translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: JER

label: NET study note

text: Jer 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 .)


text: According to Jer 39:1 the siege began in Zedekiah’s ninth year (i.e., in 589/88 b.c. ). 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 b.c. ( 38:28 ). map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


text: 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 ).


text: 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, did not 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.


text: 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.


text: Compare Jer 19:13 .


text: Compare Jer 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 Manasseh 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 ).


text: Compare Jer 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 ]).


text: 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 .