The form of Jer 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 ).


See 6:16-20 for parallels.


It is difficult to be sure what intertextual connections are intended by the author in his use of vocabulary. The Hebrew word translated “grown tired” is not very common. It has been used twice before. In 9:5-6 b 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 ).


She has lost her position of honor and the source of her pride. For the concepts here see 1 Sam 2:5 .


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.


See 1:18 . The Lord renews his promise of protection and reiterates his call to Jeremiah.


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 ).


For the argumentation here compare Jer 7:23-26 .


Sacred poles dedicated to…Asherah . A leading deity of the Canaanite pantheon was Asherah, wife/sister of El and goddess of fertility. She was commonly worshiped at shrines in or near groves of evergreen trees, or, failing that, at places marked by wooden poles (Hebrew אֲשֵׁרִים [’ asherim ], plural). They were to be burned or cut down ( Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21 ; Judg 6:25, 28, 30 ; 2 Kgs 18:4 ).


Verses 5-11 are a collection of wisdom-like sayings (cf. ) which set forth the theme of the two ways and their consequences. It has as its background the blessings and the curses of 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.


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).


The identity and location of the People’s 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 (cf. NAB), but there is no textual support for this in the Hebrew Bible or in any of the ancient versions.


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.


At his wheel ( Heb “at the two stones”). The Hebrew expression 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 I. Ben-Dor, “Potter’s Wheel,” IDB 3:846. See also the discussion regarding the making of pottery in J. L. Kelso, “Pottery,” IDB 3:846-53.


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 .


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 ).


Heb “I am forming disaster and making plans against you.” The word translated “forming” is the same as that for “potter,” so there is a wordplay taking the reader 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.


Heb “the ancient path.” This has already been referred to in Jer 6:16 . There is another “old way” but it is the path trod by the wicked (cf. Job 22:15 ).


Heb “ways that are not built up.” This refers 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.


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 wrongdoings 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 HT); 69:28 ( 69:29 HT).


The exact location of the Potsherd 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 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.


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 ).


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 worshiping foreign gods. Israel through its false worship has “denationalized” itself in its relation to God.


There is perhaps a two-fold wordplay in the use of this word. One involves the sound play with the word for “jar,” which has been explained as a water decanter. The word here is בַקֹּתִי ( vaqqoti ). The word for jar in v. 1 is בַקְבֻּק ( vaqbuq ). 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.


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 .


See 18:16 and the study note there.


See Jer 7:22-23 for parallels.


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.


As a member of the priesthood and the protector of order in the temple, Pashhur 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 b.c. (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 .


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 HT]) and joy or sorrow (e.g., Ps 51:8 [ 51:10 HT]). As has been mentioned several times, the heart was connected with intellectual and volitional concerns.


This line has some interesting ties with Jer 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 .


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 worshipers. For another example of these same shifts see which is a prayer of David in a time of deep distress.


From the heights of exaltation, Jeremiah returns to the depths of despair. For similar mood swings in the psalms of lament compare . Verses 14-18 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.


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 .


Zedekiah was the last king of Judah. He ruled from 597 b.c. when he was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar ( 2 Kgs 24:17 ) until the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 b.c . He acquiesced to some of his anti-Babylonian counselors, rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, and sought help from the Egyptians ( Ezek 17:12-15 ). This brought Nebuchadnezzar against the city in 588 b.c . This is the first of two delegations to Jeremiah. The later one was sent after Nebuchadnezzar withdrew to take care of the Egyptian threat (cf. Jer 37:1-9 ).


The Pashhur son of Malkijah referred to here is not the same as the Pashhur referred to in 20:1-6 who was the son of Immer. This Pashhur is referred to later in 38:1 . The Zephaniah referred to here was the chief of security referred to later in Jer 29:25-26 . He appears to have been favorably disposed toward Jeremiah.


The Babylonians ( 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.


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 (), 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 .


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.


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.


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 .


This prophecy was fulfilled according to 2 Kgs 23:34 .


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 .


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 ).


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 .


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 ordered his body thrown outside the wall in fulfillment of this judgment. The Bible itself, however, does not tell us that. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


This simile has already been used in Jer 4:31; 6:24 in conjunction with Zion/Jerusalem’s judgment.


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.


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 also the note on the word “judged” in 22:13 .


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 ).


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 HT]), Isaiah ( 11:1-4, 10-12 ), and Ezekiel (37:15-28) all of which have messianic and eschatological significance.


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 ).


A word that derives from this same Hebrew 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.


To have had a dream was 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 ( Num 12:6 ; Joel 2:28 [ 3:1 HT]). What was illegitimate was to use the dream to lead people away from the Lord ( Deut 13:1-5 [ 13:2-6 HT]). 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 worshiping Baal.


See the parallel passage in Jer 14:13-15 .


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 ). This figure of speech is known as litotes.


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 b.c. and included the priest Ezekiel.


See Isa 28:4 ; Hos 9:10 .


For these terms see Jer 1:10 .


See Jer 14:12 and the study note there.


The year referred to would be 605 b.c. 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 b.c. ( 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 Judah 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.


The year referred to would be 627 b.c . The same year is referred to in 1:2 in reference to his call to be a prophet.


The many allusions to trouble coming from the north are 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.


Nebuchadnezzar is called the Lord ’s servant also in Jer 27:6; 43:10 . He was the Lord ’s servant in that he was the agent used by the Lord to punish 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 ). P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley, and J. F. Drinkard ( Jeremiah 1-25 [WBC], 364) make the interesting observation that the terms here are very similar to the terms in v. 4 . 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.


The Hebrew word translated “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 ).


Compare Jer 7:24 and 16:9 for this same dire prediction limited to Judah and Jerusalem.


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 .


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 Carchemish in 605 b.c. 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 b.c . More particularly Judah became a vassal state (cf. Jer 46:2 ; 2 Kgs 24:1 ) in 605 b.c. 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 36:21 and Ezra 1:2-4 ; the application there is made to Judah but the decree of Cyrus was broader.)


“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 Habakkuk 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 .


See further Jer 46:2-28 for the judgment against Egypt.


The land of Uz 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.


See further Jer 47:1-7 for the judgment against the Philistines. The Philistine cities were west of Judah.


The Greek historian Herodotus reports that Ashdod had been destroyed under the Pharaoh who preceded Necho, Psammetichus.


See further Jer 49:7-22 for the judgment against Edom. Edom, Moab, and Ammon were east of Judah.


See further Jer 48:1-47 for the judgment against Moab.


See further Jer 49:1-6 for the judgment against Ammon.


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. map For location see Map1-A1 ; JP3-F3 ; JP4-F3 .


The connection with Tyre and Sidon suggests that these were Phoenician colonies. See also Isa 23:2 .


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.


The kingdom of Zimri is mentioned nowhere else, so its location is unknown.


See further Jer 49:34-39 for judgment against Elam.


Elam and Media were east of Babylon; Elam in the south and Media in the north. They were in what is now western Iran.


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 ).


The metaphor shifts from God as a lion to God as a mighty warrior ( Jer 20:11 ; Isa 42:13 ; Zeph 3:17 ) shouting 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 .


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.


Beginning with up to 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 ).


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.


See the study note on Jer 7:13 .


These officials of Judah 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.


Contrast v. 11 .


Micah from Moresheth 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.


Hezekiah was co-regent with his father Ahaz from 729-715 b.c. and sole ruler from 715-686 b.c . His father was a wicked king who was responsible for the incursions of the Assyrians (; ). Hezekiah was a godly king, noted for his religious reforms and for his faith in the Lord in the face of the Assyrian threat (–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 ).


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 ).


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 place left sacrosanct. It would even be overgrown with trees and bushes. So much for its inviolability!


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.


Elnathan son of Achbor 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 ).


The burial place of the common people 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.


Ahikam son of Shaphan 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.


The names of Jeremiah and 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 ).


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 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.


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. map For the location of Sidon see Map1-A1 ; JP3-F3 ; JP4-F3 .


See Dan 4:17 for a similar statement.


See the study note on 25:9 for the significance of the application of this term to Nebuchadnezzar.


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 b.c. when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish until the fall of Babylon in 538 b.c . 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.


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 illegitimate 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.


An example of this is seen in .


The verbs in this verse are all plural. They are addressed to Zedekiah and his royal advisers (compare 22:2 ).


The verbs are again plural referring to the king and his royal advisers.


This refers to the valuable 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 Judean society ( 2 Kgs 24:10-16 , especially v. 13 and see also vv. 19-20 in the verses following).


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 descriptive 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. 18 b. By this means, 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.


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. 2 a with 27:21 a). 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 ).


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 .


There is a play on words here in Hebrew 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.


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.


Comparison with Jer 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 b.c. would validate Jeremiah’s prophesies and invalidate those of Hananiah.


See 2 Kgs 24:14-16 and compare the study note on Jer 24:1 .


Elasah son of Shaphan 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 ).


This individual 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.


It is unclear whether this incident preceded or followed those in the preceding chapter. It is known 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 ).


See the study notes on 27:9 for this term.


See the study note on Jer 25:11 for the reckoning of the seventy years.


Being roasted to death in the fire appears to have been 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” ( קָלָם , qalam ), and the fact that that fate would become a common topic of curse ( קְלָלָה , qÿlalah ) pronounced on others in Babylon.


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 Zephaniah 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 a letter to the captives 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. 31 b).


According to Jer 52:24 and 2 Kgs 25:18 Zephaniah son of Maaseiah 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 ).


The Hebrew term translated lunatic applies to anyone who exhibits irrational behavior. It was used for example of David who drooled and scratched on the city gate to convince Achish not to arrest him as a politically dangerous threat ( 1 Sam 21:14 ). It was often used contemptuously of the prophets by those who wanted to play down the significance of their words ( 2 Kgs 9:11 ; Hos 9:7 and here).


See v. 5 .


Compare the same charge against Hananiah in Jer 28:16 and see the 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.


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 from the nations and rejoined under one king, a descendant of David, and regain possession of their ancestral lands. The prophets of both the eighth and seventh century looked forward to this ideal (see, e.g., Hos 1:11 ( 2:2 HT); 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 .


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 .


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 ).


With the exception of the second line there is a definite attempt at wordplay 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; 27:7 .


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 have the designation “Tel” as a component of their name because of this practice.


Compare Jer 29:6 .


The statement their ruler will come from their own number 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.


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.


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 ).


Jer 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 ).


This verse repeats v. 22 but with specific reference to all the clans 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.


Contrast Jer 7:34 and 25:10 .


The terms used here refer to the enjoyment of a period of peace and stability and the reversal of the curse (contrast, e.g., Deut 28:30 ). The Hebrew 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 ).


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 signaled 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.


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 b.c .


Jer 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 ).


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 ).


Two rather theologically significant metaphors are used in this verse. The Hebrew 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 seized 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.


Ramah is a town in Benjamin approximately five miles (8 km) 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 Manasseh which were two of the major tribes in northern Israel. Here Rachel is viewed metaphorically as weeping for her “children,” the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who had been carried away into captivity in 722 b.c .


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 .)


Heb “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 note on v. 9 ).


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 just dealing (see Isa 1:21 and ). 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.


The Lord answers their charge by stating that each person is responsible for his own sin and will himself bear the consequences. 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.


Compare Jer 24:7; 30:22; 31:1 and see the study note on 30:2 .


This statement should be understood against the background of Jer 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 Jer 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).


This answers Jeremiah’s question in 14:19 .


It is generally agreed that this refers to 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.


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.


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 .)


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 .


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 ).


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.


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.


Compare Jer 19:13 .


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 ).


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 ]).


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 .


The introductory statement 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 ).


This refers 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.


Compare Jer 30:17 . Jerusalem is again being personified and her political and spiritual well-being are again in view.


Compare Jer 31:34 ; Ezek 36:25, 33 .


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 .


This is a common hymnic introduction to both individual songs of thanksgiving (e.g., Ps 118:1 ) and communal songs of thanksgiving (e.g., where it is a liturgical refrain accompanying a recital of Israel’s early history and of the Lord ’s continuing providence).


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 .


Compare Jer 32:44 .


This refers at the very least to the promises of Jer 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 1:10-11; 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).


It should be noted once again that the reference is to all Israel, not just to Judah (cf. Jer 23:5-6; 30:9 ).


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 Jer 22:18-19 ).


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 ).


Compare Deut 15:12-18 for the complete statement of this law. Here only the first part of it is cited.


This refers to the temple. See Jer 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.


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”).


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).


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 ).


Compare Jer 15:4; 24:9; 29:18 .


See the study note on v. 8 for explanation and parallels.


See this same phrase in Jer 7:33; 16:4; 19:7 .


The introductory statement here shows that this incident is earlier than those in –34 which all take place in the reign of Zedekiah. Jehoiakim ruled from 609/8 b.c. until 598/97 b.c. and his brother Zedekiah followed him after a brief reign of three months by Jehoiakim’s son who was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon. Zedekiah ruled from 598/7 b.c. 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 b.c. (compare v. 11 and Jer 4:5 with 2 Kgs 24:1-2 ).


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 ).


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 did not belong there, such as those who were foreigners or ritually unclean (see 2 Kgs 12:9 and compare Ps 118:19-20 ).


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.


The fourth year that Jehoiakim…was ruling over Judah would have been 605/4 b.c . Jehoiakim began his rule in 609/8 b.c. 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.


Heb “a roll [or 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 ).


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.


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 [v. 1 ]). The exact content of this scroll is unknown since many of the messages in the present book are undated. It is also not known 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 b.c. ( 1:2 ) and beyond (cf. Jer 40-44 ) much more was added to those two scrolls even later.


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.


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 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.


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.


The New Gate 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.


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.


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 he counseled Jehoiakim not to burn the scroll (v. 25 ).


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.


This prophesy was not “totally” fulfilled because his son Jehoiachin (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. Jer 22:30 ; and see the study notes on 22:24, 30 ).


Compare the more poetic prophecy in Jer 22:18-19 and see the study note on 22:19 .


These two verses ( 37:1-2 ) are introductory to chs. –38 and are intended to characterize Zedekiah and his regime as disobedient just like Jehoiakim and his regime had been ( Jer 36:27 ; 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 attention to the warnings that he received in reply and was ultimately responsible for the fall of Jerusalem (). 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 ).


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 ).


Jehucal was one of the officials who later sought to have Jeremiah put to death for what they considered treason ( 38:1-4 ).


The priest Zephaniah son of Maaseiah 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.


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.


The Benjamin Gate 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 .


Nothing further is known about Irijah . 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 ).


The officials mentioned here are not the same as those mentioned in Jer 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 b.c. ( 2 Kgs 24:14 ).


Jeremiah’s answer even under duress was the same that he had given Zedekiah earlier. (See Jer 34:3 and see the study note on 34:1 for the relative timing of these two incidents.)


Pashhur 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 .


See Jer 21:10; 32:28; 34:2; 37:8 for this same prophecy. Jeremiah had repeatedly said this or words to the same effect.


A cistern was a pear-shaped pit with a narrow opening. Cisterns 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.


This individual, Ebed Melech , is mentioned 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 ).


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.


2 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 b.c . The reckoning is based on the calendar that begins the year in the spring (Nisan = March/April).


According to modern reckoning that would have been July 18, 586 b.c . The siege thus lasted almost a full eighteen months.


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.


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.


2 Kgs 25:5 and Jer 52:8 mention that the soldiers all scattered from him. That is why the text focuses on Zedekiah here.


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.


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.


Gedaliah . This is the first reference to this individual 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 ).


Jer 39:15-18 . This incident is out of chronological order (see Jer 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).


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.


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.


Heb “you will not fall by the sword.” In the context this would include death in battle and execution as a prisoner of war.


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.


Mizpah . 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.


Compare Jer 39:10 .


The name of these officers is given here because some of them become important to the plot of the subsequent 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, assassinated 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 ).


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 ).


All the Judeans . 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 a covenant 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.


Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria were all cities in the northern kingdom of Israel with important religious and political histories. When Israel was destroyed in 722 b.c. , 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 ). map For the location of Samaria see Map2-B1 ; Map4-D3 ; Map5-E2 ; Map6-A4 ; Map7-C1 .


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 ).


Geruth Kimham 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.


Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah may have been the same as the Jezaniah son of the Maacathite mentioned in 40:8 . The title “the Maacathite” 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 Jer 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 ).


See Jer 41:18 for their reason for fear.


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 Maacathite.


These are the people who are referred to in Jer 40:11-12 .


This refers to the group mentioned in Jer 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.


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 ).


Tahpanhes 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 (the Hebrew name is “Noph”) as a source of soldiers who did violence to the Israelites in the past.


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.


This is another of those symbolic prophecies of Jeremiah which involved an action and an explanation. Compare Jer 19, 27 .


See the study note on Jer 25:9 for the use of this epithet for foreign rulers. The term emphasizes God’s sovereignty over history.


It is generally agreed that the temple of the sun was located in 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 6 miles (10 km) northeast of modern-day Cairo.


The first three cities, Migdol , Tahpanhes , and Memphis , 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 (23 km) south of Cairo. For the identification and location of Tahpanhes see the study note on Jer 43:7 . The location of Migdol has been debated but is tentatively identified with a border fortress about twenty-five miles (42 km) 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 see the discussion in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 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 ).


Compare Jer 19:4 for the same thought and see also 7:9 .


Hophra ruled over Egypt from 589-570 b.c . 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 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.


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 .


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 need to undergo according to the predictions of Jeremiah that he was writing down.


Compare Jer 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 ).


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 25:13 a 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 , i.e., the two scrolls written in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 b.c. ), 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 . 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 .


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 (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 b.c. ) 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.


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 Jer 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 Libya and Lud is to be identified with Lydia in Asia Minor. For further discussion see M. J. Mellink, “Lud, Ludim” IDB 3:178, and T. O. Lambdin, “Put,” IDB 3:971.


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 b.c. ( 2 Kgs 23:29, 33-35 ).


Heb “Virgin Daughter of Egypt.” See the study note on Jer 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, Lamentations [NAC], 379). By her involvement in the politics of Palestine she had forfeited that safety and protection and was now suffering for it.


Jer 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).


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 b.c. 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 b.c . For a fairly complete discussion of the options see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 299-300.


All the help that remains 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 plain after having been repulsed from trying to enter Egypt.


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 ).


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.


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 b.c. ; 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 b.c. when plans for revolt were apparently being discussed ( Jer 27:3 ). Moabite contingents were used by Nebuchadnezzar in 598 b.c. 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 b.c. and destroyed many of its cities.


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.


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.


There is a wordplay in Hebrew on the word “Heshbon” and the word “plot” ( חָשְׁבוּ , khoshvu ).


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 worshiped in Israel until Josiah tore that high place down ( 2 Kgs 23:13 ).


The practice of carrying off the gods of captive nations has already been mentioned in the study note on 43:12 . See also Isa 46:1-2 noted there.


Aroer 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.


See the study note on Jer 48:8 for reference to this tableland or high plain that lay between the Arnon and Heshbon.


There is an extended use of assonance here and in the parallel passage in Isa 24:17 . The Hebrew text reads פַּחַד וָפַחַת וָפָח ( pakhad vafakhat vafakh ). The assonance is intended to underscore the extensive trouble that is in store for them.


Jer 48:43-44 a 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.


Ammonites . 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 (). Apparently when Tiglath Pileser carried away the Israelite tribes in Transjordan in 733 b.c. , 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 b.c. ( 2 Kgs 24:2 ). But along with Moab and Edom they sent representatives to plot rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar in 594 b.c. ( Jer 27:3 ). The Ammonites were evidently in rebellion against him in 588 b.c. when he had to decide whether to attack Rabbah or Jerusalem first ( Ezek 21:18-23 [ 21:23-28 HT]). 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 b.c. by Nebuchadnezzar.


Compare Jer 48:7 and the study note there.


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 Aqaba on the south and the Zered River on the north. It straddled the Arabah leading down from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba, 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 ; Obad 1-16). 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 b.c . According to Obadiah 10-16 they not only gloated over Judah’s downfall in 586 b.c. but participated in its plunder and killed some of those who were fleeing the country.


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 ).


Dedan . 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.