Jer 27—29) is all about.
³tn There is some disjunction in the narrative of this chapter. The introduction in v. 1 presents this as a third person narrative. But the rest of the passage reports the narrative in first person. Thus the text reads here “Thus the LORD said to me…” In vv. 12, 16 the narrative picks up in first person report and never indicates that Jeremiah carried out the command in vv. 2-4 that introduces the message which he repeats in summary form himself to Zedekiah. The report is thus an “unedited” first person report. This may create some confusion for some readers, but it is best to leave it in first person here because of the continuation in vv. 12, 16.
⁴sn The yoke is a common biblical symbol of political servitude (see, e.g., Deut 28:48; 1 Kgs 12:4, 9, 10). From the context of 1 Kgs 12 it is clear that it applied to taxation and the provision of conscript labor. In international political contexts it involved the payment of heavy tribute which was often conscripted from the citizens (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 15:19-20; 23:34-35) and the furnishing of military contingents for the sovereign’s armies (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 24:2). Jeremiah’s message here combines both a symbolic action (the wearing of a yoke) and words of explanation as in Jer 19:1-13. (See Isa 20:1-6 for an example outside of Jeremiah.) The casting off of the yoke has been used earlier in Jer 2:20, 5:5 to refer to Israel’s failure to remain spiritually “subject” or faithful to God.
⁵sn The nations of Edom, Moab, and Ammon were east of Judah. They were sometimes allies and sometimes enemies. The nations of Tyre and Sidon were on the sea coast north and west of Judah. They are best known for their maritime trade during the reign of Solomon. They were more commonly allies of Israel and Judah than enemies.
⁶tn Heb “send by means of them” [i.e., the straps and crossbars made into a yoke] to…through.” The text is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style. Many translations ignore the suffix on the end of “send” and find some support for this on the basis of its absence in the Lucianic Greek text. However, it is probably functioning metonymically here for the message which they see symbolized before them and is now explained clearly to them.
⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the significance of this title.
⁸tn Heb “Give them a charge to their masters saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, “Thus you shall say unto your masters…”’” The sentence is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style.
⁹tn Heb “by my great power and my outstretched arm.” Again “arm” is symbolical for “strength.” Compare the similar expression in 21:5.
¹⁰sn See Dan 4:17 for a similar statement.
¹¹tn Heb “have given…into the hand of.”
¹²sn See the study note on 25:9 for the significance of the application of this term to Nebuchadnezzar.
¹³tn Heb “I have given…to him to serve him.” The verb “give” in this syntactical situation is functioning like the Hiphil stem, i.e., causatively. See Dan 1:9 for parallel usage. For the usage of “serve” meaning “be subject to” compare 2 Sam 22:44 and BDB, db^u*, 3, p. 713.
sn This statement is rhetorical, emphasizing the totality of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. Neither here nor in Dan 2:38 is it to be understood literally.
¹⁴sn This is a figure that emphasizes that they will serve for a long time but not for an unlimited duration. The kingdom of Babylon lasted a relatively short time by ancient standards. It lasted from 605 BC when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish until the fall of Babylon in 538 BC. There were only four rulers. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Evil Merodach (cf. 52:31), and two other rulers who were not descended from him.
¹⁵tn Heb “until the time of his land, even his, comes.” The independent pronoun is placed here for emphasis on the possessive pronoun. The word “time” is used by substitution for the things that are done in it (compare in the NT John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20 “his hour had not yet come”).
sn See 25:12-14, 16.
¹⁶tn Heb “him.” This is a good example of the figure of substitution where the person is put for his descendants or the nation or subject he rules. (See Gen 28:13-14 for another good example and Acts 22:7 in the NT)
¹⁷tn Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. 2 for the figure.
¹⁸tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁹tn Heb “The nation and/or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck in the yoke of the king of Babylon, by sword, starvation, and disease I will punish [or more literally, “visit upon”] that nation, oracle of the LORD.” The long complex Hebrew sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the figures interpreted for the sake of clarity. The particle ta@, the sign of the accusative, before “which will not put…” is a little unusual here. For its use to introduce a new topic (here a second relative clause) see BDB, ta@, 3a, p. 85.
²⁰tn Heb “with/by the sword.”
²¹tc The verb translated “destroy” (<m^T*) is usually intransitive in the stem of the verb used here. It is found in a transitive sense elsewhere only in Ps 64:7. BDB, <m^T*, 7, p. 1070 emends both texts. In this case they recommend yT!T!, “until I give them into his hand.” That reading is suggested by the texts of the Syriac and Targumic translations (see BHS fn c). The Greek translation supports reading the verb “destroy” but treats it as though it were intransitive “until they are destroyed by his hand” (reading <M*T%?). The Masoretic text here is accepted as the more difficult reading and support is seen in the transitive use of the verb in Ps 64:7.
tn Heb “I will punish that nation until I have destroyed them [i.e., its people] by his hand.” “Hand” here refers to agency. Hence, “I will use him.”
²²sn Various means of divination are alluded to in the OT. For example, Ezek 21:26-27 alludes to throwing down arrows to see which way they fall and consulting the shape of the liver of slaughtered animals. Gen 44:5 alludes to reading the future through pouring liquid in a cup. The means alluded to in this verse were all classified as pagan and prohibited as illegitmate in Deut 18:10-14. The LORD had promised that he would speak to them through prophets like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18). But even prophets could lie. Hence, the LORD told them that the test of a true prophet was whether what he said came true or not (Deut 18:20-22). An example of false prophesying and the vindication of the true as opposed to the false will be given in the chapter that follows this.
²³sn An example of this is seen in 1 Sam 28.
²⁴tn The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligative imperfect. See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §31.4g, p. 508 for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of the positive obligative.
²⁵tn The words “Don’t listen to them” have been repeated from v. 9a to pick up the causal connection between v. 9a and v. 10 that is formally introduced by a causal particle in v. 10 in the original text.
²⁶tn Heb “they are prophesying a lie.”
²⁷tn Literally “lies will result in your being taken far…” (/u^m^l= + infinitive). This is a rather clear case of the particle /u^m^l= introducing result (contra BDB, /u^m^, note 1, p. 775. There is no “irony” in this statement; it is a bold prediction.).
²⁸tn The words “out of your country” are not in the text but are implicit in the meaning of the verb. The words “in exile” are also not in the text but are implicit in the context. These words have been added for clarity.
²⁹tn Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. 2 for the figure.
³⁰tn The words “Things will go better for” are not in the text. They are supplied contextually as a means of breaking up the awkward syntax of the original which reads “The nation which brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and subjects itself to him, I will leave it…”
³¹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
³²tn Heb “I spoke to Zedekiah…according to all these words, saying.”
³³sn The verbs in this verse are all plural. They are addressed to Zedekiah and his royal advisors (compare 22:2).
³⁴tn Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. 2 for the figure.
³⁵tn Heb “with/by the sword.”
³⁶tn Heb “…disease according to what the LORD spoke concerning the nation that…”
³⁷tn The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligative imperfect. See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §31.4g, p. 508 for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of the positive obligative.
³⁸tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
³⁹sn The verbs are again plural referring to the king and his royal advisors.
⁴⁰tn Literally “…drive you out and you will perish, you and the prophets who are prophesying lies.”
sn For the fulfillment of this prophecy see Jer 39:5-7; 52:7-11; 2 Kgs 25:4-7.
⁴¹tn Heb “don’t listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you, ‘…” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of English style and one level of embedded quotes has been eliminated to ease complexity.
⁴²sn Reference here is to the articles of the temple treasury which were carried off by Nebuchadnezzar four years earlier when he carried off Jeconiah, his family, some of his nobles and some of the cream of Judaean society (2 Kgs 24:10-16, especially v. 13 and see also vv. 19-20 in the verses following).
⁴³tn The imperative with waw here and in v. 12 after another imperative are a good example of the use of the imperative to introduce a consequence. (See GKC §110f, p. 325 and see Gen 42:18. This is a common verb in this idiom.)
⁴⁴tn According to Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 954 both this question and the one in v. 13 are examples of rhetorical questions of prohibition > “don’t let this city be made a pile of rubble.”
⁴⁵tn The words “I also told them” are not in the text, but it is obvious from the fact that the LORD is spoken about in the third person in vv. 18, 19, 21 that he is not the speaker. This is part of Jeremiah’s own speech to the priests and the people (v. 16). These words are added for clarity.
⁴⁶tn Heb “the word of the LORD is with them.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁴⁸tn Heb “…speaking to them, let them entreat the LORD…so that the valuable articles…will not go to Babylon.” The long original sentence has been broken up for the sake of English style.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁵⁰tn The words “two bronze” are not in the text. They have been added to help identify the referent. See the study note for further reference.
sn This refers to the two free-standing pillars at the entrance of the temple (Jakin and Boaz) described in 1 Kgs 7:15-22.
⁵¹tn The words “the big bronze basin called” are not in the text. They have been added to help identify the referent. See the study note for further reference.
sn This refers to the large basin that was mounted on twelve bronze bulls. It stood in front of the temple and contained water for the priests to bathe themselves (2 Chr 4:6; cf. Exod 30:17-21). It is described in 1 Kgs 7:23-26.
⁵²tn The words “movable bronze” are not in the text. They have been added to help identify the referent. See the study note for further reference.
sn This refers to the movable bronze stands described in 1 Kgs 7:27-37. They were the stands for the bronze basins described in 1 Kgs 7:38-39. According to 2 Chr 4:6 the latter were used to wash the burnt offerings. The priests would have been very concerned especially about the big bronze basin and the movable stands and their basins because they involved their ritual purification apart from which they would have had no sanctity. These articles (or furnishings in this case) were broken up and the bronze carried away to Babylon along with all the other bronze, silver, and gold furnishings when the temple and the city were destroyed in 587 BC (see 1 Kgs 25:13-15; Jer 52:17-19).
⁵³tn 27:19-20 are all one long sentence in Hebrew. It has been broken up for the sake of English style. Some of the sentences still violate contemporary English style (e.g., v. 20) but breaking them down any further would lose the focus. For further discussion see the study note on v. 21.
⁵⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁵⁵sn Some of the flavor of the repetitive nature of Hebrew narrative is apparent in vv. 19-21. In the Hebrew original vv. 19-20 are all one long sentence with complex coordination and subordinations. I.e., all the objects in v. 19 are all objects of the one verb “has spoken about” and the description in v. 20 is one long relative or desciptive clause. The introductory “For the LORD…has already spoken” is repeated in v. 21 from v. 19 and reference is made to the same articles once again, only in the terms that were used in v. 18b. By this mean attention is focused for these people (here the priests and the people) on articles which were of personal concern for them and the climax or the punch line is delayed to the end. The point being made is that the false prophets are mistaken; not only will the articles taken to Babylon not be returned “very soon” but the LORD had said that the ones that remained would be taken there as well. They ought rather pray that the LORD will change his mind and not carry them off as well.
⁵⁶tn This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish” X. It is also used in the opposite of sense of taking note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by the actions that follow, bringing them back and restoring them.
⁵⁷tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹tc The original text is unusually full here and deemed by many scholars to be corrupt: Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month Hananiah…said to…” Many scholars see a contradiction between “in the fourth year” and “in the beginning of the reign.” These scholars point to the fact that the Greek version does not have “in that year” and “in the beginning of the reign of “; it merely reads “in the fourth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month.” These scholars generally also regard the heading at 27:1 to be unoriginal and interpret the heading in the Masoretic text here as a faulty harmonization of the original (that in the Greek version) with the erroneous one in the Hebrew of 27:1. However, it is just as possible that the Greek version in both places is an attempt to harmonize the data of 27:1 and 28:1. I.e., it left out both the heading at 27:1, and “in that year” and “at the beginning of the reign of” in the heading here because it thought the data was contradictory. However, it is just as likely that there is really no contradiction here. I.e., the term “beginning of the reign” can include the fourth year. Eugene Merrill in an article in JANES 19 (1989) has argued that the term here refers not to the accession year (see the translator’s note on 26:1) but to the early years in general (see “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” JANES 19 (1989):105-6 and cf. fn18 for bibliography on Akkadian parallels). Hence we have translated both here and in 27:1 “early in the reign of…” For other attempts at harmonization see the discussion in Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 41, note 1a. For the possible significance of the more precise dating see the study note.
sn The dating here is very full and precise. “In that same year” ties the events here in with the messages that Jeremiah delivered to the envoys, the king and his court, and the priests and people while wearing the yoke symbolizing servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. The text wants to show that the events here transpired shortly after those in Jer 27 and that Jeremiah is still wearing the yoke. The supplying of the precise month is important because the end of the chapter will show that Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Hananiah was fulfilled two months later. Hence Jeremiah is the true prophet and Hananiah and the others (27:16) are false. The supplying of the year is perhaps significant because we learn in 51:59 that Zedekiah went to Babylon that same year, probably to pledge his loyalty. The suggestion lies ready to hand that the events of this chapter and the preceding one lead to his dismissal of the false prophets advice and the acceptance of Jeremiah’s.
²tn Literally “to me.” The rest of the chapter is all in third person narrative (see vv. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15). Hence, many explain the first person here as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation “to Jeremiah” (hY*m!r+y] la# = yl!a@). It is just as likely that we have a similar kind of disjunction here that we had in 27:1-2 only in the opposite direction. There what started out as a third person report was really a first person report. Here what starts out as a first person report is really a third person report. The text betrays both the hands of the narrator, probably Baruch, and the reportee, Jeremiah, who dictated a synopsis of his messages and his stories to Baruch to write down (Jer 36:4, 32).
³tn Heb “to/in the eyes of…”
⁴tn Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, Hananiah son of Azzur the prophet who was from Gibeon said to me in…” The sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the flavor given in modern equivalent terms.
⁵tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.
⁶sn See the study note on 27:2 for this figure. Hananiah is given the same title “the prophet” as Jeremiah throughout the chapter and claims to speak with the same authority (compare v. 2a with 27:21a). He even speaks like the true prophet; the verb form “I will break” is in the “prophetic perfect” emphasizing certitude. His message here is a contradiction of Jeremiah’s message recorded in the preceding chapter (compare especially v. 3 with 27:16, 19-22 and v. 4 with 22:24-28). The people and the priests are thus confronted with a choice of whom to believe. Who is the “true” prophet and who is the “false” one? Only fulfillment of their prophecies will prove which is which (see Deut 18:21-22).
⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
sn Notice again that the “false” prophet uses the same formula and claims the same source for his message as the true prophet has (cf. 27:22).
⁸tn Heb “Listen to this word/message which I am about to speak in your ears and the ears of all these people.”
⁹tn The word “invariably” is not in the text but is implicit in the context and in the tense of the Hebrew verb. It is added for clarity and to help bring out the contrast in the next verse.
¹⁰tc Many Hebrew manuscripts read “starvation/famine” which is the second member of a common triad “sword, famine, and plague” in Jeremiah. This triad occurs thirteen times in the book and undoubtedly influenced a later scribe to read “starvation [= famine]” here. For this triad see the note on 14:14. The words “disaster and plagues” are missing in the LXX.
¹¹tn The verbs in this verse are to be interpreted as iterative imperfects in past time rather than as futures because of the explicit contrast that is drawn in the two verses by the emphatic syntactical construction of the two verses. Both verses begin with a casus pendens construction to throw the two verses into contrast: Heb “The prophets who were before me and you from ancient times, they prophesied…The prophet who prophesied peace, when the word of that prophet came true, that prophet was known that the LORD truly sent him.”
¹²tn Heb “I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from upon the necks of all the nations.”
¹³tn Heb “Then the prophet Jeremiah went his way.”
¹⁴tn Heb “Hananiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, “…” The indirect quote is used to eliminate one level of embedded quote to try and avoid greater complexity and confusion.
¹⁵tn The Greek version reads “I have made/put” rather than “you have made/put.” This is the easier reading and is therefore rejected.
¹⁶tn Heb “the yoke bars of wood you have broken, but you have made in its stead yoke bars of iron.”
sn This whole incident (and the preceding one in Jer 28) is symbolical. Jeremiah’s wearing of the yoke was symbolical of the LORD’s message to submit to Babylonian authority. Hananiah’s breaking of the yoke was a prediction that that authority would not last beyond two years. By breaking the yoke he was encouraging rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar’s (and hence the LORD’s) authority (cf. 27:9, 14). However, rebelling would only result in further, harsher, more irresistible measures by Nebuchadnezzar to control such rebellion.
¹⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for this title.
¹⁸tn Heb “An iron yoke I have put on the necks of all these nations.”
¹⁹sn The emphasis is on the absoluteness of Nebuchadnezzar’s control. The statement is once again rhetorical and not to be taken literally. See the study note on 27:6.
²⁰tn Or “You are making these people trust in a lie.”
²¹sn There is a play on words here between “did not send you” and “will…remove you.” The two verbs are from the same root word in Hebrew. The first is the simple active and the second is the intensive.
²²sn In giving people false assurances of restoration when the LORD had already told them to submit to Babylon, Hananiah was really counseling rebellion against the LORD. What Hananiah had done was contrary to the law of Deut 13:6 and was punishable by death.
²³sn Comparison with 28:1 shows that this whole incident took place in the space of two months. Hananiah had prophesied that the captivity would be over before two years had past. However, before two months were past, Hananiah himself died in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of his death. His death was a validation of Jeremiah as a true prophet. The subsequent events of 588 BC would validate Jeremiah’s prophesies and invalidate those of Hananiah.
¹tn 29:1-3 are all one long sentence in Hebrew containing a parenthetical insertion. The text reads “These are the words of the letter which the prophet Jeremiah sent to the elders…people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon after King Jeconiah…had gone from Jerusalem by the hand of Elasah…whom Zedekiah sent…saying, ‘Thus says the LORD…’” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of contemporary English style and clarity.
²tn This term is often mistakenly understood to refer to a “eunuch.” It is clear, however, in Gen 39:1 that “eunuchs” could be married. On the other hand it is clear from Isa 59:3-5 that some who bore this title could not have children. In this period, it is possible that the persons who bore this title were high officials like the rab saris who was a high official in the Babylonian court (cf. Jer 39:3, 13; 52:25). For further references see KB3, syr]s*, 1c, p. 727.
³sn See 2 Kgs 24:14-16 and compare the study note on Jer 24:1.
⁴sn He may have been the brother of Ahikam who supported Jeremiah when the priests and the prophets in Jerusalem sought to kill Jeremiah for preaching that the temple and the city would be destroyed (cf. 26:24).
⁵sn This is not the same as the Gemariah mentioned in 36:10,11,12,25 who was one of the officials who sought to have the first scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecies preserved. He may, however, have been a son or grandson of the High Priest who discovered the Book of the Law during the reign of Josiah (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 22:8,10) which was so instrumental in Josiah’s reforms.
⁶sn It is unclear whether this incident preceded or followed those in the preceding chapter. We know from 52:59 that Zedekiah himself had made a trip to Babylon in the same year mentioned in 28:1 and that Jeremiah had used that occasion to address a prophecy of disaster to Babylon. It is not impossible that Jeremiah sent two such disparate messages at the same time (see Jer 25:8-11, 12-14, 17-18, 26).
⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.
⁸tn Heb “I sent.” This sentence exhibits a rapid switch in person, here from the third person to the first. Such switches are common to Hebrew poetry and prophecy (cf. GKC, §144p). Contemporary English, however, does not exhibit such rapid switches and it creates confusion for the careful reader. Such switches have regularly been avoided in the translation.
sn Elsewhere Nebuchadnezzar is seen as the one who carried them into exile (cf. 27:20; 29:1). Here and in v. 14 the LORD is seen as the one who sends them into exile. The LORD is the ultimate cause and Nebuchadnezzar is his agent or servant (cf. 25:9; 27:6 and notes).
⁹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.
¹⁰sn See the study notes on 27:9 for this term.
¹¹tn Heb “prophesying lies to you in my name.”
sn For the significance of “in my name” see the study notes on 14:14 and 23:27.
¹²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹³sn See the study note on 25:11 for the reckoning of the seventy years.
¹⁴tn See the translator’s note on 27:22 for this term.
¹⁵tn Verse 25 is all one long sentence in the Hebrew original: “According to the fullness of Babylon seventy years I will take thought of you and I will establish my gracious word to you by bringing you back to this place.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style.
¹⁶tn Heb “this place.” The text has probably been influenced by the parallel passage in 27:22. The term appears fifteen times in Jeremiah and is invariably a reference to Jerusalem or Judah.
sn See Jer 27:22 for this promise.
¹⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁸tn Heb “I know the plans that I am planning for you, oracle of the LORD, plans of well being and not for harm to give to you…”
¹⁹tn Or “the future you hope for”; Heb “a future and a hope.” This is a good example of the figure called hendiadys where two formally coordinated nouns (adjectives, verbs) convey a single idea where one of the terms functions as a qualifier of the other. For this figure see Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 658-72. This example is discussed on p. 661.
²⁰tn Heb “come and pray to me.” This is an example of verbal hendiadys where two verb formally joined by “and” convey a main concept with the second verb functioning as an adverbial qualifier.
²¹tn Or “You will call out to me and come to me in prayer and I will hear your prayers.” The verbs are waw consecutive perfects and can be taken either as unconditional futures or as contingent futures. See GKC §112kk, p. 337 and §159g, p. 494 and compare the usage in Gen44:22 for the use of the waw consecutive perfects in contingent futures. The conditional clause in the middle of 29:13 and the deuteronomic theology reflected in both Deut 30:1-5 and 1 Kgs 8:46-48 suggest that the verbs are continent futures here. For the same demand for wholehearted seeking in these contexts which presuppose exile see especially Deut 30:2, 1 Kgs 8:48.
²²tn Or “If you wholeheartedly seek me”; Heb “You will seek me and find [me] because you will seek me with all your heart.” The translation attempts to reflect the theological nuances of “seeking” and “finding” and the psychological significance of “heart” which refers more to intellectual and volitional concerns in the OT than to emotional ones.
²³tn Heb “I will let myself be found by you.” For this nuance of the verb see BDB, ax*m*, Niph 1f, p. 594 and compare the usage in Isa 65:1; 2 Chr 15:2. The Greek version already noted that nuance when it translated the phrase “I will manifest myself to you.”
²⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁵tn Or “I will bring you back from exile.” This idiom occurs twenty six times in the OT and in several cases it is clearly not referring to return from exile but of restoration of fortunes (see, e.g., Job 42:10; Hos 6:11—7:1; Jer 33:11). It is often followed as here by “regather” or “bring back” (see, e.g., Jer 30:3; Ezek 29:14) and hence not a reference to “bringing back the exiles” though reversal or restoration of fortunes may involve that.
²⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁷tn The words “of good favor” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
²⁸tn Heb “But thus says the LORD about.” The words “just listen to what” are added to help show the connection with the preceding. See the study note for further explanation.
sn Jeremiah answers their claims that the LORD has raised up prophets to encourage them that their stay will be short by referring to the LORD’s promise that the LORD’s plans are not for restoration but for further destruction.
²⁹tn The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but are added to identify the referent and avoid the possible confusion that “this city” refers to Babylon.
³⁰tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of this title.
³¹tn Heb “the sword.”
³²tn The meaning of this word is somewhat uncertain. It occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. BDB, ru*vo, p. 1045 relates it to the noun “horrible thing” (translated “something shocking”) in Jer 5:30; 23:14 and defines it as “horrid, disgusting.” KB3, ru*vo, p. 1495 relate it to the same noun and define it as “rotten, corrupt.” That nuance is accepted here.
sn Compare Jer 24:8-10 in its context for the figure here.
³³tn Heb “with the sword.”
³⁴tn See the translator’s note on 7:13 for an explanation of this idiom.
³⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁶tn The word “exiles” is not in the text. It is added to clarify the referent of “you.”
³⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁸tn Heb “pay attention to the word of the LORD.” However, the LORD is speaking in the words just previous to this and in the words which follow (“whom I have sent”). This is another example of the shift from third person referent to first person which is common in Hebrew poetry and prophecy but is not common in English style. The person has been adjusted in the translation to avoid confusion.
³⁹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.
⁴⁰tn Heb “prophesying lies in my name.” For an explanation of this idiom see the study notes on 14:14 and 23:27.
⁴¹sn This appears to be a common method of execution in Babylon. See Dan 3:6, 19-21. The famous law code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi also mandated this method of execution for various crimes a thousand years earlier. There is a satirical play on words involving their fate “roasted them to death” (Heb “qalam”) and the fact that that fate would become a common topic of curse (Heb “qelalah”) pronounce on others in Babylon.
⁴²tn It is commonly assumed that this word is explained by the two verbal actions that follow. The word (hl*b*n+) is rather commonly used of sins of unchastity (cf., e.g., Gen 34:7; Judg 19:23; 2 Sam 13:12) which would fit the reference to adultery. However, the word is singular and not likely to cover both actions that follow. The word is also used of the greedy act of Achan (Josh 7:15) which threatened Israel with destruction and the churlish behavior of Nabal (1 Sam 25:25) which threatened him and his household with destruction. The word is also used of foolish talk in Isa 9:17 (9:16 Hebrew text) and Isa 32:6. It is possible that this refers to a separate act, one that would have brought the death penalty from Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., the preaching of rebellion in conformity with the message of the false prophets in Jerusalem and other nations (cf. 27:9, 13). Hence it is possible that the translation should read: “This will happen because of their vile conduct. They have propagated rebellion. They have committed adultery with their neighbors wives. They have spoken words that I didn’t command them to speak. They have spoken lies while claiming my authority.”
⁴³tn Heb “prophesying lies in my name.” For an explanation of this idiom see the study notes on 14:14 and 23:27.
⁴⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴⁵tn The words “The LORD told Jeremiah” are not in the text. They are added here to indicate the shift in topic and the shift in addressee (the imperative “tell” is second singular). The introduction added here matches that in v. 30 where the words are in the text.
⁴⁶tn It is unclear whether this is a family name or a place name. The word occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.
⁴⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.”
sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.
⁴⁸tn Heb “Tell Shemaiah the Nehelamite, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel, “…” The indirect quote is used to try to avoid the complexity of embedding a quote within a quote.
⁴⁹sn Jer 29:24-32 are concerned with Jeremiah’s interaction with a false prophet named Shemaiah. The narrative in this section is not in strict chronological order and is somewhat elliptical. It begins with a report of a message that Jeremiah appears to have delivered directly to Shemaiah and refers to a letter that Shemaiah sent to the priest Zephaniah encouraging him to reprimand Jeremiah for what Shemaiah considered treasonous words in his letter to the exiles (vv. 24-28; compare v. 28 with v. 5). However, Jeremiah is in Jerusalem and Shemaiah is in Babylon. The address must then be part of a second letter Jeremiah sent to Babylon. Following this the narrative refers to Zepheniah reading Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah and Jeremiah sending a further letter to the captives in Babylon (vv. 29-32). This is probably not a third letter but part of the same letter in which Jeremiah reprimands Shemaiah for sending his letter to Zephaniah (vv. 25-28; the same letter referred to in v. 29). The order of events thus is: Jeremiah sent aletter to the capitves counseling them to settle down in Babylon (vv. 1-23). Shemaiah sent a letter to Zephaniah asking him to reprimand Jeremiah (vv. 26-28). After Zephaniah read that letter to Jeremiah (v. 29), Jeremiah wrote a further letter to Babylon reprimanding him (vv. 25-28, 31) and pronouncing judgment on him (v. 32). The elliptical nature of the narrative is reflected in the fact that vv. 25-27 are part of a long causal sentence which sets forth an accusation but has no corresponding main clause or announcement of judgment. This kind of construction involves a rhetorical figure (called aposiopesis) where what is begun is not finished for various rhetorical reasons. Here the sentence that is broken off is part of an announcement of judgment which is not picked up until v. 32 after a further (though related) accusation (v. 31b).
⁵⁰tn Heb “In your [own] name.” See the study note on 23:27 for the significance of this idiom.
⁵¹tn Heb “letters.” Though GKC §124bN1, p. 397 denies it, this is probably a case of the plural of extension. For a similar usage see Isa 37:14 where the plural “letters” is referred to later as an “it.” Even if there were other “letters,” the focus is on the letter to Shemaiah.
⁵²sn According to Jer 52:24; 2 Kgs 25:18 Zephaniah was second in command to the high priest. He was the high ranking priest who was sent along with a civic official to inquire of the LORD’s will from Jeremiah by Zedekiah on two separate occasions (Jer 21:1; 37:3).
⁵³tn The words “In your letter you said to Zephaniah” are not in the text: Heb “you sent a letter to…, saying.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style and these words have been added to make the transition to the address to Zephaniah in vv. 26-28.
⁵⁴tn Heb “in place of Jehoiada the priest.” The word “the priest” is unnecessary to the English sentence.
⁵⁵tc Heb “The LORD has appointed you priest in place of the priest Jehoiada to be overseer in the house of the LORD for/over.” The translation is based on a reading presupposed by several of the versions. The Hebrew text reads “The LORD has…to be overseers [in] the house of the LORD for/over.” The reading here follows that of the Greek, Syriac and Latin versions in reading tyb@B= dyq!P* in place of tyB@ <yd]q!P=. There has been a confusion of the < and B and a transposition of the y and d.
⁵⁶sn This term applies to anyone who exhibits irrational behavior. It was used for example of David who drooled and scratched on the city gate to convince Abimelek not to arrest him as a politically dangerous threat (1 Sam 21:16). It was often used contemptously of the prophets by those who wanted to play down the significance of their words (2 Kgs 9:11; Hos 9:7 and here).
⁵⁷tn The verb here is a good example of what Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §26.2f, p 431 call the estimative-declarative reflexive where a person presents himself in a certain light. For examples of this usage see 2 Sam 13:5; Prov 13:7.
⁵⁸tn See the translator’s note on 20:2 for this word which only occurs here and in 20:2-3.
⁵⁹tn This word only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible. All the lexicons are agreed as seeing it referring to a collar placed around the neck. The basis for this definition are the cognate languages (see, e.g., KB3, qn)yx!, pp. 958-59 for the most complete discussion).
⁶⁰tn Heb “For he has sent to us in Babylon, saying, ‘…” The quote, however, is part of the earlier letter.
⁶¹sn See v. 5.
⁶²tn Heb “in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.”
⁶³tn Heb “Therefore.”
⁶⁴sn Compare the same charge against Hananiah in 28:16 and see the study note there. In this case, the false prophesy of Shemaiah is not given but it likely had the same tenor since he wants Jeremiah reprimanded for saying that the exile will be long and the people are to settle down in Babylon.
¹tn Compare the headings at 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1 and the translator’s note at those places.
²tn Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, saying, ‘…’” For the title “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel” see the study notes on 2:19.
³tn Heb “Write all the words which I speak to you in a scroll.” The verb “which I speak” is the instantaneous use of the perfect tense (cf. GKC §106i, pp. 311-12 or Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §30.5.1d, p. 488. The words that the LORD is about to speak follow in chapter 30—31.
sn Reference is made here to the so-called Book of Consolation which is the most extended treatment of the theme of hope or deliverance in the book. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet both of judgment (of tearing down and destroying) and of deliverance (of replanting and rebuilding; see Jer 1:10). Jeremiah lamented that he had to predominantly pronounce judgment but he has periodically woven in prophecies of hope after judgment in 3:14-18; 16:14-15; 23:3-8; 24:4-7; 29:10-14, 32. The oracles of hope contained in these chapters are undated but reference is made in them to the restoration of both Israel which had gone into exile in Assyria in 722 BC and Judah which began to be exiled in 605 and 597 BC. Jeremiah had already written as early as the reign of Zedekiah about the exiles who were the good figs who were to experience the “good” of restoration (24:4-7; 29:10-14) and had spoken of the further exile of those who remained in Judah. So it is possible that these oracles fit in roughly the same time frame as chapters 27—29.
⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵tn For the translation and meaning of this idiom see the translator’s note on 29:14.
⁶sn As the nations of Israel and Judah were united in their sin and suffered the same fate—that of exile and dispersion—(cf Jer 3:8; 5:11; 11:10, 17) so they will ultimately be regathered and rejoined under one king, a descendant of David and regain possession of their ancestorial lands. The prophets of both the eighth and seventh century looked forward to this ideal (see, e.g., Hos 1:11 (2:2 in Heb); Isa 11:11-13; Jer 23:5-6; 30:3; 33:7; Ezek 37:15-22). This has already been anticipated in Jer 3:18.
⁷tn Heb “And these are the words/things that the LORD speaks concerning Israel and Judah.”
⁸tn The particle yK! is functioning here as loosely causal or epexegetical of the preceding introduction. For this usage cf BDB, yK!, 3c, pp. 473-74. This nuance borders on that of the intensive use of yK!. See the discussion in BDB, yK!, note, p. 474 and yK!, 1e, p. 472.
⁹tn Heb “We have heard the sound of panic and of fear and there is no peace.” It is generally agreed that the person of the verb presupposes that this is an unintroduced quote of the people. The translation has chosen to render this as a passive and suppress the active subject to avoid possible needless confusion and also eliminate an extra level of embedded quote.
¹⁰tn Heb “Ask and see/consider.”
¹¹tn Heb “with their hands on their loins.” The word rendered “loins” refers to the area between the ribs and the thighs.
¹²tn Heb “Alas [or, Woe] for that day will be great.” See the study note for further explanation. For the use of the particle “Alas” to signal a time of terrible trouble, even to sound the death knell for someone, see the translator’s note on 22:13.
sn The reference here to “that day” is a common shorthand reference in the prophets to “the Day of the LORD.” The “Day of the LORD” refers to a time when God intervenes in judgment against the wicked. The time referrent can be either near or far, referring to something as near as the Assyrian threat in the time of Ahaz (Isa 7:18, 20, 21, 23) or as distant as the eschatological battle of God against Gog when he attacks Israel (Ezek38:14, 18). The judgment can be against Israel’s enemies and result in Israel’s deliverance (Jer 50:30-34). At other times as here the Day of the LORD involves judgment on Israel itself. Here reference is to the judgment that the northern kingdom, Israel, has already experienced (cf., e.g., Jer 3:8) and which the southern kingdom, Judah, is in the process of experiencing and which Jeremiah has lamented over several times and even described in hyperbolic and apocalyptic terms in 4:19-31.
¹³tn Heb “It is a time of trouble for Jacob but he will be saved out of it.”
sn Jacob here is figurative for the people descended from him. Moreover the figure moves from Jacob = descendants of Jacob to only a part of those descendants. Not all of his descendants who have experienced and are now experiencing trouble will be saved. Only a remnant (i.e., the good figs, cf., e.g., Jer 23:3; 31:7) will see the good things that the LORD has in store for them (Jer 24:5-6). The bad figs will suffer destruction through war, starvation, and disease (cf., e.g., Jer 24:8-10 among many other references).
¹⁴tn Heb “And it shall happen in that day.”
sn The “day” here is the day of deliverance from the trouble alluded to at the end of the preceding verse, not the day of trouble mentioned at the beginning. Israel (even the good figs) will still have to go through the period of trouble (cf. vv. 10-11).
¹⁵tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of the title for God.
¹⁶tn Heb “I will break his yoke from upon your neck.” For the explanation of the figure see the study note on 27:2. The shift from third person at the end of v. 7 to second person in v. 8c, d and back to third person in v. 8e is typical of Hebrew poetry in the book of Psalms and in the prophetic books (cf., GKC §114p, p. 462 and compare usage in Deut 32:15; Isa 5:8 listed there). Our translation, like several other modern ones, has typically leveled them to the same person to avoid confusion for modern readers who are not used to this poetic tradition.
sn In the immediate context the reference to “his yoke” (Heb) or “the yoke of servitude to foreign domination” should be understood as a reference to the yoke of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar which has been referred to often in Jer 27-28 (see, e.g., 27:8, 12; 28:2, 4, 11). The end of that servitude has already been referred to in 25:11-14; 29:11-14. Like many other passages in the OT it has been given a later eschatological reinterpretation in the light of subsequent bondages and lack of complete fulfillment, i.e., of restoration to the land and restoration of the Davidic monarchy.
¹⁷tn Heb “I will tear off their bands.”
sn The reference is to the leather straps which held the yoke bars in place (cf. 27:2). The metaphor of the “yoke on the neck” is continued. The translation reflects the sense of the metaphor but not the specific referent.
¹⁸tn The word “subject” in this verse and “subjugate” are from the same root word in Hebrew. A deliberate contrast is drawn between the two powers that they will serve.
¹⁹tn Heb “and to David their king whom I will raise up for them.”
sn Reference here is to a descendant of David who would be raised up over a regathered and reunited Israel and Judah. He is called “David” in Hos 3:5, Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 and referred to as a shoot or sprig of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10 and a “righteous branch” springing from David (the Davidic line). He is called “David” because he is from the Davidic line and because David is the type of the ideal king whom the prophets looked forward to. See further the study notes on 23:5 for this ideal king and for his relation to the NT fulfillment in the person of Jesus the Christ.
²⁰tn Heb “So do not be afraid, my servant Jacob, oracle of the LORD.” Here and elsewhere in the verse the terms Jacob and Israel are poetic for the people of Israel descended from the patriarch Jacob. The terms have been supplied throughout with plural referents for greater clarity.
²¹tn Heb “For I will rescue you from far away, your descendants from the land of their captivity.”
²²sn Compare the ideals of the Mosaic covenant in Lev 26:6, the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7:10-11, and the new covenant in Ezek 34:25-31.
²³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁴tn The translation “entirely unpunished” is intended to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb.
²⁵tn The particle yK! here is parallel to the one in v. 5 that introduces the first oracle. See the discussion in the translator’s note there.
²⁶tn The pronouns in vv. 10-17 are second feminine singular referring to a personified entity. That entity is identified in v. 17 as Zion, which here stands for the people of Zion.
²⁷sn The wounds to the body politic are those of the incursions from the enemy from the north referred to in Jer 4:6; 6:1 over which Jeremiah and even God himself have lamented (Jer 8:21; 10:19; 14:17). The enemy from the north has been identified as Babylon and has been identified as the agent of God’s punishment of his disobedient people (Jer 1:15; 4:6; 25:9).
²⁸tc The translation of these first two lines follows the redivision of the lines suggested in NIV and NRSV rather than that of the Masoretes who read, “There is no one who pleads your cause with reference to [your] wound.”
sn This verse exhibits a mixed metaphor of an advocate pleading someone’s case (cf., Jer 5:28; 22:18) and of a physician applying medicine to wounds and sores resulting from them (see, e.g., Jer 8:28 for the latter metaphor). Zion’s sins are beyond defense and the wounds inflicted upon her beyond healing. However, God, himself, in his own time will forgive her sins (Jer 31:34; 33:8) and heal her wounds (Jer 30:17).
²⁹tn Heb “attacked you like…with the chastening of a cruel one because of the greatness of your iniquity [and because] your sins are many.” The sentence has been broken down to conform to contemporary English style and better poetic scansion.
³⁰tn For the translation of this particle which is normally translated “therefore” and often introduces an announcement of judgment compare the usage at Jer 16:14 and the translator’s note there. Here as there it introduces a contrast, a rather unexpected announcement of salvation. For a similar use see also Hos 2:14 (2:16 Hebrew text). Recognition of this usage makes the proposed emendation of BHS of lKo /k@l* to lkow+ unnecessary.
³¹sn With the exception of the second line there is a definite attempt at word play in each line to underline the principle of lex talionis on a national and political level. This principle has already been appealed to in the case of the end of Babylonian sovereignty in 25:14; 27:4.
³²tn Again the particle yK! appears to be intensive rather than causal. Compare the translator’s note on v. 12. It is possible that it has an adversative sense as an implicit contrast with v. 13 which expresses these concepts in the negative (cf. BDB, yK!, 3e, p. 474 for this use in statements which are contextually closer to one another).
³³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁴tn Heb “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his habitations.” For the meaning of the idiom “restore the fortunes of” see the translator’s note on 29:14. The “tents of Jacob” refers to their homes or houses (see BDB, lh#ao, 2, p. 14a and compare usage in Judg 19:9; Mal 2:12). The word “ruined” has been added to the translation to show more clearly the idea of restoration of their houses on their former sites in conformity to the concepts in the latter half of the verse.
³⁵sn Heb “on its tel.” A tel is a site where successive layers of occupation are built upon one another after the destruction or decay of the former city. The original site was not abandoned because it had been chosen for strategic purposes, such as proximity to water or ease of defense. Many modern archaeological sites bear the name “Tel” such and such because of this practice.
³⁶tn Heb “according to its custom [or plan].” Cf. BDB, fP*v=m!, 6d, p. 1049 and compare usage in 1 Sam 27:11.
³⁷sn Compare 29:6.
³⁸tn Heb “his children will be as in former times and his congregation/community will be established before me.” “His children” refers to “Jacob” who has been referred to in v. 18 in the phrase “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob.” “His children” are thus the restored exiles. Some commentaries see the reference here to the restoration of numbers in accordance with the previous verse. However, the last line of this verse and the reference to the ruler in the following verse suggests rather restoration of the religious and political institutions to their former state. For the use of the word translated “community” (hd`u@) to refer to a political congregation as well as its normal use to refer to a religious one see 1 Kgs 12:20. For the idea of “in my favor” (i.e., under the eye and regard of) for the Hebrew phrase used here (yn^p*l=) see BDB, hn#P*, II4a(b), p. 817.
³⁹sn This accords with the regulation in Deut 17:15. They would not be ruled by a foreign leader but by one of their own people. In v. 9 he is specifically said to come from the Davidic line. See the study note there.
⁴⁰sn Ordinarily this prerogative was confined to the priests and the Levites and even then under strict regulations (cf., e.g., Num 8:19; 16:10; Lev 16:10; 21:17; 22:3). Uzziah king of Judah violated this and suffered leprosy for having done so (2 Chr 26:16-20). It is clear, however, that both David and Solomon on occasion exercised priestly functions in the presence of the ark or the altar which it was normally lawful for only the priests to approach (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 6:13-14; 1 Kgs 8:22, 54-55). Here reference is probably not to the normal prerogatives of offering sacrifice or burning incense but access to God’s special presence at special times for the purpose of consultation.
⁴¹tn Heb “For who is he who would pledge his heart to draw near to me.” The question is a rhetorical one expecting the answer “no one” and is a way of expressing an emphatic negative (see BDB, ym!, f(c), p. 566). The concept of “pledging” something refers to putting up security in guarantee of payment. Here the word is used figuratively of “putting up one’s heart [i.e., his very being (cf. BDB, bl@, 7, p. 524 and Ps 22:26)]” for the privilege of access to God. The rhetorical question denies that any one would do that if he were not bidden by God to do so.
⁴²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴³sn This was their highest privilege (cf. Exod 6:7, Lev 26:12; Jer 24:7) but also their greatest responsibility (cf. Jer 7:3; 11:4). It is a formula referring to a covenant relationship in which God pledges to protect, provide, and be present with his people and they in turn promise to be loyal and obedient to him (see Deut 26:17-18; 29:10-13).
⁴⁴sn 30:23-24 are almost a verbatim repetition of 23:19-20. There the verses were addressed to the people of Jerusalem as a warning that the false prophets had no intimate awareness of the LORD’s plans which were plans of destruction for wicked Israel not plans of peace and prosperity. Here they function as further assurance that the LORD will judge the wicked nations oppressing them when he reverses their fortunes and restores them once again to the land as his special people (cf. vv. 18-22).
¹sn This verse repeats v. 22 but with specific reference to all the “families groups of Israel,” i.e., to all Israel and Judah. It functions here as a transition to the next section which will deal with the restoration of Israel (31:3-20) and Judah (31:21-25) and their reunification in the land (31:27-29) under a new covenant relation with God (31:31-37). See also the study note on 30:3 for further reference to this reunification in Jeremiah and the other prophets.
²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³tn Heb “who survived the sword.”
sn Reference here is to the remnant of northern Israel who had not been killed when Assyria conquered Israel in 722 BC or who had not died in exile. Reference to Samaria in v. 5 and to Ephraim in vv. 6, 9 make clear that northern Israel is in view here.
⁴tn Or “The people of Israel who survived the onslaughts of Egypt and Amalek found favor in the wilderness as they journeyed to find rest. At that time long ago the LORD manifested himself to them. He said, ‘I have…That is why I have drawn you to myself through my unfailing kindness.’” For the basis for each of these translations see the translator’s note. There is debate whether the reference here is to God’s preservation of Israel during their wandering in the Sinai desert or his promise to protect and preserve them on their return through the Arabian desert on the way back from Assyria and Babylon (see e.g., Isa 42:14-16; 43:16-21; Jer 16:14-15; 23:7-8). The only finite verbs in vv. 2-3a before the introduction of the quote are perfects which can denote either a past act or a future act viewed as certain of fulfillment (the prophetic perfect; see GKC §106n, p. 312 and see examples in Jer 11:16; 13:17; 25:14; 28:4). The phrase at the beginning of v. 3 can either refer to temporal (cf. BDB, qojr`, 2b, p. 935 and Isa 22:11) or spatial distance (cf. BDB, qojr`, 2a(2), p. 935 and Isa 5:29; 59:14). The verb in the final clause in v. 3 can refer to either the continuance of God’s love as in Ps 36:10 (cf. BDB, Ev^m*, Qal 5, p. 604) or drawing someone to him in electing, caring love as in Hos 11:4 (cf. BDB, Ev^m*, Qal 1, p. 604). The translation has opted for the prophetic reference to future deliverance because of the preceding context, the use of qojr`m@ to refer to the far off land of exile in Jer 30:10; 46:27; 51:50, and the reference to survivors from the sword being called on to remember the LORD in that far off land in 51:50.
⁵tn Heb “Virgin Israel.” See the study note for the significance of the metaphor.
sn For the significance of this metaphor see the study note on 14:17. Here the emphasis appears on his special love and care for his people and the hint (further developed in vv. 21-22) that, though guilty of sin, he considers them like an innocent young virgin.
⁶sn Contrast 7:34 and 25:10.
⁷sn The use of terms here refers to the enjoyment of a period of peace and stability and the reversal of the curse (contrast, e.g., Deut 28:30). The word translated “enjoy its fruit” is a technical one that refers to the owner of a vineyard getting to enjoy its fruit in the fifth year after it was planted, the crops of the first three years lying fallow, and that of the fourth being given to the LORD (cf. Lev 19:23-25).
⁸sn Watchmen were stationed at vantage points to pass on warning of coming attack (Jer 6:17; Ezek 33:2, 6) or to spread the news of victory (Isa 52:8). Here reference is made to the watchmen who signalled the special times of the year such as the new moon and festival times when Israel was to go to Jerusalem to worship. Reference is not made to these in the Hebrew Bible but there is a good deal of instruction regarding them in the later Babylonian Talmud.
⁹sn Not only will Israel and Judah be reunited under one ruler (cf. 23:5-6), but they will share a unified place and practice of worship once again in contrast to Israel using the illicit places of worship, illicit priesthood, and illicit feasts instituted by Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:26-31) and continued until the downfall of Samaria in 722 BC.
¹⁰tn See the translator’s notes on 30:5, 12.
¹¹tn Literally “for the head/chief of the nations.” See BDB, varo, 3c, p. 911 and compare usage in Ps 18:44 referring to David as the “chief” or “foremost ruler” of the nations.
¹²tn It is unclear who the addressees of the masculine plural imperatives are in this verse. Possibly they are the implied exiles who are viewed as in the process of returning and praying for their fellow countrymen.
¹³tc Or “The LORD will rescue his people. He will deliver those of Israel who remain alive.” The translation used in the text follows the Hebrew: “Rescue your people, O LORD, the remnant of Israel.” The alternate translation which is preferred by several modern translations (e.g., REB, TEV) and a majority of modern commentaries (see, e.g., J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 569, J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 273, fn s-s) follows the reading of the Greek version and the Aramaic Targum and appears more appropriate to the context of praise presupposed by the preceding imperatives. The difference in the two readings are the omission of one vowel letter and the confusion of a final E and a o which are very similar in form. (The Greek presupposes oMu^-ta# hwhy u^yv!oh for the Hebrew EM=u^-ta# hwhy uv^oh.) The key to a decision here is the shift from the verbs of praise to the imperative “say” which introduces the quotation; there is a shift from praise to petition. The shift in mood is not uncommon, occurring, for example, in Ps 118:25 and 126:4; it is the shift in mood between praise for what has begun to petition for what is further hoped for. It is easier to explain the origin contextually of the Greek and Targum than it is the Hebrew text, thus the Greek and Targum are probably a secondary smoothing of the text (this is the decision of the editors of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 4:263). The mood of prayer also shows up in v. 9 and again in vv. 17-18.
¹⁴tn The words “And I will reply” are not in the text but the words vv. 8-9 appear to be the answer to the petition at the end of v. 7. These words are added for clarity.
¹⁵tn Heb “They will come with weeping; I will bring them with supplication.” The ideas of contrition and repentance are implicit from the context (cf. vv. 18-19) and are supplied for clarity.
¹⁶sn 31:8-9 are reminiscent of the New Exodus motif of Isa 40-66 which has already been referred to in Jer 16:14-15; 23:7-8. See especially Isa 35:3-10; 40:3-5, 11; 41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:9-13. As there, the New Exodus will so outstrip the old that the old will pale in comparison and be almost forgotten (see Jer 23:7-8).
¹⁷sn Ephraim was the second son of Joseph who was elevated to a place of prominence in the family of Jacob by the patriarch’s special blessing. It was the strongest tribe in northern Israel and Samaria lay in its territory. It is often used as a poetic parallel for Israel as here. The poetry is not speaking of two separate entities here; it is a way of repeating an idea for emphasis. Moreover, there is no intent to show special preference for northern Israel over Judah. All Israel is metaphorically God’s son and the object of his special care and concern (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6).
¹⁸sn Two rather theologically significant metaphors are used in this verse. The word translated “will set…free” is a word used in the legal sphere for paying a redemption price to secure the freedom of a person or thing (see, e.g., Exod 13:13, 15). It is used metaphorically and theologically to refer to Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage (Deut 15:15; Mic 6:4) and its deliverance from Babylonian exile (Isa 35:10). The word translated “secure their release” is a word used in the sphere of family responsibility where a person paid the price to free an indentured relative (Lev 25:48, 49) or paid the price to restore a relative’s property siezed to pay a debt (Lev 25:25, 33). This word, too, was used to refer metaphorically and theologically to Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage (Exod 6:6) or release from Babylonian exile (Isa 43:1-4; 44:22). These words are traditionally translated “ransom” and “redeem” and are a part of traditional Jewish and Christian vocabulary for physical and spiritual deliverance.
¹⁹tn Heb “from the hand/power of the one too strong for him.”
²⁰tn Reading a qal perfect from the root II rh^n` with KB2, p. 509 and KB3, p. 639 rather than I rh^n`, with BDB, p. 625.
²¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” This phrase has been brought up to the beginning of v. 13 from the end of v. 14 to introduce the transition from third person description by Jeremiah to first person address by the LORD.
²²tc The translation follows the reading of the LXX (Greek version). The Hebrew reads “will dance and be glad, young men and old men together.” The Greek version presupposes a Qal imperfect of a rare verb (WDj=y^ from the verb hd`j*; see BDB, II hd`j*, Qal, p. 292) as opposed to the Hebrew text which reads a common adverb wd`j=y^. The consonantal text is the same but the vocalization is different. There are no other examples of the syntax of the adverb used this way (i.e., of a compound subject added to a third subject) and the vocalization of the Hebrew text can be explained on the basis of a scribe misvocalizing the text based on his greater familiarity with the adverb.
²³tn Heb “I will satiate the priests with fat.” However, the word translated “fat” refers literally to the fat ashes of the sacrifices (see Lev 1:16; 4:2 and cf. BDB, /v#D#, 2, p. 206. The word is used more abstractly for “abundance” or “rich food” (see Job 36:16 and BDB, /v#D#, 1, p. 206). The people and the priests were prohibited from eating the fat (Lev 7:23-24).
²⁴sn Ramah is a town in Benjamin approximately five miles north of Jerusalem. It was on the road between Bethel and Bethlehem. Traditionally, Rachel’s tomb was located near there at a place called Zelzah (1 Sam 10:2). Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin and was very concerned about having children because she was barren (Gen 30:1-2) and went to great lengths to have them (Gen 30:3, 14-15, 22-24). She was the grandmother of Ephraim and Mennaseh which were two of the major tribes northern Israel. Here Rachel is viewed metaphorically as weeping for her “children,” the descendants of Ephraim and Menasseh, who had been carried away into captivity in 722 BC.
²⁵tn I.e., gone into exile.
²⁶tn The words “to her” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
²⁷tn Heb “Refrain your voice from crying and your eyes from tears.”
²⁸tn Heb “your work.” Contextually her “work” refers to her weeping and refusing to be comforted (v. 15).
²⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁰tn For this nuance for the Hebrew word tyr]j&a^ see BDB, tyr]j&a^, d, p. 31 and compare usage in Pss 37:38; 109:13. Others translate “your future” but the “future” lies with the return of her descendants, her posterity.
³¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³²tn The use of “indeed” is intended to reflect the infinitive absolute which precedes the verb for emphasis (see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §35. 3. 1f, p. 586).
³³tn Heb “Ephraim.” See the study note on 31:9. The more familiar term is used, the term “people” added to it, and plural pronouns used throughout the verse to aid in understanding.
³⁴sn Heb “like an untrained calf.” The metaphor is that of a calf who has never been broken to bear the yoke. The metaphor is found also in Hos 4:16; 10:11. Reference has been made in Jer 2:20; 5:5 to Israel’s refusal to bear the yoke of loyalty and obedience to the LORD’s demands. Here Israel expresses that she has learned from the discipline of exile and is ready to bear his yoke.
³⁵tn The verb here is from the same root as the preceding and is probably an example of the “tolerative Niphal,” i.e., “I let myself be disciplined>I responded to it.” See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §23. 4g, p. 390 and note their translation of some of the examples there, especially Isa 19:22; 65:1.
³⁶tn Heb “Bring me back in order that I may come back.” For the use of the plural pronouns see the marginal note at the beginning of the verse. The verb “bring back” and “come back” are from the same root in two different verbal stems and in the context express the idea of spiritual repentance and restoration of relationship not physical return to the land. (See BDB, bWv, Hiph 2a, p. 999 for the first verb and Qal 6c, p. 997 for the second.) For the use of the cohortative to express purpose after the imperative see GKC §108d, p. 320 or Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §34.5.2b, p. 575.
sn There is a word play on several different nuances of the same Hebrew verb in vv. 16-19. The Hebrew verb shub refers both to their turning away from God (v. 19) and to their turning back to him (v. 18). It is also the word that is used for their return to their homeland (vv. 16-17).
³⁷tn For this meaning of the verb see KB3, ud^y`, Nif 5, p. 374 or Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, ud^y`, Nif 5, p. 129. REB translates “Now that I am submissive” relating the verb to a second root meaning “be submissive.” (See KB3, II ud^y`, p. 375 and J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, pp. 19-21 for evidence for this verb. Other passages cited with this nuance are Judg 8:16; Prov 10:9; Job 20:20.)
³⁸tn Heb “I struck my thigh.” This was a gesture of grief and anguish (cf. Ezek 21:12 (v17 in Heb)). The modern equivalent is “to beat the breast.”
³⁹sn Heb “because I bear the reproach of my youth.” For the plural referents see the marginal note at the beginning of v. 18. The reference here is to the disgrace that accompanied the sins that Israel did in her earlier years before she learned the painful lesson of submission to the LORD through the discipline of exile. For earlier references to the sins of her youth (i.e., in her earlier years as a nation) see 3:24-25; 22:21 and see also 32:29. At the time that these verses were written, neither northern Israel or Judah had expressed the kind of contrition voiced in vv. 18-19. As one commentator notes, the words here are both prophetic and instructive.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Is Ephraim a dear son to me or a child of delight?” For the substitution of Israel for Ephraim and the plural pronouns for the singular see the note on v. 18. According to BDB, h&, 1c, p. 210 the question is rhetorical having the force of an impassioned affirmation. See 1 Sam 2:27; Job 41:9 (41:1 Hebrew text) for parallel usage.
⁴¹tn Heb “my stomach churns for him.” The parallelism shows that this refers to pity or compassion.
⁴²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴³tn The words “I will say” are not in the text. They are added to mark the transition from the address about Israel in a response to Rachel’s weeping (vv. 15-20) to a direct address to Israel which is essentially the answer to Israel’s prayer of penitence (cf. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 121.)
sn The LORD here invites Israel to stop dilly-dallying and prepare themselves to return because he is prepared to do something new and miraculous.
⁴⁴tn Heb “Virgin Israel.” For the significance see the study note on 31:3.
⁴⁵tn Heb “Set your mind to the highway, the way which you went.” The phrase “the way you went” has been translated “the way you took when you were carried off” to help the reader see the reference to the exile implicit in the context. The verb “which you went” is another example of the old second feminine singular which the Masoretes typically revocalize (Kethiv yT!k=l^h*; Qere T=k=l^h*). The vocative has been added at the beginning to help make the transition from third person reference to Ephraim/Israel in the preceding to second person in the following and to identify the referent of the imperatives. Likewise, this line has been moved to the front to show that the reference to setting up sign posts and landmarks is not literal but figurative, referring to making a mental note of the way they took when carried off so that they can easily find their way back. Lines three and four in the Hebrew text read, “Set up sign posts for yourself; set up guideposts/landmarks for yourself.” The word translated “telltale signs marking the way” occurs only here. Though its etymology and precise meaning are unknown, all the lexicons agree in translating it as “sign post” or something similar based on the parallelism.
⁴⁶tn The translation follows that suggested by J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 276. The verb occurs only here in this stem (the Hithpael) and only one other time in any other stem (the Qal in Song 5:6). The dictionaries define it as “to turn this way and that” (cf., e.g., BDB, qm^j*, Hithp., 330). In the context it refers to turning this way and that looking for the way back.
⁴⁷sn Israel’s backsliding is forgotten and forgiven. They had once been characterized as an apostate people (3:14, 22; the word “apostate” and “unfaithful” are the same in Hebrew) and figuratively depicted as an adulterous wife (3:20). Now they are viewed as having responded to his invitation (compare 31:18-19 with 3:22-25). Hence they are no longer depicted as an unfaithful daughter but as an unsullied virgin (see the literal translation of “my dear children” in vv. 4, 21 and the study note on v. 4.)
⁴⁸tn Heb “For the LORD will create.” The person has been shifted to avoid the possible confusion for some readers of a third person reference to the LORD in what has otherwise been a first person address. The verb “will create” is another one of the many examples of the prophetic perfect that have been seen in the book of Jeremiah. For the significance of the verb “create” here see the study note on “bring about something new.”
⁴⁹sn Literally “create.” This word is always used with God as the subject and refers to the production of something new or unique, like the creation of the world and the first man and woman (Gen 1:1; 2:3; 1:27; 5:1) or the creation of a new heavens and a new earth in a new age (Isa 65:17), or the bringing about of new and unique circumstances (Num 16:30). Here reference is made contextually to the new exodus, that marvelous deliverance which will be so great that the old will pale in comparison (see the first study note on v. 9).
⁵⁰tn The meaning of this last line is uncertain. The translation has taken it as proverbial for something new and unique. For a fairly complete discussion of most of the options see C. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary 6:571. For the nuance of “protecting” for the verb here see BDB, bb^s*, Po’ 1, p. 686 and compare the usage in Deut 32:10.
⁵¹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See 7:3 and the study note of 2:19 for the rendering of this title and an explanation of its significance.
⁵²tn Heb “They [i.e., people (the indefinite plural, GKC §144g, p. 460)] will again say in the land of Judah and in its cities when I restore their fortunes.” For the meaning of the idiom “to retore the fortunes” see the translator’s note on 29:14.
⁵³tn The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but it is implicit in the titles that follow. They have been added for clarity to aid in identifying the referent.
⁵⁴sn The blessing pronounced on the city of Zion/Jerusalem by the restored exiles looks at the restoration of its once exalted state as the city known for its sanctity and its justice dealing (see Isa 1:21 and Ps 122). This was a reversal of the state of Jerusalem in the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah where wickedness not righteousness characterized the inhabitants of the city (cf. Isa 1:21; Jer 4:14; 5:1; 13:27). The blessing here presupposes the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the temple which gave the city its sanctity.
⁵⁵tn The translation “those who move about with their flocks” is based on an emendation of the Hebrew text which reads a third plural Qal perfect (Wus=n`) to a masculine plural Qal participle in the construct (yu@s=n)) as suggested in the BHS fn. For the use of the construct participle before a noun with a preposition see GKC §130a, p. 421. It is generally agreed that three classes of people are referred to here, townspeople, farmers, and shepherds. But the syntax of the Hebrew sentence is a little awkward: “And they [i.e., “people” (the indefinite plural, GKC §144g, p. 460)] will live in it, Judah and all its cities [an apposition of nearer definition (GKC § 131n, p. 425)], [along with] farmers and those who move about with their flocks.” The first line refers awkwardly to the townspeople and the other two classes are added asyndetically (i.e., without the conjunction “and”).
⁵⁶tn The verbs here again emphasize that the actions are as good as done (i.e., they are prophetic perfects; cf. GKC §106n, pp. 312-13).
sn For the concept here compare 31:12 where the promise was applied to northern Israel. This represents the reversal of the conditions that would characterize the exiles according to the covenant curse of Deut 28:65-67.
⁵⁷tn Or “When I, Jeremiah, heard this, I woke up and looked around. My sleep had been very pleasant.” The text is somewhat enigmatic. It has often been explained as an indication that Jeremiah had received this communication (30:3—31:26) while in a prophetic trance (compare Dan 10:9). However, there is no other indication that this is a vision or a vision report. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 124, 128-29 suggest that this is a speech of the restored (and refreshed) exiles like that which is formally introduced in v. 23. This speech, however, is not formally introduced. This interpretation is also reflected in the translations of TEV and CEV and is accepted here as fitting the context better and demanding less presuppositions. The text reads literally “Upon this I awoke and looked and my sleep was sweet to me.” Keown, Scalise, Smothers have the best discussion of these two options as well as a couple of others.
⁵⁸tn Heb “Behold days are coming!” The particle “Behold” is probably used here to emphasize the reality of a fact. See the translator’s note on 1:6.
sn This same expression is found in the introduction to the Book of Consolation (30:1-3) and in the introduction to the promise of a new agreement (or covenant; 31:31). In all three passages it is emphasized that the conditions apply to both Israel and Judah. The LORD will reverse their fortunes and restore them to their lands (30:3), increase their numbers and build them up (31:27-28), and make a new agreement with them involving forgiveness of sins (31:31-34).
⁵⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶⁰tn Heb “Behold, the days are coming and [= when] I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of people and of animals.” For the significance of the metaphor see the study note.
sn The metaphor used here presupposes that drawn in Hos 2:23 (2:25 Hebrew text) which is in turn based on the pun with Jezreel (meaning “God sows”) in Hos 2:22. The figure is that of plant seed in the ground which produces a crop; here what are sown are the “seeds of people and animals.” For a similar picture of the repopulation of Israel and Judah see Ezek 36:10-11. The promise here reverses the scene of devastation that Jeremiah had depicted apocalyptically and hyperbolically in Jer 4:23-29 as judgment for Judah’s sins.
⁶¹tn Heb “Just as I watched over them to uproot and to tear down, to destroy and demolish, so I will watch over them to build and to plant.” The words here repeat those of 1:10 and 1:12.
⁶²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶³tn This word only occurs here and in the parallel passage in Ezek 18:2 in the Qal stem and in Eccl 10:10 in the Piel stem. In the latter passage it refers to the bluntness of an axe that has not been sharpened. Here the idea is of the “bluntness” of the teeth, not from having ground them down due to the bitter taste of sour grapes but to the fact that they have lost their “edge,” “bite,” or “sharpness” because they are numb from the sour taste. For this meaning for the word see W. Holladay, Jeremiah 2:197.
sn This is a proverbial statement that is found also in Ezek 18:2. It served to articulate the complaint that the present generation was suffering for the accrued sins of their ancestors (cf. Lam 5:7) and that the LORD was hence unjust (Ezek 18:25, 29). However, Jeremiah had repeatedly warned his own generation that they were as guilty or even more so than their ancestors. The ancestors were indeed guilty of sin but the present generation had compounded the problem by their stubborn refusal to turn back to God despite repeated warnings from the prophets and hence God would withhold judgment no longer (cf. especially Jer 16:10-13 and compare Jer 7:24-34; 9:12-16 (9:11-15 Hebrew text); 11:1-13).
⁶⁴sn The LORD answers their charge by stating that each person is responsible for his own sin and will himself bear the consequences. Ezek 18 has a more extended treatment of this and shows that this extends not just to the link between parents and children but between former behavior and future behavior of the same individual. To a certain extent the principle articulated here is anticipatory of the statement in v. 34 which refers to the forgiveness of former sins.
⁶⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶⁶tn Traditionally, “a new covenant” (also in vv. 32-22).
⁶⁷tn Heb “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
⁶⁸tn The word “old” is not in the text but is implicit in the use of the word “new.” It is added for greater clarity.
⁶⁹sn Reference is of course to the Mosaic covenant which the nation entered into with God at Sinai and renewed on the plains of Moab (Exod 19—24; Deuteronomy and see the study note on Jer 11:2 for the form this agreement or “covenant” took and its relation to the warnings of the prophets). The renewed document of Deuteronomy was written down and provisions made for periodic public reading and renewal of commitment to it (Deut 31:9-13). Josiah had done this after the discovery of the Book of the Law (which was either Deuteronomy or a synopsis of it) early in the ministry of Jeremiah (2 Kgs 23:1-4; the date would be near 622 BC shortly after Jeremiah began prophesying in 627 (see the study note on Jer 1:2)). But it is apparent from Jeremiah’s confrontation with Judah after that time that the commitment of the people was only superficial (cf. Jer 3:10). The prior history of the nations of Israel and Judah and Judah’s current practice had been one of persistent violation of this agreement despite repeated warnings of the prophets that God would punish them for that (see especially Jer 7, 11). Because of that Israel had been exiled (cf., e.g., Jer 3:8) and now Judah was threatened with the same (cf., e.g., Jer 7:15). Jer 30—31 look forward to a time when both Israel and Judah will be regathered, reunited, and under a new agreement which includes the same stipulations but with a different relationship (v. 32).
⁷⁰tn Or “I was their master.” See the study note on 3:14.
sn The metaphor of Yahweh as husband and Israel as wife has been used already in Jer 3 and is implicit in the repeated allusions to idolatry as spiritual adultery or prostitution. The best commentary on the faithfulness of God to his “husbandly” relation is seen in the book of Hosea, especially in Hos 1-3.
⁷¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷²tn Heb “with the house of Israel.” All commentators agree that the term here refers to both the whole nation which was divided into the house of Israel and the house of Judah in v. 30.
⁷³tn Heb “after those days.” Commentators are generally agreed that this refers to the return from exile and the repopulation of the land referred to in vv. 27-28 and not to something subsequent to the time mentioned in v. 30. This is the sequencing that is also presupposed in other “new covenant” passages such as Deut 30:1-6; Ezek 11:17-20; 36:24-28.
⁷⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁵tn Heb “‘But this is the agreement that I will make with the house of Israel after these days:’ says the LORD, ‘I will…’” The sentence has been reworded and restructured to avoid the awkwardness of the original style.
⁷⁶tn Heb “in their inward parts.”
sn The Hebrew word here refers to the seat of the thoughts, emotions, and decisions (Jer 9:8 [9:7 Hebrew text]). It is essentially synonymous with “heart” in Hebrew psychological terms.
⁷⁷tn The words “and minds” is not in the text but is added to bring the English psychology more into line with the Hebrew where the “heart” is the center both of knowing/thinking/reflecting and deciding/willing.
sn Two contexts are relevant for understanding this statement. First is the context of the first or old agreement which was characterized by a law written on stone tablets (e.g., Exod 32:15-16; 34:1, 28; Deut 4:13; 5:22; 9:10) or in a “book” or “scroll” (Deut 31:9-13) which could be lost (cf. 2 Kgs 22:8), forgotten (Hos 4:6), ignored (Jer 6:19; Amos 4:2), or altered (Jer 8:8). Second is the context of the repeated fault that Jeremiah has found with their stubborn (3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17), uncircumcised (4:4; 9:26) and desperately wicked hearts (4:4; 17:9). Radical changes were necessary to get the people to obey the law from the heart and not just pay superficial or lip service to it (3:10; 12:2). Deut 30:1-6; Ezek 11:17-20; 36:24-28 speak of these radical changes. The LORD will remove the foreskin of their heart and give them a circumcised heart or take away their stony heart and give them a new heart. With this heart they will be able to obey his laws, statutes, ordinances and commands (Deut 30:8; Ezek 11:20; 36:27). The new agreement does not entail a new law; it is the same law that Jeremiah has repeatedly accused them of rejecting or ignoring (6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 26:4; 44:10). What does change is their inner commitment to keep it. Jeremiah has already referred to this in Jer 24:7 and will refer to it again in Jer 32:39.
⁷⁸sn Compare 24:7; 30:22; 31:1 and see the study note on 30:2.
⁷⁹tn Heb “teach…, saying, ‘Know the LORD.’” The indirect quote has been chosen for stylistic reasons, i.e, to better parallel the following line.
sn As noted in the translator’s note on 9:3 (9:2 Hebrew text) “knowing” God in covenant contexts like this involves more than just an awareness of who he is (9:23 [9:22 Hebrew text]). It involves an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and whole hearted commitment to obedience to him. This is perhaps best seen in the parallelisms in Hos 4:1; 6:6 where “the knowledge of God” is parallel with faithfulness and steadfast love and in the context of Hos 4 refers to obedience to the LORD’s commands.
⁸⁰sn This statement should be understood against the background of 8:8-9 where class distinctions were drawn and certain people were considered to have more awareness and responsibility for knowing the law and also 5:1-5 and 9:3-9 where the sinfulness of Israel was seen to be universal across these class distinctions and no trust was to be placed in friends, neighbors, or relatives because all without distinction had cast off God’s yoke (i.e., refused to submit themselves to his authority).
⁸¹tn The Hebrew particle yK! that introduces this clause refers to more than just the preceding clause (i.e., that all will know the LORD) but to all of vv. 31-34a (See BDB, yK!, 3c, p. 474).
⁸²tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for this title. In the Hebrew text the verse reads: “Thus says the LORD who provides the sun for light by day, the fixed ordering of the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, whose name is Yahweh of armies, ‘…’” The hymnic introduction to the quote which does not begin until v. 36 has been broken down to avoid a long awkward sentence in English. The word “said” has been translated “made a promise” to reflect the nature of the content in vv. 36-37. The first two lines of the Hebrew poetry are a case of complex or supplementary ellipsis where the complete idea of “providing/establishing the fixed laws” is divided between the two lines (cf. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible , pp. 110-113). The necessity for recombining the ellipsis is obvious from reference to the fixed ordering in the next verse. (Some commentators prefer to delete the word as an erroneous glossing of the word in the following line (see, e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 277, fn y).)
⁸³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁴tn Heb “‘If these fixed orderings were to fail to be present before me,’ oracle of the LORD, ‘then the seed of Israel could cease from being a nation before me forever (or more literally, “all the days”).’” The sentence has been broken up to conform more to modern style. The connection has been maintained by reversing the order of condition and consequence and still retaining the condition in the second clause. For the meaning of “cease to operate” for the verb vWm compare the usage in Isa 54:10; Ps 55:11 (55:12 Hebrew text); Prov 17:13 where what is usually applied to persons or things is applied to abstract things like this (see KB3, II vWm, Qal, p. 506 for general usage).
⁸⁵sn This answers Jeremiah’s question in 14:19.
⁸⁶tn Heb “If the heavens above could be measured or the foundations of the earth below be explored, then also I could reject all the seed of Israel for all they have done.”
⁸⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁸tc The words “is coming” (<ya!B*) are not in the written text (Kethiv) but are supplied in the margin (Qere), in several Hebrew manuscripts and in the versions. It is part of the idiom that also occurs in vv. 27, 31.
sn Compare vv. 27, 31.
⁸⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁹⁰tn Heb “the city will be built to [or, for] the LORD.” The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added for clarity. However, the word occurs in a first person speech so the translation has accommodated the switch in person as it has in a number of other places (compare also NIV, TEV, ICV).
⁹¹tn The word “westward” is not in the text but is added to give some orientation. For the locations of these two reference points see the study note.
sn The Tower of Hananel is referred to in Neh 3:1; 12:39; Zech 14:10. According to the directions given in Neh 3 it was in the northern wall, perhaps in the northeast corner, north of the temple mount. The Corner Gate is mentioned again in 2 Kgs 14:13; 2 Chr 25:23; 26:9; Zech 14:10. It is generally agreed that it was located in the northwest corner of the city.
⁹²tn The words “west” and “southward” are not in the text but are added to give some orientation. For the location of these two places see the study note.
sn The location of the hill of Gareb and the place called “Goah” are not precisely known. However, it has been plausibly suggested from the other localities mentioned that the reference is to the hill west of the Hinnom valley mentioned in Josh 15:8. The location of Goah is generally placed south of that near the southwest corner of the Hinnom Valley which is referred to in the next verse.
⁹³sn It is generally agreed that this was the Hinnom Valley which was on the southwestern and southern side of the city. It was here where the people of Jerusalem had burned their children as sacrifices and where the LORD had said that there would be so many dead bodies when he punished them that they would be unable to bury all of them (cf Jer 7:31-32). Reference here may be to those dead bodies and to the ashes of the cremated victims. This defiled place would be included within the holy city.
⁹⁴tc The translation here follows the Qere and a number of Hebrew manuscripts in reading tomd@v= for the otherwise unknown word tomr}v=, exhibiting the common confusion of r and d. The fields of Kidron are mentioned also in 2 Kgs 23:4 as the place where Josiah burned the cult objects of Baal.
⁹⁵tn The words “on the east” and “north” are not in the text but are added to give orientation. For location of these two places see the study note.
sn The Kidron Valley is the valley that joins the Hinnom Valley in the southeastern corner of the city and runs northward on the east side of the city. The Horse Gate is mentioned in Neh 3:28 and is generally considered to have been located midway along the eastern wall just south of the temple area.
⁹⁶tn The words “will be included within this city that is” are not in the text. The text merely says that “The whole valley…will be sacred to the LORD.” These words have been added because they are really implicit in the description of the whole area as being included within the new city plan, not just the Hinnom and terraced fields as far as the Kidron Valley.
sn The area that is here delimited is larger than any of the known boundaries of Jerusalem during the OT period. Reference is again being made to the increase in population of the restored community (cf. 31:27).
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the eleventh year of…” See 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1 for this same formula.
sn The dating formulas indicate that the date was 588/87 BC. Zedekiah had begun to reign in 598/97 and Nebuchadnezzar had begun to reign in 605/604 BC. The dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule here includes the partial year before he was officially crowned on New Year’s day. See the translator’s note on 25:1 for the method of dating a king’s reign.
²sn 32:2-5 are parenthetical giving the background for the actual report of what the LORD said in v. 7. The background is significant because it shows that Jeremiah was predicting the fall of the city and the kingdom and was being held prisoner for doing so. Despite this pessimistic outlook, the LORD wanted Jeremiah to demonstrate his assurance of the future restoration (which has been the topic of the two preceding chapters) by buying a field as a symbolic act that the Israelites would again one day regain possession of their houses, fields and vineyards (vv. 15, 44). (For other symbolic acts with prophetic import see Jer 13, 19.)
³sn According to 39:1 the seige began in Zedekiah’s ninth year (i.e., in 589/88 BC). It had been interrupted while the Babylonian army was occupied with fighting against an Egyptian force that had invaded Judah. During this period of relaxed siege Jeremiah had attempted to go to his home town in Anathoth to settle some property matters, had been accused of treason, and been thrown into a dungeon (37:11-15). After appealing to Zedekiah he had been moved from the dungeon to the courtyard of the guardhouse connected to the palace (37:21) where he remained confined until Jerusalem was captured in 587/86 BC (38:28).
⁴tn Heb “the courtyard of the guarding or place of guarding.” This expression occurs only in the book of Jeremiah (32:2, 8, 12; 33:1; 37:21; 38:6, 12, 28; 39:14,15) and in Neh 3:25. It is not the same as an enclosed prison which is where Jeremiah was initially confined (37:15-16; literally a “house of imprisoning” (rWsa@h* tyB@) or “house of confining” (al#K#h^ tyB@)). It is said to have been in the palace compound (32:2) near the citadel or upper palace (Neh 3:25). Though it was a place of confinement (32:2; 33:1; 39:15) Jeremiah was able to receive visitors, e.g., his cousin Hanamel (32:8) and the scribe Baruch (32:12), and conduct business there (32:12). According to 32:12 other Judeans were also housed there. A cistern of one of the royal princes, Malchijah, was located in this courtyard, so this is probably not a “prison compound” as NJPS Tanakh interpret but a courtyard adjacent to a guardhouse or guardpost (so Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 151 and compare Neh 12:39 where reference is made to a Gate of the Guard/Guardhouse) used here for housing political prisoners who did not deserve death or solitary confinement as some of the officials though Jeremiah did.
⁵tn Heb “Zedekiah king of Judah.”
⁶tn The translation is an attempt to break up a very long Hebrew sentence with several levels of subordination and embedded quotations and also an attempt to capture the rhetorical force of the question “Why…” which is probably an example of what Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp.953-54 calls a rhetorical question of expostulation or remonstrance (Cf. the translator’s note on 26:9 and compare also the question in 36:29. In all three of these cases NJPS Tanakh translates “How dare you…” which captures the force nicely.). The Hebrew text reads, “For Zedekiah king of Judah had confined him, saying, ‘Why are you prophesying, saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold I am giving this city into the hands of the king of Babylon and he will capture it.’”’”
⁷tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁸tn Heb “his [Zedekiah’s] mouth will speak with his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] mouth and his eyes will see his eyes.” The verbs here are an obligative imperfect and its waw consecutive perfect equivalent. (See Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §31.4g, pp.508-9 for discussion and examples of the former and §32.2.1d, no. 16, p.528 for the latter.)
⁹tn This is the verb (dq^P*) that has been met with several times in the book of Jeremiah, most often in the ominous sense of “punish” (e.g., 6:15; 11:22; 23:24) but also in the good sense of “resume concern for” (e.g., 27:22; 29:10). Here it is obviously in the ominous sense referring to his imprisonment and ultimate death (52:11).
sn Compare 34:2-3 for this same prophecy. The incident in 34:1-7 appears to be earlier than this one. Here Jeremiah is confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse; there he appears to have freedom of movement.
¹⁰tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹¹sn The pronouns are plural here referring to the people of Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah had counseled that they surrender (cf 27:12; 21:8-10) because they couldn’t succeed against the Babylonian army even under the most favorable circumstances (37:3-10).
¹²tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
¹³tn Heb “The word of the LORD came to me, saying.” This verse resumes the narrative introduction in v. 1 which was interrupted by the long parenthetical note about historical background. There is again some disjunction in the narrative (compare the translator’s notes on 27:2 and 28:1). What was begun as a biographical (third person) narrative turns into an autobiographical (first person) narrative until v. 26 where the third person is again resumed. Again this betrays the hand of the narrator, Baruch.
¹⁴tn For the use of fP*v=m! here and in v. 8 see BDB, fP*v=m!, 5, p. 1049 and compare the usage in Deut 21:17.
¹⁵sn Underlying this request are the laws of redemption of property spelled out in Lev 25:25-34 and illustrated in Ruth 4:3-4. Under these laws, if a property owner became impoverished and had to sell his land, the nearest male relative had the right and duty to buy it so that it would not pass out of the use of the extended family. The land, however, would not actually belong to Jeremiah because in the year of Jubilee it reverted to its original owner. All Jeremiah was actually buying was the right to use it (Lev 25:13-17). Buying the field, thus, didn’t make any sense (thus Jeremiah’s complaint in v. 25) other than the fact that the LORD intended to use Jeremiah’s act as a symbol of a restored future in the land.
¹⁶tn Heb “And according to the word of the LORD my cousin Hanamel came to me to the courtyard of the guardhouse and said, ‘…’” The sentence has been broken down to conform better with contemporary English style.
¹⁷tn Heb “I weighed out the money [more literally, “silver”] for him, seventeen shekels of silver.”
sn Coins were not in common use until the post-exilic period. Payment in gold and silver was made by cutting off pieces of silver or gold and weighing them in a beam balance using standard weights as the measure. A shekel weighed approximately 2/5 of an ounce or 11.4 grams. The English equivalents are only approximations.
¹⁸tn The words “of purchase” are not in the text but are implicit. The qualification is added explicitly in vv. 11, 12, 13. These words are added for clarity. An alternative translation would be “I put the deed in writing.” However, since the same idiom rp#s@B= bt^K* is used later in v. 12 with respect to the witnesses, it is likely that it merely refers to signing the document.
¹⁹tn The words “to the purchase” are not in the text but are implicit in the idiom “I had some witnesses serve as witness.” The words are added for clarity.
²⁰tn There is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the phrases translated “the order of transfer and the regulations.” The translation follows the interpretation suggested by J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 237 and J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 586, fn 5, and presumably BDB, qjo, 7, p. 349 who defines the use of qjo here as “conditions of the deed of purchase.”
²¹tn Heb “the deed, the purchase.” This is a case of apposition of species in place of the genitive construction (cf. GKC §131b, p. 423 and compare the usage in Exod 24:5).
²²tn Heb “I took the deed of purchase, both that which was sealed [and contained] the order and the regulations and that which was open [i.e., unsealed], and I gave the deed of purchase to Baruch…in the presence of my cousin Hanamel and in the presence of…and in the presence of…” It is awkward to begin a sentence with “I took…” without finishing the thought and the long qualifiers in v. 12 make that sentence too long. The sentence is broken up in accordance with contemporary English style. The reference to the “deed of purchase” in v. 12 should be viewed as a plural consisting of both written and sealed copies as is clear from v. 11 and also v. 14. Part of the confusion is due to the nature of this document which consisted of a single papyrus scroll, half of which was rolled up and sealed and the other half which was left “opened” or unsealed. Bright is probably incorrect in assuming that the copies were duplicate since the qualification “containing the order of transfer and the regulations” is only applied to the appositional participle, “the sealed one [or copy]” (contra J. Bright, Jeremiah, 237-38).
sn Aramaic documents from a little later help us understand the nature of such deeds. The document consisted of a single papyrus sheet divided in half. One half contained all the particulars and was tightly rolled up, bound with strips of cloth or thread, sealed with wax upon which the parties affixed their seal, and signed by witnesses. The other copy consisted of an abstract and was left loosely rolled and unsealed (i.e., open to be consulted at will). If questions were raised about legality of the contract then the sealed copy could be unsealed and consulted.
²³tc The translation follows a number of Hebrew manuscripts and the Greek and Syriac version in reading “the son of my uncles (= my cousin; yd]Do /B#).” The majority of Hebrew manuscripts do not have the word “son of (/B#).”
²⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study notes on 2:19.
²⁵tn Heb “many days.” See BDB, <oy, 5b for this usage.
²⁶tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study notes on 2:19.
²⁷sn The significance of the symbolic act performed by Jeremiah as explained here was a further promise (see the “again” statements in 31:4, 5, 23 and the “no longer” statements in 31:12, 29, 34, 40) of future restoration beyond the destruction implied in vv. 3-5. After the interruption of exile normal life of buying and selling of fields, etc. would again be resumed and former property rights would be recognized.
²⁸tn Heb “Lord Yahweh.” For an explanation of the rendering here see the study note on 1:6.
sn The parallel usage of this introduction in 1:6; 4:10; 14:13 shows that though this prayer has a lengthy introductory section of praise vv. 17-22, this prayer is really one of complaint or lament.
²⁹tn This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle normally translated “behold.” See the translator’s note on 1:6 for the usage of this particle.
³⁰tn Heb “by your great power and your outstretched arm.” See 21:5; 27:5 and the marginal note on 27:5 for this idiom.
³¹tn Or “to thousands of generations.” The contrast of showing steadfast love to “thousands” to the limitation of punishing the third and fourth generation of children for their parents’ sins in Exod 20:5-6; Deut 5:9-10; Exod 34:7 has suggested to many commentators and translators (cf., e.g., NRSV, TEV, NJPS Tanakh) that reference here is to “thousands of generations.” The statement is, of course, rhetorical emphasizing God’s great desire to bless as opposed to the reluctant necessity to punish. It is part of the attributes of God spelled out in Exod 34:6-7.
³²tn Heb “pays back into the bosom of their children the sin of their parents.”
³³tn Heb “Nothing is too hard for you who show…and who punishes…the great [and] powerful God whose name is Yahweh of armies, [you who are] great in counsel…whose eyes are open…who did signs…” Jer 32:18-22 is a long series of relative clauses introduced by participles or relative pronouns in vv. 18-20a followed by second person waw consecutive imperfects carrying on the last of these relative clauses in vv. 20b-22. This is typical of hymnic introductions to hymns of praise (cf., e.g., Ps 136) but it is hard to sustain the relative subordination which all goes back to the suffix on “hard for you.” The sentences have been broken up but the connection with the end of v. 17 has been sacrificied for conformity to contemporary English style.
³⁴tn Heb “[you are] great in counsel and mighty in deed.”
³⁵tn Heb “your eyes are open to the ways of the sons of men.”
³⁶tn Heb “giving to each according to his way [= behavior/conduct] and according to the fruit of his deeds.”
³⁷tn Or “You did miracles and amazing deeds in the land of Egypt. And you continue to do them until this day both in Israel and among mankind. By this mean you have gained a renown…” The translation here follows the syntactical understanding reflected also in NJPS Tanakh. The Hebrew text reads: “you did miracles and marvelous acts in the land of Egypt until this day and in Israel and in mankind and you made for yourself a name as this day.” The majority of translations and commentaries understand the phrases “until this day and in Israel and in mankind” to be an elliptical sentence with the preceding verb and objects supplied as reflected in the alternate translation. However, the emphasis on the miraculous deeds in Egypt in this section both before and after this elliptical phrase and the dominant usage of the terms “signs and wonders” to refer to the plagues and other miraculous signs in Egypt calls this interpretation into question. The key here is understanding “both in Israel and in mankind” as an example of a casus pendens construction (a dangling subject, object, or other modifier) before a conjunction introducing the main clause (cf. GKC §111h, p. 327 and §143d, p. 458 and compare the usage in Jer 6:19; 33:24; 1 Kgs 15:13). This verse is the topic sentence which is developed further in v. 21 and initiates a narrative history of the distant past that continues until v. 22b where reference is made to the long history of disobedience which has lead to the present crisis.
³⁸tn Heb “You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders and with a mighty hand and with outstretched arm and with great terror.” For the figurative expressions involved here see the marginal notes on 27:5. The sentence has been broken down to better conform to contemporary English style.
³⁹tn Heb “You gave to them this land which you had sworn to their ancestors to give to them, a land flowing with milk and honey.” For the rendering of the expressions used here see the translator’s note on 11:5.
⁴⁰tn Or “They did not do everything that you commanded them to do.” This is probably a case where the negative (al)ø negates the whole category indicated by “all” (lKo; see BDB, lKo, 1e(c), p. 482 and compare usage in Deut 12:16; 28:14). Jeremiah has repeatedly emphasized that the history of Israel since their entry into the land has been one of persistent disobedience and rebellion (cf., e.g. 7:22-26; 11:7-8). The statement, of course, is somewhat hyperbolical as all categorical statements of this kind are.
⁴¹tn Heb “Siege ramps have come up to the city to capture it.”
⁴²tn Heb “sword.”
⁴³tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁴⁴tn Heb “And the city has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans who are fighting against it because of the sword, starvation, and disease.” The verb “has been given” is one of those perfects that view the action as as good as done (the perfect of certainty or prophetic perfect).
⁴⁵tn The word “LORD” is not in the text but is added as a reminder that it is he who is being addressed.
⁴⁶tn Heb “And what you said has happened and behold you see it.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁴⁸tn Heb “And you, Lord Yahweh, have said to me, ‘Buy the field for…’ even though the city will be given into the hands of the Babylonians.” The sentence has been broken up and the order reversed for English stylistic purposes. For the rendering “is sure to fall into the hands of” see the translator’s note on the preceding verse.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Lord GOD.” For the rendering of this title see the study note on 1:6.
⁵⁰tn Heb “call in witnesses to witness.”
⁵¹tn Heb “The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying.”
⁵²tn Heb “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?” The question is rhetorical expecting an emphatic negative answer (cf. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 949 citing the parallel in Gen 18:14). The Hebrew particle “Behold” (hN}h!) introduces the grounds for this rhetorical negative (cf. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Grammar, §135 (3), p. 170), i.e., “Since I am the LORD, the God of all mankind, there is indeed nothing too hard for me [or, is there anything too hard for me?].”
sn This statement furnishes the grounds both for the assurance that the city will indeed be delivered over to Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 28-29a) and that it will be restored and repopulated (vv. 37-41). This can be seen from the parallel introductions in vv. 28, “Therefore the LORD says” and “Now therefore the LORD says.” As the creator of all and God of all mankind he has the power and authority to do with his creation what he wishes (cf. Jer 27: 5-6).
⁵³tn Heb “Thus says the LORD.” However, the speech has already been introduced as first person. So the first person style has been retained for smoother narrative style.
⁵⁴tn Heb “Behold, I am going to give this city into the hand of…”
⁵⁵tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁵⁶tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁵⁷sn Compare 19:13.
⁵⁸tn Heb “that which is evil in my eyes.” For this idiom see BDB, /y]u^, 3c, p. 744 and compare usage in 18:10.
⁵⁹tn Heb “from their youth.”
sn Compare 3:24-25; 11:21. The nation is being personified and reference is made to her history from the time she left Egypt onward (cf. 2:2).
⁶⁰tn Heb “the people of Israel.” However, since “people of Israel” has been used in the preceding line for the northern kingdom as opposed to the kingdom of Judah, it might lead to confusion to translate literally. Moreover, the pronoun “they” accomplishes the same purpose.
⁶¹tn Heb “by the work of their hands.” See the translator’s note on 25:6 and the parallelism in 25:14 for this rendering rather than referring it to the making of idols as in 1:16; 10:3.
⁶²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶³tn The statements in vv. 28-29 regarding the certain destruction of the city are motivated by three parallel causal clauses in vv. 30a, b, 31, the last of which extends through subordinate and coordinate clauses until the end of v. 35. An attempt has been made to bring out this structure by repeating the idea “This/it will happen” in front of each of these causal clauses in the English translation.
⁶⁴tn Heb “from the day they built it until this day.”
sn The Israelites did not in fact “build” Jerusalem. They captured it from the Jebusites in the time of David. Reference is perhaps to the enlarging and fortifying of the city after it came into the hands of the Israelites (2 Sam 5:6-10).
⁶⁵tn Heb “For this city has been to me for a source of my anger and my wrath from the day they built it until this day so as remove it.” The preposition l= with the infinitve (Heb “so as to remove it”; Hr`ys!h&l^) expresses degree (cf. R. William, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, §199, p. 37 and compare usage in 2 Sam 13:2).
⁶⁶tn Heb “remove it from my sight 32:33 because of all the wickedness of the children of Israel and the children of Judah which they have done to make me angry, they, their kings, their officials, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and an attempt has been made to preserve the causal connections.
⁶⁷tn Heb “they have turned [their] backs to me, not [their] faces.” Compare the same idiom in 2:27.
⁶⁸tn For the idiom involved here see the translator’s note on 7:13. The verb that introduces this clause is a Piel infinitive absolute which is functioning in place of the finite verb (see, e.g., GKC §113ff, p. 346 and compare usage in Jer 8:15; 14:19. This grammatical point means that the versions cited in BHS fn a may not be reading a different text after all but may merely be interpreting the form as syntactically equivalent to a finite verb as we have done.).
sn Reference is, of course, to God teaching them through the prophets whom he has sent as indicated by the repeated use of this idiom elsewhere in 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5, 19.
⁶⁹tn Heb “But they were not listening so as to accept correction.”
⁷⁰tn Heb “the house which is called by my name.” Cf. 7:10,11,14 and see the translator’s note on 7:10 for the explanation for this rendering.
⁷¹sn Compare 7:30-31; 19:5 and the study notes on 7:30. The god Molech is especially associated with the practice of child sacrifice (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kgs 23:10). In 1 Kgs 11:7 this god is identified as the god of the Ammonites who is also called Milcom in 1 Kgs 11:5; 2 Kgs 23:13. Child sacrifice, however, was not confined to this god; it was also made to the god Baal (Jer 19:5) and to other idols that the Israelites had set up (Ezek 16:20-21). This practice was, however, strictly prohibited in Israel (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut 12:31; 18:10). It was this practice as well as other pagan rites that Menasseh had instituted in Judah that ultimately led to Judah’s demise (2 Kgs 24:3-4). Though Josiah tried to root these pagan practices (2 Kgs 23:4-14) out of Judah he could not do so. The people had only made a pretense of following his reforms; their hearts were still far from God (Jer 3:10; 12:2).
⁷²tn Heb “They built high places to Baal which are in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to cause their sons and daughters to pass through [the fire] to Molech [a thing] which I did not command them and [which] did not go up into my heart [= “mind” in modern psychology] to do this abomination so as to make Judah liable for punishment.” For the use of the Hiphil of af*j* to refer to the liability for punishment see BDB, af*j*, Hiph 3 and compare the usage in Deut 24:8. Coming at the end as this does, this nuance is much more likely than “cause Judah to sin” which is the normal translation assigned to the verb here. The particle /u^m^l= that precedes it is here once again introducing a result and not a purpose (compare other clear examples in 27:10, 15). The sentence has been broken down in conformity to contemporary English style and an attempt has been made to make clear that what is detestable and not commanded is not merely child sacrifice to Molech but child sacrifice in general.
⁷³tn Heb “you.” However, the pronoun is plural and is addressed to more than just Jeremiah (v. 26). It includes Jeremiah and those who have accepted his prophecy of doom.
⁷⁴tn Heb “sword.”
⁷⁵sn Compare 32:24, 28. In 32:24 this is Jeremiah’s statement just before he expresses his perplexity about the LORD’s command to buy the field of his cousin in spite of the certainty of the city’s demise. In 32:28 it is the LORD’s affirmation that the city will indeed fall. Here, the LORD picks up Jeremiah’s assessment only to add a further prophesy (vv. 37-41) of what is just as sure to happen (v. 42). This is the real answer to Jeremiah’s perplexity. Verses 28-35 are an assurance that the city will indeed be captured and a reiteration again of the reason for its demise. The structure of the two introductions in v. 28 and v. 36 are parallel and flow out of the statement that the LORD is God of all mankind and nothing is too hard for him (neither destruction nor restoration [cf. 1:10]).
⁷⁶tn Heb “And now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city which you [masc. pl.] are saying has been given [prophetic perfect = will be given] into the hand of the king of Babylon through sword, starvation, and disease.” The translation attempts to render the broader structure mentioned in the study note and to break the sentence down in a way that conforms more to contemporary English style and that will lead into the speech which does not begin until the next verse. As in v. 28 the third person introduction has been changed to first person for smoother narrative style in a first person speech (i.e., vv. 27-44 are all the LORD’s answer to Jeremiah’s prayer). The words “right in” added to “are saying” are intended to reflect the connection between v. 28 and the statement here (which is a repetition of v. 24). I.e., God does not deny that Jeremiah’s assessment is correct; he affirms it but has something further to say in answer to Jeremiah’s prayer.
⁷⁷tn The verb here should be interpreted as a future perfect; though some of the people have already been exiled (in 605 and 597 BC), some have not yet been exiled at the time this prophesy is given (see study note on v. 1 for the date). However, contemporary English style does not regularly use the future perfect, choosing instead to use the simple future or the simple perfect as we have done here.
⁷⁸sn The covenant formula setting forth the basic relationship is reinstituted along with a new covenant (v. 40). See also 24:7; 30:22; 31:1 and the study note on 30:22.
⁷⁹tn Heb “I will give to them one heart and one way to [= in order that they may] fear me all the days for good to them.” The phrase “one heart” refers both to unanimity of will and accord (cf. 1 Chr 12:38 [12:39 Hebrew text]; 2 Chr 30:12) and to singleness of purpose or intent (cf. Ezek 11:19 and see BDB, bl@, 4, p. 525 where reference is made to “inclinations, resolutions, and determinations of the will”). The phrase “one way” refers to one way of life or conduct (cf. BDB, Er#D#, 6a, p. 203 where reference is made to moral action and character), a way of life that is further qualified by the goal of showing “fear, reverence, respect” for the LORD. The Hebrew sentence has been broken up to avoid a long complex sentence in English which is contrary to contemporary English style. However, an attempt has been made to preserve all the connections of the original.
sn Other passages also speak about the “single-minded purpose” (Heb “one heart”) and “living in a way that shows respect for me.” Deut 30:6-8 speaks of a circumcised heart that will love him, obey him, and keep his commands. Ezek 11:20-21 speaks of the removal of a stony heart and the giving of a single-minded, “fleshy” heart and a new spirit that will follow his decrees and keep his laws. Ezek 36:26-27 speaks of the removal of a stony heart and the giving of a new, “fleshy” heart and a new spirit and an infusion of God’s own spirit so that they will be able to follow his decrees and keep his laws. Jer 24:7 speaks of the giving of a (new) heart so that they might “know” him. And Jer 31:33 speaks of God writing his law on their hearts. All this shows that there is a new motivation and a new enablement for fulfilling the old stipulations, especially that of whole-hearted devotion to him (cf. Deut 6:4-6).
⁸⁰sn Heb “an everlasting covenant.” For the rationale for the rendering “agreement” and the nature of the biblical covenants see the study note on 11:2. For other references to the lasting (or everlasting) nature of the new covenant see Isa 55:3; 61:8; Jer 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26. The new covenant appears to be similar to the ancient Near Eastern covenants of grants whereby a great king gave a loyal vassal a grant of land or dynastic dominion over a realm in perpetuity in recognition of past loyalty. The right to such was perpetual as long as the great king exercised dominion but the actual enjoyment could be forfeited by individual members of the vassal’s dynasty. The best example of such an agreement in the OT is the Davidic covenant where the dynasty was given perpetual right to rule over Israel. Individual kings might be disciplined and their right to enjoy dominion taken away but the dynasty still maintained the right to rule (see 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:26-37 and note especially 1 Kgs11:23-39). The new covenant appears to be the renewal of God’s promise to Abraham to always be the God of his descendants and for his descendants to be his special people (Gen 17:7) something they appear to have forfeited by their disobedience (see Hos 1:9). However, under the new agreement (or new covenant) he promises to never stop doing them good and grants them a new heart, a new spirit, the infusion of his own spirit and the love and reverence necessary to keep from turning away from him. The new agreement is not based on their past loyalty but on his gracious forgiveness and his gifts.
⁸¹tn Or “stop being gracious to them” or, “stop blessing them with good”; Heb “turn back from them to do good to them.”
⁸² Or “I will make them want to fear and respect me so much that”; Heb “I will put the fear of me in their hearts.” However, as has been noted several times, “heart” in Hebrew is more the center of the volition (and intellect) than the center of emotions as it is in English. Both translations are intended to reflect the difference in psychology.
⁸³tn The words “never again” are not in the text but are implicit from the context and are supplied not only by this translation but by a number of others.
⁸⁴tn Heb “will plant them in the land with faithfulness with all my heart and with all my soul.” The latter expressions are, of course, anthropomorphisms (see Deut 6:5).
⁸⁵tn Heb “For thus says the LORD.” See the translator’s notes on 32:27, 36.
⁸⁶tn Heb “As I have brought all this great disaster on these people so I will bring upon them all the good fortune which I am promising them.” The translation has broken down the longer Hebrew sentence to better conform to English style.
sn See the same guarantee in 31:27.
⁸⁷tn Heb “you.” However, the pronoun is plural and is addressed to more than just Jeremiah (v. 26). It includes Jeremiah and those who have accepted his prophecy of doom.
⁸⁸tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁸⁹tn The noun is singular with the article, but it is a case of the generic singular (cf. GKC §126m, p. 406).
⁹⁰tn Heb “Fields will be bought in this land of which you [masc. pl.] are saying, ‘It will be desolate [a perfect of certainty or prophetic perfect] without man or beast; it will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans.’” The original sentence has been broken down to better conform to contemporary English style.
⁹¹tn Heb “They will buy fields with silver and write in the deed and seal [it] and have witnesses witness [it] in the land of Benjamin, in the environs of Jerusalem, in the towns in Judah, in the towns in the hill country, in the towns in the Shephelah, and in the towns in the Negeb.” The long Hebrew sentence has again been restructured to better conform to contemporary English style. The indefinite “they will buy” is treated as a passive. It is followed by three infinitive absolutes which substitute for the finite verb (cf. GKC §113y, p. 345) which is a common feature of the style of the book of Jeremiah.
sn For the geographical districts referred to here compare 17:26.
⁹²tn Or “I will reverse their fortunes.” For this idiom see the translator’s note on 29:14 and compare the usage in 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23.
⁹³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹sn The heading here ties this incident in with the preceding chapter which was the first time that the LORD spoke to him about the matters discussed here. There is no indication of how much time passed between the two incidents though it appears that the situation has worsened somewhat (cf v. 4).
²tn Heb “And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah a second time…, saying.”
³tn Or “I, the LORD, made the earth. I formed it in such a way as to firmly establish it”; Heb “Thus says the LORD who makes/does it, the LORD who forms it to establish it, whose name is the LORD.” It is unclear what the antecedent of “it” is. The Greek version supplies the object “the earth.” However, as the committee for The Hebrew Old Testament Project 4:269 notes, this is probably a smoothing of a text which had no object other than the pronoun. No other text or version has an object other than the pronoun. It could be argued that “the earth” is to be understood as the intended referent from other contexts within the book of Jeremiah (Jer 10:12, 16; 51:15) where these verbs refer to the LORD as creator and from the prior context in 32:17 where the LORD’s power as creator is the basis for the assertion that nothing is too hard for him. This is the object that is supplied in a number of modern translations and commentaries. However, the use of the feminine singular pronoun in other contexts to refer to an indefinite reality which is spelled out in the preceding or following context (cf 2 Kgs 19:25; Isa 22:11; 37:26; 44:7) lends credence to the suggestion by the committee for The Hebrew Old Testament Project that the pronoun refers to the work or plan of the LORD, a view which is reflected in the NJPS Tanakh and has been adopted here. For the use of the verb “form” here in the sense of “plan” see BDB, rx^y`, 2b, p. 427 and compare the usage in Isa 22:11; 37:26. The best discussion of options is given in Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 169-70 who see the pronoun referring ahead to the great and hidden things of v. 3. As in several other cases our translation has opted for a first person introduction rather than the third person of the original because the LORD himself is speaking.
⁴tn This passive participle or adjective is normally used to describe cities or walls as “fortified” or “inaccessible.” All the lexicons, however, agree in seeing it used here metaphorically of “secret” or “mysterious” things, things that Jeremiah could not know apart from the LORD’s revelation. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 170 make the interesting observation that the word is used here in a context in which the fortifications of Jerusalem are about to fall to the Babylonians; the fortified things in God’s secret counsel fall through answer to prayer.
⁵tn Heb “the sword.” The figure has been interpreted for the sake of clarity.
⁶tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
⁷tn Heb “Because I have hidden my face from.” The modern equivalent for this gesture of rejection is “to turn the back on.” See Ps 13:1 for comparable usage. The perfect is to be interpreted as a perfect of resolve (cf. Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §30.5.1d, p. 489 and compare the usage in Ruth 4:3).
⁸tn The translation and meaning of vv. 4-5 are somewhat uncertain. The translation and precise meaning of vv. 4-5 are uncertain at a number of points due to some difficult syntactical constructions and some debate about the text and meaning of several words. The text reads rather literally, “33:4 For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah which have been torn down on account the seige ramps and the sword 33:5 going to fight the Chaldeans and to fill them with the dead bodies of the men whom I have killed in my anger and in my wrath and on account of all whose wickedness I have hidden my face from this city.” There are two difficult syntactical forms (1) the participle at the beginning of v. 5 “going [or, those going] to fight” (<ya!B*) and (2) the infinitive plus suffix that introduces the next clause “and to fill them” (<a*l=m^l=W). The translation has interpreted the former as a verbal use of the participle with an indefinite subject “they” (= the defenders of Jerusalem who have torn down the buildings; cf. GKC §144i, p. 460 for this point of grammar). The conjunction plus preposition plus infinitive construct has been interpreted as equivalent to a finite verb (cf. Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §36.3.2a, p. 611, i.e., “and they will fill them [the houses and buildings of v. 4]”). Adopting the Greek text of these two verses would produce a smoother reading. It reads “For thus says the LORD concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah which have been pulled down for mounds and fortifications to fight against the Chaldeans and to fill it [should be “them”] with the corpses of men whom I smote in my anger and my wrath and I turned away my face from them [rather than from “this city” of the Hebrew text] for all their wickedness: Behold I will…” The Greek does not have the problem with the participle because it has seen it as part of a word meaning fortification. This also eliminates the problem with the infinitive because it is interpreted as parallel with “to fight.” I.e., the defenders used these torn-down buildings for defensive fortifications and for burial places. It would be tempting to follow this reading. However, there is no graphically close form for “fortification” that would explain how the more difficult <ya!B* br#j*h# of the Hebrew text arose and there is doubt whether <yl!l=so can refer to a defense mound. W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:221, 225 has suggested reading <yK!r^j&h^ in place of br#j*h in the technical sense of “crenels,” the gaps between the raised portion on top of the wall (which raised portion he calls “merlons” and equates with <yl!l=so). He does not, however, further suggest seeing <ya!B* as part of this corrupted form, choosing to see it rather as a gloss. His emendation and interpretation, however, have been justly criticized as violating the usage of both <yl!l=so which is elsewhere “seige mound” and <yK!r^j& which elsewhere refers only to the laticed opening of a window (Song 2:9). Until a more acceptable explanation of how the difficult Hebrew text could have arisen from the Greek, the Hebrew should be retained though it is admittedly awkward. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 166, 172 have perhaps the best discussion of the issues and the options involved here.
sn Reference is made here to the tearing down of buildings within the city to strengthen the wall or to fill gaps in it which had been broken down by the Babylonian battering rams. For a parallel to this during the siege of Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah see Isa 22:10; 2 Chr 32:5. These torn-down buildings were also used as burial mounds for those who died in the fighting or through starvation and disease during the siege. The siege prohibited them from taking the bodies outside the city for burial and leaving them in their houses or in the streets would have defiled them.
⁹tn Heb “Behold I am healing.” For the usage of the particle “behold” indicating certainty see the translator’s note on 1:6. These are the great and hidden things that the LORD promised to reveal. The statements in v. 5 have been somewhat introductory. See the usage of yn]n+h! after the introductory “Thus says the LORD” in 32:28, 37.
¹⁰sn Compare 30:17. Jerusalem is again being personified and her political and spiritual well-being are again in view.
¹¹tn The meaning and text of this word is questioned by KB2, tr#t#u&, p. 749. However, KB2 also emends both occurrences of the verb from which BDB, tr#t#u&, p. 801 derives this noun. BDB is more likely correct in seeing this and the usage of the verb in Prov 27:6; Ezek 35:13 as Aramaic loan words from a root meaning to be rich (equivalent to the Heb rv^u*).
¹²tn Heb “I will reverse [or, restore] the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel.” For this idiom see the translator’s note on 29:14 and see the usage in 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44.
¹³tn This phrase simply means “as formerly” (BDB, /ovar], 3a, p. 911). The reference to the “as formerly” must be established from the context. See the usage in Judg 20:32; 1 Kgs 13:6; Isa 1:26.
sn Reference is to the reunification of Israel and Judah to the state that they were before the division after Solomon. Compare 3:18; 30:3; 31:27 and see the study note on 30:3.
¹⁴sn Compare Jer 31:34; Ezek 36:25, 33.
¹⁵tn Heb “And it [the city] will be to me for a name for joy and for praise and for honor before all the nations of the earth which will hear of all the good things which I will do for them and which will be in awe and tremble for all the good things and all the peace [or, prosperity] which I will do for them.” The long complex Hebrew sentence has been broken down to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁶tn Heb “Thus says the LORD.” For the first person rendering see the translator’s note at the end of v. 2.
sn The phrase here is parallel to that in v. 4 and introduces a further amplification of the “great and mysterious things” of v. 3.
¹⁷tn Heb “You.” However, the pronoun is plural as in 32:36, 43. See the translator’s note on 32:36.
¹⁸tn Heb “33:10 Thus says the LORD, ‘There will again be heard in this place of which you are saying [masc. pl.], “It is a ruin without people and without animals,” [that is] in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem which are desolate without people and without inhabitants and without animals 33:11 the sound of…” The long run-on sentence in Hebrew has been broken down to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁹sn What is predicted here is a reversal of the decimation caused by the Babylonian conquest that had been threatened in 7:34; 16:9; 25:10.
²⁰sn This is a common hymnic introduction to both individual songs of thanksgiving (e.g., Ps 118:1) and communal songs of thanksgiving (e.g., Ps 136 where it is a liturgical refrain accompanying a recital of Israel’s early history and of the LORD’s continuing providence).
²¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²²tn Or “I will restore the fortunes of the land.”
sn See the study note on 29:18 and compare 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7 for the meaning and usage of this idiom. The promise here repeats that in 33:7.
²³tn This phrase simply means “as formerly” (BDB, /ovar], 3a, p. 911). The reference to the “as formerly” must be established from the context. See the usage in Judg 20:32; 1 Kgs 13:6; Isa 1:26.
sn Reference is to the reunification of Israel and Judah to the state that they were before the division after Solomon. Compare 3:18; 30:3; 31:27 and see the study note on 30:3.
²⁴tn Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” For the explanation for the first person introduction see the translator’s notes on 33:2, 10. Verses 4, 10, 12 introduce three oracles, all under the answer to the LORD’s promise to Jeremiah to show him “great and mysterious things which you still do not know about.”
²⁵sn Heb “Sheep will again pass under the hands of the counter.” This appears to be a reference to counting the sheep to make sure that none was missing as they returned to the fold. See the same idiom in Lev 27:52 and in the metaphor in Ezek 20:37.
²⁶sn Compare 32:44.
²⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” For the first person form of address see the translator’s notes on vv. 2, 10, 12.
²⁸sn Reference is at the very least to the promises of 23:5-6, 7-8; 30:3; 31:27, 31 where the same formula “The time will certainly come (Heb “Behold the days are coming”)” occurs. Reference may also be to the promises through the earlier prophets of what is alluded to here, i.e., the restoration of Israel and Judah under a Davidic ruler and the revival of the offerings (cf. Hos 1:10-12; 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-12; Isa 11:1-5, 10-16; Jer 30:9, 21 for the former and Jer 31:14; 33:11 for the latter).
²⁹tn Heb “sprig” or “shoot.”
sn For the meaning of this term and its significance in biblical prophecy see the study note on 23:5.
³⁰tn For the translation of this term in this context see the parallel context in 23:6 and consult the translator’s note there.
³¹tn Heb “And this is what will be called to it: ‘The LORD our righteousness.’”
sn For the significance of this title see the study note on the parallel text in 23:6. Other titles by which Jerusalem is to be known are found in Isa 62:2-4; Jer 3:17; Ezek 48:35; Zech 8:3 emphasizing that the LORD takes up his relation with it once again, dwells in it, delights in it, and finds it faithful once more (cf Isa 1:26). In 23:6 the title is applied to the Davidic ruler that the LORD will raise up over them who will do what is just and right. God’s vindication of the city by its restoration after exile and his provision of this just ruler over it is the probable source for the title.
³²tn Heb “a man shall not be cut off to David [i.e., belonging to the Davidic line] sitting on the throne of the house of Israel.”
³³sn It should be noted once again that the reference is to all Israel, not just to Judah (cf. 23:5-6; 30:9).
³⁴tn Heb “And to the Levites, the priests [= the Levitical priests, the apposition in place of the adjective] there shall not be cut off a man from before me who offers up burnt offering, sacrifices a cereal offering, or makes a sacrifice all the days.”
³⁵tn Heb “And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying.” See v. 1. This is a continuation of “the second time.”
³⁶tn Heb “Thus says the LORD.” However, the LORD is speaking so the first person introduction has again been adopted. The content of the verse shows that it is a promise to David (vv. 21-22) and the Levites based on a contrary to fact condition (v. 20). See further the translator’s note at the end of the next verse for explanation of the English structure adopted here.
³⁷tn The word <m*oy is normally an adverb meaning “daytime, by day, daily.” However, here and in v. 25 and in Jer 15:9 it means “day, daytime” (cf. BDB, <m*oy, 1, p. 401).
³⁸tn Heb “you.” The pronoun is plural as in 32:36, 43; 33:10.
³⁹tn The very complex and elliptical syntax of the original Hebrew of vv. 20-21 has been broken down to better conform with contemporary English style. The text reads somewhat literally (after the addition of a couple of phrases which have been left out by ellipsis): “Thus says the LORD, ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night so that there is not to be daytime and night in their proper time then also my covenant can be broken with my servant David so that there is not to him a son reigning upon his throne [and also my covenant can be broken] with the Levites [so there are not] priests who minister to me.” The two phrases in brackets are elliptical, the first serving double duty for the prepositional phrase “with the Levites” as well as “with David” and the second serving double duty with the noun “priests” which parallels “a son.” The noun “priests” is not serving here as appositional because that phrase is always “the priests, the Levites,” never “the Levites, the priests.”
sn Reference here is made to reaffirmation of the Davidic covenant (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 7:11-16, 25-29; Ps 89:3-4, 19-29) and God’s covenant with the Levites (cf. Num 25:10-13; Mal 2:4-6; Deut 32:8-11).
⁴⁰tn Heb “Just as the stars in the sky cannot be numbered or the sand on the seashore cannot be measured, so I will greatly increase [or, multiply] the seed of my servant David and the Levites who minister before me.” The word “seed of” does not carry over to the “the Levites” as a noun governing two genitives because “the Levites” has the accusative marker in front of it. The sentence has been broken down in conformity with contemporary English style.
sn Context makes it clear that what is in view is an innumerable line of descendants from the righteous ruler that the LORD raises up over Israel and Judah after their regathering and restoration to the land. What is in view, then, is a reinstitution or reinstatement of the Davidic covenant of grant, the perpetual right of the Davidic dynasty to rule over the nation of Israel for all time (see also v. 26). This is guaranteed by the creation order which is the object of both God’s creative decree (Gen 1:14-19) and his covenant with Noah after the flood (Gen 8:22). (For further discussion on the nature of a covenant of grant see the study note on 32:40.) The rejection of the lines of Jehoiakim (36:30) and Jeconiah (22:30) and the certain captivity and death of Zedekiah (32:4) may have called into question the continuance of the Davidic promise which always had a certain conditional nature to it (cf. 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5). This promise and this guarantee show that the covenant of grant still stands and will ultimately find its fulfillment. Because this promise never found its fulfillment after the return from exile, it is left to the NT to show how it is fulfilled (cf., e.g., Matt 1:1-17 where it is emphasized that Jesus is the son (and heir) of both Abraham and David).
⁴¹tn Heb “And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying.” See v. 1. This is a continuation of “the second time.”
⁴²tn Heb “Have you not seen what this people have said, saying.” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. The sentence has been broken in two to better conform with contemporary English style.
⁴³tn Heb “The two families which the LORD chose, he has rejected them.” This is an example of an object prepositioned before the verb and resumed by a redundant pronoun to throw emphasis of focus on it (called casus pendens in the grammars; cf. GKC §143d, p. 458). Some commentators identify the “two families” as those of David and Levi mentioned in the previous verses, and some identify them as the families of the Israelites and of David mentioned in the next verse. However, the next clause in this verse and the emphasis on the restoration and regathering of Israel and Judah in this section (cf. 33:7, 14) show that the reference is to Israel and Judah (see also 30:3, 4; 31:27, 31 and 3:18).
⁴⁴tn Heb “and my people [i.e., Israel and Judah] they disdain [or, look down on] from being again a nation before them.” The phrase “before them” refers to their estimation, their mental view (cf. BDB, hn#P*, II.4.a[g]). Hence it means they look with disdain on the people being a nation again (cf. BDB, dou, 1.a[b] for the usage of dou here).
⁴⁵tn Heb “Thus says the LORD.” See the translator’s note at the beginning of v. 20 for the style adopted here. Here the promise is in v. 26 following the contrary to fact condition in v. 25. The Hebrew text of vv. 25-26 reads: “Thus says the LORD, “If I have not established my covenant with day and night [and] the laws/statutes of heaven and earth, also I could reject the seed of Jacob and David my servant from taking from his seed as rulers over the seed of Abraham…” The syntax of the original is a little awkward because it involves the verbs “establish” and “reject” governing two objects, the first governing two similar objects “my covenant” and “the regulations” and the second governing two dissimilar objects “the seed of Jacob” and “my servant David from taking [so as not to take].” The translation has sought to remove these awkward syntactical constructions and also break down the long complex original sentence in such a way as to retain its original intent, i.e., the guarantee of the continuance of the seed of Jacob and of the rule of a line of David’s descendants over them based on the fixed order of God’s creation decrees.
⁴⁶tn The Hebrew particle yK! is probably intensive here as it has been on a number of occasions in the book of Jeremiah (see BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472 for the category).
⁴⁷tn Or “I will make them prosperous once again,” or “I will bring them back from captivity.”
sn For the meaning of this idiom see the translator’s note on 29:14 and compare the usage in 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11. This has been the emphasis on this section which is called by some commentators “The Book of Consolation.” Jeremiah’s emphasis up until chapters 30-33 had been on judgment but he was also called to be the prophet of restoration (cf. Jer 1:10). Promises of restoration though rare up to this point have, however, occurred on occasion (see, e.g., 3:18; 23:5-7; 24:6-7; 29:10-14).
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD while Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and all his army and all the kingdoms of the earth under the dominion of his hand and all the peoples were fighting against Jerusalem and against all its towns, saying.” The sentence is obviously too long and the qualifiers obviously too ill-defined to translate literally. This same introductory formula has occurred in 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1; 32:1 but without such a long introductory phrase. It is generally agreed that the phrase “all the peoples” should be seen as a parallel term to “all the kingdoms” under the qualifying “under the dominion of his hand/ control” and what is referred to are contingent forces supplied by these vassal kingdoms and peoples under the terms of their vassal treaties with Nebuchadnezzar. Some of the nature of the make-up of these forces may be seen from a reference to Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite raiders in the earlier attacks on Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:2).
sn It is difficult to assign dates to passages which have no dating formulas but there is sufficient detail in this passage to show that this incident occurred sometime early in the siege of Jerusalem while Jeremiah was still free to come and go (see v. 2 and compare 37:4 and see the second study note on 32:2). The Babylonian forces blockaded Jerusalem and attacked the outlying cities, reducing them one by one until Jerusalem had no further help. According to v. 7 Azekah and Lachish in the western foothills still held out and there is evidence from some of the correspondence from Lachish at this period that help was being sought from Egypt.
²tn Heb 34:1 “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD…saying, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel, “Go and speak to Zedekiah king of Judah and say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD, “I am going to….”’”’” The translation has tried to avoid some of the confusion that is created by embedding quotes within quotes by using indirect quotes; the conceptualization is the same but the style is simpler.
³tn Heb “Your eyes will see the eyes of the king of Babylon and his mouth will speak with your mouth.” For this same idiom in reverse order see 32:4 and consult the translator’s note there for the obligative nuance given to the verbs.
sn For the fulfillment of this see Jer 52:7-11.
⁴tn Heb “However, hear the word of the LORD, Zedekiah king of Judah, ‘Thus says the LORD to you, “You will not die by the sword.”’” The translation has tried to avoid the complexity created by embedding quotes within quotes and has used the first person address within the LORD’s speech as we have done elsewhere.
⁵tn Heb “by the sword.”
sn The contrast is between death in battle or by execution and death in the normal course of life. Zedekiah was captured, had to witness the execution of his sons, had his eyes put out, and was taken to Babylon where he died after a lengthy imprisonment (Jer 52:10-11).
⁶tn Heb “And like the burning [of incense] for your ancestors, the former kings who were before you, so will they burn [incense] for you.” The sentence has been reversed for easier style and the technical use of the terms interpreted.
sn For the custom referred to compare 2 Chr 16:14; 21:19.
⁷sn The intent of this oracle may have been to contrast the fate of Zedekiah with that of Jehoiakim who was apparently executed, went unmourned, and was left unburied (contrast 22:18-19).
⁸tn Heb “For [or, Indeed] I myself have spoken [this] word.”
⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁰tn Heb “And the army of the king of Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah which were left, [namely] against Lachish and Azekah for they alone were left of the cities of Judah as fortified cities.” The intent of this sentence is to serve as a circumstantial sentence to v. 6 (= “while the army…”). That thought is picked up by “he did this while…” The long complex sentence in v. 7 has been broken down and qualifying material placed in the proper places to convey the same information in shorter English sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.
¹¹tn Usually translated “covenant.” See the study note on 11:2 for the rationale for the translation here.
sn There are no details regarding the nature of this covenant, but it was probably a parity agreement in which the people agreed to free their slaves in exchange for some concessions from the king (see the study note on 11:2 for more details on the nature of ancient Near Eastern covenants). More details about this covenant are given in vv. 15, 18-19 where it is said to have been made before the LORD in the temple and involved passing between the pieces of a cut-up calf. Hence it involved their swearing an oath invoking the LORD’s name (cf. Gen 21:23; 31:51-53; 1 Sam 20:42) and pronouncing self-maledictory curses on themselves calling down on themselves a fate similar to that of the dead calf if they failed to keep it. (This latter practice is illustrated in treaty documents from the ancient Near East and is reflected in the covenant ceremony in Gen 15:8-16.)
¹²tn Heb “after King Zedekiah made a covenant…to proclaim liberty to them [the slaves mentioned in the next verse] so that each would send away free his male slave and his female slave, the Hebrew man and the Hebrew woman, so that a man would not hold them in bondage, namely a Judean, his brother [this latter phrase is explicative of “them” because it repeats the preposition in front of “them”].” The complex Hebrew syntax has been broken down into shorter English sentences but an attempt has been made to retain the proper subordinations.
sn Through economic necessity some of the poorer people of the land had on occasion to sell themselves or their children to wealthier Hebrew land owners. The terms of their servitude was strictly regulated under Hebrew law (cf. Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:39-55; Deut 15:12-18). In brief, no Hebrew was to serve a fellow Hebrew for any longer than six years. In the seventh year he or she was to go free. The period could even be shortened if the year of jubilee intervened since all debts were to be canceled, freedom restored, and indentured property returned in that year. Some see the agreement here coming in conjunction with such a jubilee year since it involved the freedom of all slaves regardless of how long they had served. Others see this agreement as paralleling an old Babylonian practice of a king declaring liberty for slaves and canceling all debts generally at the beginning of his reign (but also at other significant times within it) in order to ingratiate himself with his subjects.
¹³tn Heb “And they complied, [that is] all the leaders and all the people who entered into the agreement [or, covenant] that they would each let his male slave and his female slave go free so as not to hold them in bondage any longer; they complied and they let [them] go.” The verb “they complied” (Heb “they hearkened”) is repeated at the end after the lengthy description of the subject. This is characteristic of Hebrew style. The translation has resolved the complex sentence by making the relative clauses modifying the subject independent sentences describing the situational background before mentioning the main focus, “they had complied and let them go.”
¹⁴sn Most commentators are agreed that the incident referred to here occurred during the period of relief from the siege provided by the Babylonians going off to fight against the Egyptians who were apparently coming to Zedekiah’s aid (compare vv. 21-22 with 37:5, 7). The freeing of the slaves had occurred earlier, under the crisis of the siege while the people were more responsive to the LORD due to the threat of destruction (cf. v. 15).
¹⁵tn Heb “they had brought them into subjection for male and female slaves.” However, the qualification of “male and female” is already clear from the preceding and is unnecessary to the English sentence.
¹⁶tn Heb “And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying.” This is the resumption of the introduction in v. 8 after the lengthy description of the situation that had precipitated the LORD’s message to Jeremiah. “That was when” is intended to take the reader back to v. 8.
¹⁷tn The words, “He told him to tell them,” are not in the text but are implicit from the address that follows. It is directed to “you” (masculine plural) and criticizes the behavior of the people who had done what is described in v. 11 and pronounces judgment on them for doing so; it is not addressed to Jeremiah himself. These words are added for clarity.
¹⁸tn Heb “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘…’” The style adopted here has been used to avoid a longer, more complex English sentence.
¹⁹tn Heb “out of the house of bondage.”
sn The reference is of course to the Mosaic covenant, initiated at Mount Sinai and renewed on the plains of Moab. The statement “I brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” functions as the “historical prologue” in the Ten Commandments which is the LORD’s vassal treaty with Israel in miniature. (See the study note on 11:2 and see Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6 and Exod 34:8. As such it was a motivating factor in their pledge of loyalty to him. This statement was also invoked within the law itself as a motivation for kindly treatment of slaves including their emancipation (see Deut 15:15).)
²⁰tn Heb “made a covenant, saying.” This was only one of several stipulations of the covenant. The form used here has been chosen as an indirect way of relating the specific stipulation that is being focused upon to the general covenant that is referred to in v. 13.
²¹sn Compare Deut 15:12-18 for the complete statement of this law. Here only the first part of it is cited.
²²tn The presence of the independent pronoun in the Hebrew text is intended to contrast their actions with those of their ancestors.
²³sn Reference is, of course, to the temple. See 7:10, 11, 14, 30 and see the translator’s note on 7:10 and the study note on 10:25 for the explanation of the idiom involved here.
²⁴sn The verb at the beginning of v. 15 and v. 16 are the same in the Hebrew. They had two changes of heart (Heb “you turned”), one that was pleasing to him (Heb “right in his eyes”) and one that showed they did not honor him (Heb “profaned [or belittled] his name”).
²⁵sn Heb “you profaned my name.” His name had been invoked in the oath confirming the covenant. Breaking the covenant involved taking his name in vain (cf. Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; Jer 5:2). Hence the one who bore the name was not treated with the special honor and reverence due him (see the study note on 23:27 for the significance of “name” in the OT).
²⁶tn Heb “and you brought them into subjection to be to you for male and female slaves.” See the translator’s note on v. 11 for the same redundant repetition which is not carried over into the contemporary English sentence.
²⁷tn The Hebrew text has a compound object, the two terms of which have been synonyms in vv. 14, 15. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 189 make the interesting observation that these two terms (Heb “brother” and “neighbor”) emphasize the relationships that should have taken precedence over their being viewed as mere slaves.
²⁸sn This is, of course, a metaphorical and ironical use of the term “to grant freedom to.” It is, however, a typical statement of the concept of talionic justice which is quite often operative in God’s judgments in the OT (cf., e.g., Obad 15).
²⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁰sn Compare 15:4; 24:9; 29:18.
³¹sn See the study note on v. 8 for explanation and parallels.
³²tn There is a little confusion in the syntax of this section because the noun “the calf” does not have any formal conjunction or preposition with it showing how it relates to the rest of the sentence. KJV treats it and the following words as though they were a temporal clause modifying “covenant which they made.” The majority of modern translations and commentaries, however, understand it as a second accusative after the verb + object “I will make the men.” This fits under the category of what GKC §118r, p. 375 calls an accusative of comparison (compare usage in Isa 21:8; Zech 2:8). Stated baldly, “I will make the people…the calf”, it is, however, more forceful than the formal use of the noun + preposition K= just as metaphors are generally more forceful than similes. The whole verse is one long, complex sentence in Hebrew: “I will make the men who broke my covenant [referring to the Mosaic covenant containing the stipulation to free slaves after six years] [and] who did not keep the terms of the covenant which they made before me [referring to their agreement to free their slaves] [like] the calf which they cut in two and passed between its pieces.” The sentence has been broken down into shorter sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.
³³tn For the rendering of this term see the translator’s note on 29:2.
³⁴tn This verse is not actually a sentence in the Hebrew original but is a prepositioned object to the verb in v. 20, “I will hand them over.” This construction is called casus pendens in the older grammars and is used to call attention to a subject or object (cf. GKC §143d, p. 458 and compare the usage in 33:24). The same nondescript “I will punish” which was used to resolve the complex sentence in the previous verse has been chosen to introduce the objects here before the more specific “I will hand them over” in the next verse.
³⁵sn See this same phrase in 7:33; 16:4; 19:7.
³⁶tn Heb “And Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their lives and into the hands of the army of the king of Babylon which has gone up from against them.” The last two “and into the hand” phrases are each giving further explication of “their enemies” (the conjunction is explicative [cf. BDB, w+, 1b, p. 252]). The sentence has been broken down into shorter English sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.
sn Reference is to the relief offered by the withdrawal of the Babylonian troops to fight against the Egyptians which were coming to Zedekiah’s aid (cf. 37:5, 7, 11).
³⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹sn The heading here shows that this incident is earlier than those in Jer 32—34 which all take place in the reign of Zedekiah. Jehoiakim ruled from 609/8 BC until 598/97 BC and his brother Zedekiah followed him after a brief reign of three months by Jekoiakim’s son who was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon. Zedekiah ruled from 598/7 BC until the kingdom fell in 587/86. The position of this chapter is out of chronological order emphasizing the theme of covenant infidelity (Jer 34; 35:12-17) versus the faithfulness to his commands that God expected from Israel as illustrated by the Rechabites’ faithfulness to the commands of their progenitor. This is thus another one of those symbolic acts in Jeremiah which have significance to the message of the book (compare Jer 13, 19). This incident likely took place during the time that people living in the countryside like the Rechabites were forced to take shelter in the fortified cities because of the raiding parties that Nebuchadnezzar had sent against Jehoiakim after he had rebelled against him in 603 BC (compare v. 11 and Jer 4:5 with 2 Kgs 24:1-2).
²tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, saying.”
³tn Heb “the house of the Rechabites.” “House” is used here in terms of “household” or “family” (cf. BDB, ty]B^, 5a, b, p. 109).
sn Nothing is known about the Rechabites other than what is said about them in this chapter. From vv. 7-8 it appears that they were a nomadic tribe that had resisted settling down and taking up farming. They had also agreed to abstain from drinking wine. Most scholars agree in equating the Jonadab son of Rechab mentioned as the leader who had instituted these strictures as the same Jonadab who assisted Jehu in his religious purge of Baalism following the reign of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:15, 23-24). If this is the case, the Rechabites followed these same rules for almost 250 years because Jehu’s purge of Baalism and the beginning of his reign was in 841 BC and the incident here took place some time after Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 603 BC (see the study note on v. 1).
⁴sn This refers to one of the rooms built on the outside of the temple that were used as living quarters for the priests and for storage rooms (cf. Neh 13:4-5; 1 Kgs 6:5; 1 Chr 28:12; 2 Chr 31:11 and compare Ezek 41:1-14).
⁵tn Heb “the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah, the man of God.” The reference to “sons” and to “man of God” fits the usage of these terms elsewhere to refer to prophets and their disciples (see BDB, <yh!Oa^, 3(b), pp. 43-44 and compare usage in 2 Kgs 4:40 for the former and BDB, /B@, 7a, p. 121 and compare the usage in 2 Kgs 4:38 for the latter).
⁶sn According to Jer 52:24; 2 Kgs 25:18 there were three officers who carried out this duty. It was their duty to guard the entrance of the temple to keep people out that didn’t belong there, such as those who were foreigners or ritually unclean (see 2 Kgs 12:9 and compare Ps 118:19-20).
⁷tn Heb “Drink wine.”
⁸tn Heb “Don’t plant a vineyard and it shall not be to you [= and you shall/must not have one].”
⁹tn Heb “Don’t…and don’t…but live…in order that you might…”
¹⁰sn Heb “where you are sojourning.” The terms “sojourn” and “sojourner” referred to a person who resided in a country not his own, without the rights and privileges of citizenship as a member of a nation, state, or principality. In the ancient Near East such people were dependent on the laws of hospitality rather than the laws of state for protection and provision of legal rights. Perhaps the best illustration of this is Abraham who “sojourned” among the Philistines and the Hittites in Canaan and was dependent upon them for grazing and water rights and for a place to bury his wife (cf Gen 20-24). What is described here is the typical lifestyle of a nomadic tribe.
¹¹tn Heb “We have not drunk wine all our days.” Actually vv. 8b-9a are a series of infinitive constructs plus the negative yT!l=b!l= explaining the particulars of how they have obeyed, i.e., by not drinking wine…and by not building…” The more direct declarative statement is used here to shorten the sentence and is more in keeping with contemporary style.
¹²tn Heb “We have obeyed and done according to all which our ancestor Jonadab commanded us.”
¹³tn Heb “Chaldean.” For explanation see the study note on 21:4.
¹⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
¹⁵tn Heb “35:12 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel, “Go and say…’Will you not learn…’”’” The use of the indirect introduction has been chosen here as in 34:1-2 to try to cut down on the confusion created by embedding quotes within quotes.
¹⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁷tn The words “from this” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added for the sake of clarity.
¹⁸tn Heb “The words of Jonadab son of Rechab which he commanded his descendants not to drink wine have been carried out.” (For the construction of the accusative of subject after a passive verb illustrated here see GKC §121b, p. 388.) The sentence has been broken down and made more direct to better conform to contemporary English style.
¹⁹tn The waw plus the independent pronoun before the verb is intended to mark a sharp contrast. It is difficult, if not impossible to mark this in English other than “But I.”
²⁰tn See the translator’s note on 7:13 for this idiom and compare its use in 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14, 15; 44:9.
²¹tn See the translator’s note on 7:13 for this idiom and compare its use in 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14, 15; 44:9.
²²tn Heb “Turn, each of you, from his [= your] wicked way and make good your deeds.” Compare 18:11 where the same idiom occurs with the added term of “make good your ways.”
²³tn Heb “Don’t go after/follow other gods.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom and see 11:10; 13:10; 25:6 for the same idiom.
²⁴tn This is an attempt to represent the particle yK! which is probably not really intensive here (cf. BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472) but is one of those causal yK!s that BDB discuss in yK!, 3c, pp. 473-74 where the cause is really the failure of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to listen/obey. I.e., the causal particle is at the beginning of the sentence so as not to interrupt the contrast drawn.
²⁵tn Heb “this people.” However, the speech is addressed to the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem, so the second person is retained in English. In addition to the stylistic difference that Hebrew exhibits in the rapid shift between persons (second to third and third to second which we have repeatedly called attention to and documented from GKC §144p, p. 462) there may be a subtle rhetorical reason for the shift here. The shift from direct address to indirect address which characterizes this verse and the next may reflect the LORD’s rejection of the people he is addressing. A similar shift takes place in Wisdom’s address to the simple minded, fools, and mockers in Prov 1:28-32 after the direct address of 1:22-27.
²⁶tn Heb “Therefore, thus says the LORD, the God of armies, the God of Israel.” For the title see 7:13 and the study note on 2:19. The first person address is again used in the translation because this whole section is a speech from the LORD (see vv. 12-13).
²⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see the notes on 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
²⁸tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see the notes on 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
²⁹tn Heb “There shall not be cut to Jonadab son of Rechab a man standing before me all the days.” For the first part of this idiom see 33:17-18 where it is applied to David always having a descendant to occupy the throne and the Levites will always have priests to offer up sacrifices. For the latter part of the idiom “to stand before” referring to service see BDB, dm^u*, 1e, p. 764 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 1:2; 2 Kgs 3:14; Jer 15:19; Deut 10:8. As comparison with those passages will show, it refers to attending on, or serving a superior, a king or the LORD. It is used of both prophets (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:1) and priests (e.g., Deut 10:8) serving the LORD. Its most common use is to refer to priestly service. The nature of the service is not further defined in this case, though several of the commentaries point out a Mishnaic tradition that the Rechabites later were given the function of bringing wood for the altar.
¹tn Heb “This word came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah the king of Judah, saying.”
sn The fourth year of Jehoiakim would have been 605/4 BC. Jehoiakim began his rule in 609/8 BC after his father Josiah was killed by Pharaoh Necho at Megiddo. Necho had installed him as puppet king in place of his brother Jehoahaz who was deposed by Necho after a reign of only three months (2 Kgs 23:31-35). According to Jer 46:2 that was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar defeated Jehoiakim’s suzerain Necho at Carchemish. That was also the same year that Jerusalem came under attack and submitted to Babylonian control after a brief siege (Dan 1:1; see the study note on 25:1 for the reason for the difference in the dating between Jer 25:1; 36:2 and Dan 1:1). These events confirmed what Jeremiah had been saying about the foe from the north (4:6; 6:1; 15:12) and would have provided the impetus for the hopes that the people would repent if they were reminded about what Jeremiah had been saying.
²sn Heb “a roll/scroll of a document.” Scrolls consisted of pieces of leather or parchment sewn together and rolled up on wooden rollers. The writing was written from right to left and from top to bottom in columns and the scroll unrolled from the left roller and rolled onto the right one as the scroll was read. The scroll varied in length depending on the contents. This scroll was probably not all that long since it was read three times in a single day (vv. 10-11, 15-16, 21-23).
³sn The intent is hardly that of giving a verbatim report of everything that the LORD had told him to say or of everything that he had actually said. What the scroll undoubtedly contained was a synopsis of Jeremiah’s messages as constructed from his memory.
⁴sn This refers to the messages that Jeremiah delivered during the last eighteen years of Josiah, the three month reign of Jehoahaz and the first four years of Jehoiakim’s reign (the period between Josiah’s thirteenth year (cf. 1:2) and the fourth year of Jehoiakim (v1)). We do not know the exact content of this scroll since many of the messages in the present book are undated. We also do not know what relation this scroll had to the present form of the book of Jeremiah since this scroll was destroyed and another one written that contained more than this one did (cf. v. 32). Since Jeremiah continued his ministry down to the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BC (1:2) and beyond (cf. Jer 40-44) much more was added to those two scrolls even later.
⁵tn Heb “will turn each one from his wicked way.”
⁶tn Heb “their iniquity and their sin.”
sn The offer of withdrawal of punishment for sin is consistent with the principles of Jer 18:7-8 and the temple sermon delivered early in the reign of this king (cf. 26:1-3; 7:5-7).
⁷tn Heb “Then Baruch wrote down on a scroll from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD which he [the LORD] had spoken to him [Jeremiah].” The syntax of the Hebrew sentence is awkward and hard to reproduce “literally” in any meaningful way. The English sentence has been restructured to reproduce all the pertinent facts in more simplified language.
⁸tn Heb “I am restrained; I cannot go into.” The word “restrained” is used elsewhere in Jeremiah of his being confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse (33:1; 39:15). However, that occurred only later during the tenth year of Zedekiah (Jer 32:1-2) and Jeremiah appears here to be free to come and go as he pleased (vv. 19, 26). The word is used in the active voice of the LORD preventing Sarah from having a baby (Gen 16:2). The probable nuance is here “I am prevented/ debarred” from being able to go. No reason is given why he was prevented/debarred. It has been plausibly suggested that he was prohibited from going into the temple any longer because of the scathing sermon he delivered there earlier (Jer 26:1-3; 7:1-15).
⁹sn Regular fast days were not a part of Israel’s religious calendar. Rather fast days were called on special occasions, i.e., in times of drought or a locust plague (Joel 1:14; 2:15), or during a military crisis (2 Chr 20:3), or after defeat in battle (1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 1:12). A fast day was likely chosen for the reading of the scroll because the people would be more mindful of the crisis they were in and be in more of a repentant mood. The events referred to in the study note on v. 1 would have provided the basis for Jeremiah’s anticipation of a fast day when the scroll could be read.
¹⁰tn Heb “So you go and read from the scroll which you have written from my mouth the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the house of the LORD on a fast day, and in that way [for the explanation of this rendering see below] you will be reading them in the ears of all Judah [= the people of Judah] who come from their towns [i.e., to the temple to fast].” Again the syntax of the original is awkward, separating several of the qualifying phrases from the word or phrase they are intended to modify. In most of the “literal” translations the emphasis on “what the LORD said” tends to get lost and it looks like two separate groups are to be addressed rather than one. The intent of the phrase is to define who the people are who will hear; the w^ that introduces the clause is explicative (BDB, w^, 1b, p. 252) and the <G^ is used to emphasize the explicative “all Judah who come in from their towns” (cf. BDB, <G^, 2, p. 169). If some force were to be given to the “literal” rendering of that particle here it would be “actually.” This is the group that is to be addressed according to v. 3. The complex Hebrew sentence has been restructured to include all the relevant information in more comprehensible and shorter English sentences.
¹¹tn Heb “will turn each one from his wicked way.”
¹²tn Heb “For great is the anger and the wrath which the LORD has spoken against this people.” The translation uses the more active form which is more in keeping with contemporary English style.
¹³tn Heb “And Baruch son of Neriah did according to all that the prophet Jeremiah commanded him with regard to reading from the scroll the words of the LORD in the temple of the LORD.” The sentence has been broken down and the modifiers placed where they belong to better conform to contemporary English style.
¹⁴tn There is some debate about the syntax of the words translated “All the people living in Jerusalem and all the people who came into Jerusalem from the towns in Judah.” As the sentence is structured in Hebrew it looks like these words are the subject of “proclaim a fast.” However, most commentaries point out that the people themselves would hardly proclaim a fast; they would be summoned to fast (cf. 1 Kgs 21:9, 12; Jon 3:7). Hence many see these words as the object of the verb which has an impersonal subject “they.” This is most likely unless with J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 180 the word “proclaim” is used in a looser sense as “observed.” The translation has chosen to follow this latter tack rather than use the impersonal (or an equivalent passive) construction in English. For a similar problem see Jon 3:5 which precedes the official proclamation in 3:7. The Hebrew text reads: “In the fifth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, in the ninth month they proclaimed a fast before the LORD, all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came from the cities of Judah into Jerusalem.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
sn Judging from v. 22 this was one of the winter months meaning that the reckoning is based on the calendar which starts with April rather than the one which starts with September (Nisan to Nisan rather than Tishri to Tishri). The ninth month would have been Kislev which corresponds roughly to December. According to Babylonian historical records this is the same year and the same month when Ashkelon was captured and sacked. The surrender of Jerusalem and the subsequent looting of the temple in the previous year (Dan 1:1) and the return of the menacing presence of Nebuchadnezzar in the near vicinity were probably the impetus for the fast.
¹⁵sn Shaphan had been the royal secretary under Jehoiakim’s father’s rule. During the course of his official duties the Book of the Law had been discovered and he had read it and reported its contents to Josiah who instituted sweeping reforms on the basis of his obedience to it. (See 2 Kgs 22 and note especially vv. 3, 8, 10.) If the Shaphan mentioned in 26:14 is the same person as this, Gemariah would have been the brother of the man who spoke up on Jeremiah’s behalf when the priests and prophets sought to have him killed.
¹⁶sn It is generally agreed that this is the same as the inner court mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12. It is called “upper” here because it stood above (cf. 1 Kgs 7:12) the outer court where all the people were standing.
¹⁷sn This is the same gate where Jeremiah had been accused of falsely claiming the LORD’s authority for his “treasonous” prophecies according to 26:10-11. See the study note on 26:10 for more details about the location of this gate.
¹⁸tn The syntax of the original is complicated due to all the qualifying terms: Heb “And Baruch read from the scroll the words of Jeremiah in the house of the LORD in (i.e., in the entrance of) the room of Gemariah son of Shaphan the scribe in the upper court at the entrance of the New Gate in the house of the LORD in the ears of all the people.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to contain all the same information in shorter English sentences that better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁹tn Heb “Micaiah son of Gemariah son of Shaphan heard all the words of the LORD from upon the scroll.” The words “heard Baruch read” are implicit from the context and are added for smoothness.
²⁰sn If, as many believe, this man was the same as the Elishama mentioned in Jer 41:1; 2 Kgs 25:25, he was also a member of the royal family.
²¹sn This man has already been mentioned in Jer 26:22 as the official who was sent to Egypt to extradite the prophet Uriah that Jehoiakim had executed. Though he was instrumental in the death of that prophet, he appears to have been favorably disposed to Jeremiah or at least impressed by the seriousness of his messages because he is one of the officials that urged Baruch and Jeremiah to hide (v. 19) and counseled Jehoiakim not to burn the scroll (v. 25).
²²tn Heb “Micaiah reported to them all the words which he heard when Baruch read from the scroll in the ears of the people.”
²³tn Heb “in your hand.”
²⁴tn The original has another example of a prepositioned object (called casus pendens in the grammars; cf GKC §143b(a), p. 458) which is intended to focus attention on “the scroll.” The Hebrew sentence reads: “The scroll which you read from it in the ears of the people take it and come.” Any attempt to carry over this emphasis into the English translation would be awkward. Likewise, the order of the two imperatives has been reversed as more natural in English.
²⁵tn Heb “So Baruch son of Neriah took the scroll in his hand and went to them.” The translation adopted seems more natural to contemporary idiom.
²⁶tn Or “‘to us personally’…to them personally”; Heb “‘in our ears’…in their ears.” Elsewhere this has been rendered “in the hearing of” or “where they could hear.” All three of those idioms sound unnatural in this context. The mere personal pronoun seems adequate.
²⁷tn Heb “all the words.”
²⁸tn According to BDB, dj^P*, Qal 1, p. 808 and la#, 3a, p. 40, this is an example of the “pregnant” use of a preposition where an implied verb has to be added to conform the normal range of the preposition with the verb that is governing it. The Hebrew text reads: “they feared unto one another.” BDB translates “they turned in dread to each other.” The translation adopted seems more appropriate in this context.
²⁹tn Heb “We must certainly report to the king all these things.” Here the word <yr]b*D+ must mean “things” (cf. BDB, rb*D`, IV3, p. 183) rather than “words” because a verbatim report of all the words in the scroll is scarcely meant. We have chosen to use a form that suggests a summary report of all the matters spoken about in the scroll rather than the indefinite “things.”
³⁰tn Or “Did Jeremiah dictate them to you?” The words “Do they actually come from Jeremiah’s mouth?” assume that the last phrase (wyP!m!) is a question, either without the formal he (h&) interrogative (see GKC, §150a, p. 473 and compare usage in 1 Sam 16:4; Prov 5:16) or with a letter supplied from the end of the preceding word (single writing of a letter following the same letter [haplography]; so the majority of modern commentaries). The word is missing in the Greek version. The presence of this same word at the beginning of the answer in the next verse suggests that this was a question (probably without the he interrogative to make it more emphatic) since the common way to answer affirmatively is to repeat the emphatic word in the question (cf. GKC §150n and compare usage in Gen 24:58). The intent of the question is to make sure that these were actually Jeremiah’s words not Baruch’s own creation (cf. Jer 42:2-3 for a similar suspicion).
³¹tn The verbal forms emphasize that each word came from his mouth. The first verb is an imperfect which emphasizes repeated action in past time and the second verb is a participle which emphasizes ongoing action. J. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Syntax, §63a, p. 74 calls the usage of the imperfect here distributive (see Gen 2:19; 1 Sam 18:5). However, it is a little awkward to try to express this nuance in contemporary English. Even though it is not reflected in the translation, it is noted here for future reference.
³²tn The verbs here are both direct imperatives but it sounds awkward to say “You and Jeremiah, go and hide” in contemporary English. The same force is accomplished with the obligative.
³³tn Heb “they deposited.” For the usage of the verb here see BDB, dq^P*, Hiph 2b, p. 824 and compare the usage in Jer 37:21 where it is used for “confining” Jeremiah in the courtyard of the guardhouse.
³⁴tn Heb “all the matters.” Compare the translator’s note on v. 16.
³⁵tn Both here and in the next verse the Hebrew has “in the ears of” before “the king” (and also before “all the officials”). As in v. 15 these words are not represented in the translation due to the awkwardness of the idiom in contemporary English (see the translator’s note on v. 15).
³⁶tn Heb “and Jehudi read it.” However, Jehudi has been the subject of the preceding; so it would be awkward in English to use the personal subject. The translation has chosen to bring out the idea that Jehudi himself read it by using the reflexive.
³⁷tn Heb “in the autumn house.” Commentators are agreed that this was not a separate building or palace but the winter quarters in the palace. See the study note.
sn Larger houses, including the palace, were two storied buildings with a lower quarters better suited for the cold of winter and an upper quarters which was better ventilated to provide cool in the summer. Since this was the ninth month (December) the king had taken up residence in the lower, warmer quarters which were equipped with a portable fire pot or brazier to keep him warm.
³⁸tc Heb “the fire in the firepot was burning before him.” The translation assumes that the word “fire” (va@) has dropped out after the particle ta# because of the similar beginnings of the two words (called parablepsis or homoioarkton by K. McCarter, Textual Criticism, pp. 39-40). The word “fire” is found in the Greek, Syriac, and Targumic translations according to BHS. The particle ta@ should be retained rather than dropped as an erroneous writing of va@. Its presence is to be explained as the usage of the sign of the accusative introducing a new subject (cf. BDB, ta#, 3[a], p. 85 and compare the usage in 27:8; 38:16 [in the Kethiv]; 45:4).
³⁹tn Heb “doors.” This is the only time the word “door” is used in this way but all the commentaries and lexicons agree that it means “columns.” The meaning is figurative based on the similarity of shape.
⁴⁰tn Heb “he.” The majority of commentaries and translations are agreed that “he” is the king. However, since a penknife (Heb “a scribe’s razor”) is used to cut the columns off, it is possible that Jehudi himself did it. However, even if he himself did it, he was acting on the king’s orders.
⁴¹sn Heb “a scribe’s razor.” There is some irony involved here since a scribe’s razor was used to trim the sheets to be sewn together, scrape them in preparation for writing, and to erase errors. What was normally used to prepare the scroll was used to destroy it.
⁴²tn Heb “until the whole scroll was consumed upon the fire which was in the fire pot.”
⁴³tn Heb “Neither the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words were afraid or tore their clothes.” The sentence has been broken up into two shorter sentences to better conform to English style and some of the terms explained (e.g., tore their clothes) for the sake of clarity.
sn There are some interesting word plays and contrasts involved here. The action of the king and his attendants should be contrasted with that of the officials who heard the same things read (v. 16). The king and his officials did not tear their garments in grief and sorrow; instead the king cut up the scroll (the words “tear” and “cut off” are the same in Hebrew [ur^q*]). Likewise, the actions of Jehoiakim and his attendants is to be contrasted with that of his father Josiah who some twenty or more years earlier tore his clothes in grief and sorrow (2 Kgs 22:11-20) and led the people in renewing their commitment to the covenant (2 Kgs 23:1-3). That was what the LORD had hoped would happen when the king and the people heard the warnings of Jeremiah (Jer 36:2-3). Instead, Jehoiakim expressed his contempt for the word of God by destroying the scroll.
⁴⁴tn Heb “And also Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah urged [or, had urged] the king not to burn the scroll, but he did not listen to them.” The translation attempts to lessen the clash in chronological sequencing with the preceding. This sentence is essentially a flash back to a time before the scroll was totally burned (v. 23).
⁴⁵tn Heb “the son of the king.” Many of the commentaries express doubt that this actually refers to Jehoiakim’s own son since Jehoiakim was only about thirty at this time and one of his sons would not have been old enough to have been in such a position of authority. The same doubt is expressed about the use of this term in 38:6 and in 1 Kgs 22:26. The term need not refer to the ruling king’s own son but one of the royal princes.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll and the words [= containing the words] which Baruch wrote down from the mouth of Jeremiah, saying.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “Return, take another.” The verb “return” is used in the sense of repetition “take again” (cf. BDB, bWv, Qal 8, p. 998). The idea is already contained in “Get another” so most modern translations do not represent it.
⁴⁸tn Heb “all the former words/things.”
⁴⁹tn Heb “first [or, former] scroll.”
⁵⁰tn Or “In essence you asked.” For explanation see the translator’s note on the end of the verse.
⁵¹tn Heb “You burned this scroll, saying, ‘Why did you write on it, saying, “The king of Babylon will certainly come [the infinitive absolute before the finite verb expresses certainty here as several places elsewhere in Jeremiah] and destroy this land and exterminate from it both man and beast.”’” The sentence raises several difficulties for translating literally. I.e., the “you” in “why did you write” is undefined, though it obviously refers to Jeremiah. The gerund “saying” that introduces ‘Why did you write’ doesn’t fit very well with “you burned the scroll.” Gerunds of this sort are normally explanatory. Lastly, there is no indication in the narrative that Jehoiakim ever directly asked Jeremiah this question. In fact, he had been hidden out of sight so Jehoiakim couldn’t confront him. The question is presented rhetorically, expressing Jehoiakim’s thoughts or intents and giving the rational for burning the scroll, i.e., he questioned Jeremiah’s right to say such things. The translation has attempted to be as literal as possible without resolving some of these difficulties. One level of embedded quotes has been eliminated for greater simplicity. For the rendering of “How dare you” for the interrogative “why do you” see the translator’s note on 26:9
⁵²sn This prophesy was not “totally” fulfilled because his son Jehoachin (Jeconiah) did occupy the throne for three months (2 Kgs 23:8). However, his rule was negligible and after his capitulation and exile to Babylon, he himself was promised that neither he nor his successors would occupy the throne of David (cf. 22:30; and see the study notes on 22:24, 30).
⁵³sn Compare the more poetic prophecy in 22:18-19 and see the study note on 22:19.
⁵⁴tn Heb “for their iniquity.”
⁵⁵tn Heb “all the disaster which I spoke against them and they did not listen [or, obey].”
⁵⁶tn Heb “And he wrote upon it from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned in the fire. And many words like these were added to them besides [or, further].” The translation uses the more active form in the last line because of the tendency in contemporary English style to avoid the passive. It also uses the words “everything” for “all the words” and “messages” for “words” because those are legitimate usages of these phrases and they avoid the mistaken impression that Jeremiah repeated verbatim the words on the former scroll or repeated verbatim the messages that he had delivered during the course of the preceding twenty-three years.
¹tn Heb “Coniah.” For explanation of the rendering here see the translator’s note on 22:4.
²tn Heb “And Zedekiah son of Josiah whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah ruled as king instead of Coniah son of Jehoiakim.” The sentence has been restructured and simplified to better conform to contemporary English style.
³sn These two verses (37:1-2) are introductory to chapters 37—38 and are intended to characterize Zedekiah and his regime as disobedient just like Jehoiakim and his regime had been (36:37; cf. 2 Kgs 24:19-20). This characterization is important because Zedekiah is portrayed in the incidents that follow in 37—38 as seeking the LORD’s help or seeking a word from the LORD. However though he did send to inquire of Jeremiah three times, he did not pay heed to the warnings that he received in reply and was ultimately responsible for the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 39). As elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah Jeconiah’s reign is passed over in silence because it was negligible and because Jeremiah did not wish to legitimize the hopes that many in Israel and Babylon had in his returning from exile and resuming rule over Judah (see further the study notes on 22:24, 30 and 33:30).
⁴sn This is the second of two delegations that Zedekiah sent to Jeremiah to ask him to pray for a miraculous deliverance. Both of them are against the background of the siege of Jerusalem which was instigated by Zedekiah’s rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar and sending to Egypt for help (cf. Ezek 17:15). The earlier delegation (21:1-2) was sent before Nebuchadnezzar had clamped down on Jerusalem because the Judean forces at that time were still fighting against the Babylonian forces in the open field (see 21:4 and the translator’s note there). Here the siege has been lifted because the Babylonian troops had heard a report that the Egyptian army was on the way into Palestine to give the Judeans the promised aid (vv. 5, 7). The request is briefer here than in 21:2 but the intent is no doubt the same (see also the study note on 21:2).
⁵sn This man was one of the officials who later sought to have Jeremiah put to death for what they considered treason (38:1-4).
⁶sn This man was a member of the earlier delegation (21:2) and the chief of security in the temple to whom the Babylonian false prophet wrote a letter complaining that Jeremiah should be locked up for his treasonous prophecies (29:25-26). See the study notes on 21:2 and 29:25 for further details.
⁷sn This statement anticipates v. 15. Verses 3-4 are parenthetical to the narrative thread which is picked up in v. 5. They provide background information necessary for understanding the situation at the time the delegation comes to Jeremiah.
⁸tn The words “as he pleased” are not in the text but are implicit in the idiom both in Hebrew and in English. They have been added for clarity and the sake of English idiom.
⁹tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the rendering “Babylonian.” The word “forces” is added here for the sake of clarity.
¹⁰tn Heb “And the army of Pharaoh had set out from Egypt and the Chaldeans who were besieging Jerusalem heard a report about them and they went up from besieging them.” The sentence has been restructured and reworded to give greater emphasis to the most pertinent fact, i.e., that the siege had been temporarily lifted. The word “temporarily” is not in the text but is implicit from the rest of the context. It is added here to better show that the information in vv. 4-5 is all parenthetical, providing a “foregrounding” for the oracle that will follow. For the meaning “given up their siege against” (Heb “had taken themselves away from against”) see BDB, hl*u*, Niph 1c(2), p. 749 and lu^, IV. 2b, p. 759.
sn The Pharaoh who is referred to here is Pharaoh Hophra who is named in 44:30. He ruled from 589-570 BC. Shortly after he began to rule Zedekiah had been enticed by some of the officials in his court to appeal to him for aid. This act of rebellion quickly brought Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath and he invaded Judah, blockading Jerusalem and reducing the fortified cities of Judah one by one. According to 39:1 the siege began in Zedekiah’s ninth year (589/88 BC) and lasted until his eleventh year when Jerusalem fell (587/86 BC). The army of Pharaoh likely came sometime during 588.
¹¹tn Heb “And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying.”
¹²tn Or “to ask me what will happen.” The dominant usage of the verb vr^D` is to “inquire” in the sense of gaining information about what will happen (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 14:5; 2 Kgs 8:8; 22:7-8) but it is also used in the sense of “seeking help” from (cf., e.g., Isa 31:1; 2 Chr 16:12; 20:3). The latter nuance appears appropriate in Jer 20:2 where Zedekiah is hoping for some miraculous intervention. That nuance also appears appropriate here where Zedekiah has sent messengers to ask Jeremiah to intercede on their behalf. However, it is also possible that the intent of both verbs is to find out from God whether the Egyptian mission will succeed and more permanent relief from the siege will be had.
¹³tn Heb “will go back to its land, Egypt.”
¹⁴tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the rendering “Babylonian.” The word “forces” is added here for the sake of clarity.
¹⁵tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the rendering “Babylonian.” The word “forces” is added here for the sake of clarity.
¹⁶tn Heb “Thus says the LORD, ‘Do not deceive yourselves, saying, “The Chaldeans will surely go away from against us” because they will not go away.’” The first person “I, the LORD,” has been used because the whole of vv. 7-8 has been a quote from the LORD and it would be confusing to go back and start a separate quote. The indirect quote has been used instead of the direct quote to avoid the proliferation of quote marks at the end and the possible confusion that creates.
¹⁷tn Heb “all the army of the Chaldeans.” For the rendering “Babylonian” in place of Chaldean see the study note on 21:4.
¹⁸tn The length and complexity of this English sentence violates the more simple style that has been used to conform such sentences to contemporary English style. However, there does not seem to be any alternative that would enable a simpler style and still retain the causal and conditional connections that give this sentence the rhetorical force that it has in the original. The condition is, of course, purely hypothetical and the consequence a poetic exaggeration. The intent is to assure Zedekiah that there is absolutely no hope of the city being spared.
¹⁹tn The words “The following events also occurred” are not in the text. They are a way to introduce the incidents recorded in 37:11-21 without creating a long complex sentence in English like the Hebrew does. The Hebrew of vv. 11-12a reads “And it was/happened while the army of the Chaldeans had taken themselves up from against Jerusalem Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin to take part…” For the rendering “temporarily withdrawn from Jerusalem” see the translator’s note on v. 5. The words “was coming” are not in the text either but are implicit and have been added for clarity and smoothness of English expression.
²⁰tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the rendering “Babylonian.” The word “forces” is added here for the sake of clarity.
²¹tn The meaning of this last sentence is somewhat uncertain. The Hebrew expression here occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and its meaning is debated. The verb is pointed as a shortened form of the Hiphil infinitive construct of ql^j* (see GKC §53q, p. 148 for explanation of the phenomenon and other examples). There are, however, no other examples of the use of this verb in the Hiphil. BDB, ql^j*, Hiph, 324 defines it as “receive a portion” and explains it as a denominative from ql#j@, “portion,” but say that the form is dubious. KB2, ql^j*, Hif, define it as “take part in dividing” but that doesn’t fit the prepositional phrase that follows (<V*m!, “from there”) as well as “to receive a portion.” The Greek version did not understand this of dividing property but of conducting business. Later revisions of the Greek and the Latin version, however, did understand it of “taking a share.” We have expanded the translation of BDB to better reflect the probable situation. For the meaning of “his family” for the noun <u^ compare the usage in Job 18:19. For a fuller discussion of the probable situation see J. Thompson, Jeremiah, pp. 633-34.
sn Though some commentators disagree, this transaction should not be viewed as subsequent to the transaction recorded in Jer 32 and seen as an attempt to take possession of a field that he had already bought. That transaction took place sometime later after he had been confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse (compare 32:2 with 37:21) and involved his buying a near relative’s field. The word used here refers to “getting one’s own share” (compare 1 Sam 30:24; Josh 15:13 and see also Mic 2:4) not taking possession of someone else’s. “There” refers to the territory of Benjamin just mentioned but more specifically to Jeremiah’s hometown, Anathoth (cf. 1:1).
²²sn This would have been a gate in the northern wall leading out toward the territory of Benjamin. It is mentioned only here and in Jer 38:7 and Zech 14:10.
²³sn Nothing further is known about this man. It is generally agreed that the Hananiah mentioned here is not the same as the false prophet of the same name whom Jeremiah confronted approximately six years earlier (28:1, 5, 10, 15).
²⁴tn Heb “And he was in the gate of Benjamin and there was an officer of the guard whose name [more literally, and his name] was Irijah…and he seized the prophet Jeremiah, saying.” The sentence has been broken down and simplified to better conform with contemporary English style.
²⁵tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
sn Irijah’s charge was based on the suspicion that Jeremiah was following his own counsel to the people to surrender to the Babylonians if they wanted to save their lives (21:9).
²⁶tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²⁷sn The officials here are not the same as those mentioned in 36:12 most of whom were favorably disposed toward Jeremiah or at least regarded what he said with enough trepidation to try to protect Jeremiah and preserve the scroll containing his messages (36:16, 19, 24). All those officials had been taken into exile with Jeconiah in 597 BC (2 Kgs 24:14).
²⁸tn Heb “for they had made it into the house of confinement.” The causal particle doesn’t fit the Engish sentence very well and house of confinement needs some explanation. Some translate this word “prison” but that creates redundancy with the earlier word translated “prison” (rWsa@h* tyB@, “house of the band/binding” which is more closely related to the concept of prison (cf. rys!a* “prisoner”)). It is clear from the next verse that Jeremiah was confined in a cell in the dungeon of this place.
²⁹tn The particle yK! here is probably temporal, introducing the protasis to the main clause in v. 17 (cf. BDB, yK!, 2a, p. 473). However, that would make the translation too long so we render here as several modern translations do though there are no parallels listed for this nuance in the lexicons.
³⁰tn Heb “Jeremiah came into the house of the pit [= “dungeon,” BDB, roB, 4 and compare usage in Gen 40:15; 41:14] and into the cells [this word occurs only here; it is defined on the basis of the cognate languages (cf. BDB, tWnj*, p. 333)].” The sentence has been restructured and some words added to better relate it to the preceding context.
³¹tn Heb “Jeremiah.” But the proper name is somewhat redundant and unnecessary in a modern translation.
³²tn Heb “Then King Zedekiah sent and brought him and the king asked him privately [or more literally, in secret] and said.”
³³tn Heb “Then he said.”
³⁴sn Jeremiah’s answer even under duress was the same that he had given Zedekiah earlier. (See 34:3 and see the study note on 34:1 for the relative timing of these two incidents.)
³⁵tn Heb “What crime have I committed against you, or your servants, or this people that you [masc. pl.] have put me in prison?” Some of the terms have been expanded for clarification and the sentence has been broken in two to better conform with contemporary English style. The masculine plural is used here because Zedekiah is being addressed as representative of the whole group previously named.
³⁶tn Heb “And where are your prophets who prophesied to you, saying, ‘The king of Babylon will not come against you or against this land?’” The indirect quote has been used in the translation because of its simpler, more direct style.
³⁷tn Heb “My lord, the king.”
³⁸tn Heb “let my plea for mercy fall before you.” I.e., let it come before you and be favorably received (= granted; by metonymical extension).
³⁹tn Or “So that I will not die there,” or “or I will die there”; Heb “and I will not die there.” The particle that introduces this clause (aOw+) regularly introduces negative purpose clauses after the volitive sequence (la^ + jussive here) according to GKC §109 g, p. 323. However, purpose and result clauses in Hebrew (and Greek) are often indistinguishable. Here the clause is more in the nature of a negative result.
⁴⁰tn Heb “And/Then King Zedekiah ordered and they committed Jeremiah to [or, deposited…in] the courtyard of the guardhouse and they gave to him a loaf of bread.” The translation has been structured the way it has to avoid the ambiguous “they” which is the impersonal subject which is sometimes rendered passive in English (cf. GKC §144d, p. 460). This text also has another example of the waw + infinitive absolute continuing a finite verbal form (/ton`w+ = “and they gave”; cf. GKC §113y, p. 345 and see Jer 32:44; 36:23).
⁴¹tn Heb “Stayed/Remained/ Lived.”
¹tn Spelled Jucal here rather than Jehucal in 37:3.
sn This official was a member of the delegation sent to Jeremiah by Zedekiah in 37:3.
²sn This official was a member of the delegation sent to Jeremiah in 21:2. For the relative sequence of these two delegations see the study note on 21:1.
³tn J. Bright, Jeremiah, pp. 226, 30 is probably correct in translating the verbs here as pluperfects and in explaining that these words are prophecies that Jeremiah uttered before his arrest not prophecies that were being delivered to the people through intermediaries sent by Jeremiah who was confined in the courtyard of the guardhouse. For the use of the waw consecutive + imperfect to denote the pluperfect see the discussion and examples in Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §33.2.3a, pp. 552-53 and see the usage in Exod 4:19. The words that are cited in v. 2 are those recorded in 21:9 on the occasion of the first delegation and those in v. 3 are those recorded in 21:10; 34:2; 37:8; 32:28 all except the last delivered before Jeremiah was confined in the courtyard of the guardhouse.
⁴tn Heb “by sword, by starvation, or by disease.”
⁵tn Heb “those who go out to the Chaldeans.” For the rendering “Babylonians” for “Chaldeans” see the study note on 21:4.
⁶tn Heb “his life will be to him for spoil and he will live.” For the meaning of this idiom see the study note on 21:9. The words and “he will live” have been left out of the translation because they are redundant after “will live” and “they will escape with their lives.”
sn See 21:9 for this prophecy.
⁷tn The words “They had also heard him say,” are not in the original text. They are added for clarity so as to avoid any possible confusion that might be created by saying merely “And the LORD says,” without any introduction.
⁸sn See 21:10; 32:28; 34:2; 37:8 for this same prophecy. Jeremiah had repeatedly said this or words to the same effect.
⁹tn Heb “weakening the hands of.” For this idiom see BDB, hp*r`, Pi., p. 951 and compare the usage in Isa 13:7; Ezek 21:7 (21:12 Hebrew text).
¹⁰tn Heb “by saying these things.”
¹¹tn The Hebrew particle yK! has not been rendered here because it is introducing a parallel causal clause to the preceding one. To render “For” might be misunderstood as a grounds for the preceding statement. To render “And” or “Moreover” sounds a little odd here. If it must be represented, “Moreover” is perhaps the best rendering.
¹²tn Or “is not looking out for these people’s best interests but is really trying to do them harm”; Heb “is not seeking the welfare [or, “well being”; Hebrew shalom] of this people but [their] harm [more literally, evil].”
¹³tn Heb “Behold, he is in your hands [= power/control].”
¹⁴tn Heb “For the king cannot do a thing with/against you.” The personal pronoun “I” is substituted in the English translation due to differences in style; Hebrew style often uses the third person or the title in speaking of oneself but English rarely if ever does. Compare the common paraphrasis of “your servant” for “I” in Hebrew (cf. BDB, db#u#, 6, p. 714 and usage in 1 Sam 20:7, 8) and compare the usage in Pss 63:11 (63:12 Hebrew text); 61:6 (61:7 Hebrew text) where the king is praying for himself. For the meaning of lkoy` “to be able to do anything” see BDB, lkoy`, 1g, p. 407.
¹⁵tn Heb “they.”
¹⁶sn Cisterns were pear shaped pits with narrow openings. They were cut or dug in the limestone rock and lined with plaster to prevent seepage. They were used to collect and store rain water or water carried up from a spring. For a nice picture and explanation see, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1:289-90.
¹⁷tn Heb “the son of the king.” See the translator’s note on 36:26 for the rendering here.
¹⁸tn Heb “And they let Jeremiah down with ropes and in the cistern there was no water only mud and Jeremiah sank in the mud.” The clauses have been reordered and restructured to create a more natural and smoother order in English.
¹⁹sn We meet this man only here. Later he will be promised deliverance from destruction when the city falls because he had shown trust in God (see Jer 39:16-18).
²⁰tn Heb “Ebed Melech, the Cushite, a man, an eunuch/official, and he was [= who was; a circumstantial clause] in the house of the king, heard that they had put Jeremiah…” The passive construction “Jeremiah had been put” has been used to avoid the indefinite subject “they” or the addition of “the officials.” For the translation of syr]s* as “official” here rather than “eunuch” see the translator’s note on 29:2 and see also the usage in 34:19. For the translation of “Cushite” as Ethiopian see the study note on 13:23.
²¹tn Heb “And the king was sitting in the Benjamin Gate.” This clause is circumstantial to the following clause; thus “while the king was…” Most commentators agree that the reference to sitting in the gate here likely refers to the same kind of judicial context that has been posited for 26:10 (see the translator’s note there for further references). Hence we translate “sitting” with the more technical “holding court” to better reflect the probable situation.
²²tn Heb “Those men have made evil all they have done to the prophet Jeremiah in that they have thrown him into the cistern and he will die of starvation in the place where he is because there is no more food in the city.” The particle ta@ before “they have thrown” (Wkyl!v=h! rv#a& ta@) is explanatory or further definition of “all they have done to” (i.e., the particle is repeated for apposition). The verb form “and he is sure to die” is an unusual use of the waw consecutive + imperfect that the grammars see as giving a logical consequence without a past nuance (cf. GKC, §111l, p. 328 and Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §33.3.1f., p. 558).
sn “Because there isn’t any food left in the city” is rhetorical exaggeration; the food didn’t run out until just before the city fell. Perhaps the intent is to refer to the fact that there isn’t any food in the city for people so confined (i.e., in solitary confinement).
²³tc Some modern translations (e.g., NRSV, REB, TEV) and commentaries read “three” on the basis that thirty men would not be necessary for the task (cf. J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 231). Though the difference in “three” and “thirty” involves minimal emendation (hv*Ov= for <yv!Ov=) there is no textual or versional evidence for it except for one Hebrew manuscript. Perhaps the number was large to prevent the officials from hindering Ebed Melech from accomplishing the task.
²⁴tn Heb “went into the palace in under the treasury.” Several of the commentaries (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 227; J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 639, fn 6) emend the prepositional phrase “in under” (tj^T^ la#) to the noun “wardrobe” plus the preposition “to” (tj^t^l=m#-la#). This is a plausible emendation which would involve dropping out lm# due to its similarity with the la# which precedes it. However, there is no textual or versional evidence for such a reading and the compound preposition is not in itself objectional (cf. BDB, tj^T^, III.1a, p. 1066). The Greek version reads “the part underground” (Jr#a*h* tj^T^ la#) in place of rxoah* tj^T^ la#. The translation follows the Hebrew text but adds the word “room” for the sake of English style.
²⁵tn Heb “worn out clothes and worn out rags.”
²⁶tn Heb “Ebed Melech the Ethiopian.” The words “the Ethiopian” are unnecessary because he has already been identified as such in vv. 7, 10.
²⁷tn Heb “under the joints of your arms under the ropes.” The two uses of “under” have different orientations and are best reflected by “between your armpits and the ropes” or “under your armpits to pad the ropes.”
²⁸tn Or “Jeremiah did so.” The alternate translation is what the text reads literally.
²⁹tn Heb “Jeremiah remained/stayed in the courtyard of the guardhouse.” The translation is meant to better reflect the situation; i.e., Jeremiah was released from the cistern but still had to stay in the courtyard of the guardhouse.
³⁰tn The words “Some time later” are not in the text but are a way of translating the conjunction “And” or “Then” that introduces this narrative.
³¹sn The precise location of this entrance is unknown since it is mentioned nowhere else in the OT. Many commentators equate this with the “king’s outer entry” (mentioned in 2 Kgs 16:18) which appears to have been a private entryway between the temple and the palace.
³²tn The words “when you answer” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are added for the sake of clarity and smoothness of style.
³³tn Or “you will most certainly kill me, won’t you?” Heb “Will you not certainly kill me?” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. In situations like this BDB, aO, 4b(b) says that aOh& “has a tendency to become little more than an affirmative particle, declaring with some rhetorical emphasis what is, or might be, well known.” The idea of certainty is emphasized here by the addition of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb (Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §123e, p. 422).
³⁴tn Heb “So King Zedekiah secretly swore an oath to Jeremiah, saying.”
³⁵tn Heb “who has made this life/soul/breath [vp#n#] for us.” The Hebrew term vp#n# refers to the living, breathing substance of a person which constitutes his very life (cf. BDB, vp#n#, 1 and 3, p. 659).
³⁶tn Heb “who are seeking your life.”
³⁷tn Heb “Yahweh, the God of armies, the God of Israel.” Compare 7:3 and 35:17 and see the study note on 2:19.
³⁸tn Heb “Your life/soul will live.” The quote is a long condition-consequence sentence with compound consequential clauses. It reads, “If you will only go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, your soul [= you yourself; BDB, vp#n#, 4a, p. 660] will live and this city will not be burned with fire and you and your household will live.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style. The infinitive absolute in the condition emphasizes the one condition, i.e., going out or surrendering (cf. Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §123g, p. 423 and compare usage in Exod 15:26). For the idiom “go out to” = “surrender to” see the full idiom in 21:9 “go out and fall over to” which is condensed in 38:2 to “go out to.” The expression here is the same as in 38:2.
³⁹tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
⁴⁰tn Heb “will not escape from their hand.”
sn Zedekiah held out this hope until the end and attempted to do so but was unsuccessful (cf. 39:4-5).
⁴¹tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
⁴²tn Or “and they will badly abuse me.” For the usage of this verb in the situation presupposed see Judg 19:25 and 1 Sam 31:4.
⁴³tn Heb “Please listen to the voice of the LORD with regard to what I have been telling you.” For the idiom “listen to the voice” = “obey” see BDB, um^v*, 1m, p. 1034. Obedience here is expressed by following the advice in the qualifying clause, i.e., what I have been telling you.
⁴⁴tn Literally “your life [or, you yourself] will live.” Compare v. 17 and the translator’s note there for the idiom.
⁴⁵tn Heb “And they will say.” The words “taunt you” are added to give the flavor of the words that follow.
⁴⁶tn Heb “The men of your friendship incited you and prevailed over you. Your feet are sunk in the mud. They turned backward.” The term “men of your friendship” (cf. BDB, <olv*, 5a, p. 1023) is used to refer to Jeremiah’s “so-called friends” in 20:10, to the trusted friend who deserted the psalmist in Ps 41:10, and to the allies of Edom in Obad 7. According to most commentators it refers here to the false prophets and counselors who urged the king to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar. The verb translated “misled” is a verb that often refers to inciting or instigating someone to do something, often with negative connotations (so BDB, tWs, Hiph 2, p. 694). It is generally translated “deceive” or “mislead” in 2 Kgs 18:32; 2 Chr 32:11, 15. Here it refers to the fact that his proEgyptian counselors induced him to rebel. They have proven too powerful for him and prevailed on him (l= lkoy`; see BDB, lkoy`, 2b, p. 408) to follow a policy which will prove detrimental to him, his family, and the city. The phrase “your feet have sunk in the mire” is figurative for being entangled in great difficulties (so BDB, ub^f*, Hoph, p. 371 and compare the usage in the highly figurative description of trouble in Ps 69:2 [69:3 Hebrew text]). The figure has been interpreted here to give the average reader some idea of the situation. For the probable explanation of the situation see the study note.
sn The taunt song here refers to the fact that Zedekiah had been incited into rebellion by pro-Egyptian nobles in his court who prevailed on him to seek aid from the new Egyptian Pharaoh in 589 BC and withhold tribute from Nebuchadnezzar. This led to the downfall of the city which is depicted in Jeremiah’s vision from the standpoint of its effects on the king himself and his family.
⁴⁷tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
⁴⁸tn Heb “you yourself will not escape from their hand but will be seized by [caught in] the hand of the king of Babylon.” Neither use of “hand” is natural to the English idiom.
⁴⁹tc This translation follows the reading of the Greek version and a few Hebrew manuscripts. The majority of the Hebrew manuscripts read “and you will burn down this city.” This reading is accepted by the majority of modern commentaries and translations. Few of the commentaries, however, bother to explain the fact that the particle ta#, which normally marks the accusative object, is functioning here as the subject. For this point of grammar see BDB, I ta@, 1b, p. 85. Or this may be another case where ta@ introduces a new subject (see BDB, ta@, 3[a], p. 85 and see usage in 27:8; 36:22).
⁵⁰tn Heb “about these words.”
⁵¹tn Or “so that you will not die.” Or “or you will die.” See the similar construction in 37:20 and the translator’s note there.
sn This is probably not a threat that the king himself will kill Jeremiah but a premonition that if the proEgyptian party that was seeking to kill Jeremiah found out about the conversation they would go ahead and kill Jeremiah (cf. 38:2-4).
⁵²tn The phrase “and what the king said to you” is actually at the end of the verse but most commentators see it as also under the governance of “tell us” and many commentaries and translations move the clause up for the sake of English style as we do here.
⁵³tn Or “lest we kill you”; Heb “and we will not kill you,” which as stated in the translator’s note on 37:20 introduces a negative purpose (or result) clause. See 37:20, 38:24 for parallel usage.
⁵⁴tn Verses 25-26 form a long compound, complex conditional sentence. The condition is found in v. 25 and contains a long quote. The consequence is found in v. 36 and contains another long quote. The Hebrew sentence reads: “And if the officials hear that I have talked with you and come to you and say to you, ‘Please tell us what you said to the king. Do not hide from us and we will not kill you [so that we will not kill you] and [tell us] what the king said to you, ‘ then tell them.” The sentence has been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style.
⁵⁵tn Heb “I was causing to fall [= presenting] my petition before the king not to send me back to Jonathan’s house to die there.” The word “dungeon of” is added to help the reader connect this petition with Jeremiah’s earlier place of imprisonment where the officials had put him with every intention of letting him die there (37:15-16, 20).
sn See 37:15-16, 20.
⁵⁶tn Heb “All the officials came to Jeremiah and questioned him.”
⁵⁷tn Heb “And he reported to them according to all these words which the king had commanded.”
⁵⁸tn Heb “And they were silent from him because the word/matter [i.e., the conversation between Jeremiah and the king] had not been heard.” According to BDB, /m!, 1a, p. 578 the preposition “from” is pregnant in this construction, implying a verb of motion. I.e., “they were [fell] silent [and turned away] from him.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “And Jeremiah stayed/remained in the courtyard of the guardhouse…” The translation once again intends to reflect the situation. Jeremiah had a secret meeting with the king at the third entrance to the temple (v. 14). He was returned to the courtyard of the guardhouse (cf. v. 13) after the conversation with the king where the officials came to question him (v. 27). He was not sent back to the dungeon in Jonathan’s house as he feared, but was left confined in the courtyard of the guardhouse.
⁶⁰tc The precise meaning of this line and its relation to the context are somewhat uncertain. This line is missing from the Greek and Syriac versions and from a few Hebrew manuscripts. Some translations and commentaries omit it as a double writing of the final words of the preceding line (see, e.g., REB, Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:268). Others see it as misplaced from the beginning of 39:3 (see, e.g., NRSV, TEV, J.Bright, Jeremiah, p. 245). The clause probably does belong syntactically with 39:3 (i.e., rv#a&K^ introduces a temporal clause which is resumed by the waw consecutive on WaboY`w^ (see BDB, rv#a&K^, 3, p. 455) but it should not be moved there because there is no textual evidence for doing so. The intervening verses are to be interpreted as parenthetical, giving the background for the events that follow (see, e.g., the translation in the Hebrew Old Testament Project, 4:280). The chapter is not so much concerned with describing how Jerusalem fell as it is with contrasting the fate of Zedekiah who disregarded the word of the LORD with the fate of Jeremiah and that of Jeremiah’s benefactor Ebed Melech. The best way to treat the line without actually moving it before 39:3a is to treat it as a heading as we have done here.
¹sn 1 Kgs 25:1 and Jer 52:4 give the more precise date of the tenth day of the tenth month of the ninth year which would have been Jan 15, 588 BC. The reckoning is based on the calendar that begins the year in the spring (Nisan = March/April).
²sn According to modern reckoning that would have been July 18, 586 BC. The siege thus lasted almost a full eighteen months.
³tn Translations and commentaries differ on the number of officials named here and the exact spelling of their names. For a good discussion of the options see fn 71, p. 341 of F. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 341. Most commentaries follow the general lead of J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 243 which we have done here. However we do not emend the second name on the basis of v. 13 as he does or see the second Nergal-Sharezzar as the same man as the first and combine the information on the two as he does. The first Nergal-Sharezer is generally identified on the basis of Babylonian records as the man who usurped the throne from Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Awel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach as he is known in the OT (Jer 52:31; 2 Kgs 25:27). We have taken the liberty of translating the two technical Babylonian terms Rab-Saris (only in Jer 39:3, 13; 2 Kgs 18:17) and Rab-Mag (only in Jer 39:3, 13) as “chief officer” and “high official” without knowing precisely what offices they held. We have done this to give the average reader some feeling of their high position without specifying exactly what their precise positions were (i.e., we have used the generic for the specific).
⁴tn Heb “sat.” The precise meaning of this phrase is not altogether clear, but J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 243 is undoubtedly correct in assuming that it had to do with setting up a provisional military government over the city.
⁵tn The Hebrew style here is typically full or redundant, giving a general subject first and then listing the specifics. The Hebrew text reads: “Then all the officers of the king of Babylon came and sat in the Middle Gate, Nergal-Sharezer…and all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon.” We have eliminated the general subject and used the list of the “real” subjects; this eliminates the dashes or commas typical of some modern translations.
sn The identification of the location of this gate is uncertain since it is mentioned nowhere else in the OT.
⁶sn The king’s garden is mentioned again in Neh 3:15 in conjunction with the pool of Siloam and the stairs that go down from the city of David. This would have been in the southern part of the city near the Tyropean Valley which agrees with the reference to the “two walls” which were probably the walls on the eastern and western hills.
⁷sn Heb “toward the Arabah.” The Arabah was the rift valley north and south of the Dead Sea. Here the intention was undoubtedly to escape across the Jordan to Moab or Ammon. It appears from 40:14; 41:15 that the Ammonites were known to harbor fugitives from the Babylonians.
⁸tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
⁹sn 2 Kgs 25:5 and Jer 52:8 mention that the soldiers all scattered from him. That’s why the text focuses on Zedekiah here.
¹⁰sn Riblah was a strategic town on the Orontes River in Syria. It was at a crossing of the major roads between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Pharaoh Necho had earlier received Jehoahaz there and put him in chains (2 Kgs 23:33) prior to taking him captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar had set up his base camp for conducting his campaigns against the Palestinian states there and was now sitting in judgment on prisoners brought to him.
¹¹tn Heb “fetters of bronze.” The more generic “chains” is used in the translation because “fetters” is a word unfamiliar to most modern readers.
¹²tn Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
¹³tc The reading here is based on an emendation following the parallels in Jer 52:13 and 2 Kgs 25:9. The Hebrew text here does not have “the temple of the LORD” and reads merely “house of the people.” The text here is probably corrupt. It reads <u*h* tyB@-ta#w+ “and the house of the people” which many explain as a collective use of ty]B^. However, no parallels are cited by any of the commentaries, grammars or lexicons for such a use. It is more likely that the words yT@B*-ta#w+ hwhy have fallen out of the text due to similar beginnings. The words hwhy tyB@-ta#w+ are found in the parallel texts cited in the marginal note. The Greek version is no help here because vv. 4-13 are omitted, probably due to the similarities in ending of vv. 3, 13 (i.e., homoioteleuton of lb#B* El#m#).
¹⁴sn According to the parallels in 2 Kgs 25:8-9; Jer 52:12-13 this occurred almost a month after the wall was breached and Zedekiah’s failed escape. It took place under the direction of Nebuzaradan, the captain of the king’s special guard who is mentioned in the next verse.
¹⁵tn For the meaning of this phrase see BDB, jB*f^, 2, p. 371 and compare the usage in Gen 39:1.
¹⁶tc The translation is based on an emendation of the text which leaves out “the rest of the people who were left” as a double writing of the same phrase at the beginning of the verse. Some commentators emend the phrase “the rest of the people who were left” (<u*h* rt#y# ta#w+ <yr]a*v=N]h^) to read “the rest of the craftsmen who were left” (<yr]a*v=N]h^ /oma*h* rt#y# ta#w+) on the basis of the parallel in Jer 52:15 (which does not have <yr]a*v=N]h^). However, it is easier to explain the phrase as a dittography of the phrase at the beginning (which is exactly the same except ryu!h* follows it). The text is redundant because it refers twice to the same group of people. The Hebrew text reads: “And the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to him and the rest of the people Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, carried into exile to Babylon.” The text has also been divided up to create two shorter sentences to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁷tn Heb “Nebuzaradan, the captain of the royal guard.” However, the subject is clear from the preceding and contemporary English style would normally avoid repeating the proper name and title.
¹⁸tn Heb “And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon commanded concerning Jeremiah by the hand of Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, saying.” Since Nebuchadnezzar is at Riblah (v. 6) and Nebuzaradan and the other officers named in the next verse are at Jerusalem, the waw consecutive imperfect should again be translated as a pluperfect (see 38:2 and the translator’s notes there for explanation). For the meaning of “through” or “through the agency of” for the phrase dy^B= see BDB, dy*, 5d, p. 391. The sentence has been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁹tn Heb “Get [or, fetch] him.” The referent is supplied for clarity.
²⁰tn Or “take care of him”; Heb “set your eyes on him.” For the meaning of this idiom see BDB, <yc!, 2c, p. 963 and compare 24:6 where the phrase “for good” is added.
²¹tn Heb “Don’t do anything evil [= harmful] to him.”
²²tn See the translator’s notes on 39:3, 9 for the names and titles here.
²³sn This is the first reference to this man whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed governor over the people who were left to live in Judah (cf. 40:5; 2 Kgs 25:22). His father was the man who spoke up for Jeremiah when he was accused of being a false prophet by some of the priests and prophets (26:24). His grandfather was the royal secretary under Josiah who brought the discovery of the Book of the Law to Josiah’s attention, read it to him, and was involved in helping Josiah institute his reforms (2 Kgs 22:8-10).
²⁴tn The meaning of the last phrase is uncertain. An alternate translation is “to take him home with him.” The text reads literally “to bring him into the house.” However, it is unclear whether “the house” refers to Jeremiah’s house or to Gedaliah’s. The fact that Nebuzaradan later offers Jeremiah the option of going back to Gedaliah (40:5) suggests that the house is here Gedaliah’s where Jeremiah would be looked out for in accord with Nebuchadnezzar’s command (v. 12).
²⁵tn Many translate this last clause as a conclusion or summary remark, “So Jeremiah stayed…” However, it is better to translate it as an adversative because it probably refers to the fact that rather than staying with Gedaliah in the governor’s residence Jeremiah stayed among the people. That is how he wound up being led off as a prisoner to Ramah. See further the study note on 40:1. According to Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Synatax, §33. 2.1d, p. 550 the waw consecutive can have either of these values (see examples 11 and 12 for the adversative or contrastive nuance).
²⁶sn Jer 39:15-18. This incident is out of chronological order (see 38:7-13). It is placed here either due to a desire not to interrupt the sequential ordering of events centering on Jeremiah’s imprisonment and his release (38:14—39:14) or to contrast God’s care and concern for the faithful (Ebed-Melech who, though a foreigner, trusted in God) with his harsh treatment of the faithless (Zedekiah who, though informed of God’s will, was too weak-willed in the face of opposition by his courtiers to carry it out).
²⁷tn Heb “Now the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah while he…saying.” The form of this clause is disjunctive showing that it does not follow the preceding events in either chronological or logical sequence. For a discussion of the form and function of such disjunctive clauses see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §39.2.3, pp. 650-652. This example most closely fits the description and function of example 12, Ruth 4:18, 21-22 on p. 652.
²⁸sn Even though Jeremiah was confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse, he was still free to entertain visitors (32:2, 8). Moreover, Ebed-Melech was an official attached to the royal court and would have had access to the courtyard of the guardhouse (38:7, 13). Jeremiah would not have had to leave the courtyard of the guardhouse to “go and tell” him something.
²⁹tn Heb “Behold, I will bring to pass my words against this city for evil/disaster and not for good/good fortune.” For the form of the verb yb!m@ (Kethiv, ayb!m@ Qere) see GKC, §74k, p. 207 where the same form is noted for the Kethiv in 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Kgs 21:21; Jer 19:15 all of which occur before a word beginning with a. For the nuance “carry out” (or “bring to pass”) see BDB, aoB, Hiph 2b, p. 99.
³⁰tn Heb “And they [= my words for disaster] will come to pass [= happen] before you on that day [i.e., the day that I bring them to pass/carry them out].”
³¹tn Heb “But I will rescue you on that day” (referring to the same day mentioned in the preceding verse).
³²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³³sn Some commentators see this as a reference to the princes from whose clutches Ebed-Melech delivered Jeremiah (38:7-13). However, it is clear that in this context it refers to those that he would fear when the LORD brings about the threatened disaster, i.e., the Babylonians who are attacking the city.
³⁴sn Heb “you will not fall by the sword.” In the context this would include death in battle and execution as a prisoner of war.
³⁵tn Heb “your life will be to you for spoil.” For the meaning of this idiom see the study note on 21:9 and compare the usage in 21:9; 38:2; 45:4.
³⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹tn Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD.”
sn This phrase regularly introduces the LORD’s directions to Jeremiah which immediately follow (cf. 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 35:1). In 21:1; 44:1 it introduces a word of the LORD that Jeremiah communicates to others. However, no directions to Jeremiah follow here nor does any oracle that Jeremiah passes on to the people. Some commentators explain this as a heading parallel to that in 1:1-3 (which refers to messages and incidents in the life of Jeremiah up to the fall of Jerusalem) introducing the oracles that Jeremiah delivered after the fall of Jerusalem. However, no oracles follow until 42:9. It is possible that the intervening material supply background material for the oracle that is introduced in 42:7. An analogy to this structure but in a much shorter form may be found in 34:8-12. Another possible explanation is that the words of the captain of the guard in vv. 2-3 are to be seen as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah. In this case, it is a rather ironical confirmation of what Jeremiah had been saying all along. If it is thought strange that a pagan soldier would have said these words, it should be remembered that foreign soldiers knew through their intelligence sources what kings and prophets were saying (cf. Isa 36:7) and it is not unusual for God to speak through pagan prophets (cf. Balaam’s oracles, e.g. Num 23:7-10) or even a dumb animal (e.g., Balaam’s donkey [Num 22:28, 30]). Given the penchant for the use of irony in the book of Jeremiah, this is the most likely explanation. For further discussion on this view see Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 235-36.
²sn Some commentators see the account of Jeremiah’s release here in 40:1-6 as an alternate and contradictory account to that of Jeremiah’s release in 39:11-14. However, most commentators see them as complementary and sequential. Jeremiah had been released from the courtyard of the guardhouse on orders of the military tribunal there shortly after Nebuzaradan got to Jerusalem and passed on Nebuchadnezzar’s orders to them. He had been released to the custody of Gedaliah who was to take him back to the governor’s residence and look after him there. However, Jeremiah remained in Jerusalem among the people there. He was mistakenly rounded up with them and led off as a prisoner to be deported with the rest of the exiles. However, when he got to Ramah which was a staging area for deportees, Nebuzaradan recognized him among the prisoners and released him a second time.
³tn Heb “when he took him and he was in chains.” The subject is probably Nebuzaradan or the indefinite third singular (GKC §144d, p 460), The Kethiv of the word for <yQ!z]aB* is to be explained as a secondary formation with prosthetic a from the normal word for “fetter” qz} according to KB3, <yQ!z]a&, p. 27 (see GKC §19m, p. 70; §85b, p. 235 for the phenomemon).
⁴tn Heb “Because you [masc. pl.] sinned against the LORD and did not hearken to his voice [a common idiom for “obey him”], this thing has happened to you [masc. pl.].”
⁵tn The verb here is an example of the perfect of resolve where the speaker announces his intention to do something according to Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §30.5.1d, p. 489. The word “Jeremiah” is added to the translation to avoid the possible misunderstanding that the you is still plural.
⁶ mn, Or “take care of you.” See 39:12 and the translator’s note there.
⁷tn Or “Stay here”; Heb “Forbear.” The imperative is used in a permissive sense; “you may forbear.” See GKC §110b, p. 324 and compare usage in Gen 50:6.
⁸tn Heb “See all the land [or, the whole land] is before you.” For this idiom see BDB, hn#P*, II.4.a.(f), p. 817 and compare the usage in Gen 20:15; 47:6.
⁹tn Heb “Unto the good and the right in your eyes to go, go there.”
¹⁰tc Or “Before Jeremiah could answer, the captain of the guard added.” Or “But if you remain, then go back.” The meaning of the first part of v. 5 is uncertain. The text is either very cryptic here or is corrupt, perhaps beyond restoration. The Hebrew text reads, “and he was not yet turning and return to Gedaliah” (hy*l=d^G=-la# hb*v%w+ bWvy*-aO WNd#ouw+) which is very cryptic. The Greek version lacks everthing in v. 4 after “I will look out for you” and begins v. 5 with “But if not, run, return to Gedaliah” (= hy*l=d^G=-la# hb*v%w+ JWr aO <a!w+). The Latin version reads the same as the Hebrew in v. 4 but reads “and don’t come with me but stay with Gedaliah” (= a possible Hebrew text of hy*l=d^G=-ta# hb*v@w+ bWvT* aO yd!M*u!w+). The Syriac version reads “But if you are remaining then return to Gedaliah” (reading a possible Hebrew text of al% ;d=ouw+ hy*l=d^G=-la# hb*v%w+ bv@yo with an abnormal writing of a conditional particle nomally written Wl and normally introducing conditions assumed to be untrue or reading hy*l=d^G=-la# hb*v%w+ bv@yol= ;d=ouw+ with an emphatic l= [see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §11.2.10i, pp. 211-12) and an informally introduced condition [See J. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar-Syntax, §123 and Rem.1 and Isa 6:13 listed there]). NRSV does not explain the Hebrew base for its reading but accepts the Syriac as the original. It does appear to be the most likely alternative if the Hebrew is not accepted. However, the fact that none of the versions agree and all appear to be smoother than the Hebrew text suggests that they were dealing with an awkward original that they were trying to smooth out. Hence it is perhaps best to retain the Hebrew and make the best sense out of it that we can. The most common reading of the Hebrew text as it stands is “and while he was not yet turning [= but before he was able to turn (to go)] [Nebuzaradan continued], ‘Go back to Gedaliah.’” (The imperfect in this case is an imperfect of capability [see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §31.4c examples 2,4,5, p. 507].) That is the reading that is adopted here. REB and TEV appear to accept a minor emendation of the verb “turn to leave” (bWvy*, a Qal imperfect) to “answer” (byv!y`, a Hiphil imperfect with an ellided object [see BDB, bWv, Hiph 3, p. 999 and compare 2 Chr 10:16]). All of this shows that the meaning of the text at this point is very uncertain.
¹¹tn Heb “set him over/ made him overseer over.” See BDB, dyq!P*, Hiph 1, pp. 823-24 and compare usage in Gen 39:4-5.
¹²tn Heb “Go back to Gedaliah…and live with him among the people.” The long Hebrew sentence has been restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹³sn It is generally agreed that this is the Mizpah that was on the border between Benjamin and Judah. It was located approximately eight miles north of Jerusalem and had been an important military and religious center from the time of the judges on (cf. e.g., Judg 20:1-3; 1 Sam 7:5-14; 1 Sam 10:17; 1 Kgs 15:22). It was not far from Ramah which was approximately four miles north of Jerusalem.
¹⁴tn Heb “So Jeremiah went to Gedaliah…and lived with him among the people who had been left in the land.” The long Hebrew sentence has been divided in two to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁵tn Heb “set him over/ made him overseer over.” See BDB, dyq!P*, Hiph 1, pp. 823-24 and compare usage in Gen 39:4-5.
¹⁶sn Compare 39:10.
¹⁷tn Verse 6 consists of a very long conditional clause whose main clause is found in v. 7. The text reads literally “When all the officers of the forces who were in the countryside heard, they and their men, that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah…over the land and that he had committed to him men, women, and children, even from the poorest of the land from those who had not been carried off into exile to Babylon, they came.” The sentence has been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style. The phrase “the forces who were in the countryside” has been translated to reflect the probable situation, i.e., they had escaped and were hiding in the hills surrounding Jerusalem waiting for the Babylonians to leave (cf. Judg 6:2).
¹⁸sn The name of these officers is given here because some of them become important to the plot of the subequent narrative, in particular, Ishmael and Johanan. Ishmael was a member of the royal family (41:1). He formed an alliance with the king of Ammon, assasinated Gedaliah, killed the soldiers stationed at Mizpah and many of Gedaliah’s followers, and attempted to carry off the rest of the people left at Mizpah to Ammon (40:13; 41:1-3, 10). Johanan was the leading officer who sought to stop Ishmael from killing Gedaliah (40:13-16) and who rescued the Jews that Ishmael was trying to carry off to Ammon (41:11-15). He along with another man named Jezaniah and these other officers were the leaders of the Jews who asked for Jeremiah’s advice about what they should do after Ishmael had killed Gedaliah (43:1-7).
¹⁹tn The words “so as to give them some assurance of safety” are not in the text but are generally understood by all commentators. This would be a case of substitution of cause for effect, the oath, put for the effect, the assurance of safety (Tanakh translates directly “reassured them”).
²⁰tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²¹tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²²tn Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.
²³tn This plus “Things will go well with you” is in essence the substance of the oath. The pronouns are emphatic, “And I behold I will stay…and you you may gather.” The imperatives in the second half of the verse are more a form of permission than of command or advice (cf. Tanakh, REB, TEV and compare the usage in 40:4 and the references in the translator’s note there).
²⁴tn Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.
²⁵tn The translation is intended to reflect the emphasizing infinitive absolute before the finite verb.
²⁶tn Heb “Why should he kill you?” However, this is one of those cases listed in BDB, hm*, 4d(b), p. 554 where it introduces a question introducing rhetorically the reason why something should not be done. In cases like this BDB notes that it approximates the meaning “lest” and is translated in Greek by mhpote or mh as the Greek version does here. Hence we separate it from the preceding and translate it “otherwise” for the sake of English style.
²⁷tn Heb “this thing.”
²⁸tn Heb “is false/a lie.”
¹sn It is not altogether clear whether this is in the same year that Jerusalem fell or not. The wall was breached in the fourth month (= early July; 39:2) and Nebuzaradan came and burned the palace, the temple, and many of the houses and tore down the wall in the fifth month (= early August; 52:12). That would have left time between the fifth month and the seventh month (October) to gather in the harvest of grapes, dates and figs, and olives (40:12). However, many commentators feel that too much activity takes place in too short a time for this to have been in the same year and posit that it happened the following year or even five years later when a further deportation took place, possibly in retaliation for the murder of Gedaliah and the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah (52:30). The assassination of Gedaliah had momentous consequences and was commemorated in one of the post exilic fast days lamenting the fall of Jerusalem (Zech 8:19).
²sn This can scarcely refer to all the Judeans who had rallied around Gedaliah at Mizpah because v. 10 later speaks of Ishmael carrying off “the rest of the people who were at Mizpah.” Probably what is meant is “all the Judeans and Babylonian soldiers” that were also at the meal. It is possible that this meal was intended to seal an agreement between Gedaliah and Ishmael of Ishmael’s allegiance to Gedaliah and his Babylonian overlords (cf. Gen 26:30-31; 31:53-54; Exod 24:11). In any case, this act of treachery and deceit was an extreme violation of the customs of hospitality practiced in the ancient Near East.
³tn Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation. There are two cases of apposition with the repetition of the preposition or of the sign of the accusative in this verse, e.g., “who were with him, [namely] with Gedaliah” and “all the Chaldeans who happened to be there, [namely] the soldiers.”
⁴tn Heb “were found there.” For this nuance of the verb see BDB, ax*m*, Niph 2c, p. 594.
⁵sn These were all cities in the northern kingdom of Israel with important religious and political histories. When Israel was destroyed in 722 BC, some of the Israelites had been left behind and some of the Judeans had taken up residence in these northern cities. People residing there had participated in the reforms of Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:11) and Josiah (2 Chr 34:9) and were evidently still faithfully following the Jewish calendar. They would have been on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish New Year and the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34).
⁶tn The words “to show their mourning” are not in the text but are implicit in the acts. They are added for clarification for readers who may not be familiar with ancient mourning customs.
⁷tn The words “in Jerusalem” are not in the text but are implicit. They are added for clarity.
⁸tn Heb “he was weeping/crying.” The translation is intended to better reflect the situation.
⁹tn Heb “Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.” The words that are added are implicit to the situation and are added for clarity.
¹⁰tn The words “and threw their bodies” result from the pregnant use of the preposition la# (so GKC §119gg, p. 384 and BDB, la#, 1, p. 39). Hence the suggestion in BHS (fn a) that the Syriac and two Greek manuscripts are reading a different text is not really a textual issue but a translational one; the versions are supplying the words for stylistic purposes as we have done.
¹¹tn Heb “But there were ten men found among them and they said.” However, for the use of “were found” = “be, happened to be” see BDB, ax*m*, 2c, 594 and compare the usage in 41:3.
¹²tn This sentence is a good example of the elliptical nature of some of the causal connections in the Hebrew Bible. All the Hebrew says literally is “For we have hidden stores of wheat, barley, olive oil, and honey in a field.” However, it is obvious that they are using this as their bargaining chip to prevent them from killing them. For the use of “for” (yK!) for such elliptical thoughts see BDB, yK!, 3c, pp. 473-74.
¹³tn Or “So he refrained from killing them”; Heb “he refrained and did not kill them.”
¹⁴tn Heb “in the midst of their brothers/fellow countrymen.”
¹⁵tc The translation here follows the reading of the Greek version. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain; some understand it to mean “because of Gedaliah [i.e., to cover up the affair with Gedaliah]” and others understand it to mean “alongside of Gedaliah.” The translation presupposes that the Hebrew text reads aWh lwdG* roB in place of aWh Why`l=d^G=-dy^B=. The meaning of dy^B= does not fit any of the normal ones given for this expression and those who retain the Hebrew text normally explain it as an unparalleled use of “because” or “in the affair of” (so NJPS Tanakh) or a rare use meaning “near, by the side of “ (see BDB, dy`, 5d, p. 391 where only Ps 141:6 and Zech 4:12 are cited. BDB themselves suggest reading with the Greek version as we do (so BDB, dy`, 5c(3), p. 391)). For the syntax presupposed by the Greek text which we have followed consult Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §16.3.3d, p. 298 and §84.2b, p. 133. The first clause is a classifying clause with normal order of subject-predicate-copulative pronoun and it is followed by a further qualifying relative clause.
¹⁶sn It is generally agreed that the cistern referred to here is one of several that Asa dug for supplying water as part of the defense system constructed at Mizpah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:22; 2 Chr 16:6).
¹⁷tn Or “with corpses”; Heb “with the slain.”
¹⁸tn Heb “the daughters of the king.” Most commentators do not feel that this refers to the actual daughters of Zedekiah since they would have been too politically important to have escaped exile with their father. As noted in the translator’s note on 36:26 this need not refer to the actual daughters of the king but may refer to other royal daughters, i.e., the daughters of other royal princes.
¹⁹tn Or “crimes,” or “evil things”; Heb “the evil.”
²⁰tn Heb “the many [or great] waters.” This is generally identified with the pool of Gibeon mentioned in 2 Sam 2:13.
²¹tn Heb “all the people who were with Ishmael.” However, this does not refer to his own troops but to those he had taken with him from Mizpah, i.e., the captives. The phrase is specifically clarified in the next verse, i.e. “the people whom Ishmael had taken captive from Mizpah.” Hence, we translate here according to sense, not according to the literal wording.
²²tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²³sn This place is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible and its precise location is unknown. Many commentators relate the second part of the name to the name of the son of David’s benefactor when he fled from Absalom (2 Sam 19:38-39) and see this as a reference to an estate that David assigned this son as reward for his father’s largess. Gibeon was about six miles northwest of Jerusalem and Benjamin is approximately the same distance southwest of it. Hence, the people mentioned here had not traveled all that far.
²⁴tn Verses 16-18a are a long complex sentence in the Hebrew text with some rather awkward placement of qualifying terms. In the Hebrew text these verses read: “41:16 And he took, Johanan…and all the army officers with him, all the people who were left alive which he [Johanan] had taken back from Ishmael son of Nethaniah from Mizpah after he [Ishmael] had killed Gedaliah…men, men of war, and women and children and court officials which he [Johanan] had brought back from Gibeon 41:17 and they went and they stayed at Geruth Kimham…to go to enter Egypt 41:18 because of the Chaldean because they were afraid of them because Ishmael…” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to reflect all the relevant data in shorter sentences which better conform with contemporary English style. There are a couple of places where the text and syntax are debated. Many modern translations and commentaries read “They led off/took control of/ took all survivors of the people whom Ishmael…had taken captive [reading <t*ao hb*v* in place of ta@m@ byv!h@ “whom he (Johanan) had taken back/rescued from Ishmael] from Mizpah after he had…” This is a decidely smoother text but there is no manuscript or versional evidence for it and so it has been rejected here. Some commentators and translations see the words “men of war” (“soldiers”) following the word “men” as appositional to that word and hence see only one category. However, there are no parallels to these words used in this kind of apposition. So the translation reflects two categories.
¹sn This man may have been the same as the Jezaniah son of the Maachathite in 40:8. The title “the Maachathite” would identify the locality from which his father came, i.e., a region in northern Transjordan east of Lake Huleh. Many think he is also the same man who is named Azariah in 43:2 (the Greek version has Azariah both here and in 43:2). It was not uncommon for one man to have two names, e.g., Uzziah who was also named Azariah (compare 2 Kgs 14:21 with 2 Chr 26:1).
²tn Or “without distinction,” or “All the people from the least important to the most important”; Heb “from the least to the greatest.” This is a figure of speech that uses polar opposites as an all-inclusive designation of everyone without exception (i.e., it included all the people from the least important or poorest to the most important or richest.)
³tn Heb “please let our petition fall before you.” For the idiom here see 37:20 and the translator’s note there.
⁴tn Heb “on behalf of us, [that is] on behalf of all this remnant.”
sn What is meant here is the small remnant of people who were left of those from Mizpah who had been taken captive by Ishmael after he had killed Gedaliah and who had been rescued from him at Gibeon. There were other Judeans still left in the land of Judah who had not been killed or deported by the Babylonians.
⁵tn Heb “For we are left a few from the many as your eyes are seeing us.” The words “used to be” are not in the text but are implicit. These words are added for clarity and smoothness of English style.
⁶tn Heb “I have heard” = “I agree.” For this nuance of the verb see BDB, um^v*, Qal 1j, p. 1034 and compare the usage in Gen 37:27 and Judg 11:17 listed there.
⁷tn Heb “all the word which the LORD will answer you.
⁸tn Heb “do according to all the word which.”
⁹tn Heb “Whether good or whether evil we will hearken to the voice of the LORD our God to whom we are sending you in order that it may go well for us because/when we hearken to the voice of the LORD our God.” The phrase “whether good or whether evil” is an abbreviated form of the idiomatic expressions “to be good in the eyes of” = “to be pleasing to” (BDB, bof, 2f, p. 374 and see 1 Kgs 21:2) and “to be bad in the eyes of” = “to be displeasing to” (BDB, ur^, 3, p. 948 and see Num 22:34). The longer Hebrew sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
¹⁰tn Or “without distinction,” or “All the people from the least important to the most important”; Heb “from the least to the greatest.” This is a figure of speech that uses polar opposites as an all-inclusive designation of everyone without exception (i.e., it included all the people from the least important or poorest to the most important or richest.)
¹¹tn Heb “Thus says the LORD God of Israel to whom you sent me to present your petition before him, ‘…’” The sentence has been restructured to cut down on the length of the introduction leading in to the long quote.
sn Their “request” is that he would tell them where to go and what to do (v. 3).
¹²tn The word “just” is intended to reflect the infinitive absolute before the finite verb emphasizing here the condition rather than the verb root (see Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §123g, p. 423 and compare the usage in Exod 15:26). The form looks like the infinitive absolute of the verb bWv, but all the versions interpret it as though it is from bv^y* which is the root of the verb that follows it. Either this is a textual error of the loss of a y or this is one of the cases that GKC §19i, p. 69 list as the possible loss of a weak consonant at the beginning of a word.
¹³tn Or “I will firmly plant you in the land,” or, “I will establish you.” This is part of the metaphor that has been used of God (re)establishing Israel in the land. See 24:6; 31:28; 32:41.
¹⁴sn See 41:18 for their reason for fear.
¹⁵tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁶tn Heb “see [or, experience] war.”
¹⁷tn Heb “hear the sound of the trumpet.” The trumpet was used to gather the troops and to sound the alarm for battle.
¹⁸tn 42:13-14 are a long complex condition (protasis) whose consequence (apodosis) does not begin until v. 15. The Hebrew text of vv. 13-14 reads: 42:13 “But if you say [or, continue to say (the form is a participle)], ‘We will not stay in this land’ with the result that you do not obey [or, “more literally, do not hearken to the voice of] the LORD your God, 42:14 saying, ‘No, but to the land of Egypt we will go where we…and there we will live,’ 42:15 now therefore hear the word of the LORD…” The sentence has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style but an attempt has been made to maintain the contingencies and the qualifiers that are in the longer Hebrew original.
¹⁹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study note on 2:19 for the translation and significance of this title.
²⁰tn Heb “set your face to.” See Jer 42:17; 44:11; Dan 11:17; 2 Kgs 12:17 (v. 18 in Heb) for parallel usage.
²¹tn Or “will follow you right into Egypt,” or “will dog your steps all the way to Egypt”; Heb “cling after.” This is the only case of this verb with this preposition in the Qal stem. However, it is used with this preposition several times in the Hiphil, all with the meaning of “to pursue closely.” See BDB, qb^D`, Hiph 2, p. 180 and compare Judg 20:45; 1 Sam 14:22; 1 Chr 10:2.
²²sn The repetition of the adverb “there” in the translation of vv. 14, 16 is to draw attention to the rhetorical emphasis on the locale of Egypt in the original text of both v. 14 and v. 16. In v. 14 they say, “to the land of Egypt we will go…and there we will live.” In v. 16 God says, “wars…there will catch up with you…the hunger…there will follow after you…and there you will die.” God rhetorically denies their focus on Egypt as a place of safety and of relative prosperity. That can only be found in Judah under the protective presence of the LORD (vv. 10-12).
²³tn Or “Indeed.”
²⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study note on 2:19 for the translation and significance of this title.
²⁵tn See the study note on 24:9 and the usage in 29:22 for the meaning and significance of this last phrase.
²⁶tn Or “land.” The reference is, of course, to the land of Judah.
²⁷tn Heb “Know for certain that I warn you…” The idea of “for certain” is intended to reflect the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute before the volitive use of the imperfect (see Waltke, O’Connnor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §35.3.1h, pp. 587-88 and §31.5b, p. 509). The substitution “of this:” for “that” has been made to shorten the sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.
²⁸tn Heb “today.”
²⁹tn Heb “you are erring at the cost of your own lives” (BDB, hu*T*, Hiph, 3, p. 1073 and KB3, hu*T*, Hif 4, p. 1626 and cf. BDB, B=, 3, p. 90 and see parallels in 1 Kgs 2:23; 2 Sam 23:17 for the nuance of “at the cost of your lives”). This fits the context better than “you are deceiving yourselves” (KB2, hu*T*, Hif 4, p. 1035). The reading here follows the Qere <t#yu@t=h! rather than the Kethiv which has a metathesis of y and t, i.e., <ytut=h!. The Greek text presupposes <t#uor@h&, “you have done evil” but that reading is generally rejected as secondary.
³⁰tn Heb “According to all which the LORD our God says so tell us and we will do.” The restructuring of the sentence is intended to better reflect contemporary English style.
³¹tn Or “Today.”
³²tn The words “what he said” are not in the text but are implicit and seem necessary for clarity.
³³tn Heb “But you have not hearkened to the voice of [idiomatic for “obeyed” see BDB, um^v*, Qal 1m, p. 1034] the LORD your God, namely [cf. BDB, w+, 1b, p. 252] with respect [cf. BDB, l=, 5f[c], p. 514] all which he has sent to us.” The verb is translated “don’t seem to want to obey” because they have not yet expressed their refusal or their actual disobedience. Several commentaries sensing this apparent discrepancy suggest that 42:19-22 are to be transposed after 43:1-3 (see e.g., BHS fn 18a, W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:275; J. Bright, Jeremiah, pp. 252, 256, 258). However, there is absolutely no textual evidence for the transposition and little reason to suspect an early scribal error (in spite of Holladay’s suggestion). It is possible that Jeremiah here anticipates this answer in 43:1-3 through the response on their faces (so Bright himself, p. 256, F. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 361. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 249 also call attention to the stated intention in 41:17 and the fact that the strong warning in 42:15-17 seems to imply that a negative response is expected). The use of the perfect here is perhaps to be related to the perfect expressing resolve or determination, see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §30.5.1d, p. 489). It is also conceivable that these two verses are part of a conditional sentence which has no formal introduction. I.e., “And if you will not obey…then you should know for certain that…” For examples of this kind of conditional clause introduced by two waws see Joüon, Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §167b, pp. 628-29 and compare Jer 18:4; Judg 6:13. However, though this interpretation is within the possibilities of Hebrew grammar, I know of no translation or commentary that follows it. So it has not been followed in the translation or given as an alternate translation.
¹tn This sentence contains an emphasis that is impossible to translate into idiomatic English that would not sound redundant. In Hebrew the sentence reads: “When Jeremiah finished [the temporal subordination is left out here because it would make the sentence too long] telling all the people all the words [or, all the things] which the LORD their God had sent him [to say] to them, namely all these words,…” The last phrase has been left out of the translation as already having been included. Though they have been left out of the translation, attention is called to their presence here.
²sn See the study note on 42:1 for the possible identification of this man with Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah and Jezaniah the son of the Maachathite.
³tn Or “is inciting you against us.”
⁴tn Heb “in order to give us into the hands of the Chaldeans.” The substitution “he wants to” as the equivalent of the purpose clause has been chosen to shorten the sentence to better conform with contemporary English style.
⁵tn Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
⁶sn These are the people who are referred to in 40:11-12.
⁷tn Heb “the daughters of the king.” See the translator’s note on 41:10.
⁸sn This refers to the group mentioned in 40:7 and 41:10. The two groups together constituted all the people who were at Mizpah when Gedaliah was murdered, had been taken captive by Ishmael, had been rescued by Johanan and the other army officers and had consulted Jeremiah at Geruth Chimham.
⁹sn This had been their intention all along (41:17). Though they consulted the LORD and promised to do what he told them whether they agreed with it or not (42:5-6), it is clear that they had no intention of doing so. Jeremiah could see that (42:19-22). They refused to believe that the LORD had really said what Jeremiah told them (43:4) and feared reprisal from the Babylonians more than any potential destruction from the LORD (43:3).
¹⁰sn This was an important fortress city on the northern border of Egypt in the northeastern Nile delta. It is generally equated with the Greek city of Daphne. It has already been mentioned in 2:16 in conjunction with Memphis (Heb “Noph”) as a source of soldiers who did violence to the Israelites in the past.
¹¹tn Heb “The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah at Tahpanhes, saying.”
¹²tn Heb “Take some large stones in your hands.”
¹³tn The meaning of the expression “mortar of the clay pavement” is uncertain. The noun translated “mortar” occurs only here and the etymology is debated. Both BDB, fl#m#, p. 572 and KB2, fl#m#, p. 529 give the meaning “mortar.” The noun translated “clay pavement” is elsewhere used of a “brick mould.” Here BDB, /B@l=m^, 2, p. 527 gives “quadrangle” and KB2, /B@l=m^, 2, p. 527 gives “terrace of bricks.” KB3, fl#m#, p. 558 and /B@l=m^, 2, give “loamy soil” for both words, seeing the second noun as a dittography or gloss of the first (see also fn c in BHS).
¹⁴sn All the commentaries point out that this was not Pharaoh’s (main) palace but a governor’s residence or other government building that Pharaoh occupied when he was in Tahpanhes.
¹⁵tn Heb “in Tahpanhes in the eyes of the men of Judah.”
¹⁶sn This is another of those symbolic prophecies of Jeremiah which involved an action and an explanation. Compare Jer 19, 27.
¹⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” Compare 7:3 and see the study note on 2:19 for explanation of the translation and significance of this title.
¹⁸tn Heb “send and take/fetch.”
¹⁹sn See the study note on 25:9 for the use of this epithet for foreign rulers. The term emphasizes God’s sovereignty over history.
²⁰tn The Greek version reads the verbs in this sentence as third person, “he will set,” and second person, “you have buried.” This fits the context better but it is difficult to explain how the Hebrew could have arisen from this smoother reading. The figure of substitution (metonymy of cause for effect) is probably involved: “I will have him set” and “I have had you bury.” The effect of these substitutions is to emphasize the sovereignty of God.
²¹tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. The word here (oryr]p=v^ Qere, orWrp=v^ Kethiv) occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. According to the lexicons it refers to either the carpet for his throne or the canopy over it. See, e.g., KB3, ryr]p=v^, p. 1510.
²²tn As in 15:2 the Hebrew is very brief and staccato-like: “those to death to death, and those to captivity to captivity, and those to the sword to the sword.” As in 15:2 most commentaries and translations assume that the word “death” refers to death by disease. See the translator’s note on 15:2 and compare also 18:21 where the sword is distinctly connected with “war” or “battle” and is distinct from “killed by death [i.e., disease].”
²³tc The translation follows the Greek, Syriac and Latin versions. The Hebrew text reads: “I will set fire to.” While it would be possible to explain the first person subject here in the same way as in the two verbs in v. 12b, the corruption of the Hebrew text is easy to explain here as a metathesis of two letters, y and t. The Hebrew reads yT!X^h! and the versions presuppose tyX!h!.
²⁴tn Heb “burn them or carry them off as captives.” Some of the commentaries and translations make a distinction between the objects of the verbs, i.e., burn the temples and carry off the gods. However, the burning down of the temples is referred to later in v. 13.
sn It was typical in the ancient Near East for the images of the gods of vanquished nations to be carried off and displayed in triumphal procession on the return from battle to show the superiority of the victor’s gods over those of the vanquished (cf., e.g., Isa 46:1-2).
²⁵tn Or “he will take over Egypt as easily as a shepherd wraps his cloak around him.” The translation follows the interpretation of KB3, II hf*u*, Qal, p. 769, the Greek translation and a number of the modern commentaries (e.g., J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 671). The only other passage where that translation is suggested for this verb is Isa 22:17 according to KB3. The alternate translation follows the more normal meaning of hf*u* (cf. BDB, I hf*u*, Qal, p. 741 who explain “so completely will it be in his power”). The fact that the subject is “a shepherd” lends more credence to the former view though there may be a deliberate double meaning playing on the homonyms (cf. W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:302).
²⁶tn Heb “in peace/wholeness/well being/safety [shalom]”.
²⁷sn It is generally agreed that the reference here is to Heliopolis which is elsewhere referred to as On (cf. Gen 41:45). It was the center for the worship of Amon-Re, the Egyptian sun god, and was famous for its obelisks (conical shaped pillars) dedicated to that god. It was located about six miles northeast of modern-day Cairo.
¹tn Heb “The word came to Jeremiah concerning.” Though the phrase “from the LORD” is missing from this formula which occurs elsewhere at 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1, it is clearly implied from the words that follow. As in these other passages, the more active form has been chosen for the translation to better conform with contemporary English style.
²sn The first three cities are located in Northern or Lower Egypt. Memphis (Heb “Noph”) was located south of Heliopolis, which was referred to earlier as “the temple of the sun,” and was about fourteen miles south of Cairo. For the identification and location of Tahpanhes see the study note on 43:7. The location of Migdol has been debated but is tentatively identified with a border fortress about twenty-five miles east-northeast of Tahpanhes. The “region of southern Egypt” is literally “the land of Pathros,” the long Nile valley extending north and south between Cairo and Aswan (biblical Syene). For further information including a nice map of Northern Egypt see The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.v., “Tahpanhes,” 3:1515 and also s.v. “Pathros,” 3:1158 and see the discussion in Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, 262-63. Reference here is to Judean exiles who had fled earlier as well as to those from Mizpah who were led into Egypt by Johanan and the other arrogant men (43:3, 5).
³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” Compare 7:3 and see the study note on 2:19 for explanation and translation of this title.
⁴tn Heb “Behold, they are in ruins this day and there is no one living in them.”
⁵tn Heb “they.” The referent must be supplied from the preceding, i.e., Jerusalem and all the towns of Judah. “They” are those who have experienced the disaster and are distinct from those being addressed and their ancestors (44:3b).
⁶tn Heb “thus making me angry.” However, this is a good place to break the sentence to create a shorter sentence that is more in keeping with contemporary English style.
⁷tn Heb “by going to offer sacrifice in serving/worshipping.” The second l= + infinitive is epexegetical of the first (cf. Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §36. 2. 3e, pp. 608-9).
⁸sn Compare 19:4 for the same thought and see also 7:9.
⁹tn See 7:13 for an explanation of this idiom and compare 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15 for similar references to the persistent warnings of the prophets.
¹⁰tn Heb “sent…over again, saying, ‘Do not do this terrible thing that I hate.’” The indirect quote has been used to shorten the sentence and eliminate one level of embedded quotes.
sn The reference is to the worship of other gods mentioned in the previous verse.
¹¹tn There appears to be a deliberate shift in the pronouns used in vv. 2-5. “You” refers to the people living in Egypt who are being addressed (v. 2) and to the people of present and past generations to whom the LORD persistently sent the prophets (v. 4). “They” refers to the people of Jerusalem and the towns of Judah who have suffered disaster (v. 2) because of the wickedness of sacrificing to other gods (vv. 3, 5). The referents have been explicitly identified in the translation for the sake of clarity.
¹²tn Heb “They did not listen or incline their ear [= pay attention] by turning from their wickedness by not sacrificing to other gods.” The l= + the negative + the infinitive is again epexegetical. The sentence has been restructured and more idiomatic English expressions have been used to better conform with contemporary English style but an attempt has been made to retain the basic relationships of subordination.
¹³tn Heb “Yahweh, the God of armies, the God of Israel.” Compare 35:17; 38:17 and for the title “God of armies” see the study note on 2:19.
¹⁴tn Heb “the works of your hands.” Here the phrase is qualified by the epexegetical l= + infinitive, rF@q^l=, “by sacrificing [to other gods].” For further discussion on the use of this phrase see the translator’s note on 25:6.
¹⁵tn Heb “a curse.” For the meaning of this phrase see the translator’s note on 24:9 and see the usage in 24:9; 25:18; 26:6; 29:22.
¹⁶tn Verses 7b-8 are all one long, complex sentence governed by the interrogative “Why.” The Hebrew text reads: “Why are you doing great harm to your souls [= “yourselves” (cf. BDB, vp#n#, 4b[6], p. 660)] so as to cut off [= destroy] from yourselves man and woman, child and baby [the terms are collective singulars and are to be interpreted as plurals] from the midst of Judah so as not to leave to yourselves a remnant by making me angry with the works of your hands by sacrificing to other gods in the land of Egypt where you have come to live so as to cut off [an example of result rather than purpose after the particle /u^m^l= (see the translator’s note on 25:7)] yourselves and so that you may become a curse and an object of ridicule among all the nations of the earth.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style. An attempt has been made to retain an equivalent for all the subordinations and qualifying phrases.
sn What is being threatened is not the total destruction of a remnant of Judah. Jeremiah recognizes those who have been carried off to Babylon as well as other places as seeds for a new beginning (e.g., 24:5-6; 29:14; 30:3). But he denies here that any of those who have gone to Egypt and are continuing to practice idolatry will be among them. All of them will be cut off (i.e., destroyed) from the midst of Judah so that not a remnant of them will be left.
¹⁷tn Heb “his.” This should not be viewed as a textual error but as a distributive singular use of the suffix, i.e., the wives of each of the kings of Judah (cf. GKC, §145l, p. 464 and compare the usage in Isa 2:8; Hos 4:8).
¹⁸tn Heb “they” but as H. Freedman, Jeremiah, p. 284 the third person is used here to include the people just referred to as well as the current addressees. Hence “your people” or “the people of Judah.” It is possible that the third person again reflects the rhetorical distancing that was referred to earlier in 35:16 (see the translator’s note there for explanation) in which case we might translate “you have shown,” and “you have not revered.”
¹⁹tn Heb “to set before.” According to BDB, hn#P*, II4b(g), p. 817 this refers to “propounding to someone for acceptance or choice.” This is clearly the usage in Deut 30:15, 19; Jer 21:8 and is likely the case here. However, to translate literally would not be good English idiom and “proposed to” may not be correctly understood so we use the basic translation of /t^n` here.
²⁰tn Heb “Behold I am setting my face against you for evil/disaster.” For the meaning of the idiom “to set the face to/against” see the translator’s note on 42:15 and compare the references listed there.
²¹tn Heb “and to destroy all Judah.” However, this statement must be understood within the rhetoric of the passage (see vv. 7-8 and the study note on v. 8) and within the broader context of the LORD’s promises to restore the remnant who are in Babylon and those scattered in other lands (23:3; 24:5-6; 29:14; 30:3; 32:27). In this context “all Judah” must refer to all the Judeans living in Egypt whom Jeremiah is now addressing. This involves the figure of syndecdoche where all does not extend to all individuals but to all that are further specified or implied (see E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 616-18 and the comments in H. Freedman, Jeremiah, p. 285). The “and” in front of “to destroy” is to be understood as an example of the epexegetical use of the conjunction w^ (see BDB, w^, 1b, p. 252 and compare the translation of J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 260).
²²tn Heb “they set their face to go.” Compare 44:11 and 42:14 and see the translator’s note at 42:15.
²³tn Heb “fall by the sword.”
²⁴tn Or “All of them without distinction,” or “All of them from the least important to the most important”; Heb “From the least to the greatest.” See the translator’s note on 42:1 for the meaning of this idiom.
²⁵tn See the study note on 24:9 and the usage in 29:22 for the meaning and significance of this last phrase.
sn See 42:18 for parallel usage.
²⁶tn Heb “There shall not be an escapee or a survivor to the remnant of Judah who came to sojourn there in the land of Egypt even to return to the land of Judah which they are lifting up their souls [= “longing/desiring” (BDB, ac*n`, Piel 2, p. 672)] to return to live there; for none shall return except fugitives.” The long, complex Hebrew original has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style. Another possible structure would be “None of the Judean remnant who have come to live in the land of Egypt will escape or survive. None of them will escape or survive to return to the land of Judah where they long to return to live. Indeed (emphatic use of yK!#; cf. BDB, yK!, 1e, p. 472) none of them shall return except a few fugitives.” This verse is a good example of rhetorical hyperbole where a universal negative does not apply to absolutely all the particulars. Though the LORD denies at the outset that any will escape or survive the punishment of vv. 12-13 to return to Judah, he says at the end that a few fugitives will return (the two words for fugitive are from the same root and mean the same thing). (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 618-19 might classify this as a synecdoche of genus where a universal negative does not deny particularity.) That this last statement is not a gloss or an afterthought is supported by what is said later in v. 28.
²⁷tn The translation is very interpretive at several key points: Heb “Then all the men who were aware that their wives were sacrificing to other gods and all their wives who were standing by, a great crowd/congregation, and all the people who were living in the land of Egypt in Pathros answered, saying.” It is proper to assume that the phrase “a great crowd” is appositional to “all the men…and their wives…” It is also probably proper to assume that the phrase “who were standing by” is unnecessary to the English translation. What is interpretive is the assumption that the “and all the people who were living in Egypt in Pathros” is explicative of “the great crowd” and that the phrase “in Pathros” is conjunctive and not appositional. Several commentaries and translations (e.g., J. Thompson, Jeremiah, pp. 678-79 and fn2 and NJPS Tanakh) assume that the phrase is descriptive of a second group, i.e., all the Jews from Pathros in Egypt (i.e., southern Egypt [see the study note on 44:1]). Those who follow this interpretation generally see this as a gloss (see Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 678, fn 2 and also W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:279, fn15b). It is probably better to assume that the phrase is explicative and that “all” is used in the same rhetorical way that it has been used within the chapter, i.e., “all” = representatives of all. Likewise the phrase “in Pathros” should be assumed to be conjunctive as in the Syriac translation and as suggested by BHS fn c since Jeremiah’s answer in vv. 24, 26 is directed to all the Judeans living in Egypt.
²⁸tn Heb “the word [or, message] you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD.” For an explanation of the rendering of “in the name of the LORD” see the study notes on 10:25 and 23:27.
²⁹tn Heb “that went out of our mouth.” I.e., everything we said, promised, or vowed.
³⁰tn Heb “sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven and pour out drink offerings to her.” The expressions have been combined to simplify and shorten the sentence. The same combination also occurs in vv. 18, 19.
sn See the translator’s note and the study note on 7:18 for the problem of translation and identification of the term translated here “the goddess called the Queen of Heaven.”
³¹tn Heb “saw [or, experienced] no disaster/trouble/harm.”
³²tn Heb “we have been consumed/destroyed by sword or by starvation.” The “we” cannot be taken literally here since they are still alive.
sn What is being contrasted here is the relative peace and prosperity under the reign of Manasseh, who promoted all kinds of pagan cults including the worship of astral deities (2 Kgs 21:2-9), and the disasters that befell Judah after the reforms of Josiah, which included the removal of all the cult images and altars from Jerusalem and Judah (2 Kgs 23:4-15). The disasters included the death of Josiah himself at the battle of Megiddo, the deportation of his son Jehoahaz to Egypt, the death of Jehoiakim, the deportation of Jehoiachin (Jeconia) and many other Judeans in 597 BC, the death by war, starvation and disease of many Judeans during the seige of Jerusalem in 588-86 BC, and the captivity of many of those who survived. Instead of seeing these as punishments for their disobedience to the LORD as Jeremiah had preached to them, they saw these as consequences of their failure to continue the worship of the foreign gods.
³³tc The words “And the women added” are not in the Hebrew text. They are, however, implicit in what is said. They are found in the Syriac version and in one recension of the Greek version. W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:279, fn19a suggests that these words are missing from the Hebrew text because of haplography, i.e., that the scribe left out yk! Wrm=a* <yv!N`hw^^ because his eye jumped from the w^ at the beginning to the yK! that introduced the temporal clause and left out everything in between. It is, however, just as likely, given the fact that there are several other examples of quotes which have not been formally introduced in the book of Jeremiah, that the words were not there and are added by these two translations as a translator’s clarification, a practice that we have adopted on several occasions.
³⁴tn Or “When we sacrificed and poured out drink offering to the Queen of Heaven and made cakes in her image, wasn’t it with the knowledge and approval of our husbands?” Heb “When we sacrificed to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings [for the use of l= + the infinitive construct to carry on the tense of the preceding verb see BDB, l=, 7b(h), p. 518] to her, did we make cakes to make an image of her and pour out drink offerings apart from [i.e., “without the knowledge and consent of,” so BDB, yd@u&l=B!, b(a), p. 116] our husbands?” The question expects a positive answer and has been rendered as an affirmation in the translation. The long, complex Hebrew sentence has again been broken in two and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
sn According to 7:18-19 it was not only with the full knowledge and approval of their husbands but also with their active participation. Most of the commentaries call attention to the fact that what is being alluded to here is that a woman’s vow had to have her husband’s conscious approval to have any validity (cf. Num 30:7-16 and see the reference to the vow in v. 17).
³⁵tn Heb “And Jeremiah said to all the people, to the men and to the women, namely to all the people who answered him a word.” The appositional phrases have been combined to eliminate what would be redundant to a modern reader.
³⁶tn The words “to other gods” are not in the text but are implicit from the context (cf. v. 17). They are added for clarity. It was not the act of sacrifice that was wrong but the recipient.
³⁷tn Heb “The sacrifices which you sacrificed in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your ancestors, your kings and your leaders and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them and [did they not] come into his mind?” The question is again rhetorical and expects a positive answer. So it is rendered here as an affirmative statement for the sake of clarity and simplicity. An attempt has been made to shorten the long Hebrew sentence to better conform with contemporary English style.
³⁸tn Heb “And/Then the LORD could no longer endure because of the evil of your deeds [and] because of the detestable things that you did and [or, so] your land became a desolation and a waste and an occasion of a curse without inhabitant as this day.” The sentence has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style but an attempt has been made to preserve the causal and consequential connections.
³⁹tn Heb “Because you have sacrificed and you have sinned against the LORD and you have not listened to the voice of the LORD and in his laws, in his statutes, and in his decrees you have not walked, therefore this disaster has happened to you as this day.” The text has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
⁴⁰tn Heb “and to all the women.” The “and” (w^) is to be explained here according to BDB, w^, 1a, p. 252. The focus of the address that follows is on the women. See the translator’s note on the next verse.
⁴¹tn Or “You and your wives.” The text and referent here is uncertain because of the confusing picture that the alternation of pronouns presents in this verse. Three of the main verbs are second feminine plurals and one of them is second masculine plural. All the pronominal suffixes on the nouns are second masculine plurals. The Hebrew text reads: “You [masc. pl.] and your [masc. pl.] wives have spoken [2nd fem. pl.; hn`r+B@d^T=] with your [masc. pl.] mouth and you have fulfilled [masc. pl.; <t#aL@m!] with your [masc. pl.] hands, saying, ‘We [common gender] will certainly carry out….’ Indeed fulfill [2nd fem. pl.; hn`m=yq!T*] your [masc. pl.] vows and indeed carry out [2nd fem. pl.; hn`yc#u&T^] your [masc. pl.] vows.” Older commentaries such as C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, 2:165 explain the feminine verbs as a matter of the women being the principle subject. Most all modern commentaries (e.g., J. A. Thompson, J. Bright, W. Holladay, and Keown, Scalise, Smothers) follow the reading of the Greek version which reads “you women” (= <yV!N`h^ hn`T@a^) in place of “you and your wives” (<k#yv@n+W <T#a^) in the Hebrew. None of them, however, explain the use of the 2nd masc. plurals here. This is possibly a case where the masculine forms are used in the place of the feminine due to the dislike of Hebrew to use the feminine plural forms (cf. GKC §144a, p. 459, §145t, p. 466). This seems all the more probable when 2nd fem. pl. verbs are qualified by nouns with 2nd masc. pl. suffixes. The translation here follows this interpretation of the masc. pl. forms and reads “you women” with the Greek version in place of “you and your wives” and sees the referents throughout as the women.
⁴²tn Heb “Carry out your vows!”
sn The commands here are, of course, sarcastic and not meant to be taken literally.
⁴³tn Heb “Therefore.” This particle quite often introduces the announcement of judgment after an indictment or accusation of a crime. That is its function here after the statement of cause in vv. 24-25. However, it would not sound right after the immediately preceding ironical or sarcastic commands to go ahead and fulfill their vows. “But” is a better transition unless one wants to paraphrase “Therefore, since you are so determined to do that…”
⁴⁴tn Heb “Behold I swear by…that my name will no more be pronounced in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt saying, ‘As the Lord Yahweh lives.’” The sentence has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style and the significance of pronouncing the name has been interpreted for the sake of readers who might not be familiar with this biblical idiom.
sn They will no longer be able to invoke his name in an oath because they will all be put to death (v. 27; cf. vv. 11-14).
⁴⁵tn Heb “Behold I.” For the use of this particle see the translator’s note on 1:6. Here it announces the reality of a fact.
⁴⁶tn Heb “Behold, I am watching over them for evil/disaster/harm not for good/prosperity/ blessing.” See a parallel usage in 31:28.
⁴⁷tn Heb “The survivors of the sword will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah few in number [more literally, “men of number”; for the idiom see BDB, rP*s=m!,1a, p. 709].” The term “survivors of the sword” may be intended to represent both those who survive death in war or death by starvation or disease, a synechdoche of species for all three genera.
sn This statement shows that the preceding “none,” “never again,” “all” in vv. 26-27 are rhetorical hyperbole. Not all but almost all; very few would survive. The following statement implies that the reason that they are left alive is to bear witness to the fact that the LORD’s threats were indeed carried out. See vv. 11-14 for a parallel use of “all” and “none” qualified by a “few.”
⁴⁸tn Heb “will stand,” i.e., in the sense of being fulfilled, proving to be true, or succeeding (see BDB, <Wq, 7g, p. 878).
⁴⁹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
⁵⁰tn Heb “This will be to you the sign, oracle of the LORD, that I will punish you in this place in order that you may know that my threats against you for evil/disaster/harm will certainly stand [see the translator’s note on the preceding verse for the meaning of this word here].” The word “sign” refers to an event that is a pre-omen or portent of something that will happen later (see BDB, toa, 2, p. 16 and compare usage in 1 Sam 14:10; 2 Kgs 19:29). The best way to carry that idea across in this context seems to be “I will make something happen to prove [or, portend].” Another possibility would be “I will give you a pre-omen that,” but many readers would probably not be familar with “omen/ pre-omen.” Again the sentence has been broken in two and restructured to better conform with English style.
⁵¹tn Heb “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold I will hand…’” The first person and indirect quote have been chosen because the LORD is already identified as the speaker and the indirect quote eliminates an extra level of embedded quotes.
⁵²sn Hophra ruled over Egypt from 589-570 BC. He was the Pharaoh who incited Zedekiah to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar and whose army proved ineffective in providing any long-term relief to Jerusalem when it was under siege (see Jer 37 and especially the study note on 37:5). He was assassinated following a power struggle with a court official who had earlier saved him from a rebellion of his own troops and had ruled as co-regent with him.
¹sn It is unclear whether this refers to the first scroll (36:4) or the second (36:32). Perhaps from the reactions of Baruch this refers to the second scroll which was written after he had seen how the leaders had responded to the first (36:19). Baruch was from a well-placed family; his grandfather, Mahseiah (32:12) had been governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (2 Chr 34:8) and his brother was a high-ranking official in Zedekiah’s court (Jer 51:59). He himself appears to have had some personal aspirations that he could see were being or going to be jeopardized (v. 5). The passage is both a rebuke to Baruch and an encouragement that his life will be spared wherever he goes. This latter promise is perhaps the reason that the passage is placed where it is, i.e., after the seemingly universal threat of destruction of all who have gone to Egypt in Jer 44.
²tn Heb “[This is] the word/message which Jeremiah the prophet spoke to Baruch son of Neriah when he wrote these words on a scroll from the mouth of Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, saying.”
³tn Heb “Woe to me!” See the translator’s note on 4:13 and 10:19 for the rendering of this term.
⁴sn From the context it appears that Baruch was feeling sorry for himself (v. 5) as well as feeling anguish for the suffering that the nation would have to undergo according to the predictions of Jeremiah that he was writing down.
⁵tn The words, “The LORD told Jeremiah” are not in the text but are implicit in the address that follows, “Thus you shall say to him.” These words are added for clarity.
⁶tn Heb “Thus you shall say to him [i.e., Baruch].”
⁷tn Heb “and this is with regard to the whole earth.” The feminine pronoun ayh! at the end refers to the verbal concepts just mentioned, i.e., this process (cf. GKC §144b, p. 459 and compare the use of the feminine singular suffix in the same function GKC §135p, p. 440). The particle ta# is here functioning to introduce emphatically the object of the action (cf. BDB, I ta@, 3(a), 85). There is some debate whether Jr#a# here applies to the whole land of Israel or to the whole earth. However, the reference to “all mankind” (Heb “all flesh”) in the next verse as well as “anywhere you go” points to “the whole earth” as the referent.
⁸tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
⁹sn Compare 25:31, 33. The reference here to universal judgment also forms a nice transition to the judgments on the nations that follow in Jer 46-51 which may be another reason for the placement of this chapter here, out of its normal chronological order (see also the study note on v. 1).
¹⁰tn Heb “I will give you your life for a spoil.” For this idiom see the translator’s note on 21:9 and compare the usage in 21:9; 38:2; 39:18.
¹¹sn Jeremiah was called to be a prophet not only to Judah and Jerusalem but to the nations (1:5, 10). The prophecies or oracles that are collected here in Jer 46-51 are found after 25:13a in the Greek version where they are also found in a different order and with several textual differences. The issue of which represents the original placement is part of the broader issue of the editorial or redactional history of the book of Jeremiah which went through several editions, two of which are referred to in Jer 36, i.e., the two scrolls written in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 BC), a third which included all the preceding plus the material down to the time of the fall of Jerusalem (cf. the introduction in 1:1-3) and a fourth that included all the preceding plus the materials in Jer 40-44. The oracles against the foreign nations collected here are consistent with the note of judgment sounded against all nations (including some not mentioned in Jer 46-51) in Jer 25. See the translator’s note on 25:13 for further details regarding the possible relationship of the oracles to the foreign nations to the judgment speeches in Jer 25.
¹tn Heb “That which came [as] the word of the LORD to Jeremiah about the nations.” See the translator’s note on 14:1 for the construction here.
²sn The fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign proved very significant in the prophecies of Jeremiah. It was in that same year that he issued the prophecies against the foreign nations recorded in Jeremiah 25 (and probably the prophecies recorded here in Jer 46-51) and that he had Baruch record and read to the people gathered in the temple all the prophecies he had uttered against Judah and Jerusalem up to that point in the hopes that they would repent and the nation would be spared. The fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 BC) marked a significant shift in the balance of power in Palestine. With the defeat of Necho at Carchemish in that year the area came under the control of Nebuchadnezzar and Judah and the surrounding nations had two options, submit to Babylon and pay tribute or suffer the consequences of death in war or exile in Babylon for failure to submit.
³tn Heb “Concerning Egypt: Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt which was beside the Euphrates River at Carchemish which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah.” The sentence has been broken up, restructured and introductory words added to make the sentences better conform with contemporary English style. The dating formula is put in brackets because the passage is prophetic about the battle but the passage was superscription or introduction was added after the outcome was known.
⁴tn This is often translated “prepare your shields, both small and large.” However, the idea of “prepare” is misleading because the Hebrew word here (Er^u*) refers in various senses to arranging or setting things in order, such as altars in a row, dishes on a table, soldiers in ranks. Here it refers to the soldiers lining up in rank with ranks of soldiers holding at the ready the long oval or rectangular “shield” (hN`x!, cf BDB, III hN`x!, p. 857) which protected the whole body and the smaller round “buckler” (/g}m*) which only protected the torso (the relative size of these two kinds of shields can be seen from the weight of each in 1 Kgs 10:16-17). These were to be arranged in solid ranks to advance into battle. It would be pedantic and misleading to translate here “Fall into ranks with your large and small shields at the ready” because that might suggest that soldiers had more than one kind. It is uncertain who is issuing the commands here. TEV adds “The Egyptian officers shout,” which is the interpretation of J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 688. The NIV Study Bible fn on p. 1196 suggests that these are the words of the LORD spoken in sarcasm and compares Nah 2:1; 3:4. The latter interpretation is more likely in the light of the similar structure in v. 9 where the connection between v. 9 and v. 10 is stronger than the connection between v. 8 and v. 9.
⁵tn Heb “Why do I see?” The rendering is that of J. Thompson, Jeremiah, pp. 685,88 and J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 301, TEV, NIV. The question is not asking for information but is expressing surprise or wonder (see E. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 951).
sn The passage takes an unexpected turn at v. 5. After ironically summoning the Egyptian army to battle, the LORD rhetorically expresses his surprise that they are so completely routed and defeated.
⁶tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.” This phrase, which is part of a messenger formula (i.e., that the words that are spoken are from him), are actually at the end of the verse. They have been put here for better poetic balance and to better identify the “I.”
⁷tn Heb “Their soldiers.” These words are actually at the midpoint of the stanza as the subject of the third of the five verbs. However, as Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 291 this is the subject of all five verbs “are terrified,” “are retreating,” “have been defeated,” “have run away,” and “have not looked back.” The subject is put at the front to avoid an unidentified “they.”
⁸tn Heb “terror is all around.”
⁹tn The translation assumes that the adjectives with the article are functioning as superlatives in this context (cf. GKC §133g, p. 431). It also assumes that la^ with the jussive is expressing here an emphatic negative rather than a negative wish (cf. GKC §107p, 317 and compare the usage in Ps 50:3).
¹⁰tn Heb “they stumble and fall.” However, the verbs here are used of a fatal fall, of a violent death in battle (see BDB, lp^n`, Qal 2a, p. 657) and a literal translation might not be understood by some readers.
¹¹tn The word translated “streams” here refers to the streams of the Nile (cf. Exod 7:19; 8:1) for parallel usage.
sn The hubris of the Egyptian Pharaoh is being referred to in vv. 7-8 as he compares his might to that of the Nile River whose annual flooding was responsible for the fertility of Egypt. A very similar picture of the armies of Assyria overcoming everything in its path is presented in Isa 8:7-8.
¹²tn The words “Go ahead and” are not in the text but are intended to suggest the ironical nature of the commands here. The LORD is again setting them up for a fall (v. 10). See the translator’s note on v. 4.
¹³sn The peoples that are referred to here are all known to have been mercenaries in the army of Egypt (see Nah 3:9; Ezek 30:5). The place names in Hebrew are actually, Cush, Put, and Lud. Cush has already been identified in 13:23 as the region along the Nile south of Egypt most commonly referred to as Ethiopia. The identification of Put and Lud are both debated though it is generally felt that Put was a part of Lybia and Lud is to be identified with Lydia in Asia Minor. For further discussion see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Lud,” 3:178 and “Put,” 3:971.
¹⁴tn Heb “who grasp and bend the bow.”
¹⁵tn Heb “the Lord Yahweh of armies.” See the study note at 2:19 for the translation and significance of this title for God.
¹⁶sn Most commentators think that this is a reference to the LORD exacting vengeance on Pharaoh Necho for killing Josiah, carrying Jehoahaz off into captivity and exacting heavy tribute on Judah in 609 BC (2 Kgs 23:29, 33-35).
¹⁷tn Or more paraphrastically, “he will kill them/ until he has exacted full vengeance”; Heb “The sword will eat and be sated; it will drink its fill of their blood.”
sn This passage is, of course, highly figurative. The LORD does not have a literal sword but he uses agents of destruction like the Assyrian armies (called his rod in Isa 10:5-6) and the Babylonian armies (called his war club in Jer 51:20) to wreak vengeance on his foes. Likewise, swords do not “eat” or “drink.” What is meant here is that God will use this battle against the Egyptians to kill off many Egyptians until his vengeance is fully satisfied.
¹⁸tn Heb “the Lord Yahweh of armies.” See the study note at 2:19 for the translation and significance of this title for God.
¹⁹tn Heb “balm.” See 8:22 and the study note there.
²⁰sn Heb “Virgin Daughter of Egypt.” See the study note on 14:17 for the significance of the use of this figure. The use of the figure here perhaps refers to the fact that Egypt’s geographical isolation allowed her safety and protection that a virgin living at home would enjoy under her father’s protection (so F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 379). By her involvement in the politics of Palestine she had forfeited that safety and protection and was now suffering for it.
²¹tn Heb “In vain you multiply [= make use of many] medicines.”
²²tn Heb “of your shame.” The “shame,” however, applies to the devastating defeat they will suffer.
²³tn The words “In the panic of their flight” and “defeated” are not in the text but are added to give clarity to the metaphor for the average reader. The verbs in this verse are all in the tense that emphasizes that the action is viewed as already having been accomplished (i.e., the Hebrew prophetic perfect). This is consistent with the waw consecutive perfects in v. 10 which look to the future.
²⁴tn Heb “The word which the LORD spoke to the prophet Jeremiah about the coming of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to attack the land of Egypt.”
sn Though there is much debate in the commentaries regarding the dating and reference of this prophecy, it most likely refers to a time shortly after 604 BC when Nebuchadnezzar followed up his successful battle against Necho at Carchemish with a campaign into the Philistine plain which resulted in the conquest and sacking of Ashkelon. Nebuchadnezzar now stood poised on the border of Egypt to invade it. See J. Thompson, Jeremiah, 691 and for a fuller discussion including the other main options see Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 287-88.
²⁵tn Heb “Declare in Egypt and announce in Migdol and announce in Noph [= Memphis] and in Tahpanhes.” The sentence has been restructured to reflect the fact that the first command is a general one, followed by announcements in specific (representative?) cities.
sn For the location of the cities of Migdol, Memphis and Tahpanhes see the note on 44:1. These were all cities in Lower or northern Egypt that would have been the first affected by an invasion.
²⁶tn Heb “For the sword devours those who surround you.”
sn The sword is again figurative of destructive forces. Here it is a reference to the forces of Nebuchadnezzar which have already destroyed the Egyptian forces at Carchemish and have made victorious forays into the Philistine plain.
²⁷tn The word translated “soldiers” (<yr]yB!a^) is not the Hebrew word that has been used of soldiers elsewhere in these oracles (<yr]oBG!). It is an adjective used as a noun that can apply to animals, i.e., of a bull (Ps 50:13) or a stallion (Judg 5:22). Moreover, the form is masculine plural and the verbs are singular. Hence, many modern commentaries and translations follow the redivision of the first line presupposed by the Greek version, “Apis has fled” ([j^ sn`) and see this as a reference to the bull god of Memphis. However, the noun is used of soldiers in Lam 1:15 and the plural could be the distributive plural, i.e., each and every one (cf. GKC §145l, p. 464 and compare usage in Gen 27:29).
²⁸tn The Hebrew word used here only occurs here (in the Niphal) and in Prov 28:3 (in the Qal) where it refers to a rain that beats down grain. That idea would fit nicely with the idea of the soldiers being beaten down, or defeated. It is possible that the rarity of this verb (versus the common verb sWn “flee”) and the ready identification of Apis with the bull calf (ryB!a^) has led to the reading of the Greek text (so von Orelli, The Prophecies of Jeremiah, p. 327). The verbs in this verse and the following are in the perfect tense but should be understood as prophetic perfects since the text is dealing with what will happen when Nebuchadnezzar comes into Egypt. The text of vv. 18-24 shows a greater mixture with some perfects and some imperfects, sometimes even within the same verse (e.g., v. 22).
²⁹tn Heb “the LORD will thrust them down.” However, the LORD is speaking (cf. clearly in v. 18), so the first person is adopted for the sake of consistency. This has been a consistent problem in the book of Jeremiah where the prophet is so identified with the word of the LORD that he sometimes uses the first person and sometimes the third. It creates confusion for the average reader who is trying to follow the flow of the argument and has been shifted to the first person like this on a number of occasions. TEV and CEV have generally adopted the same policy as have some other modern translations at various points.
³⁰tn Heb “he multiplied the one stumbling.” For the first person reference see the preceding translator’s note.
³¹tc The words “in their hurry to get away” are not in the text but appear to be necessary to clarify the point that the stumbling and falling here is not the same as that in vv. 6, 12 where they occur in the context of defeat and destruction. Reference here appears to be to the mercenary soldiers who in their hurried flight to escape stumble over one another and fall. This is fairly clear from the literal translation “he multiplies the stumbling one. Also [= and] a man falls against a man and they say [probably = “saying”; an epexegetical use of the waw consecutive (Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §33.2.2b, p. 551 and see Exod 2:10 as a parallel)] ‘Get up! Let’s go…’” A reference to the flight of the mercenaries is also seen in v. 21. Many of the modern commentaries and a few of the modern translations follow the Greek text and read vv. 15a-16 very differently. The Greek reads “Why has Apis fled from you? Your choice calf [i.e., Apis] has not remained. For the Lord has paralyzed him. And your multitudes have fainted and fallen; and each one said to his neighbor,…” (reading Whu@r}-la# vya! Wrm=aY)w^ lp^n`-<G^ lv^K* ;B=r% insteadof vya! lp^n`-<G^ lv@oK hB*r+h! Whu@r-la#). One would expect Whu@r}-la# vya! to go with Wrm=aY)w^ because it is idiomatic in this expression (cf., e.g., Gen 11:3; Judg 6:29). However, Whu@r}-la# vya! is also found with singular verbs as here in Exod 22:9; 33:11; 1 Sam 10:11. There is no doubt that the Hebrew text is the more difficult and thus probably original. The reading of the Greek version is not supported by any other text or version and looks like an attempt to smooth out a somewhat awkward Hebrew original.
³²tn Heb “to our native lands from before the sword of the oppressor.” The compound preposition “from before” is regularly used in a causal sense (see BDB, hn#P*, 6a, b, c, p 818). The “sword” is again interpreted as a figure for the destructive power of an enemy army.
³³tn Heb “is a noise.” The addition of “just a big” is contextually motivated and is added to suggest the idea of sarcasm. The reference is probably to his boast in v. 8.
³⁴tn Heb “he has let the appointed time pass him by.” It is unclear what is meant by the reference to “appointed time” other than the fact that Pharaoh has missed his opportunity to do what he claimed to be able to do. The Greek text is again different here. It reads “Call the name of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt Saon esbeie moed,” reading <v@ War+q! for <v* War+q* and transliterating the last line.
³⁵tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For the translation and meaning of this title see the study note on 2:19.
³⁶tn Heb “As I live, oracle of the King, whose…” The indirect quote has been chosen to create a smoother English sentence and avoid embedding a quote within a quote.
³⁷tn Heb “Like Tabor among the mountains and like Carmel by the sea he will come.” The addition of “conqueror” and “imposing” are implicit from the context and from the metaphor. They have been added to give the reader some idea of the meaning of the verse. But see the study note for fuller details.
sn Most all of the commentaries point out that neither Tabor nor Carmel are all that tall in terms of sheer height. Mount Tabor, on the east end of the Jezreel Valley, is only about 1800 feet tall. Mount Carmel, on the Mediterranean Coast, is only about 1700 feet at its highest. However, all the commentators point out that the idea of imposing height and majesty are due to the fact that they are rugged mountains that stand out dominantly over their surroundings. The point of the simile is that Nebuchadnezzar and his army will stand out in power and might over all the surrounding kings and their armies.
³⁸tn Heb “inhabitants of daughter Egypt.” Like the phrase “daughter Zion,” “daughter Egypt” is a poetic personification of the land, here perhaps to stress the idea of defenselessness.
³⁹tn For the verb here see KB3, II hx*n`, nif, p. 675 and compare the usage in Jer 4:7; 9:11 and 2 Kgs 19:25. BDB derives the verb from tx^y` (so BDB, tx^y`, Niph, p. 428 meaning “kindle, burn”) but still give it the meaning “desolate” here and in 2:15 and 9:11.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Egypt is a beautiful heifer. A gadfly from the north will come against her.” The metaphors have been turned into similes for the sake of clarity. The exact meaning of the word translated “stinging fly” is uncertain due to the fact that it occurs nowhere else in Hebrew literature. For a discussion of the meaning of the word which probably refers to the “gadfly,” which bites and annoys livestock, see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:331 who also suggests, probably correctly, that the word is a collective referring to swarms of such insects (cf. the singular hB#r+a^ in v. 23 which always refers to swarms of locusts). The translation presupposes the emendation of the second aB* to HB* with a number of Hebrew manuscripts and a number of the versions (cf. BHS, fn b).
⁴¹tn Heb “her hirelings in her midst.”
⁴²tn The word “pampered” is not in the text. It is added to explain the probable meaning of the simile. The mercenaries were well cared for like stall-fed calves, but in the face of the danger they will prove no help because they will turn and run away without standing their ground. Some see the point of the simile to be that they too are fattened for slaughter. However, the next two lines do not fit that interpretation too well.
⁴³tn The temporal use of the particle yK! (BDB, yK!, 2a, p. 472) seems more appropriate to the context than the causal use.
⁴⁴tn Or “Egypt will rustle away like a snake”; Heb “her sound goes like the snake,” or “her sound [is] like the snake [when] it goes.” The meaning of the simile is debated. Some see a reference to the impotent hiss of a fleeing serpent (F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 382), others the sound of a serpent stealthily crawling away when it is disturbed (H. Freedman, Jeremiah, pp. 297-98). The translation follows the former interpretation because of the irony involved.
sn Several commentators point out the irony of the snake slithering away/hissing away in retreat. The coiled serpent was a part of the royal insignia, signifying its readiness to strike. Pharaoh had boasted of great things (v. 8) but was just a big noise (v. 17); now all he could do was hiss as he beat his retreat (v. 22).
⁴⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” Again the first person is adopted because the LORD is speaking and the indirect quotation is used to avoid an embedded quotation with quotation marks on either side.
⁴⁶tn The precise meaning of this verse is uncertain. The Hebrew text reads: “They [those who come in in great force] will cut down her forest, oracle of the LORD, though it [the forest] cannot be searched out/through for they [those who come in great force] are more numerous than locusts and there is no number to them.” Some see the reference to the forest as metaphorical of Egypt’s population which the Babylonian army decimates (H. Freedman, Jeremiah, p. 298, and see BDB, I ru^y^, 1a, p. 420 who refer to the forest as a figure of foes to be cut down and destroyed and compare Isa 10:34). Others see the reference to literal trees and see the decimation of Egypt in general (von Orelli, Jeremiah, p. 329). And some see it as a continuation of the simile of the snake fleeing, the soldiers cutting down the trees because they cannot find it (J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 693). However, the simile of v. 22a has already been dropped in v. 22b-d; they come against her. Hence it is probably best to see this as a continuation of the simile in v. 22c-d and see the reference to the Babylonian army coming against her, i.e., Egypt (the nation or people of Egypt), like wood cutters cutting down trees.
⁴⁷tn Heb “Daughter Egypt.” See the translator’s note on v. 19.
⁴⁸tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study note on 2:19 for the translation and significance of this title.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Amon of No.” For the explanation see the study note.
sn The city called No (ano) in Hebrew was Thebes. It is located about 400 miles south of modern-day Cairo. It was the capital of Upper or Southern Egypt and the center for the worship of the God Amon who became the state god of Egypt. Thebes is perhaps best known today for the magnificent temples at Karnak and Luxor on the east bank of the Nile.
⁵⁰tc Heb “Behold I am going to punish Amon of No and Pharaoh and Egypt and its gods and its kings and Pharaoh and all who trust in him.” There appears to be a copyist slip involving a double writing of huor+P^-lu^w+. We have followed the suggestion of BHS and deleted the first one since the second is necessary for the syntactical connection, “Pharaoh and all who trust in him.”
⁵¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵²sn 46:27-28 are virtually the same as 30:10-11. The verses are more closely related to that context than to this. But the presence of a note of future hope for the Egyptians may have led to a note of encouragement also to the Judeans who were under threat of judgment at the same time (cf. the study notes on 46:2, 13 and 25:1-2 for the possible relative dating of these prophecies).
⁵³tn Heb “And/But you do not be afraid, my servant Jacob.” Here and elsewhere in the verse the terms Jacob and Israel are poetic for the people of Israel descended from the patriarch Jacob. The terms have been supplied throughout with plural referents for greater clarity.
⁵⁴tn Heb “For I will rescue you from far away, your descendants from the land of their captivity.”
⁵⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” Again the first person is adopted because the LORD is speaking and the indirect quotation is used to avoid an embedded quotation with quotation marks on either side.
⁵⁶tn The translation “entirely unpunished” is intended to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb.
¹tn Heb “That which came [as] the word of the LORD to Jeremiah.” For this same construction see 14:1; 46:1 and see the transaltor’s note at 14:1 for explanation.
²sn The precise dating of this prophecy is uncertain. Several proposals have been suggested, the most likely of which is that the prophecy was delivered in 609 BC in conjunction with Pharaoh Necho’s advance into Palestine to aid the Assyrians. That was the same year that Josiah was killed by Necho at the battle of Megiddo and four years before Necho was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, the foe from the north. The prophecy presupposes that Ashkelon is still in existence (v. 5) hence it must be before 604 BC. For a fairly complete discussion of the options see Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 299-300.
³tn Heb “Behold! Waters are rising from the north.” The metaphor of enemy armies compared to overflowing water is seen also in Isa 8:8-9 (Assyria) and 46:7-8 (Egypt). Here it refers to the foe from the north (Jer 1:14; 4:6; etc) which is specifically identified with Babylon in Jer 25. The metaphor has been turned into a simile in the translation to help the average reader identify that a figure is involved and to hint at the referent.
⁴tn Heb “From the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, from the rattling of his chariots at the rumbling of their wheels, fathers will not turn to their children from sinking of hands.” According to BDB, /oyP*r], p. 952 the “sinking of the hands” is figurative of helplessness caused by terror. A very similar figure is seen with a related expression in Isa 35:3-4. The sentence has been restructured to put the subject up front and to suggest through shorter sentences more in keeping with contemporary English style the same causal connections. The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity for the average reader.
⁵tn Heb “For the LORD will.” The first person style has been adopted because the LORD is speaking (cf. v. 2).
⁶sn “All the help that remain for Tyre and Sidon” and “that remnant that came from the island of Crete” appear to be two qualifying phrases that refer to the Philistines, the last with regard to their origin and the first with regard to the fact that they were allies that Tyre and Sidon depended on. “Crete” is literally “Caphtor” which is generally identified with the island of Crete. The Philistines had come from there (Amos 9:7) in the wave of migration from the Aegean Islands during the twelfth and eleventh century and had settled on the Philistine plane after having been repulsed from trying to enter Egypt.
⁷sn Shaving one’s head and gashing one’s body were customs to show mourning or sadness for the dead (cf. Deut 14:1; Mic 1:16; Ezek 27:31; Jer 16:6; 48:37).
⁸tn Or “you who are left alive on the Philistine plain.” Or “you who remain of the Anakim.” The translation follows the suggestion of several of the modern commentaries that the word qm#u@ means “strength” or “power” here (see J Thompson, Jeremiah, 698, J Bright, Jeremiah, p. 310 and see also KB3, II qm#u@, p. 803). It is a rare homonym of the word that normally means “valley” that seems to be an inappropriate designation of the Philistine plain. Many of the modern translations and commentaries follow the Greek version which reads here “remnant of the Anakim” (<yq!n*u& instead of <q*m=u!; a confusion of basically one letter). This emendation is followed by both BDB, qm#u@, p. 771 and KB2, qm#u@, p. 716. The Anakim were generally associated with the southern region around Hebron but an enclave of them was known to have settled in Gaza, Gath, and Ekron, three of the Philistine cities (cf. Josh11:22). However, the fact that this judgment is directed against the Philistines not the Anakim and that this homonym apparently appears also in Jer 49:4 makes the reading of “power” more likely here.
⁹tn The words “How long will you cry out” are not in the text but some such introduction seems necessary because the rest of the speech assumes a personal subject.
¹⁰tn Heb “before you are quiet/at rest.”
¹¹sn The passage is highly figurative. The sword of the LORD, which is itself a figure of the destructive agency of the enemy armies, is here addressed as a person and is encouraged in rhetorical questions (the questions are designed to dissuade) to “be quiet,” “be at rest,” “be silent,” all of which is designed to get the LORD to call off the destruction against the Philistines.
¹²tn The reading here follows the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions. The Hebrew text reads “how can you rest” as a continuation of the second person in v. 6.
¹³tn Heb “When the LORD has.” The first person is again adopted because the LORD has been speaking.
¹⁴tn Heb “Against Ashkelon and the sea coast, there he has appointed it.” For the switch to the first person see the preceding translator’s note. “There” is poetical and redundant and the idea of “attacking” is implicit in “against.”
¹tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
²sn Moab was a country east of the Dead Sea whose boundaries varied greatly over time. Basically, it was the tableland between the Arnon River about halfway up the Dead Sea and the Zered River which is roughly at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites entered Palestine they were forbidden to take any of the Moabite territory but they did capture the kingdom of Sihon north of the Arnon which Sihon had taken from Moab. Several of the towns mentioned in the oracles of judgment against Moab here are in this territory north of the Arnon and were assigned to Reuben and Gad. Several are mentioned on the famous Moabite Stone which details how Mesha king of Moab recovered from Israel many of these cities during the reign of Joram (852-841 BC; cf. 2 Kgs 3:4-5). It is usually assumed that Moab submitted to Nebuchadnezzar after the battle of Carchemish and that they remained loyal to him throughout most of this period, though representatives were present at Jerusalem in 594 BC when plans for revolt were apparently being discussed (Jer 27:3). Moabite contingents were used by Nebuchadnezzar in 598 BC to harass Jehoiakim after he rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2) so they must have remained loyal at that time. According to the Jewish historian Josephus Nebuchadnezzar conquered Moab in 582 BC and destroyed many of its cities. For further discussion on Moab and a couple of excellent maps of known places including those mentioned in the Moabite stone, see The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Moab,” 2:1014-16.
³tn Heb “Woe to Nebo for it is destroyed.” For the use of the Hebrew particle “Woe” (yoh) see the translator’s note on 22:13. The translation has taken this form because the phrase “Woe to” probably doesn’t convey the proper meaning or significance to the modern reader. The verbs again are in the tense (Hebrew prophetic perfect) that views the action as if it were as good as done. The particle yK! probably is causal but the asseverative works better in the modified translation.
⁴sn Nebo and Kiriathaim were both north of the Arnon and were assigned to Reuben (Num 32:3, Josh 13:19). They are both mentioned on the Moabite Stone as having been recovered from Israel.
⁵tn Or “Misgab.” The translation here follows the majority of commentaries and translations. Only REB sees this as a place name “Misgab” which is otherwise unknown. The constant use of this word to refer to a fortress, the presence of the article on the front of it, and the lack of any reference to a place of this name anywhere else argues against it being a place name. However, the fact that the verbs that accompany it are feminine while the noun for “fortress” is masculine causes some pause.
⁶tn For the meaning of the verb here see BDB, tt^j*, Qal 1, p. 369 and compare usage in Isa 7:8; 30:31.
⁷sn Heshbon was originally a Moabite city but was captured by Sihon king of Og and made his capital (Num 21:26-30). It was captured from Sihon and originally assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Num 32:37; Josh 13:17). Later it was made a Levitical city and was assigned to the tribe of Gad (Josh 21:39). It formed the northern limits of Moab. It was located about eighteen miles east of the northern tip of the Dead Sea.
⁸sn There is a word play in Hebrew on the word “Heshbon” and the word “plot” (hashab).
⁹tn Heb “In Heshbon they plot evil against her [i.e., Moab].” The “they” is undefined, but it would scarcely be Moabites living in Heshbon. Hence TEV and CEV are probably correct in seeing a reference to the enemy which would imply the conquest of this city which lay on the northern border of Moab.
¹⁰tn The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The translation here follows all the modern translations and commentaries in reading the place name “Madmen” even though the place is otherwise unknown and the Greek, Syriac, and Latin version all read this word as an emphasizing infinitive absolute of the following verb “will be destroyed,” i.e. WMDoy] <omD`. Some see this word as a variant of the name Dimon in Isa 15:9 which in turn is a playful variant of the place name Dibon. There is once again a word play on the word “Madmen” and “will be destroyed”; madmen and yiddommu. For the meaning of the verb = “perish” or “be destroyed” see Jer 8:14; Psa 31:18.
¹¹tn Heb “A sword will follow after you.” The sword is again figurative of destructive forces, here the army of the Babylonians.
¹²tc The reading here follows the Qere h*yr#yu!x= which is the same noun found in Jer 14:3 in the sense of “servants.” Here it refers to the young ones, i.e., the children (cf. the use of the adjective BDB, I ryu!x*, 2, p. 859 and see Gen 43:33). Many of the modern commentaries and a few of the modern translations follow the Greek version and read “their cry is heard as far as Zoar” (reading hr`u&ox; see for example J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 699, fn4 and BDB, ru^xo, p. 858). However, that leaves the verb with an indefinite subject (the verb is active 3rd plural not passive) not otherwise identified in the preceding context. Many of the modern translations such as NRSV, NJPS Tanakh, NIV retain the Hebrew as we do. In this case the masculine plural noun furnishes a logical subject for the verb.
¹³tn Or “Indeed her fugitives will…” It is unclear what the subject of the verbs are in this verse. The verb in the first two lines “climb” (hl#u&y^) is third masculine singular and the verb in the second two lines “will hear” (Wum=v*) is third common plural. The causal particles at the beginning of the two halves of the verse suggest some connection with the preceding, so the translation assumes that the children are still the subject. In this case the singular verb would be a case of the distributive singular already referred to in the translator’s note on 46:15. The parallel passage in Isa 15:5 refers to the “fugitives” (h*j#yr]B=) with the same singular verb as here and that may be the implied subject here.
sn The location of Horonaim and Luhith are uncertain, though, from their connection with Zoar in Isa 15:5, they appear to be located in southern Moab . Zoar was at the southern tip of the Dead Sea.
¹⁴tn Heb “the distresses of the cry of destruction.” Many commentaries want to leave out the word “distresses” because it is missing from the Greek version and the parallel passage in Isa 15:5. However, it is in all the Hebrew texts and in the other versions and it is hard to see why it would be added here if it were not original.
¹⁵tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The translation follows one reading of the Hebrew text. The Greek version reads “Be like a wild donkey in the desert!” There are three points of debate in this line: the syntax of the verb form “be” (hn`yy#h=t!) and the text and meaning of the word translated “shrub” in the Hebrew text. This word only occurs with this meaning here and in Jer 17:6. A related word occurs in Ps 102:17 (102:18 Hebrew text) Elsewhere this spelling refers to the place name Aroer which was a place in Moab on the edge of the Arnon River. Most commentators do not feel that a reference to that place is appropriate here because it was not in the desert. The Greek version reads “like a wild donkey” (reading doru*K= in place of ru@oru&K^). That would make an appropriate simile here because the wild donkey enjoys its freedom and is hard to capture. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 312 explain the simile of the “shrub” as referring to the marginal and rudimentary existence of a displaced person. That may not be as optimistic as the reference to the wild donkey but it does give an appropriate meaning. The third feminine plural has been explained as the singular noun + suffix = “yourselves” (<k#v=p=n^) used as a collective (so S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, p. 368 with cross reference to GKC §145c, p. 462). J. Bright, Jeremiah , p. 314, fn e-e, follows a suggestion of D. N. Freedman in seeing the form (hn`yy#h=t!) as a mistake for the 2nd masculine plural plus energic (/Wyh=t!). Given the number of other textual corruptions in this passage, this is possible. The resultant meaning in either case is the same.
¹⁶sn Chemosh was the national god of Moab (see also Numb 21:29). Child sacrifice appears to have been a part of his worship (2 Kgs 3:27). Solomon built a high place in Jerusalem for him (1 Kgs 11:7) and he appears to have been worshipped in Israel until Josiah tore that high place down (2 Kgs 23:13).
¹⁷sn Reference has already been made to the practice of carrying off the gods of captive nations in the study note on 43:12. See also Isa 46:1-2 noted there.
¹⁸tn Heb “The valley will be destroyed and the tableland be laid waste.” However, in the context this surely refers to the towns and not to the valley and the tableland itself.
sn Most commentaries see a reference to the towns in the Jordan valley referred to in Josh 13:27 and the towns mentioned in Josh 13:15-17 which were on the high tableland or high plateau or plain north of the Arnon. The mention of the towns in the first half of the verse is broader than that because it would include all the towns in the southern half of Moab between the Arnon and Zered as well as those mentioned in the second half in conjunction with the valley and the high plateau north of the Arnon.
¹⁹tn Heb “which/for/as the LORD has spoken.” The first person form has again been adopted because the LORD is the speaker throughout (cf. v. 1).
²⁰tn Or “Scatter salt over Moab for it will certainly be laid in ruins.” The meaning of these two lines is very uncertain. The Hebrew of these two lines presents several difficulties. It reads ax@T@ axon` ba*oml= Jyx! WnT=. Of the five words two are extremely problematic and the meaning of the second affects also the meaning of the last word which normally means “go out.” The word Jyx! regularly refers to a blossom or flower or the diadem on the front of Aaron’s mitre. BDB, II Jyx!, p. 851 gives a nuance “wings (coll)” based on the interpretation of Abu Walid and some medieval Jewish interpreters who related it to an Aramaic root. But BDB says that meaning is dubious and refers to the Greek which reads shmeia “sign” or “sign post.” Along with KB2_,I Jyx!, p. 802 and KB3, II Jyx!, p. 959 BDB suggest that the Greek presupposes the word /WYx! which refers to a road marker (Jer 31:21) or a gravestone (2 Kgs 23:17). That is the meaning followed here. Several modern commentaries and translations have followed a proposal by W. Moran that the word is related to a Ugaritic word meaning salt (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 320. However, KB3, II Jyx!, p. 959 questions the validity of this on philological grounds saying that the meaning of salt doesn’t really fit the Ugaritic either. We have followed the suggestions of the lexicons here and read the word as though the Greek supported the meaning “gravestone.” The other difficulty is with the word axon` which looks like a Qal infinitive absolute of an otherwise unattested root which BDB, ax*n`, says is defined in Gesenius’s Thesaurus as “fly.” However, see the meaning and the construction of an infinitive absolute of one root with that of another as highly improbable. Hence, most modern lexicons either emend the forms to read hX#T! hxon* from the root hx*n* meaning “to fall into ruins” (so KB2, hx*n*, Qal, p. 629 and see among others J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 700, fn 10 who notes that final a and final h are often confused (see the discussion and examples in GKC §75nn-rr, pp. 216-17)). This is the option that this translation as well as a number of modern ones have taken. A second option is to see axon` as an error for axoy` and read the text in the sense of “she will certainly surrender,” a meaning that the verb ax*y` has in 1 Sam 11:3; Isa 36:6. The best discussion of this option as well as a discussion on the problem of reading Jyx! as salt is found in Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 313-14.
²¹tn Heb “who withholds his sword from bloodshed.” This verse is an editorial aside (or apostrophe) addressed to the Babylonian destroyers to be diligent in carrying out the work of the LORD in destroying Moab.
²²tn Heb “Therefore his taste remains in him and his aroma is not changed.” The metaphor is changed into a simile in an attempt to help the reader understand the figure in the context.
sn The picture is that of undisturbed complacency (cf. Zeph 1:12). Because Moab had never known the discipline of exile she had remained as she always was.
²³tn Heb “Therefore, behold the days are coming, oracle of Yahweh, when I will send against him decanters [those who pour from one vessel to another] and they will decant him [pour him out] and they will empty his vessels and break their jars in pieces.” The verse continues the metaphor from the preceding verse where Moab/the people of Moab are like wine left undisturbed in a jar, i.e., in their native land. In this verse the picture is that of the decanter emptying the wine from the vessels and then breaking the jars. The wine represents the people and the vessels the cities and towns where the people lived. The verse speaks of the exile of the people and the devastation of the land. The metaphor has been interpreted so it conveys meaning to the average reader.
²⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁵tn Heb “Moab will be ashamed because of Chemosh as the house of Israel was ashamed because of Bethel, their [source of] confidence.” The “shame” is, of course, the disappointment, disillusionment because of the lack of help from these gods in which they trusted (for this nuance of the verb see BDB, voB, Qal 2, p. 101 and compare usage in Jer 2:13; Isa 20:5). Because of the parallelism, some see the reference to Bethel to be a reference to a West Semitic god worshipped by the people of Israel (see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Bethel [Deity],” 1:390 for the arguments). However, there is no evidence in the OT that such a god was worshipped in Israel and there is legitimate evidence that northern Israel placed its confidence in the calf god that Jeroboam set up in Bethel (cf. 1 Kgs 12:28-32; Hos 10:5; 8:5-6; Amos 7:10-17).
²⁶tn Heb “will go down to the slaughter.”
²⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of the translation and meaning of this title see the study note on 2:19.
²⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the King whose name is Yahweh of armies.” The first person form has again been adopted because the LORD is the speaker throughout this oracle/ these oracles (cf. v. 1).
²⁹tn For the use of the word “name” (<v@) to refer to “fame” or “repute” see BDB, <v@, 2b, p. 1028 and compare the usage in Ezek 16:14; 2 Chr 26:15.
sn Reference is to the nearby nations and those who lived further away who had heard of Moab’s power and might only by repute.
³⁰tn Heb “How is the strong staff broken, the beautiful rod.” “How” introduces a lament which is here rendered by “Alas.” The staff and rod refer to the support that Moab gave to others not to the fact that she ruled over others which was never the case. According to BDB, zuo, 1, p. 739 the “strong staff” is figurative of political power.
³¹tn Heb “sit in thirst.” The abstract “thirst” is put for the concrete, i.e., thirsty or parched ground (cf. Deut 8:19; Isa 35:7; Ps 107:33) for the concrete. There is no need to emend to “filth” (ha*xo for am*x*) as is sometimes suggested.
³²tn Heb “inhabitant of Daughter Dibon.” “Daughter” is used here as often in Jeremiah for the personification of a city, a country or its inhabitants. The word “inhabitant” is to be understood as a collective as also in v. 19.
sn Dibon was an important fortified city located on the “King’s Highway,” the main north-south road in Transjordan. It was the site at which the Moabite Stone was found in 1868 and was one of the cities mentioned on it. It was four miles north of the Arnon River and thirteen miles east of the Dead Sea. It was one of the main cities on the northern plateau and had been conquered from Sihon and allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Josh 13:17).
³³sn This is probably the Aroer that was located a few miles south and west of Dibon on the edge of the Arnon River. It had earlier been the southern border of Sihon, king of Heshbon, and had been allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Josh 13:16). However, this whole territory had earlier been taken over by the Arameans (2 Kgs 10:33), later by the Assyrians, and at this time was in the hands of the Moabites.
³⁴sn See the study note on 48:8 for reference to this tableland or high plain that lay between the Arnon and Heshbon.
³⁵tn Heb “The horn of Moab will be cut off. His arm will be broken.” “Horn” and “arm” are both symbols of strength (see BDB, /r#q#, 2, p. 902 [and compare usage in Lam 2:3] and BDB, uorz+, 2, p. 284 [and compare usage in 1 Sam 2:31]). The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity.
³⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
³⁷tn Heb “Make him drunk because he has magnified himself against the LORD.” The first person has again been adopted for consistency within a speech of the LORD. Almost all of the commentaries relate the figure of drunkenness to the figure of drinking the cup of God’s wrath spelled out in Jer 25 where reference is made at one point to the nations drinking, staggering, vomiting and falling (25:27 and see Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 316 for a full list of references to this figure including this passage and 49:12-13; 51:6-10, 39, 57).
³⁸tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. It is usually used of clapping the hands or the thigh in helpless anger or disgust. Hence J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 321 paraphrases “shall vomit helplessly.” KB3, II qp^s*, p. 722 relate this to an Aramaic word and see a homonym meaning “vomit” or “spew out.” The translation is that of BDB, qp^s*. Qal 3, p. 706 “splash (fall with a splash)” from the same root that refers to slapping or clapping the thigh.
³⁹tn Heb “were they caught among thieves?”
⁴⁰tn Heb “that you shook yourself.” But see the same verb in 18:16 in the active voice with the object “head” in a very similar context of contempt or derision.
⁴¹tc The reading here presupposes the emendation of ;yr#b*d= “your words” to ;r+B#d^ “your speaking” suggested by BHS (cf. fn c) on the basis of one of the Greek versions (Symmachus). For the idiom cf. BDB, yD^, 2c(a), p. 191.
⁴²tn Heb “in the sides of the mouth of a pit/chasm.” The translation follows the suggestion of J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 321. The point of the simile is inaccessibility.
⁴³tn Heb “We have heard of the pride of Moab—[he is] exceedingly proud—of his haughtiness, and his pride, and his haughtiness, and the loftiness of his heart.” These words are essentially all synonyms, three of them coming from the same Hebrew root (ha*G*) and one of the words being used twice (/oaG*). Since the first person singular is used in the next verse, we have considered the “we” of this verse to refer to the plural of majesty or the plural referring to the divine council in such passages as Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8 and have translated in the singular to avoid possible confusion of who the “we” are. Most see the reference to be to Jeremiah and his fellow Judeans.
⁴⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁴⁵tn The meaning of this verse is somewhat uncertain: Heb “I know, oracle of the LORD,/ his arrogance and [that it is?] not true; // his boastings accomplish that which is not true.” Several of the modern translations and commentaries redivide the verse and read something like, “I know his insolence…his boastings are false; his deeds are false (NRSV, REB).” However, the word translated “deeds” in the last line is a verb in the third person plural and can only have as its logical grammatical subject the word “boastings.” The adjective /K@ + the negative aO is evidently repeated here and applied to two different subjects “arrogance” and “boasting” to emphasize that Moab’s arrogant boasts will prove “untrue” (Cf. KB3, II /K@, 2c, p. 459 for the meaning “untrue” for both this passage and the parallel one in Isa 16:6.). There is some difference of opinion about the identification of the “I” in this verse. Most commentators see it as referring to the prophet. However, F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, p. 395 is probably correct in seeing it as referring to the LORD. He points to the fact that the “I” in vv. 33, 35, 38 can only refer to God. The “I know” in v. 30 also clearly has the LORD as its subject. There are other cases in the book of Jeremiah where the LORD expresses his lament over the fate of a people (cf. 14:1-6, 17-18).
⁴⁶tc The translation is based on the emendation of the Hebrew third masculine singular (hG#h=y#) to the first singular (hG#h=a#). This emendation is assumed by almost all of the modern translations and commentaries even though the textual evidence for it is weak (only one Hebrew manuscript and the Eastern Qere according to BHS).
⁴⁷tc Or “I will weep for the grapevines of Sibmah more than I will weep over the town of Jazer.” The translation here assumes that there has been a graphic confusion of m with K= or B= (cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 247-48 for the confusion of these letters). The parallel passage in Isa 16:9 has the preposition B= and the Greek version presupposes a comparative idea “as with.” Many of the modern translations render the passage with the comparative /m! as in the alternate translation, but it is unclear what the force of the comparison would be here. The verse is actually in the second person, an apostrophe or direct address to the grapevine(s) of Sibmah. However, the translation has retained the third person throughout because such sudden shifts in person are uncommon in contemporary English literature and retaining the third person is smoother. The Hebrew text reads: “From/With the weeping of Jazer I will weep for you, vine of Sibmah. Your tendrils crossed over the sea. They reached unto the sea of Jazer. Upon your summer fruit and your vintage [grape harvest] the destroyer has fallen.”
⁴⁸tn Heb “crossed over to the Sea.”
⁴⁹tn Or “reached the sea of Jazer.” The Sea is generally taken to be a reference to the Dead Sea, but see the study note for another possibility. The translation presupposes that the word “sea” is to be omitted before “Jazer.” The word is missing from two Hebrew manuscripts, from the parallel passage in Isa 16:8 and from the Greek version. It may have arisen from a mistaken copying of the same word in the preceding line.
sn Though there is some doubt about the precise location of these places Sibmah is generally considered to have been located slightly north and west of Heshbon and Jazer further north toward the border of Ammon not far from the city of Amman. Most commentators see the reference here (and in the parallel in Isa 16:8) to the spread of viticulture westward and northward from the vineyards of Sibmah. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, pp. 318-19, however, see the reference rather to the spread of trade in wine westward beyond the coast of the Mediterranean and eastward into the desert.
⁵⁰tn Heb “her summer fruit.” See the translator’s note on 40:10 for the rendering here. According to BDB, lp^n`, Qal 4a, p. 657 the verb means to “fall upon” or “attack” but in the context it is probably metonymical for attack and destroy.
⁵¹tn Heb “from the garden land, even from the land of Moab.” Comparison with the parallel passage in Isa 16:10 and the translation of the Greek text here which has only “the land of Moab” suggest that the second phrase is appositional to the first.
⁵²tn Heb “no one will tread [the grapes] with shout of joy.”
⁵³tn Heb “shouts will not be shouts.” The text has been expanded contextually to explain that the shouts of those treading grapes in winepresses will come to an end (v. 33a-d) and be replaced by the shouts of the soldiers who trample down the vineyards (v. 32e-f). Compare 25:30 and 51:41 for the idea.
⁵⁴tn The meaning of this verse is very uncertain. The ambiguity of the syntax and the apparent elliptical nature of this text makes the meaning of this verse uncertain. The Hebrew text reads: “From the cry of Heshbon unto Elealeh unto Jahaz they utter their voice from Zoar unto Horonaim Eglath Shelishiyah.” The translation and interpretation here are based on interpreting the ellipitical syntax here by the parallel passage in Isaiah 15:4-6 where cries of anguish rise from Heshbon and Elealeh which are heard all the way to Jahaz. The people flee southward arriving at Zoar and Eglath Shelishiyah where they voice the news of the destruction in the north. Hence, we interpret the phrase “from the cry of Heshbon unto Elealeh” to be parallel to “Heshbon and Elealeh cry out” and take the preposition “from” with the verb “they utter their voice,” i.e., with the cry of Heshbon and Elealeh. The impersonal “they raise their voice” is then treated as a passive and made the subject of the whole verse. There is some debate about the identification of the waters of Nimrim. They may refer to the waters of the Wadi Nimrim which enters the Jordan about eight miles north of the Dead Sea or those of the Wadi en-Numeirah which flows into the southern tip of the Dead Sea from about ten miles south. Most commentators take the reference to be the latter because of association with Zoar. However, if the passage is talking about the destruction in the north which is reported in the south by the fleeing refugees, the reference is probably to the Wadi Nimrim in the north.
sn Elealeh was about two miles north of Heshbon. Jahaz was about twenty miles south of it. These three cities were in the north and Zoar, Horonaim and Eglath Shelishiyah were apparently in the south. The verse is speaking about the news of destruction in the north spreading to the south. Comparison should be made with the parallel passage in Isa 15:4-6.
⁵⁵tn Heb “high place(s).” For the meaning and significance of this term see the study note on 7:31.
⁵⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵⁷tn Heb “upon every loin [there is] sackcloth.” The word “all” is restored here before “loin” with a number of Hebrew manuscripts and a number of versions. The words “in mourning” and “to show their sorrow” are not in the text. They have been added to give the average reader some idea of the significance of these acts.
sn The acts referred to here were all acts that were used to mourn the dead (cf. Isa 15:2-3).
⁵⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “turn her back.”
⁶⁰tn Heb “Behold! Like an eagle he will swoop and will spread his wings against Moab.” The sentence has been reordered in English to give a better logical flow and the unidentified “he” has been identified as “a nation.” The nation is, of course, Babylon, but it is nowhere identified so the referent has been left ambiguous.
sn Conquering nations are often identified with a swiftly flying eagle swooping down on its victims (cf. Deut 28:49). In this case the eagle is to be identified with the nation (or king) of Babylon (cf. Ezek 17:3, 12 where reference is to the removal of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) and his replacement with Zedekiah).
⁶¹tn Parallelism argues that the word toYr]q= be understood as the otherwise unattested feminine plural of the noun hy`r=q! “city” rather than the place name Kerioth mentioned in v. 24 (cf. KB3, hy`r=q!, p. 1065). Both this noun and the parallel term “fortresses” are plural but are found with feminine singular verbs, being treated either as collectives or distributive plurals (cf. GKC §145c, p. 462-63 or §145l, p. 464).
⁶²tn Heb “The heart of the soldiers of Moab will be like the heart of a woman in labor.”
⁶³tn Heb “Moab will be destroyed from [being] a people.”
⁶⁴sn There is an extended use of assonance here and in the parallel passage in Isa 24:17. The Hebrew text reads pahad wapahat wapah. The assonance is intended to underscore the extensive trouble that is in store for them.
⁶⁵tn Heb “are upon you, inhabitant of Moab.” This is another example of the rapid switch in person or direct address (apostrophe) in the midst of a third person description or prediction which we have typically kept in the third person for smoother English style.
⁶⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶⁷sn Verses 43-44a are in the main the same as Isa 24:17-18 which shows that the judgment was somewhat proverbial. For a very similar kind of argumentation see Amos 5:19; judgment is unavoidable.
⁶⁸tn Heb “For I will bring upon here, even upon Moab, the year of her punishment.”
⁶⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁰tn Or “of those noisy boasters.” Or “They will burn up the frontiers of Moab. They will burn up the mountain heights of those war loving people.” The meaning of this verse is not entirely certain because of the highly figurative nature of the last two lines. We have translated somewhat literally; for further explanation of the probable meaning see the accompanying study note. The Hebrew text reads: “In the shadow of Heshbon those fleeing stand without strength. For a fire goes forth from Heshbon, a flame from the midst of Sihon. And it devours the forehead of Moab and the skull of the sons of noise.” The meaning of the first part is fairly clear because v. 2 has already spoken of the conquest of Heshbon and a plot formed there to conquer the rest of the nation. The fire going forth from Heshbon would hence refer here to the conflagrations of war spreading from Heshbon to the rest of the country. The reference to the “midst of Sihon” is to be understood metonymically as a reference for the ruler to what he once ruled (cf. E. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 583). The last two lines must refer to more than the fugitives who stopped at Heshbon for protection because it refers to the forehead of Moab (a personification of the whole land or nation). It is unclear, however, why reference is made to the foreheads and skulls of the Moabites, other than the fact that this verse seems to be a readaptation or reuse of Num 24:17 where the verb used with them is “smite” which fits nicely in the sense of martial destruction. Translated rather literally, it appears here to refer to the destruction by the fires of war of the Moabites, the part (forehead and skulls) put for the whole. TEV sees a reference here to the “frontiers” and “mountain heights” of Moab and this would work nicely for “foreheads” which is elsewhere used of the corner or border of a land in Neh 9:22. The word “crown” or “skull” might be a picturesque metaphor for the mountain heights of a land, but the word is never used elsewhere in such a figurative way. TEV (and CEV) which follows it might be correct here but there is no way to validate it. The meaning “war loving people” for the phrase “sons of noise” is based on the suggestion of BDB, /oav*, 1, p. 981 who relate the phrase to the dominant use for /oav* and is adopted also by TEV, CEV, and C. von Orelli, The Prophecies of the Book of Jeremiah, p. 341. REB “braggarts” and NIV “noisy boasters” seem to base the nuance on the usage of /oav* in Jer 46:17 where Pharaoh is referred to as an empty noise and the reference to Moab’s arrogance and boasting in 48:29.
sn This verse and the next are an apparent adaptation and reuse of a victory song in Num 21:28-29 and a prophecy in Num 24:17. That explains the reference to Sihon who was the Amorite king who captured Heshbon and proceeded from there to capture most of northern Moab (the area between Heshbon and the Arnon) which has been referred to earlier in this prophecy. This prophecy appears to speak of the destruction of Moab beginning from the same place under the picture of a destructive fire which burns up all the people. The fire is a reference to the conflagrations of war in which the enemy captures the cities and sets them on fire and burns all the people in them. What Sihon once did (Num 21:28-29) and what Balaam prophecied would happen to Moab in the future (by David? Num 24:17) are being reapplied to a new situation.
⁷¹tn Heb “Woe to you, Moab.” For the usage of this expression see 4:13, 31; 13:17 and the translator’s note on 4:13 and 10:19.
⁷²tn Heb “Your sons will be taken away into captivity, your daughters into exile.”
⁷³tn See 29:14; 30:3 and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.
⁷⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹sn Ammon was a small kingdom to the north and east of Moab which was in constant conflict with the Transjordanian tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh over territorial rights to the lands north and south of the Jabbok River. Ammon mainly centered on the city of Rabbah which is modern Amman. According to Judg 11:13 the Ammonites claimed the land between the Jabbok and the Arnon but this was land taken from them by Sihon and Og and land that the Israelites captured from the latter two kings. The Ammonites attempted to expand into the territory of Israel in the Transjordan in the time of Jephthah (Judg 10-11) and the time of Saul (1 Sam 11). Apparently when Tiglath Pileser carried away the Israelite tribes in Transjordan in 733 BC, the Ammonites took over possession of their cities (Jer 49:1). Like Moab they appear to have been loyal to Nebuchadnezzar in the early part of his reign, forming part of the contingent that he sent to harass Judah when Jehoiakim rebelled in 598 BC (2 Kgs 24:2). But along with Moab and Edom they sent representatives to plot rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar in 594 BC (Jer 27:3). The Ammonites were evidently in rebellion against him in 588 BC when he had to decide whether to attack Rabbah or Jerusalem first (Ezek 21:18-23 [21:23-28 Hebrew text]). They appear to have remained in rebellion after the destruction of Jerusalem because their king Baalis was behind the plot to assassinate Gedaliah and offered refuge to Ishmael after he did it (Jer 40:13; 41:15). According to the Jewish historian Josephus they were conquered in 582 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.
²tc The reading here and in v. 3 follows the reading of the Greek, Syriac and Latin versions and 1 Kgs 11:5, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13. The Hebrew reads “Malcom” both here, in v. 3, and Zeph 1:5. This god is to be identified with the god known elsewhere as Molech (cf. 1 Kgs 11:7).
³tn Heb “Doesn’t Israel have any sons? Doesn’t he have any heir [or “heirs” as a collective]? Why [then] has Malcom taken possession of Gad and [why] do his [Malcom’s] people live in his [Gad’s] land?” A literal translation here will not produce any meaning without major commentary. Hence the meaning that is generally agreed on is reflected in an admittedly paraphrastic translation. The reference is to the fact that the Ammonites had taken possession of the cities that had been deserted when the Assyrians carried off the Transjordanian tribes in 733 BC assuming that the Israelites would not return in sufficient numbers to regain control of it. The thought underlying the expression “Why has Milcom taken possession…” reflects the idea, common in the OT and the ancient Near East, that the god of a people drove out the previous inhabitants, gave their land to his worshippers to possess, and took up residence with them there (cf., e.g., Deut 1:21; Judg 11:24 and line 33-34 of the Moabite stone: “Chemosh said to me, ‘Go down, fight against Hauronen.’ And I went down [and I fought against the town and took it], and Chemosh dwelt there in my time.” [Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 321]).
⁴tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
⁵tn Heb “a desolate tel.” For the explanation of what a “tel” is see the study note on 30:18.
⁶tn Heb “Its daughters will be burned with fire.” For the use of the word “daughters” to refer to the villages surrounding a larger city see BDB, I tB^, 4, p. 123 and compare the usage in Judg 1:27.
⁷tn Heb “says the LORD.” The first person is used to maintain the first person address throughout.
⁸tn Or “you women of Rabbah”; Heb “daughters of Rabbah.” It is difficult to tell whether the word “daughters” is used here in the same sense that it has in v. 2 (see the translator’s note there) or in the literal sense of “daughters.” We have preferred the former because the cities themselves (e.g., Heshbon) are called to wail in the earlier part of the verse and the term “daughters” has been used in the previous verse of the surrounding villages.
⁹tc Or “Run back and forth inside the walls of your towns.” Or “slash yourselves with gashes.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The Hebrew text reads “run back and forth among the walls.” The word “run back and forth” is generally taken as a Hithpolel of a verb that means to “go about” in the Qal and to “go back and forth” in the Polel (cf. BDB, I fWv, p. 1002). The noun that follows in the Hebrew means “wall, hedge” and is quite commonly modified by the noun /oax “sheep” referring to sheepfolds (cf., e.g., Num 32:36; 1 Sam 24:3). But the phrase “run back and forth among the sheepfolds” yields little meaning here. In Ps 89:40 (89:41 Hebrew text) the word “wall” is used in parallelism with fortified cities and refers to the walls of the city. That is the sense that is assumed in one of the alternate translations with the words “of your towns” being added for clarification. However, that figure is a little odd in a context which speaks of mourning rites. Hence, some emend the word “walls” (tord@G=) to “gashes” (todd%G=) a word that has occurred in a similar context in Jer 48:37. That would involve only the common confusion of r and d. That is the reading adopted here and fits the context nicely. NRSV appears to go one step further and read the verb as a Hithpolel from a root that is otherwise used only as a noun to mean “whip” or “scourge.” NRSV reads “slash yourselves with whips” which also makes excellent sense in the context but is not supported by any parallel use of the verb.
¹⁰sn Compare 48:7 and the study note there.
¹¹tn Or “Why do you brag about your valleys, about the fruitfulness of your valleys.” The meaning of the first two lines of this verse are uncertain primarily due to the ambiguity of the expression Eq@m=u! bz`. The form bz` is either a Qal perfect or Qal participle of a verb meaning flow. It is common in the expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” and is also common to refer to the seminal discharge or discharge of blood which makes a man or woman unclean. BDB, bWz, Qal 2, p 264 see it as an abbreviation of the idea of “flowing with milk and honey” and see it as referring to the fertility of Ammon’s valley. However, there are no other examples of such an ellipsis. Several of the modern translations and commentaries have taken the word qm#u@ not as a reference to a valley but to the homonym cited in the note on 47:5 and see the reference here to the flowing away of Ammon’s strength. That interpretation is followed here. Instead of explaining the plural ending on <yq!m*u& as being an enclitic < as others who follow this interpretation (e.g., J Bright, Jeremiah, p. 325) I would explain the plural as a plural of amplification (cf. GKC §124e, p. 124 and compare the noun “might” in Isa 40:26).
¹²tn Heb “apostate daughter.” This same term is applied to Israel in Jer 31:22 but seems inappropriate here to Ammon because she had never been loyal to the LORD and could not hence be called “apostate.” However, if it is used of the fact that she rebelled against the LORD’s servant, Nebuchadnezzar, it might be appropriate (cf. Jer 27:6, 8). Hence I have used the term “rebellious” to represent it. The word “daughter” is again a personification of the land (cf. BDB, tB^, 3, p. 123) and is here translated “people of Ammon” to make it easier for the modern reader to identify the referent.
¹³tn Heb “The Lord Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of the rendering here and of the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
¹⁴tn Heb “You will be scattered each man [straight] before him.”
¹⁵tn See 29:14; 30:3 and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.
¹⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁷tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for this title.
¹⁸sn Edom was a kingdom to the south and east of Judah. Its borders varied over time but basically Edom lay in the hundred mile strip between the Gulf of Aqabah on the south and the Zered River on the north. It straddled the Arabah leading down from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqabah, having as its northern neighbors both Judah and Moab. A long history of hostility existed between Israel and Edom, making Edom one of the favorite objects of the prophets’ oracles of judgment (cf., e.g., Isa 21:11-12; 34:5-15; 63:1-6; Amos 1:11-12; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Obad1-16). Not much is known about Edom at this time other than the fact that they participated in the discussions regarding rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar in 594 BC. According to Obadiah 10-16 they not only gloated over Judah’s downfall in 586 BC but participated in its plunder and killed some of those who were fleeing the country.
¹⁹sn Teman was the name of one of Esau’s descendants, the name of an Edomite clan and the name of the district where they lived (Gen 36:11, 15, 34). Like the name Bozrah, it is used poetically for all of Edom (Jer 49:20; Ezek 25:13).
²⁰tn Heb “Has counsel perished from men of understanding?”
²¹tn The meaning of this last word is based on the definition given in KB2, II jr^s*, Nif, p. 668 and KB3,II jr^s*, Nif, p. 726 who give the nuance “to be, become corrupt” rather than that of BDB, jr^s*, Niph, p. 710 who give the nuance “let loose (i.e., be dismissed, gone)” from a verb that is elsewhere used of the overhanging of a curtains or a cliff.
²²tn Heb “make deep to dwell.” The meaning of this phrase is debated. Some take it as a reference for the Dedanites who were not native to Edom to go down from the heights of Edom and go back home (so Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 330). The majority of commentaries, however, take it as a reference to the Dedanites disassociating themselves from the Edomites and finding remote hiding places to live in (so J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 718). For the options see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:375.
²³sn The Dedanites were an Arabian tribe who lived to the southeast of Edom. They are warned here to disassociate themselves from Edom because Edom is about to suffer disaster.
²⁴tn Heb “For I will bring the disaster of Esau upon him, the time when I will punish him.” Esau was the progenitor of the tribes and nation of Edom (cf. Gen 36:1, 8, 9, 19).
²⁵tn The translation of this verse is generally based on the parallels in Obad 5. There the second line has a h interrogative in front of it. The question can still be assumed because questions can be asked in Hebrew without a formal marker (cf. GKC §150a, p. 473 and BDB, aO, 1.a[e], p. 519 and compare usage in 2 Kgs 5:26).
²⁶tn The tense and nuance of the verb translated “pillage” are both different than the verb in Obad 5. There the verb is the imperfect of bnæG* “to steal.” Here the verb is the perfect of a verb which means to “ruin” or “spoil.” The translations and commentaries, however, almost all render the verb here in much the same way as in Obad 5. The nuance must mean they only “ruin, destroy” (by stealing) only as much as they need (Heb “their sufficiency”) and the verb is used as metonymical substitute, effect for cause. The perfect must be some kind of a future perfect; “would they not have destroyed only…” The negative question is carried over by ellipsis from the preceding lines.
²⁷tn Or “Their children and relatives will all be destroyed. And none of their neighbors will say, ‘Leave your orphans with me and I’ll keep them alive. Your widows can trust in me.’” This latter interpretation is based on a reading in a couple of the Greek versions (Symmachus and Lucian) and is accepted by a number of the modern commentaries, (J. Bright, J. Thompson, W. Holladay, and Keown, Scalise, Smothers). However, the majority of modern translations do not follow it and lacking any other Hebrew or versional evidence it is probable that this is an interpretation to explain the mitigation of what appears as a prophecy of utter annihilation. There have been other cases in Jeremiah where a universal affirmation (either positive or negative) has been modified in the verses that follow. The verb in the second line Wjf*b=T! is highly unusual; it is a second masculine plural form with a feminine plural subject. The form is explained in GKC §47k, p. 128 and §60a, fn1 as a pausal substitution for the normal form hn`j=f^b=T! and a similar form in Ezek 37:7 cited as a parallel.
²⁸tn The words “of my wrath” after “cup” in the first line and “from the cup of my wrath” in the last line are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor. They have been added for clarity.
sn The reference here is to the cup of God’s wrath which is connected with the punishment of war at the hands of the Babylonians referred to already in Jer 25:15-29. Those who do not deserve to drink are the innocent victims of war who get swept away with the guilty. Edom was certainly not one of the innocent victims as is clear from this judgment speech and those referred to in the study note on 49:7.
²⁹tn Heb “I swear by myself.” See 22:5 and the study note there.
³⁰sn Bozrah appears to have been the chief city in Edom, its capital city (see its parallelism with Edom in Isa 34:6; 63:1; Jer 49:22). The reference to “its towns” (translated here “all the towns around it”) could then be a reference to all the towns in Edom. It was located about twenty-five miles southeast of the southern end of the Dead Sea apparently in the district of Teman (see the parallelism in Amos 1:12).
³¹tn See the study note on 24:9 for the rendering of this term.
³²tn The words “I said” are not in the text but it is generally agreed that the words that follow are Jeremiah’s. These words are added to make clear that the speaker has shifted from the LORD to Jeremiah.
³³tn Heb “Rise up for battle.” The idea “against her” is implicit from the context and has been added for clarity.
³⁴tn The words “The LORD says to Edom” are not in the text. They have been added to mark the shift from the address of the messenger summoning the nations to prepare to do battle against Edom. The LORD is clearly the speaker (see the end of v. 16) and Edom is clearly the addressee. Such sudden shifts are common in Hebrew poetry, particulary Hebrew prophecy, but are extremely disruptive to a modern reader trying to follow the argument of a passage. TEV adds “The LORD said” and then retains third person throughout. CEV puts all of vv. 14-16 in the second person and uses indirect discourse in v. 15.
³⁵tn The meaning of this Hebrew word (tx#l#p=T!) is uncertain because it occurs only here. However, it is related to a verb root that refers to the shaking of the pillars (of the earth) in Job 9:6 and a noun (tx#l#p=m!) that refers to “horror” or “shuddering” used in Job 21:6; Isa 21:4; Ezek 7:18; Ps 55:6. This is the nuance that is accepted by BDB, KB2, KB3 and a majority of the modern translations. The suffix is an objective genitive. The fact that the following verb is masculine singular suggests that the text here (Et*ao ayV!h!) is in error for Et*a*yV!h! (so Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 327, fn 16.a).
³⁶tn The Hebrew text of the first four lines reads: “Your terror [= the terror you inspire] has deceived you, [and] the arrogance of your heart, you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, who occupy the heights of the hill.” The sentence is broken up and restructured to better conform with English style.
³⁷sn This verse is very similar to 19:8 where the same judgment is pronounced on Jerusalem. For the meaning of some of the terms here (“hiss out their scorn” and “all the disasters that have happened to it”) see the notes on that verse.
³⁸tn See the study note on 12:5 for the rendering of this term.
³⁹tn “The pasture-ground on the everflowing river” according to KB2, I /t*ya@, 1, p. 42. The “everflowing river” refers to the Jordan.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Behold, like a lion comes up from the thicket of the Jordan into the pastureland of everflowing water so [reading /K@ for yK!*; or “indeed” (reading yK! as an asseverative particle with J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 719, fn 6)] I will suddenly chase him [Edom] from upon it [the land].” The sentence has been restructured to better conform with contemporary English style and the significance of the simile drawn from the comparison has been spelled out for the sake of clarity. The form hu*yG!r+a^ is functioning here as an adverbial modifier in a construction of verbal hendiadys (cf. GKC §120g, pp. 386-87).
⁴¹tn For the use of the interrogative ym! in the sense of “whoever” and functioning like an adjective see BDB, ym!, g, p. 567 and compare the usage in Prov 9:4, 16.
⁴²tn For the meaning of this verb in the sense of “arraign” or “call before the bar of justice” compare Job 9:19 and see BDB, du^y*, Hiph, p. 417.
⁴³tn The interrogative ym! is rendered “there is no one” in each of the last three occurrences in this verse because it is used in a rhetorical question that expects the answer “no one” or “none” and is according to BDB, ym!, f(c), p. 566 equivalent to a rhetorical negative.
⁴⁴tn The word “shepherd” (hu#ro) has been used often in the book of Jeremiah to refer metaphorically to the ruler or leader (cf. BDB, I hu*r`, Qal 1d(2), p. 945 and compare usage, e.g., in Jer 2:8; 23:1).
⁴⁵tn Heb “Therefore listen to the plan of the LORD which he has planned against Edom, and the purposes which he has purposed against…” The first person has again been adopted in the translation to avoid the shift from the first person address in v. 19 to the third person in v. 20, a shift that is common in Hebrew poetry, particularly Hebrew prophecy, but which is not common in contemporary English literature.
⁴⁶sn Teman here appears to be a poetic equivalent for Edom, a common figure of speech in Hebrew poetry where the part is put for the whole. “The people of Teman” is thus equivalent to all the people of Edom.
⁴⁷tn Heb “They will surely drag them off, namely the young ones of the flock. He will devastate their habitation [or, their sheep fold] on account of them.” The figure of the lion among the flock of sheep appears to be carried on here where the people are referred to as a flock and their homeland is referred to as a sheepfold. It is hard, however, to carry the figure over here into the translation, so the figures have been interpreted instead. Both of these last two sentences are introduced by a formula that indicates a strong affirmative oath (i.e., they are introduced by aO <a! [cf. BDB, <a!, 1b2, p. 50]). The subject of the verb “they will drag them off” is the indefinite third plural which may be taken as a passive in English (cf. GKC §144g, p. 460). The subject of the last line is the LORD which we have rendered in the first person for stylistic reasons (see the translator’s note on the beginning of the verse).
⁴⁸tn Heb “The earth will quake when at the sound of their downfall.” However, as in many other places “earth” stands here metonymically for the inhabitants or people of the earth (see E. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 578-79 and compare usage in 2 Sam 15:23; Ps 66:4).
⁴⁹tn Heb “The Red Sea” of which the Gulf of Aqaba formed the northeastern arm. The land of Edom once reached this far according to 1 Kgs 9:26.
⁵⁰sn Compare 48:40-41 for a similar prophecy about Moab. The parallelism here suggests that Bozrah, like Teman in v. 20, is a poetic equivalent for Edom.
⁵¹sn Damascus is a city in Syria, located below the eastern slopes of the Anti-lebanon Mountains. It was the capital of the Aramean state that was in constant hostility with Israel from the time of David until its destruction by the Assyrians in 732 BC. At various times it was allied with the Aramean state of Hamath which was further north. Contingents from these Aramean states were involved in harassing Judah and Jerusalem in 598 BC when Jehoiakim rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2) but we hear little about them in the rest of the book of Jeremiah or in the history of this period.
⁵²tn The words “The LORD spoke” and “he said” are not in the text. There is only a title here: “Concerning Damascus.” However, something needs to be supplied to show that these are the LORD’s words of judgment (cf. v. 26 “oracle of the LORD” and the “I” in v. 27). These words have been added for clarity and consistency with the introduction to the other judgment speeches.
⁵³tn Heb “Hamath and Arpad.” There is no word for people in the text. The cities are being personified. However, since it is really the people who are involved and it is easier for the modern reader we supply the word “people of” both here and in v. 24. The verbs in vv. 23-25 are all to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, the tense of the Hebrew verb that views an action as though it were as good as done. The verbs are clearly future in vv. 26-27 which begin with a “therefore.”
⁵⁴tc The meaning of this verse is very uncertain. The Hebrew text apparently reads “Hamath and Arpad are dismayed. They melt away because they have heard bad news. Anxiety is in the sea; it [the sea] cannot be quiet.” Many commentaries and translations redivide the verse and read “like the sea” for “in the sea” (<Y`K^ for <Y`B^) and read the feminine singular noun hg`a*D+ as though it were the third masculine plural verb Wga&D` “They are troubled like the sea.” The translation follows the emendation proposed in BHS and accepted by a number of commentaries (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 333, J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 723 and fn 1). That emendation involves reading hg`a*D=m! <B*l! gomn* instead of hg`a*D+ <Y`B^ Wgomn*. The translation also involves a double reading of “heart,” for the sake of English style, once in the sense of courage (BDB, bl@, 10, p. 525) because that is the nuance that best fits “melts” in the English idiom and once in the more general sense of hearts as the seat of fear, anxiety, worry. The double translation is a concession to English style.
sn Hamath was a city on the Orontes River about 110 miles north of Damascus. Arpad was a city that was 95 miles even farther north. These two cities were in the path of the northern descent of the kings of Assyria and Babylonia and had been conquered earlier under the Assyrian kings (Isa 10:9; 36:19; 37:13). The apparent reference here is to their terror and loss of courage when they hear the news that Nebuchadnezzar’s armies are on the move toward them and Damascus. They would have been in the path of Nebuchadnezzar as he chased Necho south after the battle of Carchemish.
⁵⁵tn Heb “city of praise.”
⁵⁶tn Heb “city of joy.”
⁵⁷tc Or “Why has that famous city not been abandoned, that city I once took delight in?” The translation follows the majority of modern commentaries in understanding aO “not” before “deserted” as a misunderstanding of the emphatic l (so J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 723, fn 3 and J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 333, fn c and see Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §11.2.10i, pp. 211-12 and KB3, II l=, pp. 485-86 for the phenomenon). The particle is missing from the Vulgate. The translation also follows the versions in omitting the suffix on the word “joy” that is found in the Hebrew text (see BHS fn b for a listing of the versions). This gives a better connection with the preceding and the following verse than the alternate translation.
⁵⁸tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” For this title for God see the study note on 2:19.
⁵⁹sn Ben-Hadad was a common name borne by a number of the kings of Damascus, e.g., one during the time of Asa around 900 BC (cf 1 Kgs 15:18-20), one a little later during the time of Omri and Ahab around 850 (1 Kgs 20), and one during the time of Jehoash about 800 (2 Kgs 13:24-25).
⁶⁰sn Kedar appears to refer to an Arabic tribe of nomads descended from Ishmael (Gen 25:13). They are associated here with the people who live in the eastern desert (Heb “the children of the east”; <d#q# yn}B=). In Isa 21:16 they are associated with the Temanites and the Dedanites, Arabic tribes in the north Arabian desert. They were sheep breeders (Isa 60:7) who lived in tents (Ps 120:5) and unwalled villages (Isa 42:11). According to Assyrian records they clashed with Assyria from the time of Shalmanezer in 850 until the time of Essarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in the late seventh century. According to the Babylonian Chronicles Nebuchadnezzar defeated them in 599 BC.
⁶¹sn Nothing is know about this Hazor other than what is said here in vv. 28, 30, 33. They appear to also be nomadic tent dwellers who had a loose association with the Kedarites.
⁶²tn The words “Army of Babylon” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
⁶³sn Heb “the children of the east.” Nothing much is known about them other than their association with the Midianites and Amalekites in their attack on Israel in the time of Gideon (Judg 6:3, 33) and the fact that God would let tribes from the eastern desert capture Moab and Ammon in the future (Ezek 25:4, 10). Midian and Amalek were consider to be located in the region in north Arabia east of Ezion Geber. That would put them in the same general locality as the region of Kedar. The parallelism here suggests that they are the same as the people of Kedar. The words here are apparently addressed to the armies of Nebuchadnezzar.
⁶⁴tn Or “Let their tents…be taken….Let their tent…be carried…. Let people shout…”
⁶⁵sn This is a favorite theme in the book of Jeremiah. It describes the terrors of war awaiting the people of Judah and Jerusalem (6:25), the Egyptians at Carchemish (46:5), and here the Kedarites.
⁶⁶tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁶⁷tn Heb “Make deep to dwell.” See 49:8 and the translator’s note there. The use of this same phrase here argues against the alternative there of going down from a height and going back home.
⁶⁸tn Heb “has counseled a counsel against you, has planned a plan against you.”
⁶⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁰tn The words “Army of Babylon” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
⁷¹tn Heb “no gates and no bar,” i.e., “that lives securely without gates or bars.” The phrase is used by the figure of species for genus (synecdoche) to refer to the fact that they have no defences, i.e., no walls, gates, or bars on the gates. The figure has been interpreted in the translation for the benefit of the average reader.
⁷²tn See the translator’s note at 9:26 and compare the usage in 9:26 and 25:23.
⁷³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁴sn Compare 9:11.
⁷⁵sn Compare 49:18 and 50:40 where the same thing is said about Edom and Babylon.
⁷⁶tn Or “In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah.” For a discussion of the usage of the terms here see the translator’s note on 28:1. If this refers to the accession year the dating would be 598/97 BC.
⁷⁷tn Heb “That which came [as] the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet about the Elam.” See the translator’s note on 14:1 for the construction here and compare also 46:1; 47:1; 50:1.
sn Elam was a country on the eastern side of the Tigris River in what is now southwestern Iran. Its capital city was Susa. It was destroyed in 640 BC by Ashurbanipal after a long period of conflict with the Assyrian kings. It appears from Babylonian records to have regained its independence shortly thereafter, perhaps as early as 625 BC, and was involved in the fall of Assyria in 612 BC. If the date refers to the first year of Zedekiah’s rule (597 BC), this prophecy appears to be later than the previous ones (cf. the study notes on 46:2 and 47:1).
⁷⁸tn Heb “I will break the bow of Elam, the chief source of their might.” The phrase does not mean that God will break literal bows or that he will destroy their weapons (synecdoche of species for genus) or their military power (so Hos 1:5). Because of the parallelism, the “bow” here stands for the archers who wield the bow, and were the strongest force (or chief contingent) in their military.
⁷⁹tn Or more simply, “I will bring enemies against Elam from every direction./ And I will scatter the people of Elam to the four winds.// There won’t be any nation/ where the refugees of Elam will not go.” Or more literally, “I will bring the four winds against Elam/ from the four quarters of heaven./ I will scatter…” However, the winds are not to be understood literally here. God isn’t going to “blow the Elamites” out of Elam with natural forces. The winds must represent enemy forces that God will use to drive them out. Translating literally would be misleading at this point.
⁸⁰tn Heb “I will bring disaster upon them, even my fierce anger.”
⁸¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸²tn Heb “I will send the sword after them.”
⁸³tn Or “I will sit in judgment over Elam”; Heb “I will set up my throne in Elam.” Commentators are divided over whether this refers to a king sitting in judgment over his captured enemies or whether it refers to formally establishing his rule over the country. Those who argue for the former idea point to the supposed parallels in 1:15 (which we have argued does not refer to this but to setting up siege) and 43:8-13. The parallelism in the verse here, however, argues that it refers to the LORD taking over the reins of government by destroying their former leaders.
⁸⁴tn Heb “I will destroy king and leaders from there.”
⁸⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁶tn See 29:14; 30:3 and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.
sn See a similar note on the reversal of Moab’s fortunes in 48:47 and compare also 46:26 for a future restoration of Egypt.
⁸⁷tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹tn Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²tn Heb “The word which the LORD spoke concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans by the hand of Jeremiah the prophet.”
³tn The verbs are masculine plural. Jeremiah is calling on other unnamed messengers to spread the news.
⁴tn Heb “Raise a signal flag.”
⁵sn This was originally the name or title applied to the Sumerian storm god. During the height of Babylon’s power it became a title that was applied to Marduk who was Babylon’s chief deity. As a title it means “Lord.” Here it is a poetical parallel reference to Marduk mentioned in the next line.
⁶tn The Hebrew word used here (<yl!WLg]) is always used as a disdainful reference to idols. It is generally thought to have originally referred to “dung pellets” (cf. KB2, <yl!WLg], p. 183). It is only one of several terms used in this way, such as “worthless things” (<yl!yl!a^), “vanities” or “empty winds” (<yl!b*h&).
⁷tn The verbs here are all in the tense that views the actions as though they were already done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The verbs in the next verse are a mixture of prophetic perfects and imperfects which announce future actions.
sn Reference here is to the fact that the idols that the Babylonians worshipped will not be able to protect them but will instead be carried off into exile with the Babylonians (cf. Isa 46:1-2).
⁸sn This refers to Medo-Persia which at the time of the conquest of Babylon in 539 BC had conquered all the nations to the north, the northwest and the northeast of Babylon forming a vast empire to the north and east of Babylon. Contingents of these many nations were included in her army and reference is made to them in 50:9 and 51:27-28. There is also some irony involved here because the “enemy from the north” referred to so often in Jeremiah (cf. 1:14; 4:6; 6:1) has been identified with Babylon (cf. 25:9). Here in a kind of talionic justice Judah’s nemesis from the north will be attacked and devastated by an enemy from the north.
⁹tn Heb “oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁰tn Heb “and the children of Israel will come, they and the children of Judah together. They shall go, weeping as they go, and they will seek the LORD their God.” The concept of “seeking” the LORD often has to do with seeking the LORD in worship (by sacrifice [Hos 5:6; 2 Chr 11:16]; prayer [Zech 8:21, 22; 2 Sam12:16; Isa 65:1; 2 Chr 15:4]). In Hos 7:10 it is in parallel with returning to the LORD. In Ps 69:6 it is in parallel with hoping in or trusting in the LORD. Perhaps the most helpful parallels here, however, are Hos 3:5 (in comparison with Jer 30:9) and 2 Chr 15:15 where it is in the context of a covenant commitment to be loyal to the LORD which is similar to the context here (see the next verse). The translation is admittedly paraphrastic but “seeking the LORD” doesn’t mean here looking for God as though he were merely a person to be found.
¹¹tc The translation here assumes that the Hebrew WaBo (a Qal imperative masculine plural) should be read WaB* (a Qal perfect third plural). This reading is presupposed by the Greek version of Aquila, the Latin version and the Aramaic Targum (see BHS fn a, which mistakenly assumes that the form must be imperfect).
¹²sn See 32:40 and the study note there for the nature of this lasting agreement.
¹³sn The shepherds are the priests, prophets, and leaders who have led Israel into idolatry (2:8).
¹⁴sn The allusion here, if it is not merely a part of the metaphor of the wandering sheep, is to the worship of the false gods on the high hills (2:20, 3:2).
¹⁵tn This same Hebrew phrase “the habitation of righteousness” is found in Jer 31:23 in relation to Jerusalem in the future as “the place where righteousness dwells.” Here, however, it refers to the same entity as “their resting place” in v. 6 and means “true pasture.” For the meaning of “pasture” for the word hw#n` see 2 Sam 7:8 and especially Isa 65:10 where it is parallel with “resting place” for the flocks. For the meaning of “true” for qd#x# see BDB, qd#x#,1, p. 841. For the interpretation adopted here see Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 365. The same basic interpretation is reflected in NRSV, NJPS Tanakh, and God’s Word.
¹⁶sn These two verses appear to be a poetical summary of the argument of Jer 2 where the nation is accused of abandoning its loyalty to God and worshipping idols. Whereas those who tried to devour Israel were liable for punishment when Israel was loyal to God (2:3), the enemies of Israel who destroyed them (i.e., the Babylonians [but also the Assyrians], 50:17) argue that they are not liable for punishment because the Israelites have sinned against the LORD and thus deserve their fate.
¹⁷tn The words “People of Judah” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added to clarify the subject of the address.
¹⁸tn Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
¹⁹tn The words “Be the first to leave” are not in the text but spell out the significance of the simile that follows. They have been added to give clarity within the translation.
²⁰sn Some of these are named in 51:27-28.
²¹tn Heb “She will be captured from there (i.e., from the north).”
²²tc Read Heb lyK!c=m^* with a number of Hebrew manuscripts and some of the versions in place of lyK!v=m^ “one who kills children” with the majority of Hebrew manuscripts and some of the versions. See BHS fn d for the details.
²³tn Or more freely, “Their arrows will be as successful at hitting its mark/ as a skilled soldier always returns from battle with loot.”
sn I.e., none of the arrows misses its mark.
²⁴tn Heb “The land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
²⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
²⁶tn The words “People of Babylonia” are not in the text but they are implicit in the reference in the next verse to “your mother” which refers to the city and the land as the mother of its people. These words have been added to identify the referent of “you” and have been added for clarity.
²⁷tn Or “my land.” The word can refer to either the land (Jer 2:7, 16:8) or the nation/people (Jer 12:7, 8, 9).
²⁸tc Reading av#d# yl@g+u#K= or av#D#B^ lg#u##K= as presupposed by the Greek and Latin versions (cf. BHS fn d-d) in place of the reading in the Hebrew text hv*d* hl*g+u#K= “like a heifer treading out the grain” (Heb “threshing”) which does not fit the verb (vWP = “spring about” [BDB, I vWP, p. 807] or “paw the ground” [KB2, vWP, p. 756] and compare Mal 3:20 for usage). This variant reading is also accepted by Bright, Thompson, Huey, and Keown, Scalise, Smothers.
²⁹tn Heb “Though you rejoice, though you exult, you who have plundered my heritage, though you frolic like calves in a pasture and neigh like stallions, your mother…” The particle yK! introduces a concessive protasis according to BDB, yK!, 2c(a), p. 473. Many interpret the particle as introducing the grounds for the next verse, i.e., “because…” The translation here will reflect the concessive by beginning the next verse with “But.” The long protasis has been broken up and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
³⁰tn Heb “Your mother will be utterly shamed, the one who gave you birth…” The word “mother” and the parallel term “the one who gave you birth” are used metaphorically for the land of Babylonia. For the figure compare the usage in Isa 50:1 (Judah) and Hos 2:2, 5 (2:4, 7 Hebrew text) and see BDB, <a@, 2, p. 52 and dl^y`, Qal 2c, p. 408.
³¹tn Heb “Behold.” For the use of this particle see the translator’s note on 1:6.
³²tn Heb “From [or, Because of] the wrath of the LORD it will be uninhabited.” The causal connection is spelled out more clearly and actively and the first person has been used because the speaker is the LORD. The referent “it” has been spelled out clearly from the later occurrence in the verse, “all who pass by Babylon.”
³³sn Compare 49:17 and the study note there and see also the study notes on 18:16 and 19:8.
³⁴tn Heb “all you who draw the bow.”
³⁵tc The verb here should probably be read as a Qal imperative Wry+ from hr`y` with a few Hebrew manuscripts rather than a Qal imperative Wdy+ from hd*y` with the majority of Hebrew manuscripts. The verb hd*y` does not otherwise occur in the Qal and only elsewhere in the Piel with a meaning “cast” (cf. KB2, I hd*y`, p. 363). The verb hr`y` is common in both the Qal and the Hiphil with the meaning of shooting arrows (cf. BDB, hr`y`, Qal 3, p. 435, Hiph 2, p. 435). The confusion between d and r is very common.
³⁶tn Heb “Shoot at her! Don’t save any arrows!”
³⁷tn Heb “She has given her hand.” For the idiom here involving submission/surrender see BDB, /t^n`, Qal 1z, p. 680 and compare the usage in 1 Chr 29:24; 2 Chr 30:8. For a different interpretation, however, see the rather complete discussion in Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 366 who see this as a reference to making a covenant. The verb in this line and the next two lines are all Hebrew perfects and most translators and commentaries see them as past. God’s Word, however, treats them as prophetic perfects and translates them as future. This is more likely in the light of the imperatives both before and after.
³⁸tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. The definition here follows that of KB3, hy`v=a*, p. 91 who define it on the basis of an Akkadian word and treat it as a loan word.
³⁹tn Heb “Because it is the LORD’s vengeance.” The first person has again been used because the LORD is the speaker and the nominal expression has been turned into a verbal one more in keeping with contemporary English style.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Cut off the sower from Babylon, and the one who wields the sickle at harvest time.” For the meaning “kill” for the root “cut off” see BDB, tr^K*, Qal 1b, p. 503 and compare usage in Jer 11:19. The verb is common in this nuance in the Hiphil, cf. BDB, tr^K*, Hiph, 2b, p. 504.
⁴¹tn Heb “Because of [or, out of fear of] the sword of the oppressor, let each of them turn toward his [own] people and each of them flee to his [own] country.” Compare a similar expression in 46:16 where the reference was to the flight of the mercenaries. Here it refers most likely to foreigners who are counseled to leave Babylon before they are caught up in the destruction. Many of the commentaries and translations render the verbs as futures but they are more likely third person commands (jussives). Compare the clear commands in v. 8 followed by essentially the same motivation. The “sword of the oppressor,” of course, refers to death at the hands of soldiers wielding all kinds of weapons, chief of which has been a reference to the bow (v. 14).
⁴²sn This refers to the devastation wrought on northern Israel by the kings of Assyria beginning in 738 BC when Tiglath Pileser took Galilee and the Transjordanian territories and ending with the destruction and exile of the people of Samaria by Sargon in 722 BC.
⁴³tn The verb used here only occurs this one time in the Hebrew Bible. It is a denominative from the Hebrew word for “bones” (<x#u#). BDB, <x^u*#, denom Pi, p. 1126 define it as “break his bones.” KB3, II <x^u*, Pi, p. 822 define it as “gnaw on his bones.”
sn If the prophecies which are referred to in Jer 51:59-64 refer to all that is contained in Jer 50—51 as some believe, this would have referred to the disasters of 605 BC and 598 BC and all the harassment that Israel experienced from Babylon up until the fourth year of Zedekiah (594 BC). If on the other hand, the prophecy referred to there refers to something less than this final form, the destruction of 587/6 BC could be referred to as well.
⁴⁴tn Heb “Therefore thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” The first person is again adopted because the LORD is speaking. For this title, “Yahweh of armies,” compare 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
⁴⁵tn Heb “their soul [or, hunger/appetite] will be satisfied.”
⁴⁶sn The metaphor of Israel as a flock of sheep (v. 17) is continued here. The places named were all in Northern Israel and in the Transjordan, lands that were lost to the Assyrians in the period 738-722 BC. All of these places were known for their fertility, for their woods and their pastures. The hills (hill country) of Ephraim formed the center of Northern Israel. Mount Carmel lies on the seacoast of the Mediterranean north and west of the hill country of Ephraim. Gilead formed the central part of Transjordan and was used to refer at times to the territory between the Yarmuk and Jabbok Rivers, at times to the territory between the Yarmuk and the Arnon Rivers, and at times for all of Israel in the Transjordan. Bashan refers to the territory north of Gilead.
⁴⁷tn Heb “In those days and at that time, oracle of the LORD, the iniquity [or, guilt] of Israel will be sought but there will be none and the sins of Judah but they will not be found.” The passive construction “will be sought” raises the question of who is doing the seeking which is not really the main point. The translation has avoided this question by simply referring to the result which is the main point.
⁴⁸sn Compare 31:34 and 33:8.
⁴⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.” In this case it is necessary to place this in the first person because this is already in a quote whose speaker is identified as the LORD (v. 18).
⁵⁰tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵¹sn The commands in this verse and in vv. 26-27 are directed to the armies from the north who are referred to in v. 3 as “a nation from the north” and in v. 9 as a “host of mighty nations from the land of the north.” The addressee in this section shifts from one referent to another.
⁵²sn It is generally agreed that the names of these two regions were chosen for their potential for word play. Merathaim probably refers to a region in southern Babylon near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together before they empty into the Persian Gulf. It was known for its briny waters. In Hebrew the word would mean “double rebellion” and would stand as an epithet for the land of Babylon as a whole. Pekod refers to an Aramean people who lived on the eastern bank of the lower Tigris River. They are mentioned often in Assyrian texts and are mentioned in Ezek 23:23 as allies of Babylon. In Hebrew the word would mean “punishment.” As an epithet for the land of Babylon it would refer to the fact that Babylon was to be punished for her double rebellion against the LORD.
⁵³tn Heb “Smite down and completely destroy after them.” The word translated “kill” or “smite down” is a word of uncertain meaning and derivation. BDB, III br^j*, p. 352 relate it to an Aramaic word meaning “attack, smite down.” KB2, II br^j*, pp. 329-30 see it as a denominative from the word br#j# “sword,” a derivation which many modern commentaries accept and reflect in a translation “put to the sword.” KB2 themselves, however, give “smite down, slaughter” which is roughly the equivalent of the meaning assigned to it in BDB. The word only occurs here and in v. 27 in the Qal and in 2 Kgs 3:23 in the Niphal where it means something like “attacked one another, fought with one another.” Many commentators question the validity of the word “after them” (<h#yr@j&a^) which occurs at the end of the line after “completely destroy.” The Targum reads “the last of them” (<t*yr!j&a^) which is graphically very close and accepted by some commentators. We have chosen to represent “after them” by a paraphrase at the beginning “pursue them.”
sn For the concept underlying the words translated here “completely destroy” see the study note on 25:9.
⁵⁴tn Heb “Do according to all I have commanded you.”
⁵⁵tn The words “of Babylonia” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added to clarify the referent.
sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present but all of this is really in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future as we have regularly done in the translation.
⁵⁶tn Heb “How broken and shattered is the hammer of all the earth!” The “hammer” is a metaphor for Babylon who was God’s war club to shatter the nations and destroy kingdoms just like Assyria is represented in Isa 10:5 as a rod and a war club. Some readers, however, might not pick up on the metaphor or identify the referent, so the translation has incorporated an identification of the metaphor and the referent within it. “See how” and “See what” are an attempt to capture the nuance of the Hebrew particle Eya@ which here expresses an exclamation of satisfaction in a taunt song (cf. BDB, Eya@, 2, p. 32 and compare usage in Isa 14:4, 12; Jer 50:23).
⁵⁷tn Heb “You were found [or, found out] and captured because you fought against the LORD.” The same causal connection is maintained by the order of the translation but it puts more emphasis on the cause and connects it also more closely with the first half of the verse. The first person is used because the LORD is speaking of himself first in the first person “I set” and then in the third. The first person has been maintained throughout. Though it would be awkward, perhaps one could retain the reference to the LORD by translating, “I, the LORD.”
⁵⁸tn Or “I have opened up my armory.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “The LORD has opened up his armory and has brought out the weapons of his wrath.” The problem of the LORD referring to himself in the third person (or of the prophet speaking on his behalf) is again raised here and is again resolved by using the first person throughout. The construction “weapons of my wrath” would not convey any meaning to many readers so the significance has been spelled out in the translation.
sn The weapons are, of course, the nations which God is bringing from the north against them. Reference has already been made in the study notes that Assyria is the rod or war club by which God vents his anger against Israel (Isa 10:5-6) and Babylon a hammer or war club with which he shatters the nations (Jer 50:23; 51:20). Now God will use other nations as weapons to execute his wrath against Babylon. For a similar idea see Isa 13:2-5 where reference is made to marshalling the nations against Babylon. Some of the nations that the LORD will marshall against Babylon are named in Jer 51:27-28.
⁶⁰tn Heb “the Lord Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of this rendering and the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁶¹tn The words “of Babylonia” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added to clarify the referent.
sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present but all of this is really in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future as we have regularly done in the translation.
⁶²tn Heb “Come against her from the end.” There is a great deal of debate about the meaning of “from the end” (JQ@m!). Some follow the suggestion of F. Giesebrecht in BDB, hx#q*, 3, p. 892 and emend the text to hx#Q*m! on the basis of the presumed parallel in Jer 51:31 which is interpreted as “on all sides,” i.e., “from every quarter/side.” However, the phrase does not mean that in Jer 51:31 but is used as it is elsewhere of “from one end to another,” i.e., in its entirety (so Gen 19:4). The only real parallel here is the use of the noun Jq@ with a suffix in Isa 37:24 referring to the remotest part, hence something like from the end (of the earth), i.e., from a far away place. The referent “her” has been clarified here to refer to Babylonia in case someone might not see the connection between v. 25d and v. 26.
⁶³tn Heb “Pile her up like heaps.” Many commentators understand the comparison to be to heaps of grain (compare usage of hm*r@u& in Hag 2:16; Neh 13:15; Ruth 3:7). However, BDB, hm*r@u&, p. 790 is more likely correct that this refers to heaps of ruins (compare the usage in Neh 4:2 (3:34 in Heb)).
⁶⁴sn Compare 50:21 and see the study note on 25:9.
⁶⁵tn Heb “Do not let there be to her a remnant.” According BDB, tyr]a@v=, p. 984 this refers to the last remnant of people, i.e., there won’t be any survivors. Compare the usage in Jer 11:23.
⁶⁶tn Heb “Kill all her young bulls.” Commentators are almost universally agreed that the reference to “young bulls” is figurative here for the princes and warriors (cf. BDB, rP*, 2f, p. 831 who compares Isa 34:7 and Ezek 39:18). This is virtually certain because of the reference to the time coming for them to be punished; this would scarcely fit literal bulls. For the verb rendered “kill” here see the translator’s note on v. 21.
⁶⁷tn Heb “Let them go down to the slaughter.”
⁶⁸tn Or “How terrible it will be for them”; Heb “Woe to them.” See the study note on 22:13 and compare the usage in 23:1; 48:1.
⁶⁹tn The words “of reckoning” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
⁷⁰tn Heb “Hark! Fugitives and refugees from the land of Babylon to declare in Zion the vengeance of the LORD our God, vengeance for his temple.” For the meaning “Hark!” for the noun loq see BDB, loq, 1f, p. 877 and compare the usage in Jer 10:22. The syntax is elliptical because there is no main verb. We have supplied the verb “come” as many other translations have done. We have also expanded the genitival expression “vengeance for his temple” to explain what all the commentaries agree is involved.
sn This verse appears to be a parenthetical exclamation of the prophet in the midst of his report of what the LORD said through him. He throws himself into the future and sees the fall of Babylon and hears the people reporting in Zion how God has destroyed Babylon to get revenge for the Babylonians destroying his temple. Jeremiah prophecied from 627 BC (see the study note on 1:2) until sometime after 586 BC after Jerusalem fell and he was taken to Egypt. The fall of Babylon occurred in 538 BC some fifty years later. However, Jeremiah had prophecied as early as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605 BC; Jer 25:1) that many nations and great kings would come and subject Babylon, the instrument of God’s wrath, his sword against the nations, to bondage (Jer 25:12-14).
⁷¹tn For this word see BDB, III br^, p. 914 and compare usage in Prov 26:10 and Job 16:12 and compare the usage of the verb in Gen 49:23. Based on this evidence, it is not necessary to emend the form to <yb!ro as many commentators contend.
⁷²tn Heb “for she has acted insolently against the LORD.” Once again we have the problem of the LORD speaking about himself in the third person (or the prophet dropping his identification with the LORD). As in several other places we along with some of the modern translations (TEV, CEV, NIrV) have substituted the first person to maintain consistency with the context.
⁷³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁷⁴tn Heb “Behold, I am against you, proud one.” The word “city” is not in the text but it is generally agreed that the word is being used as a personification of the city which had “proudly defied” the LORD (v. 29). The word “city” is added for clarity.
⁷⁵tn Heb “oracle of the Lord Yahweh of armies.” For the rendering of this title and an explanation of its significance see the study note on 2:19.
⁷⁶tn The particle yK! is probably asseverative here (so J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 739, fn 13 and cf. BDB, yK!,1e, p. 472 for other examples). This has been a common use of this particle in the book of Jeremiah.
⁷⁷tn The words “of reckoning” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are added for clarity.
⁷⁸sn Compare v. 27.
⁷⁹tn Heb “And the proud one will fall and there will be no one to help him up. I will start a fire in his towns and it will consume all that surround him.” The personification continues but now the stance is indirect (third person) rather than direct (second person). It is easier for the modern reader who is not accustomed to such sudden shifts if the second person is maintained. The personification of the city (or nation) as masculine is a little unusual; normally cities and nations are personified as feminine, as daughters or mothers.
⁸⁰tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁸¹tn Heb “Oppressed are the people of Israel and the people of Judah together,” i.e., both the people of Israel and Judah are oppressed. However, neither of these renderings is very poetic. The translation seeks to achieve the same meaning with better poetic expression.
⁸²sn Heb “their redeemer.” This term referred in Israelite family law to the nearest male relative who was responsible for securing the freedom of a relative who had been sold into slavery. For further discussion of this term as well as its metaphorical use to refer to God as the one who frees Israel from bondage in Egypt and from exile in Assyria and Babylonia see the study note on 31:11.
⁸³tn Heb “Yahweh of armies is his name.” For the rendering of this title see the study note on 2:19.
⁸⁴tn Or “he will certainly champion.” The infinitive absolute before the finite verb here is probably functioning to intensify the verb rather than to express the certainty of the action (cf. GKC §112n, p. 342 and compare usage in Gen 43:3 and 1 Sam 20:6 listed there).
⁸⁵tn This appears to be another case where the particle /u^m^l= introduces a result rather than giving the purpose or goal. See the translator’s note on 25:7 for a listing of other examples in the book of Jeremiah and also the translator’s note on 27:10.
⁸⁶tn Heb “he will bring rest to the earth and will cause unrest to.” The terms “rest” and “unrest” have been doubly translated to give more of the idea underlying these two concepts.
⁸⁷tn This translation again reflects the problem we have often encountered in these prophecies where the LORD appears to be speaking but refers to himself in the third person. It would be possible to translate here using the first person as CEV and NIrV do. However, to sustain that over the whole verse would perhaps create too much paraphrase. We could render the verse “But I am strong and I will rescue them. I am the LORD who rules over all. I will champion their cause. And I will bring peace and rest to…”
⁸⁸tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” For explanation of the rendering see the study note on 21:4. There is no verb in this clause. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether this should be understood as a command or as a prediction. The presence of waw consecutive perfects after a similar construction in vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38a and the imperfects after “therefore” (/k@l*) all suggest the predictive or future nuance. However, the waw consecutive perfect could be used to carry on the nuance of command (cf. GKC §112q, p. 333) but not in the sense of purpose as NRSV, NJPS Tanakh render them.
sn Heb “A sword against the Chaldeans.” The “sword” here is metaphorical for destructive forces in the persons of the armies of the north (vv. 3, 9) which the LORD is marshalling against Babylon and which he has addressed by way of command several times (e.g., vv. 14, 21, 26-27, 29). Compare 46:14 and the study note there.
⁸⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁹⁰tn The meaning and the derivation of the word translated “false prophets” is uncertain. The same word appears in conjunction with the word for “diviners” in Isa 44:25 and probably also in Hos 11:6 in conjunction with the sword consuming them “because of their counsel.” BDB, III dB^, b, p. 95 see this as a substitution of “empty talk” for “empty talkers” (the figure of metonymy) and refer to them as false prophets. KB2, II dB^, p. 108 emend the form in both places to read <yr]B* (in place of <yD]B^) and define the word on the basis of Akkadian to mean “soothsayer” (KB2, V rB*, p. 146). KB3, V dB^, p. 105 retain the pointing, derive it from an Amorite word found in the Mari letters, and define it as “oracle priest.” However, Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 368 call this identification into question because the word only occurs in one letter from Mari and its meaning is uncertain there. It is hazardous to emend the text in two places, perhaps even three, in light of no textual evidence in any of the passages and to define the word on the basis of an uncertain parallel. Hence we opt here for the derivation and extended definition given in BDB.
⁹¹tn This translation follows the suggestion of BDB, I la^y*, Niph 2, p. 383. Compare the usage in Isa 19:13 and Jer 5:4.
⁹²tn The verb here (tt^j*) could also be rendered “be destroyed” (cf. BDB, tt^j*, Qal1, p. 369 and compare the usage in Jer 48:20, 39). However, the parallelism with “shown to be fools” argues for the more dominant usage of “be dismayed” or “be filled with terror.” The verb is found in parallelism with both voB “be ashamed, dismayed” and ar@y` “be afraid” and can refer to either emotion. Here it is more likely that they are filled with terror because of the approaching armies.
⁹³tn Hebrew has “his” in both cases here whereas the rest of the possessive pronouns throughout vv. 35-37 are “her.” There is no explanation for this switch unless the third masculine singular refers as a distributive singular to the soldiers mentioned in the preceding verse (cf. GKC §145l, p. 464). This is probably the case here, but to refer to “their horses and their chariots” in the midst of all the “her…” might create more confusion than what it is worth to be that pedantic.
⁹⁴tn Or “in the country,” or, “in her armies”; Heb “in her midst.”
⁹⁵tn Heb “A sword against his horses and his chariots and against all the mixed company [or, mixed multitude] in her midst and they will become like women.” The sentence had to be split up because it is too long and the continuation of the second half with its consequential statement would not fit together with the first half very well. Hence the subject and verb have been repeated. The Hebrew word translated “foreign troops” (br#u#) is the same word that is used in 25:20 to refer to the foreign peoples living in Egypt and in Exod 12:38 for the foreign people that accompanied Israel out of Egypt. Here the word is translated contextually to refer to foreign mercenaries, an identification that most of the commentaries and many of the modern translations accept (see, e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 355 and NRSV, NIV). The significance of the simile “they will become like women” has been spelled out for the sake of clarity.
⁹⁶tc Heb “a drought against her waters and they will dry up.” Several of the commentaries and modern translations accept the emendation proposed by BHS and read here “sword” (br#j# in place of br#jo, the change of only one vowel) in keeping with the rest of the context. According to BHS this reading is supported by the Lucianic and Hexaplaric recensions of the LXX (the Greek version) and the Syriac version. In this case the drying up of the waters (of the canals) is attributed to neglect brought about by war conditions. However, it is just as likely that these versions are influenced by the repetition of the word “sword” as the Hebrew and the other versions are influenced by the concept of “drying up” of the waters to read “drought.” Hence, we, along with the majority of modern versions, retain the Hebrew text “drought.”
⁹⁷tn Heb “for it is a land of idols.” The “for,” however, goes back to the whole context not just to the preceding prediction (cf. BDB, yK!, 1c, pp. 473-74 and compare usage in Isa 21:6 listed there).
⁹⁸tc Or “Her people boast in.” This translation is based on the reading of the majority of Hebrew manuscripts which read Wll*hot=y] (cf. usage in Jer 46:9 and see also 25:16; 51:7). Two Hebrew manuscripts and the versions read WlL*h^t=y] (cf. usage in Jer 4:2; 9:23,24 and Ps 97:7 where a parallel expression is found with “idols”). The reading is again basically the difference in one Hebrew vowel. All of the modern commentaries consulted and all the modern translations except NEB, REB follow the Hebrew text here rather than the versions.
⁹⁹tn Heb “by the terrors.” However, as KB3, hm*ya@, p. 40 indicate these are “images that cause terror” (a substitution of the effect for the cause). The translation of this line follows the interpretation of the majority of modern translations and all the commentaries consulted. NIV, NCV, and God’s Word reflect a different syntax, understanding the subject to be the idols just mentioned rather than “her people” which is supplied here for the sake of clarity (the Hebrew text merely says “they.”) Following that lead we might render “but those idols will go mad with terror.” This makes excellent sense in the context which often refers to effects (vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38b) of the war that is coming. However, that interpretation does not fit too well with the following “therefore/so” which basically introduces a judgment or consequence after an accusation of sin.
¹⁰⁰tn The identification of this bird has been called into question by G. R. Driver in an article in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87(1955): 137-38. He refers to this bird as an owl. That identification, however, is not reflected in any of the lexicons including the most recent lexicon, KB3 which still gives “ostrich” (KB3, hn`u&y^, p. 402) as does The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “Ostrich,” 3:611. REB, NIV, NCV, and God’s Word all identify this bird as “owl/desert owl.”
¹⁰¹tn Heb “Therefore desert creatures will live with jackals and ostriches will live in it.”
¹⁰²tn Heb “It will never again be inhabited nor dwelt in unto generation and generation.” For the meaning of this last phrase compare the usage in Ps 100:5 and Isaiah 13:20. Since the first half of the verse has spoken of animals living there, it is necessary to add “people” and turn the passive verbs into active ones.
¹⁰³tn Heb “‘Like [when] God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns,’ oracle of the LORD, ‘no man will live there.’” The LORD is speaking so the first person has been substituted for “God.” The sentence has again been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style.
sn Compare 49:18 where the same prophecy is applied to Edom.
¹⁰⁴tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁰⁵sn The allusion is to the Medo-Persian empire and the vassal kings who provided forces for the Medo-Persian armies.
¹⁰⁶sn Heb “daughter Babylon.” The word “daughter” is a personification of the city of Babylon and its inhabitants.
¹⁰⁷tn Heb “his hands will drop/hang limp.” For the meaning of this idiom see the translator’s note on 6:24.
¹⁰⁸tn Heb “The king of Babylon hears report of them and his hands hang limp.” The verbs are translated as future because the passage is prophetic and the verbs may be interpreted as prophetic perfects (the action viewed as as good as done). In the parallel passage in 6:24 the verbs could be understood as present perfects because the passage could be viewed as in the present. Here it is future.
¹⁰⁹sn Compare 6:22-24 where almost the same exact words as 50:41-43 are applied to the people of Judah. The repetition of prophecies here and in the following verses emphasizes the talionic nature of God’s punishment of Babylon; as they have done to others, so it will be done to them (cf. 25:14; 50:15).
¹¹⁰tn The words “of Babylonia” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been added to clarify the referent.
sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present but all of this is really in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future as we have regularly done in the translation.
¹¹¹tn Heb “among the nations.” With the exception of this phrase, the different verb in v. 46a, the absence of a suffix on the word for “land” in v. 45d, the third plural suffix instead of the third singular suffix on the verb for “chase…off of,” this passage is identical with 49:19-21 with the replacement of Babylon or the land of the Chaldeans for Edom. For the translation notes explaining the details of the translation here see the translator’s notes on 49:19-21.
sn This passage is virtually identical with 49:19-21 with the replacement of Babylon, land of Babylonia for Edom. As God used Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians to destroy Edom, so he would use Cyrus and the Medes and Persians and their allies to destroy Babylon (cf. 25:13, 14). As Nebuchadnezzar was God’s servant to whom all would be subject (25:9; 27:6), so Cyrus is called in Isaiah “his anointed one,” i.e., his chosen king whom he will use to shatter other nations and set Israel free (Isa 45:1-4).
¹sn The “destructive wind” is a figurative reference to the “foreign people” who will “winnow” Babylon and drive out all the people (v. 2). This figure has already been used in 4:11-12 and in 49:36. See the study note on 4:11-12 and the translator’s notes on 22:22 and 49:36.
²tn Or “I will arouse the spirit of hostility of a destroying nation”; Heb “I will stir up against Babylon…a destroying wind [or, the spirit of a destroyer].” The word j^Wr can refer to either a wind (BDB, j^Wr, 2a, p. 924) or a spirit (BDB, j^Wr, 2g, p. 925). It can be construed as either a noun followed by an adjectival participle (so, “a destroying wind”) or a noun followed by another noun in the “of” relationship (a construct or genitival relationship; so, “spirit of a destroyer”). The same noun with this same verb is translated “stir up the spirit of” in I Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 21:16; 36:22; Hag 1:14 and most importantly in Jer 51:11 where it refers to the king of the Medes. However, the majority of the exegetical tradition (all the commentaries consulted and all the translations except NASB and NIV) opt for the “destructive wind” primarily because of the figure of winnowing that is found in the next verse. The translation follows the main line exegetical tradition here for that same reason.
³sn Heb “the people who live in Leb-qamai.” “Leb-qamai” is a code name for “Chaldeans” formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. This same principle is used in referring to Babylon in 25:27 and 51:41 as “Sheshach.” See the study note on 25:27 where further details are given. There is no consensus on why the code name is used because the terms Babylon and Chaldeans (= Babylonians) have appeared regularly in this prophecy or collection of prophecies.
⁴tn Or “I will send foreign people against Babylonia.” The translation follows the reading of the Greek recensions of Aquila and Symmachus and the Latin version (the Vulgate). That reading is accepted by the majority of modern commentaries and several of the modern versions (e.g., NRSV, REB, NAB, and God’s Word). It fits better with the verb that follows it than the reading of the Hebrew text and the rest of the versions. The difference in the two readings is again only the difference in vocalization, the Hebrew text reading zarim (<yr]z`) and the versions cited reading zorim (<yr]z)). If the Hebrew text is followed, there is a word play between the two words, “foreigners” and “winnow.” The words “like a wind blowing away chaff” have been added to the translation to clarify for the unwary reader what “winnow” means. See the study note.
sn Winnowing involved throwing a mixture of grain and chaff (or, straw) into the air and letting the wind blow away the lighter chaff, leaving the grain to fall on the ground. Since God considered all the Babylonians chaff, they would be “blown away.”
⁵tn Or “They will strip its land bare like a wind blowing away chaff.” The alternate translation would be necessary if we were to adopt the alternate reading of the first line (the reading of the Hebrew text). The explanation of “winnow” would then be necessary in the second line. The verb translated “strip…bare” means literally “to empty out” (see BDB, qq^B*, Polel, p. 132). It has been used in 19:7 in the Qal of “making void” Judah’s plans in a word play on the word for “bottle.” See the study note on 19:7 for further details.
⁶tn This assumes that the particle yK! is temporal (cf. BDB, yK!, 2a, p. 473). This is the interpretation adopted also by NRSV and Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 349. J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 345 and J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 747, fn 3 interpret it as asseverative or emphatic, “Truly, indeed.” Many of the modern translations merely ignore it. Reading it as temporal makes it unnecessary to emend the following verb as Bright and Thompson do (from Wyh* to Wyh=y]).
⁷tn Heb “in the day of disaster.”
⁸tc The text and consequent meaning of these first two lines are uncertain. Literally the Masoretic reads “against let him string let him string the one who strings his bow and against let him raise himself up in his coat of armor.” This makes absolutely no sense and the ancient translations and Hebrew manuscripts did not agree in reading this same text. Many Hebrew manuscripts and all the versions as well as the Masoretes themselves (the text is left unpointed with a marginal note not to read it) delete the second “let him string.” The LXX (or Greek version) left out the words “against” at the beginning of the first two lines. It reads “Let the archer bend his bow and let the one who has armor put it on.” The Lucianic recension of the LXX and some Targum manuscripts supplied the missing object “it” and thus read “Let the archer ready his bow against it and let him array himself against it in his coat of mail.” This makes good sense but does not answer the question of why the Hebrew text left off the suffix on the preposition twice in a row. Many Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate (the Latin version) change the pointing of “against” (‘el [la#]) to “not” (‘al [la^]) and thus read “Let the archer not string the bow and let him not array himself in his armor.” However, many commentators feel that this does not fit the context because it would apparently be addressed to the Babylonians, not the enemy, which would create a sudden shift in addressee with the second half of the verse. However, if it is understood in the sense taken here it refers to the enemy not allowing the Babylonian archers to get ready for the battle, i.e., a surprise attack. This sense is suggested as an alternative in J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 346, fn u-u, and J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 747, fn 5 and is the interpretation adopted in TEV and probably also in NIrV.
⁹sn For the concept underlying this word see the study note on “utterly destroy” in 25:9 and compare the usage in 50:21, 26.
¹⁰tn The majority of translations and the commentaries understand the waw consecutive + perfect as a future here “They will fall.” However, it makes better sense in the light of the commands in the previous verse to understand this as an indirect third person command (= a jussive; see GKC §112q,r, p. 333) as REB and NJPS Tanakh do.
¹¹tn Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation.
¹²tn The words “cities” is not in the text. The text merely says “in her streets” but the antecedent is “land” and must then refer to the streets of the cities in the land.
¹³tn Heb “widowed” (cf. BDB, /m*l=a^, p. 48, an adjective occurring only here but related to the common word for “widow”). It is commonly translated as we have here.
sn The verses from v. 5 to v. 19 all speak of the LORD in the third person. The prophet who is the spokesman for the LORD (50:1) thus is speaking. However, the message is still from God because this was all what he spoke “through the prophet Jeremiah.”
¹⁴tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of this rendering see the study note on 2:19.
¹⁵tn Or “all, though their land was…” The majority of the modern translations understand the land here to refer to the land of Israel and Judah (the text reads “their land” and Israel and Judah are the nearest antecedents). In this case the particle yK! is concessive (cf. BDB, yK!, 2.c[b], p. 473). Many of the modern commentaries understand the referent to be the land of the Chaldeans/Babylonians. However, most of them feel that the line is connected as a causal statement to 51:2-4 and see the line as either textually or logically out of place. However, it need not be viewed as logically out of place. It is parallel to the preceding and gives a second reason why they are to be destroyed. It also forms an excellent transition to the next lines where the exiles and other foreigners are urged to flee and not get caught up in the destruction which is coming “because of her sin.” It might be helpful to note that both the adjective “widowed” and the suffix on “their God” are masculine singular, looking at Israel and Judah as one entity. The “their” then goes back not to Israel and Judah of the preceding lines but to the “them” in v. 4. This makes for a better connection with the following and understands the particle yK! in its dominant usage not an extremely rare one (see the comment in BDB, yK!, 2.c[b], p. 473). This interpretation is also reflected in RSV.
¹⁶sn This is a common title for the LORD in the book of Isaiah. It is applied to the LORD only here and in 50:29 in the book of Jeremiah. It is a figure where an attribute of a person is put as a title of a person (compare “your majesty” for a king).
¹⁷tn The words “you foreign people” are not in the text and many think the referent is the exiles of Judah. While this is clearly the case in v. 45 the referent seems broader here where the context speaks of every man going to his own country (v. 9).
¹⁸tn Heb “her.”
¹⁹tn Heb “paying to her a recompense [i.e., a payment in kind].”
²⁰tn The words “of her wrath” are not in the text but are added to help those readers who are not familiar with the figure of the “cup of the LORD’s wrath.” See the study note for further details and cross references.
sn The figure of the cup of the LORD’s wrath invoked in 25:15-29 is reinvoked here and Babylon is identified as the agent through which the wrath of the LORD is visited on the other nations. See the study note on 25:15 for explanation and further references.
²¹tn Heb “upon the grounds of such conditions the nations have gone crazy.”
²²tn The verbs in this verse and the following are all in the Hebrew perfect tense, a tense that often refers to a past action or a past action with present results. However, as the translator’s notes have indicated the prophets use this tense to view the actions as as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The stance here is ideal, viewed as already accomplished.
²³tn The words “Foreigners living there will say” are not in the text but are implicit from the third line. These words are generally assumed by the commentaries and are explicitly added in TEV and NCV which are attempting to clarify the text for the average reader as we are.
²⁴tn Heb “Leave/abandon her.” However, it is smoother in the English translation to make this verb equivalent to the cohortative that follows.
²⁵tn This is an admittedly very paraphrastic translation that tries to make the figurative nuance of the Hebrew original understandable for the average reader. The Hebrew text reads: “For her judgment [or, punishment (cf. BDB, fP*v=m!, 1f, p. 1048) = ‘execution of judgment’] touches the heavens, and is lifted up as far as the clouds.” The figure of hyperbole or exaggeration is being used here to indicate the vastsness of Babylon’s punishment which is the reason to escape (vv. 6, 9c). For this figure see Deut 1:28 in comparison with Num 13:28 and see also Deut 9:1. In both of the passages in Deut it refers to an exaggeration about the height of the walls of fortified cities. The figure also may be a play on Gen 11:4 where the nations gather in Babylon to build a tower that reaches to the skies. We have interpreted the perfects here as prophetic because it has not happened yet or they wouldn’t be encouraging one another to leave and escape. For the idea here compare 50:16.
²⁶tn The words “The exiles from Judah will say” are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are added to clearly identify for the reader the referent of “us.”
²⁷tn There is some difference of opinion as to the best way to render the Hebrew expression here. Literally it means “brought forth our righteousnesses.” BDB, hq*d*x=, 7b, p. 842 interpret this of the “righteous acts” of the people of Judah and compare the usage in Isa 64:6; Ezek 3:20; 18:24; 33:13. However, Judah’s acts of righteousness or righteousness was scarcely revealed in their deliverance. Most of the translations and commentaries refer to “vindication” i.e., that the LORD has exonerated or proven Israel’s claims to be true. However, that would require more explanation than the idea of “deliverance” which is a perfectly legitimate usage of the term (cf. BDB, hq*d*x=, 6a, p. 842 and compare the usage in Isa 46:13; 51:6, 8; 56:1). We interpret the plural form here as a plural of intensity or amplification (GKC §124e, pp. 397-98) and the suffix as a genitive of advantage (Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §9.5.2e, p. 147). This interpretation is also reflected in REB and God’s Word.
²⁸sn The imperatives here and in v. 12 are directed to the soldiers in the armies of the kings from the north (here identified as the kings of Media [see also 50:3, 9; 51:27-28]). They have often been addressed in this prophecy as though they were a present force (see 50:14-16; 50:21 [and the study note there]; 50:26, 29; 51:3) though the passage as a whole is prophetic of the future. This gives some idea of the ideal stance that the prophets adopted when they spoke of the future as though already past (the use of the Hebrew prophetic perfect which has been referred to often in the translator’s notes).
²⁹tn The meaning of this word is debated. The most thorough discussion of this word including etymology and usage in the OT and Qumran is in KB3, fl#v#, pp. 1409-10 where the rendering “quiver” is accepted for all the uses of this word in the OT. For a more readily accessible discussion for English readers see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:422-23. The meaning “quiver” fits better with the verb “fill” than the meaning “shield” which is adopted in BDB, fl#v#, p. 1020. “Quiver” is the meaning adopted also in NRSV, REB, NAB and NJPS Tanakh.
³⁰tn Heb “The LORD has stirred up the spirit of…” The verb is rendered here as a prophetic perfect. The rendering “arouse a spirit of hostility” is an attempt to render some meaning to the phrase and not simply ignore the word “spirit” as many of the modern translations do. For a fuller discussion including cross references see the translator’s note on v. 1.
³¹sn Media was a country in what is now northwestern Iran. At the time this prophecy was probably written they were the dominating force in the northern region, the most likely enemy to Babylon. By the time Babylon fell in 538 BC the Medes had been conquered and incorporated in the Persian empire by Cyrus. However, several times in the Bible this entity is known under the combined entity of Media and Persia (Esth 1:3, 4, 18, 19; 10:2; Dan 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 8:20). Dan 5:31 credits the capture of Babylon to Darius the Mede which may have been another name for Cyrus or the name by which Daniel refers to a Median general named Gobryas.
³²tn Heb “For it is the vengeance of the LORD, vengeance for his temple.” As in the parallel passage in 50:28 we have expanded the genitival construction to clarify for the average English speaker what the commentaries in general agree is involved.
sn Verse 11c-f appears to be a parenthetical or editorial comment by Jeremiah to give some background for the attack which is summoned in vv. 11-12.
³³tn Heb “Raise a banner against the walls of Babylon.”
³⁴tn Heb “Strengthen the watch.”
³⁵tn Heb “Station the guards.”
³⁶tn Heb “Prepare ambushes.”
sn The commands are here addressed to the kings of the Medes to fully blockade the city by posting watchmen and setting men in ambush to prevent people from escaping from the city (cf. 2 Kgs 25:4).
³⁷tn Heb “For the LORD has both planned and done what he said concerning the people living in Babylon,” i.e., “he has carried out what he planned.” Here is an obvious case where the perfects are to be interpreted as prophetic; the commands imply that the attack is still future.
³⁸sn Babylon was situated on the Euphrates River and was surrounded by canals.
³⁹tn Heb “You who live upon [or, beside] many waters, rich in treasures, your end has come, the cubit of your cutting off.” The sentence has been restructured and paraphrased to provide clarity for the average reader. The meaning of the last phrase is debated. For a discussion of the two options see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:423. Most modern commentaries and translations see an allusion to the figure in Isa 38:12 where the reference is to the end of life compared to a tapestry which is suddenly cut off from the loom. Hence, NRSV renders the last line as “the thread of your life is cut” and TEV renders “its thread of life is cut.” That idea is accepted also in KB3, uxb, Qal 1, p. 141.
sn The phrase “it is time for your lives to be cut off” is based on a metaphor of life as a tapestry whose end is compared to the tapestry being cut off from the loom. This metaphor is also employed in Isa 38:12.
⁴⁰tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of this rendering see the study note on 2:19.
⁴¹tn Heb “has sworn by himself.” See the study note on 22:5 for background.
⁴²tn Heb “I will fill you with men like locusts.” The “you” refers to Babylon (Babylon is both the city and the land it ruled, Babylonia) which has been alluded to in the preceding verses under descriptive titles. The words “your land” have been used because of the way the preceding verse has been rendered, alluding to people rather than to the land or city. The allusion of “men” is, of course to enemy soldiers and they are here compared to locusts both for their quantity and their destructiveness (see Joel 1:4). For the use of the particles <a! yK! to introduce an oath see BDB, <a! yK!, 2c, p. 475 and compare usage in 2 Kgs 5:20; one would normally expect aO <a! (cf. BDB, <a!, 1.b[2], p. 50).
⁴³tn The participle here is intended to be connected with “LORD who rules over all” in the preceding verse. The passage is functioning to underline the LORD’s power to carry out what he has sworn in contrast to the impotence of their idols who will be put to shame and be dismayed (50:2).
⁴⁴tn Heb “For he is the former of all [things] and the tribe of his inheritance.” This is the major exception to the verbatim repetition of 10:12-16 in 51:15-19. The word “Israel” appears before “the tribe of his inheritance” in 10:16. It is also found in a number of Hebrew manuscripts, in the Lucianic recension of the LXX (the Greek version), the Aramaic Targums, and the Latin Vulgate. All of the translations and the commentaries consulted assume it here. However, it is easier to explain why the word is added in a few of the versions and some Hebrew than to explain why it was left out. It is probable that the word is not original here because the addressees are different and the function of this hymnic piece is slightly different (see the study note on the next line for details). Here it makes good sense to understand that the LORD is being called the creator of the special tribe of people he claims as his own property (see the study note on the first line of 10:16).
⁴⁵sn With the major exception discussed in the translator’s note on the preceding line vv. 15-19 are a verbatim repetition of 10:12-16 with a few minor variations in spelling. There the passage was at the end of a section in which the LORD was addressing the Judeans and trying to convince them that the worship of idols was vain, the idols were impotent but he is all powerful. Here the passage follows a solemn oath by the LORD who rules over all and is apparently directed to the Babylonians, emphasizing the power of the LORD to carry out his oath.
⁴⁶tn Or “Media.” The referent is not identified in the text; the text merely says “you are my war club.” Commentators in general identify the referent as Babylon because Babylon has been referred to as a hammer in 50:23 and Babylon is referred to in v. 25 as a “destroying mountain” (compare v. 20d). However, S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, p. 317, fn c maintains that v. 24 speaks against this. It does seem a little inconsistent to render the waw consecutive perfect at the beginning of v. 24 as future while rendering those in vv. 20b-23 as customary past. However, change in person from second masculine singular (vv. 20b-23) to the second masculine plural in “before your very eyes” and its position at the end of the verse after “which they did in Zion” argue that a change in address occurs there. Driver has to ignore the change in person and take “before your eyes” with the verb “repay” at the beginning to maintain the kind of consistency he seeks. The waw consecutive imperfect can be used for either the customary past (GKC §112dd, p. 335 with cross reference back to §112e, pp. 331-32) or the future (GKC §112x, p. 334). Hence we have followed the majority of commentaries (and translations like TEV, NCV, CEV, NIrV) in understanding the referent as Babylon and v. 24 being a transition to vv. 25-26 (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, pp. 356-57 and J. Thompson, Jeremiah, pp. 756-57). If the referent is understood as Media then the verbs in vv. 20-23 should all be translated as futures. See also the translator’s note on v. 24.
⁴⁷tn This Hebrew word (JP@m^) only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible, but its meaning is assured from the use of the verbs that follow which are from the same root (Jp^n`) and there is a cognate noun JP*m^ that occurs in Ezek 9:2 in the sense of weapon of “smashing.”
⁴⁸tn Heb “I smash nations with you.” This same structure is repeated throughout the series in vv. 20c-23.
⁴⁹tn Heb “horse and its rider.” However, the terms are meant as generic or collective singulars (cf. GKC §123b, p. 395) and are thus translated by the plural. The same thing is true of all the terms in vv. 21-23b. The terms in vv. 20c-d, 23c are plural.
⁵⁰tn These two words are Akkadian loan words into Hebrew which often occur in this pairing (cf. Ezek 23:6, 12, 23; Jer 51:23, 28, 57). BDB, /g`s*, p. 688 gives “prefect, ruler” as the basic definition for the second term but neither works too well in a modern translation because “prefect” would be unknown to most and “ruler” would suggest someone along the lines of a king which these officials were not. We have chosen “leaders” by default, feeling there is no other term that would be any more appropriate in light of the defects we see in “prefect” and “ruler.”
⁵¹tn Or “Media, you are my war club…I will use you to smash…leaders. So before your very eyes I will repay…for all the wicked things they did in Zion.” For explanation see the translator’s note on v. 20. The position of the phrase “before your eyes” at the end of the verse after “which they did in Zion” and the change in person from second masculine singular in vv. 20b-23 (“I used you to smite”) to second masculine plural in “before your eyes” argue that a change in referent/addressee occurs in this verse. To maintain that the referent in vv. 20-23 is Media/Cyrus requires that this position and change in person be ignored; “before your eyes” then is attached to “I will repay.” We follow J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 757 and F. B. Huey, Jeremiah-Lamentations, p. 423 in seeing the referent as the Judeans who had witnessed the destruction of Zion/Jerusalem. We have supplied the words “Judean” for the sake of identifying the referent for the average reader.
⁵²tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵³tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵⁴tn The word “Babylon” is not in the text but is universally understood as the referent. It is added here to clarify the referent for the sake of the average reader.
⁵⁵tn Heb “I will reach out my hand against you.” See the translator’s note on 6:12 for explanation.
⁵⁶tn Heb “I am against you, oh destroying mountain that destroys all the earth. I will reach out my hand against you and roll you down from the cliffs and make you a mountain of burning.” The interpretation adopted here follows the lines suggested by S. R. Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, p. 318, fn c and reflected also in BDB, hp*r}c=, p. 977. Babylon is addressed as a destructive mountain because it is being compared to a volcano. The LORD, however, will make it a “burned-out mountain,” i.e., an extinct volcano which is barren and desolate. This interpretation seems to this translator to fit the details of the text more consistently than alternative ones which separate the concept of “destroying/destructive” from “mountain” and explain the figure of the mountain to refer to the dominating political position of Babylon and the reference to a “mountain of burning” to be a “burned [or, burned over] mountain.” The use of similes in place of metaphors makes it easier for the modern reader to understand the figures and also more easily incorporates the dissonant figure of “rolling you down from the cliffs” which involves the figure of personification.
sn The figure here involves comparing Babylon to a destructive volcano which the LORD makes burned-out, i.e., he will destroy her power to destroy. The figure of personification is also involved because the LORD is said to roll her off the cliffs; that would not be applicable to a mountain.
⁵⁷tn This is a fairly literal translation of the original which reads “No one will take from you a stone for a cornerstone nor a stone for foundations.” There is no unanimity of opinion in the commentaries, many feeling that the figure of the burned mountain continues and others feeling that the figure here shifts to a burned city whose stones are so burned that they are useless to be used in building. The latter is the interpretation adopted here (see, e.g., F. B. Huey, Jeremiah-Lamentations, p. 423, W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:426 and the translation in NCV).
sn The figure here shifts to that of a burned up city whose stones cannot be used for building. Babylon will become a permanent heap of ruins.
⁵⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁵⁹tn Heb “Raise up a standard on the earth. Blow a ram’s horn among the nations. Consecrate nations against her.” According to BDB, sn}, 1, p. 651, the raising of a standard was a signal of a war, a summons to assemble and attack (see usage in Isa 5:26; 13:2; Jer 51:12). The “blowing of the ram’s horn” was also a signal to rally behind a leader and join in an attack (see Judg 3:27; 6:34). For the meaning of “consecrate nations against her” see the study note on 6:4. The usage of this phrase goes back to the concept of holy war where soldiers had to be consecrated for battle by the offering of a sacrifice. The phrase has probably lost its ritual usage in later times and become idiomatic for making necessary preparations for war.
⁶⁰sn These are three kingdoms who were located in the Lake Van, Lake Urmia region which are now parts of eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. They were kingdoms which had been conquered and made vassal states by the Medes in the early sixth century. The Medes were the dominant country in this region from around 590 BC until they were conquered and incorporated into the Persian empire by Cyrus in 550 BC.
⁶¹tn The translation of this line is uncertain because it includes a word which only occurs here and in Nah 3:17 where it is found in parallelism with a word that is only used once and whose meaning in turn is uncertain. It is probably related to the Akkadian word tupsharru which refers to a scribe (Heb “a tablet writer”). The exact function of this official is disputed. KB2, rs*p=f!, p. 356 relates it to a recruiting officer, a sense which is reflected in NAB. The majority of modern translations render “commander” or “marshal” following the suggestion of BDB, rs*p=f!, p. 381. Keown, Scalise, Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, p. 351 translate “recruiter(scribe)” but explain the function on p. 371 as that of recording the booty captured in war. The rendering here follows that of TEV and God’s Word and is the nuance suggested by the majority of modern translations who rendered “appoint a marshal/commander against it.”
⁶²sn This is probably a poetic or shorthand way of referring to the cavalry and chariotry where horse is put for “rider” and “driver.”
⁶³tn Heb “Bring up horses like bristly locusts.” The meaning of the Hebrew word “bristly” (rm*s*) is uncertain because the word only occurs here. It is generally related to a verb meaning “to bristle” which occurs in Job 4:15 and Ps 119:20. Exactly what is meant by “bristly” in connection with “locust” is uncertain though most relate it to a stage of the locust in which its wings are still incased in a rough, horny casing. J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 759 adds that this is when the locust is very destructive. However, no other commentary picks up on that. Hence we have chosen to ignore the word in the translation because it is of uncertain meaning and significance. For a fuller discussion of the way the word has been rendered see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:427.
⁶⁴tn See the first translator’s note on 51:27 and compare also 6:4 and the study note there.
⁶⁵tn See the translator’s note at 51:23 for the rendering of the terms here.
⁶⁶tc The Hebrew text has a confusing switch of possessive pronouns in this verse: “Consecrate the nations against her, the kings of the Medes, her governors and prefects, and all the land of his dominion.” This has led to a number of different resolutions. The LXX (the Greek version) renders the word “kings” as singular and levels all the pronouns to “his” paraphrasing the final clause and combining it with “king of the Medes” to read “and of all the earth.” The Latin Vulgate and many modern translations level them all to the third masculine plural as we and a number of modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NCV) have done. The ASV and NJPS Tanakh understand the feminine to refer to Media, i.e., “her governors and all her prefects” and understand the masculine in the last line to be a distributive singular referring back to the lands each of the governors and prefects ruled over. This is probably correct but since governors and prefects refer to officials appointed over provinces and vassal states it amounts to much the same interpretation that we, the Latin Vulgate, and other modern translations have given.
⁶⁷sn The figure here is common in the poetic tradition of the LORD going forth to do battle against his foes and the earth’s reaction to it is compared to a person trembling with fear and writhing in agony, agony like that of a woman in labor (cf. Judg 5:4; Nah 1:2-5; Hab 3:1-15 (especially v. 6)).
⁶⁸tn Heb “For the plans of the LORD have been carried out to make the land of Babylon…” The passive has been turned into an active and the sentence broken up to better conform with contemporary English style. For the meaing of the verb <Wq in the sense used here see BDB, <Wq, 7g, p. 878 and compare the usage in Prov 19:21 and Isa 46:10.
⁶⁹tn The verbs in this verse and v. 30 are all in the past tense in Hebrew, in the tense that views the action as already as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The verb in v. 31a, however, is imperfect, viewing the action as future; the perfects that follow are all dependent on that future. Verse 33 looks forward to a time when Babylon will be harvested and trampled like grain on the threshing floor and the imperatives imply a time in the future. Hence we have rendered all the verbs in vv. 29-30 as future.
⁷⁰tn Heb “Their strength is dry.” This is a figurative nuance of the word “dry” which BDB, tv^n`, Qal 1, p. 677 explain as meaning “fails.” The idea of “strength to do battle” is implicit from the context and is added here for clarity.
⁷¹tn Heb “They have become women.” The metaphor has been turned into a simile and the significance of the comparison drawn out for the sake of clarity. See 50:37 for the same figure.
⁷²tn Heb “Her dwelling places have been set on fire. Her bars [i.e., the bars on the gates of her cities] have been broken.” We have substituted the word “gates” for “bars” because the intent of the figure is to show that the bars of the gates have been broken giving access to the city. “Gates” makes it easier for the average reader to understand the figure.
⁷³tn Heb “Runner will run to meet runner and…” The intent is to portray a relay of runners carrying the news that follows on in vv. 31d-33 to the king of Babylon. We have tried to spell out the significance in the translation.
⁷⁴tn Heb “Runner will run to meet runner and messenger to meet messenger to report to the king of Babylon that his city has been taken in [its] entirety.” There is general agreement among the commentaries consulted that the first two lines refer to messengers converging on the king of Babylon from every direction bringing news the sum total of which is reported in the lines that follow. For the meaning of the last phrase see BDB, hx#q*, 3, p. 892 and compare the usage in Gen 19:4 and Isa 56:11. The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
⁷⁵tn The words “They will report that” have been added to show the linkage between this verse and the previous one. This is still a part of the report of the messengers. The meaning of the word translated “reed marshes” has seemed inappropriate to some commentators because it elsewhere refers to “pools.” However, all the commentaries consulted agree that the word here refers to the reedy marshes that surrounded Babylon. (For a fuller discussion regarding the meaning of this word and attempts to connect it with a word meaning “fortress” see W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:427.)
sn Babylon was a city covering over a thousand acres. The city itself was surrounded by two walls, the inner one 21 feet thick and the outer 11 feet thick. To provide further security walls were built to the south and east of the city and irrigation ditches and canals north and east of the city were flooded to prevent direct access to the city. The reference to “fords” here is to the river crossings of the Euphrates River which ran right through the city and the crossings at the ditches and canals. The reference to the “reed marshes” refers to the low lying areas around the city where reeds grew. The burning of the reed marshes would deprive any fugitives of places to hide and flush out any who had already escaped.
⁷⁶sn Heb “Daughter Babylon.” See the study note at 50:42 for explanation.
⁷⁷tn Heb “Daughter Babylon will be [or, is; there is no verb and the tense has to be supplied from the context] like a threshing floor at the time one tramples it. Yet a little while and the time of the harvest will come for her.” It is generally agreed that there are two figures here: one of leveling the threshing floor and stamping it into a smooth, hard surface and the other of the harvest where the grain is cut, taken to the threshing floor and threshed by trampling the sheaves of grain to loosen the grain from the straw, and finally winnowed by throwing the mixture into the air (cf., e.g., J Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 760). The translation has sought to convey those ideas as clearly as possible without digressing too far from the literal.
sn There are two figures involved here: one of the threshing floor being leveled and stamped down hard and smooth and the other of the harvest. At harvest time the stalks of grain were cut down, gathered in sheaves, taken to the harvest floor where the grain was loosened from the husk by driving oxen and threshing sleds over them. The grain was then separated from the mixture of grain, straw and husks by repeatedly throwing it in the air and letting the wind blow away the lighter husks and ground-up straw. The figure of harvest is often used of judgment in the OT. See, e.g., Joel 3:13 (4:13 Hebrew text) and Hos 6:11 and compare also Mic 4:12-13 and Jer 51:2 where different steps in this process are also used figuratively in connection with judgment. Babylon will be leveled to the ground and its people cut down in judgment.
⁷⁸tn This verse is extremely difficult to translate because of the shifting imagery, the confusion over the meaning of one of the verbs, and the apparent inconsistency of the prominal suffixes here with those in the following verse which everyone agrees is connected with it. The pronominal suffixes are first common plural but the versions all read them as first common singular which the Masoretes also do in the Qere. We have followed that reading here for consistency with the next verse which identifies the speaker as the person living in Zion and the personified city of Jerusalem. The Hebrew text reads: “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon devoured me [cf. 50:7,17] and threw me into confusion. He set me down an empty dish. He swallowed me like a monster from the deep [cf. BDB, /yN]T^, 3, p. 1072 and compare usage in Isa 27:1; Ezek 29:3; 32:2]. He filled his belly with my dainties. He rinsed me out [cf. BDB, jWD, Hiph 2 and compare the usage in Isa 4:4].” The verb “throw into confusion” has proved troublesome because its normal meaning does not seem appropriate. Hence various proposals have been made to understand it in a different sense. We have followed W. Holladay, Jeremiah, 2:428 in understanding the verb to mean “disperse” or “route” (see NAB). The last line has seemed out of place and has often been emended to read “he has spewed me out” (so NIV, NRSV, a reading that presupposes yn]j*yD!h! for yn]j*yd!h^). The reading of the Masoretic text is not inappropriate if it is combined with the imagery of an empty jar and hence is retained here (see F. B. Huey, Jeremiah-Lamentations, p. 425, fn 59, H. Freedman, Jeremiah, p. 344 and NJPS Tanakh). The lines have been combined to keep the imagery together.
sn The speaker in this verse and the next is the personified city of Jersusalem. She laments her fate at the hands of the king of Babylon and calls down a curse on Babylon and the people who live in Babylonia. Here Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as a monster of the deep who has devoured Jerusalem, swallowed her down, and filled its belly with his riches leaving her an empty dish, which has been rinsed clean.
⁷⁹tn Heb “‘The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon,’ says the one living in Zion. ‘My blood be upon those living in Chaldea,’ says Jerusalem.” For the usage of the genitive here in the phrase “violence done to me and my relatives” see GKC §128a, p. 414 (a construct governing two objects) and Waltke, O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §16.4d, p. 303 (an objective genitive). For the nuance of “pay” in the sense of retribution see BDB, lu^, 7a(b), p. 756 and compare the usage in Judg 9:24. For the use of ra@v= in the sense of “relatives” see BDB, ra@v=, 2, p. 985 and compare NJPS Tanakh. For the use of “blood” in this idiom see BDB, <D*, 2k, p. 197 and compare the usage in 2 Sam 4:11; Ezek 3:18, 20. The lines have been reversed for better English style.
⁸⁰tn Heb “I will avenge your vengeance [= I will take vengeance for you; the phrase involves a verb and a cognate accusative].” The meaning of the phrase has been spelled out in more readily understandable terms.
⁸¹tn Heb “I will dry up her [Babylon’s] sea and make her fountain dry.” “Their” has been substituted for “her” because “Babylonians” has been inserted in the previous clause and is easier to understand than the personification of Babylon = “her.”
sn The reference to “sea” is not clear. Most interpreters understand it to be a figurative reference to the rivers and canals surrounding Babylon. But some feel it refers to the reservoir that the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, Queen Nictoris, had made.
⁸²tn Heb “a heap of ruins, a haunt for jackals.” Compare 9:11.
⁸³tn Heb “without an inhabitant.”
⁸⁴tn Heb “They [the Babylonians] all roar like lions. They growl like the cubs of lions.” For the usage of wd*j=y^ meaning “all” see Isa 10:8; 18:6; 41:20. The translation strives to convey in clear terms what is the generally accepted meaning of the simile (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah, p. 358 and J. Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 762).
⁸⁵tn Heb “When they are hot”
⁸⁶tc The translation follows the suggestion of KB2_, zl^u*, p. 707 and a number of modern commentaries (e.g., Bright, Thompson, and Holladay) in reading WpL=u%y+ for WzOu&y^ in the sense of “swoon away” or “grow faint” (see KB2_, [l^u*, Pual, p. 710). That appears to be the verb that the LXX (the Greek version) was reading when they translated karwqwsi which means “they will be stupified.” For parallel usage KB2 cites Isa 51:20. This fits the context much better than “they will exult” in the Hebrew text.
⁸⁷sn The central figure here is the figure of the cup of the LORD’s wrath (cf. 25:15-29, especially v. 26). Here the Babylonians have been made to drink so deeply of it that they fall into a drunken sleep from which they will never wake up (i.e., they die, death being compared to sleep [cf. Ps 13:3 (13:4 Hebrew text); 76:5 (76:6 Hebrew text); 90:5]). Compare the usage in Jer 51:57 for this same figure.
⁸⁸tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
⁸⁹tn Heb “I will bring them down like lambs to be slaughtered, like rams and he goats.”
sn This statement is highly ironic in light of the fact that the Babylonians were compared to lions and lion cubs (v. 38). Here they are like lambs, rams, and male goats which are to be lead off to be slaughtered.
⁹⁰sn Heb “Sheshach.” For an explanation of the usage of this name for Babylon see the study note on 25:26 and that on 51:1 for a similar phenomenon. Babylon is here called “the pride of the whole earth” because it was renowned for its size, its fortifications, and its beautiful buildings.
⁹¹tn Heb “How Sheshach has been captured, the pride of the whole earth has been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations!” For the usage of “How” here see the translator’s note on 50:23.
sn This is part of a taunt song (see Isa 14:4) and assumes prophetically that the city has already been captured. The verbs in vv. 41-43a are all in the Hebrew tense that the prophets often use to look at the future as “a done deal” (the so-called prophetic perfect). In v. 44 which is still a part of this picture the verbs are in the future. The Hebrew tense has been retained here and in vv. 42-43 but it should be remembered that the standpoint is prophetic and future.
⁹²tn For the meaning “multitude” here rather than “tumult” see BDB, /omh*, 3c, p. 242 where reference is made that this refers to a great throng of people under the figure of an overwhelming mass of waves. The word is used of a multitude of soldiers, or a vast army in 1 Sam 14:16; 1 Kgs 20:13, 18 (cf. BDB, /omh*, 3a, p. 242 for further references).
⁹³tn Heb “The sea has risen up over Babylon. She has been covered by the multitude of its waves.” For the meaning of this figure see the study note.
sn This is a poetic and figurative reference to the enemies of Babylon, the foe from the north (see 50:3, 9, 51:27-28), which has attacked Babylon in wave after wave. This same figure is used in Isa 17:12. In Isa 8:7-8 the king of Assyria (and his troops) are compared to the Euphrates which rises up and floods over the whole land of Israel and Judah. This same figure, but with application to Babylon, is assumed in Jer 47:2-3. In Jer 46:7-8 the same figure is employed in a taunt of Egypt which had boasted that it would cover the earth like the flooding of the Nile.
⁹⁴tn Heb “Its towns have become a desolation, [it has become] a dry land and a desert, a land which no man passes through them [referring to “her towns”] and no son of man [= human being] passes through them.” We follow here the suggestion of BHS and a number of the modern commentaries in deleting the second occurrence of the word “land” in which case the words that follow are not a relative clause but independent statements. A number of modern translations appear to ignore the third feminine plural suffixes which refer back to the cities and refer the statements that follow to the land.
⁹⁵tn Heb “And I will punish Bel in Babylon…And the nations will not come streaming to him anymore. Yea, the walls of Babylon have fallen.” The verbs in the first two lines are waw consecutive perfects and the verb in the third line is an imperfect all looking at the future. That indicates that the perfect that follows and the perfects that precede are all prophetic perfects. The translation adopted seemed to be the best way to make the transition from the pasts which were adopted in conjunction with the taunting use of Eya@ in v. 41 to the futures in v. 44. For the usage of <G^ to indicate a climax, “yea” or “indeed” see BDB, <G^, 3, p. 169. It seemed to be impossible to render the meaning of v. 44 in any comprehensible way, even in a paraphrase, so the explanation has been reserved for the study note.
sn In the ancient Near East the victory of a nation over another nation was attributed to its gods. The reference is a poetic way of referring to the fact that God will be victorious over Babylon and its chief god, Bel/Marduk (see the study note on 50:2 for explanation). The reference to the disgorging of what Bel had swallowed is to captured people and plundered booty that had been taken to Babylon under the auspices of the victory of Bel over the foreign god (cf. Dan 5:2-4). The plundered treasures and captive people will be set free and nations will no longer have to pay homage to him because Babylon will be destroyed.
⁹⁶tn Heb “Go out from her [Babylon’s] midst, my people. Save each man his life from the fierce anger of the LORD.” The verb has been paraphrased to prevent gender specific terms.
sn Compare 50:8-10; 51:6 where the significance of saving oneself from the fierce anger of the LORD is clarified.
⁹⁷tn Heb “That being so, look, days are approaching.” /k@l* often introduces the effect of an action. That may be the case here, the turmoil outlined in v. 46 serving as the catalyst for the culminating divine judgment described in v. 47. Another possibility is that /k@l* here has an asseverative force (“certainly”), as in Isa 26:14 and perhaps Jer 5:2 (see the note there). In this case the word almost has the force of “for, since,” because it presents a cause for an accompanying effect. See Judg 8:7 and the discussion of Isa 26:14 in BDB, 487.
⁹⁸tn Or “all her slain will fall in her midst.” In other words, her people will be overtaken by judgment and be unable to escape. The dead will lie in heaps in the very heart of the city and land.
⁹⁹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹⁰⁰tn The infinitive construct is used here to indicate what is about to take place. See Waltke-O’Connor, Hebrew Syntax, p. 610.
¹⁰¹tn Heb “the slain of Israel.” The words “because of” are added for clarification. The preceding context makes it clear that Babylon would be judged for its atrocities against Israel (see especially 50:33-34; 51:10, 24, 35).
¹⁰²tn The juxtaposition of <g^…<g^, often “both…and,” here indicates correspondence. See BDB, 169, 4. Appropriately Babylon will fall slain just as her victims, including God’s covenant people, did.
¹⁰³sn God’s exiled people are told to leave doomed Babylon (see v. 45).
¹⁰⁴tn Heb “don’t stand.”
¹⁰⁵tn Heb “let Jerusalem go up upon your heart.” The “heart” is often viewed as the seat of one’s mental faculties and thought life.
¹⁰⁶sn The exiles lament the way they have been humiliated.
¹⁰⁷tn Heb “we have heard an insult.”
¹⁰⁸tn Heb “disgrace covers our face.”
¹⁰⁹tn Or “holy places, sanctuaries.”
¹¹⁰tn Heb “that being so, look, days are approaching.” Here /k@l* introduces the Lord’s response to the people’s lament (v51). It has the force of “yes, but” or “that may be true.” See Judg 11:8 and BDB, 487.
¹¹¹tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹¹²tn Or “ascends (into) heaven.” Note the use of the phrase in Deut 30:12; 2 Kgs 2:11; and Amos 9:2.
¹¹³tn Heb “and even if she fortifies her strong elevated place.”
¹¹⁴tn Heb “from me destroyers will go against her.”
¹¹⁵tn Heb “Oracle of the LORD.”
¹¹⁶tn The antecedent of the third masculine plural pronominal suffix is not entirely clear. It probably refers back to the “destroyers” mentioned in v. 53 as the agents of God’s judgment on Babylon.
¹¹⁷tn Or “mighty waters.”
¹¹⁸tn Heb “and the noise of their sound will be given,”
¹¹⁹tn Heb “for a destroyer is coming against her, against Babylon.”
¹²⁰tn The piel form (which would be intransitive here, see GKC, p. 142, para 52k) should probably be emended to qal.
¹²¹tn Or “God of retribution.”
¹²²tn The infinitive absolute emphasizes the following finite verb. Another option is to translate, “he certainly pays one back.” The translation assumes that the imperfect verbal form here describes the LORD’s characteristic actions. Another option is to take it as referring specifically to his judgment on Babylon, in which case one should translate, “he will pay (Babylon) back in full.”
¹²³sn For discussion of the terms “governors” and “leaders” see the note at 51:23.
¹²⁴sn See the note at 51:39.
¹²⁵tn For the title “God of armies” see the study note on 2:19.
¹sn This final chapter does not mention Jeremiah, but its description of the downfall of Jerusalem and exile of the people validates the prophet’s ministry.
²tn Some textual witnesses support the Kethib (consonantal text) in reading Hamital.
³tn Heb “what was evil in the eyes of the LORD.”
⁴tn Heb “Surely (or “for”) because of the anger of the LORD this happened in Jerusalem and Judah until he drove them out from upon his face.” For the phrase “drive out of his sight,” see 7:15.
⁵tn Or “against.”
⁶sn This would have been Jan 15, 588 BC. The reckoning is based on the calendar that begins the year in the spring (Nisan = March/April).
⁷sn According to modern reckoning that would have been July 18, 586 BC. The siege thus lasted almost a full eighteen months.
⁸tn Heb “the people of the land.”
⁹sn The king’s garden is mentioned again in Neh 3:15 in conjunction with the pool of Siloam and the stairs that go down from the city of David. This would have been in the southern part of the city near the Tyropean Valley which agrees with the reference to the “two walls” which were probably the walls on the eastern and western hills.
¹⁰sn Heb “toward the Arabah.” The Arabah was the rift valley north and south of the Dead Sea. Here the intention was undoubtedly to escape across the Jordan to Moab or Ammon. It appears from 40:14; 41:15 that the Ammonites were known to harbor fugitives from the Babylonians.
¹¹sn Riblah was a strategic town on the Orontes River in Syria. It was at a crossing of the major roads between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Pharaoh Necho had earlier received Jehoahaz there and put him in chains (2 Kgs 23:33) prior to taking him captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar had set up his base camp for conducting his campaigns against the Palestinian states there and was now sitting in judgment on prisoners brought to him.
¹²tn Heb “fetters of bronze.” The more generic “chains” is used in the translation because “fetters” is a word unfamiliar to most modern readers.
¹³tn The parallel account in 2 Kgs 25:8 has “seventh.”
¹⁴sn The tenth day of the month would have been August 17, 586 BC in modern reckoning.
¹⁵tn For the meaning of this phrase see BDB, jB*f^, 2, p. 371 and compare the usage in Gen 39:1.
¹⁶tn Heb “stood before.”
¹⁷tn Heb “poor of the people.”
¹⁸tn Heb “Nebuzaradan, the captain of the royal guard.” However, the subject is clear from the preceding and modern English style would normally avoid repeating the proper name and title.
¹⁹tn Heb “poor of the land.”
²⁰sn For discussion of the items listed here, see the study notes at 27:19.
²¹sn These shovels were used to clean the altar.
²²sn These were used to trim the wicks.
²³tn Heb “with which they served (or, “fulfilled their duty”).”
²⁴sn These held the embers used for the incense offerings.
²⁵sn These vessels were used for drink offerings.
²⁶tc The translation follows the LXX (Greek version), which reflects the description in 1 Kgs 7:25-26. The Hebrew text reads, “the twelve bronze bulls under the movable stands.” <Y`h^, “The Sea,” has been accidentally omitted by homoioarchton; note that the following form, tonkoM=h^, “the movable stands,” also begins with the article.
²⁷tn Heb “eighteen cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.
²⁸tn Heb “twelve cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.
²⁹tn Heb “five cubits.” A “cubit” was a unit of measure, approximately equivalent to a foot and a half.
³⁰sn See the note at 35:4.
³¹tn Heb “men, from the people of the land.”
³²tn Heb “men, from the people of the land.”
³³tn Heb “struck them down and killed them.”
³⁴tn Heb “these are the people.”
³⁵sn This would be 597 BC.
³⁶sn This would be 586 BC.
³⁷sn This would be 581 BC.
³⁸sn The parallel account in 2 Kgs 25:28 has “twenty-seventh.”
³⁹sn The twenty-fifth day would be March 20, 561 BC in modern reckoning.
⁴⁰tn Heb “lifted up the head of.”
⁴¹tn Heb “made his throne above the throne of
⁴²tn The subject is unstated in the Hebrew text, but Jehoiachin is clearly the subject of the following verb.