translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: JER

label: NET translator note

text: These words are not in the text, but since the words at the end are obviously those of the Lord , they are supplied in the translation here to mark the shift in speaker from 4:29-31 where Jeremiah is the obvious speaker.


text: It is not clear who is being addressed here. The verbs are plural so they are not addressed to Jeremiah per se. Since the passage is talking about the people of Jerusalem, it is unlikely they are addressed here except perhaps rhetorically. Some have suggested that the heavenly court is being addressed here as in Job 1:6-8; 2:1-3 . It is clear from Jer 23:18, 22 ; Amos 3:7 that the prophets had access to this heavenly counsel through visions (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19-23 ), so Jeremiah could have been privy to this speech through that means. Though these are the most likely addressee, it is too presumptuous to supply such an explicit addressee without clearer indication in the text. The translation will just have to run the risk of the probable erroneous assumption by most English readers that the addressee is Jeremiah.


text: For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


text: Heb “who does justice and seeks faithfulness.”


text: Heb “squares. If you can find…if there is one person…then I will…”


text: Heb “forgive [or pardon] it.”


text: Heb “Though they say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives.” The idea of “swear on oath” comes from the second line.


label: NET textual note

text: The translation follows many Hebrew mss and the Syriac version in reading “surely” ( אָכֵן , ’ akhen ) instead of “therefore” ( לָכֵן , lakhen ) in the MT. tn Heb “Surely.”


text: Heb “they swear falsely.”


text: Heb “O Lord , are your eyes not to faithfulness?” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.


text: Commentaries and lexicons debate the meaning of the verb here. The MT is pointed as though from a verb meaning “to writhe in anguish or contrition” ( חוּל [ khul ]; see, e.g., BDB 297 s.v. חוּל 2.c), but some commentaries and lexicons repoint the text as though from a verb meaning “to be sick,” thus “to feel pain” ( חָלָה [ khalah ]; see, e.g., HALOT 304 s.v. חָלָה 3). The former appears more appropriate to the context.


text: Heb “They made their faces as hard as a rock.”


text: Or “to repent”; Heb “to turn back.”


text: Heb “Surely they are poor.” The translation is intended to make clear the explicit contrasts and qualifications drawn in this verse and the next.


text: Heb “the way of the Lord .”


text: Heb “the judgment [or ordinance] of their God.”


text: Or “people in power”; Heb “the great ones.”


text: Heb “have broken the yoke and torn off the yoke ropes.” Compare Jer 2:20 and the note there.


text: Heb “So a lion from the thicket will kill them. A wolf from the desert will destroy them. A leopard will watch outside their cities. Anyone who goes out from them will be torn in pieces.” However, it is unlikely that, in the context of judgment that Jeremiah has previously been describing, literal lions are meant. The animals are metaphorical for their enemies. Compare Jer 4:7 .


text: Heb “their rebellions are so many and their unfaithful acts so numerous.”


text: These words are not in the text, but are supplied in the translation to make clear who is speaking.


text: Heb “How can I forgive [or pardon] you.” The pronoun “you” is second feminine singular, referring to the city. See v. 1 .


text: Heb “your children.”


text: Heb “and they have sworn [oaths] by not-gods.”


text: Heb “I satisfied them to the full.”


text: Heb “they committed adultery.” It is difficult to decide whether literal adultery with other women or spiritual adultery with other gods is meant. The word for adultery is used for both in the book of Jeremiah. For examples of its use for spiritual adultery see 3:8, 9; 9:2 . For examples of its use for literal adultery see 7:9; 23:14 . The context here could argue for either. The swearing by other gods and the implicit contradiction in their actions in contrast to the expected gratitude for supplying their needs argues for spiritual adultery. However, the reference to prostitution in the next line and the reference to chasing after their neighbor’s wives argues for literal adultery. The translation opts for spiritual adultery because of the contrast implicit in the concessive clause.


text: There is a great deal of debate about the meaning of this word. Most of the modern English versions follow the lead of lexicographers who relate this word to a noun meaning “troop” and understand it to mean “they trooped together” (cf. BDB 151 s.v. גָּדַד Hithpo.2 and compare the usage in Mic 5:1 [ 4:14 HT]). A few of the modern English versions and commentaries follow the reading of the Greek and read a word meaning “they lodged” (reading ִיתְגּוֹרְרוּ [ yitggorÿru ] from I גּוּר [ gur ; cf. HALOT 177 s.v. Hithpo. and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 17:20 ] instead of יִתְגֹּדָדוּ [ yitggodadu ]). W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:180) sees a reference here to the cultic practice of cutting oneself in supplication to pagan gods (cf. BDB 151 s.v. גָּדַד Hithpo.1 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 18:28 ). The houses of prostitutes would then be a reference to ritual prostitutes at the pagan shrines. The translation follows BDB and the majority of modern English versions.


text: Heb “to a house of a prostitute.” sn This could be a reference to cultic temple prostitution connected with the pagan shrines. For allusion to this in the OT, see, e.g., Deut 23:17 and 2 Kgs 23:7 .


text: The meanings of these two adjectives are uncertain. The translation of the first adjective is based on assuming that the word is a defectively written participle related to the noun “testicle” (a Hiphil participle מַאֲשִׁכִים [ ma ’ ashikhim ] from a verb related to אֶשֶׁךְ [’ eshekh , “testicle”]; cf. Lev 21:20 ) and hence “having testicles” (cf. HALOT 1379 s.v. שָׁכָה ) instead of the Masoretic form מַשְׁכִּים ( mashkim ) from a root שָׁכָה ( shakhah ), which is otherwise unattested in either verbal or nominal forms. The second adjective is best derived from a verb root meaning “to feed” (a Hophal participle מוּזָנִים [ muzanim , the Kethib ] from a root זוּן [ zun ; cf. BDB 266 s.v. זוּן ] for which there is the cognate noun מָזוֹן [ mazon ; cf. 2 Chr 11:23 ]). This is more likely than the derivation from a root יָזַן ([ yazan ]reading מְיֻזָּנִים [ mÿyuzzanim ], a Pual participle with the Qere ) which is otherwise unattested in verbal or nominal forms and whose meaning is dependent only on a supposed Arabic cognate (cf. HALOT 387 s.v. יָזַן ).


text: Heb “neighs after.”


text: Heb “Should I not punish them…? Should I not bring retribution…?” The rhetorical questions have the force of strong declarations.


text: These words to not appear in the Hebrew text but have been added in the translation for the sake of clarity to identify the implied addressee.


text: Heb “through her vine rows and destroy.” No object is given but “vines” must be implicit. The word for “vineyards” (or “vine rows”) is a hapax legomenon and its derivation is debated. BDB 1004 s.v. שּׁוּרָה repoints שָׁרוֹתֶיהָ ( sharoteha ) to שֻׁרוֹתֶיהָ ( shuroteha ) and relates it to a Mishnaic Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic word meaning “row.” HALOT 1348 s.v. שּׁוּרָה also repoints to שֻׁרוֹתֶיהָ and relates it to a noun meaning “wall,” preferring to see the reference here to the walled terraces on which the vineyards were planted. The difference in meaning is minimal.


text: Heb “for they do not belong to the Lord .” In the light of the context and Jeremiah’s identification of Israel as a vine (cf., e.g., 2:21 ) and a vineyard (cf., e.g., 12:10 ), it is likely that this verse has a totally metaphorical significance. The enemy is to go through the vineyard that is Israel and Judah and destroy all those who have been unfaithful to the Lord . It is not impossible, however, that the verse has a double meaning, a literal one and a figurative one: the enemy is not only to destroy Israel and Judah’s vines but to destroy Israel and Judah, lopping off the wicked Israelites who, because of their covenant unfaithfulness, the Lord has disowned. If the verse is totally metaphorical one might translate: “Pass through my vineyard, Israel and Judah, wreaking destruction. But do not destroy all of the people. Cut down like branches those unfaithful people because they no longer belong to the Lord .”


text: Heb “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”


text: Heb “have denied the Lord .” The words “What…says” are implicit in what follows.


text: Or “he will do nothing”; Heb “Not he [or it]!”


text: Heb “we will not see the sword and famine.”


text: Heb “will be wind.” sn There is a wordplay on the Hebrew word translated “wind” ( רוּחַ , ruakh ) which also means “spirit.” The prophets spoke by inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord (cf., e.g., 2 Chr 20:14 ); hence the prophet was sometimes called “the man of the spirit” (cf. Hos 9:7 ). The people were claiming that the prophets were speaking lies and hence were full of wind, not the Spirit.


text: Heb “the word is not in them.” The MT has a highly unusual form here, the Piel perfect with the definite article ( הַדִּבֵּר , haddibber ). It is undoubtedly best to read with the LXX (Greek version) and one Hebrew ms the article on the noun ( הַדָּבָר , haddavar ).


text: Heb “Therefore.”


text: Heb “The Lord God of armies.” See the translator’s note at 2:19 . sn Here the emphasis appears to be on the fact that the Lord is in charge of the enemy armies whom he will use to punish Israel for their denial of his prior warnings through the prophets.


text: The words, “to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are supplied in the translation for clarification.


text: Heb “you have spoken.” The text here דַּבֶּרְכֶם ( dabberkhem , “you have spoken”) is either a case of a scribal error for דַּבֶּרָם ( dabberam , “they have spoken”) or an example of the rapid shift in addressee which is common in Jeremiah.


text: Heb “this word.”


text: Heb “like wood and it [i.e., the fire I put in your mouth] will consume them.”


text: Heb “oracle of the Lord .”


text: Heb “Behold!”


text: Heb “house of Israel.”


text: Heb “All of them are mighty warriors.”


text: Heb “his quiver [is] an open grave.” The order of the lines has been reversed to make the transition from “nation” to “their arrows” easier.


text: Heb “eat up.”


text: Or “eat up your grapes and figs”; Heb “eat up your vines and your fig trees.” sn It was typical for an army in time of war in the ancient Near East not only to eat up the crops but to destroy the means of further production.


text: Heb “They will beat down with the sword.” The term “sword” is a figure of speech (synecdoche) for military weapons in general. Siege ramps, not swords, beat down city walls; swords kill people, not city walls.


text: Heb “in those days.”


text: The word, “Jeremiah,” is not in the text but the second person address in the second half of the verse is obviously to him. The word is supplied in the translation here for clarity.


text: The MT reads the second masculine plural; this is probably a case of attraction to the second masculine plural pronoun in the preceding line. An alternative would be to understand a shift from speaking first to the people in the first half of the verse and then speaking to Jeremiah in the second half where the verb is second masculine singular. E.g., “When you [people] say, “Why…?” then you, Jeremiah, tell them…”


text: Heb “As you left me and…, so you will….” The translation was chosen so as to break up a rather long and complex sentence.


text: Heb “in the house of Jacob.”


text: Heb “they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear.”


text: Heb “Should you not fear me? Should you not tremble in awe before me?” The rhetorical questions expect the answer explicit in the translation.


text: Heb “it.” The referent is made explicit to avoid any possible confusion.


text: The words, “their own way” are not in the text but are implicit and are supplied in the translation for clarity.


text: Heb “say in their hearts.”


text: Heb “who keeps for us the weeks appointed for harvest.”


text: Heb “have turned these things away.”


text: Heb “have withheld the good from you.”


text: The meaning of the last three words is uncertain. The pointing and meaning of the Hebrew word rendered “hiding in ambush” is debated. BDB relates the form ( כְּשַׁךְ , kÿshakh ) to a root שָׁכַךְ ( shakhakh ), which elsewhere means “decrease, abate” (cf. BDB 1013 s.v. שָׁכַךְ ), and notes that this is usually understood as “like the crouching of fowlers,” but they say this meaning is dubious. HALOT 1345 s.v. I שׁוֹר questions the validity of the text and offers three proposals; the second appears to create the least textual modification, i.e., reading כְּשַׂךְ ( kesakh , “as in the hiding place of (bird catchers)”; for the word שַׂךְ ( sakh ) see HALOT 1236 s.v. שׂךְ 4 and compare Lam 2:6 for usage. The versions do not help. The Greek does not translate the first two words of the line. The proposal given in HALOT is accepted with some hesitancy.


text: Heb “a destroying thing.”


text: The words, “that have been caught” are not in the text but are implicit in the comparison.


text: Heb “are filled with deceit.” The translation assumes a figure of speech of cause for effect (metonymy). Compare the same word in the same figure in Zeph 1:9 .


text: Heb “therefore they have gotten great and rich.”


text: These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to show that this line is parallel with the preceding.


text: The meaning of this word is uncertain. This verb occurs only here. The lexicons generally relate it to the word translated “plate” in Song 5:14 and understand it to mean “smooth, shiny” (so BDB 799 s.v. I עֶשֶׁת ) or “fat” (so HALOT 850 s.v. II עֶשֶׁת ). The word in Song 5:14 more likely means “smooth” than “plate” (so TEV). So “sleek” is most likely here.


text: Heb “they cross over/transgress with respect to matters of evil.” sn There is a wordplay in the use of this word which has twice been applied in v. 22 to the sea not crossing the boundary set for it by God.


text: Heb “Should I not punish…? Should I not bring retribution…?” The rhetorical questions function as emphatic declarations. sn These words are repeated from 5:9 to give a kind of refrain justifying again the necessity of punishment in the light of such sins.


text: Heb “they shall rule at their hands.” Since the word “hand” can be used figuratively for authority or mean “side” and the pronoun “them” can refer to the priests themselves or the prophets, the following translations have also been suggested: “the priests rule under their [the prophets’] directions,” or “the priests rule in league with them [the prophets].” From the rest of the book it would appear that the prophets did not exercise authority over the priests nor did they exercise the same authority over the people that the priests did. Hence it probably mean “by their own hand/power/authority.”


text: Heb “But what will you do at its end?” The rhetorical question implies a negative answer: “Nothing!”