Heb “Am I a god nearby and not a god far off?” The question is sometimes translated as though there is an alternative being given in v. 23 , one that covers both the ideas of immanence and transcendence (i.e., “Am I only a god nearby and not also a god far off?”). However, the hey interrogative ( הַ ) at the beginning of this verse and the particle ( אִם , ’ im ) at the beginning of the next show that the linkage is between the question in v. 23 and that in v. 24 a. According to BDB 210 s.v. הֲ 1.d both questions in this case expect a negative answer. sn The thought that is expressed here must be viewed against the background of ancient Near Eastern thought where gods were connected with different realms, e.g., Baal, the god of wind, rain, and fertility, Mot, the god of drought, infertility, and death, Yam, the god of the sea and of chaos. Moreover, Baal was worshiped in local manifestations as the Baal of Peor, Baal of Gad, etc. Hence, Baal is sometimes spoken of in the singular and sometimes in the plural. The Lord is the one true God ( Deut 6:4 ). Moreover, he is the maker of heaven and earth ( Gen 14:12 ; 2 Kgs 19:15 ; Ps 115:15 ), sees into the hearts of all men ( Ps 33:13-15 ), and judges men according to what they do ( Ezek 7:3, 7, 27 ). There is no hiding from him ( Job 34:22 ; Ps 139:7-12 ) and no escape from his judgment ( Amos 9:2-4 ). God has already spoken to the people and their leaders through Jeremiah along these lines ( Jer 16:17; 21:14 ). Lurking behind the thoughts expressed here is probably Deut 29:19-21 where God warns that one “bad apple” who thinks he can get away with sinning against the covenant can lead to the destruction of all. The false prophets were the “bad apples” that were encouraging the corruption of the whole nation by their words promoting a false sense of security unconnected with loyalty to God and obedience to his covenant. The first question deals with the issue of God’s transcendence, the second with his omniscience, and the third with his omnipresence.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The words “Don’t you know” are not in the text. They are a way of conveying the idea that the question which reads literally “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” expects a positive answer. They follow the pattern used at the beginning of the previous two questions and continue that thought. The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


The words, “The Lord says” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity to show that the Lord continues speaking.


The relation of the words to one another in v. 26 and the beginning of v. 27 has created difficulties for translators and commentators. The proper solution is reflected in the NJPS. Verses 26-27 read somewhat literally, “How long is there in the hearts of the prophets who are prophesying the lie and [in the hearts of] the prophets of the delusions of their [own] heart the plotting to cause my people to forget my name…” Most commentaries complain that the text is corrupt, that there is no subject for “is there.” However, the long construct qualification “in the hearts of” has led to the lack of observation that the proper subject is “the plotting to make my people forget.” There are no exact parallels but Jer 14:22 ; Neh 5:5 follow the same structure. The “How long” precedes the other means of asking a question for the purpose of emphasis (cf. BDB 210 s.v. הֲ 1.b and compare for example the usage in 2 Sam 7:7 ). There has also been a failure to see that “the prophets of the delusion of…” is a parallel construct noun after “heart of.” Stripping the syntax down to its barest minimum and translating literally, the sentence would read “How long will the plotting…continue in the hearts of the prophets who…and [in hearts of] the prophets of…” The sentence has been restructured in the translation to conform to contemporary English style but attempt has been made to maintain the same subordinations.


Heb “my name.” sn In the OT, the “name” reflected the person’s character (cf. Gen 27:36 ; 1 Sam 25:25 ) or his reputation ( Gen 11:4 ; 2 Sam 8:13 ). To speak in someone’s name was to act as his representative or carry his authority ( 1 Sam 25:9 ; 1 Kgs 21:8 ). To call someone’s name over something was to claim it for one’s own ( 2 Sam 12:28 ). Hence, here to forget the name is equivalent to forgetting who he was in his essential character (cf. Exod 3:13-15; 6:3; 34:5-7 ). By preaching lies they had obliterated part of his essential character and caused people to forget who he really was.


Heb “fathers” (also in v. 39 ).


Heb “through Baal.” This is an elliptical expression for the worship of Baal. See 11:17; 12:16; 19:5 for other references to their relation to Baal. There is a deliberate paralleling in the syntax here between “through their dreams” and “through Baal.”


Heb “What to the straw with [in comparison with] the grain?” This idiom represents an emphatic repudiation or denial of relationship. See, for example, the usage in 2 Sam 16:10 and note BDB 553 s.v. מָה 1.d(c).


Heb “Is not my message like a fire?” The rhetorical question expects a positive answer that is made explicit in the translation. The words “that purges dross” are not in the text but are implicit to the metaphor. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Is it not like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?” See preceding note.


Heb “who are stealing my words from one another.” However, context shows that it is their own word which they claim is from the Lord (cf. next verse).


The word “The Lord ” is not actually in the text but is implicit in the idiom. It is generally supplied in all the English versions. sn Jer 23:30-33 are filled with biting sarcasm. The verses all begin with “Behold I am against the prophets who…” and go on to describe their reprehensible behavior. They “steal” one another’s messages which the Lord sarcastically calls “my words” (The passage shows that they are not; compare Marc Anthony’s use of “noble” to describe the ignoble men who killed Caesar). Here the use of the idiom translated “to use their own tongue” is really the idiom that refers to taking something in preparation for action, i.e., “they take their tongue” and “declare.” The verb “declare” is only used here and is derived from the idiom “oracle of “ which is almost universally used in the idiom “oracle of the Lord ” which occurs 176 times in Jeremiah. I.e., it is their tongue that is “declaring not his mouth (v. 16 ). Moreover in the report of what they “declare” the Lord has left out the qualifying “of the Lord ” to suggest the delusive nature of their message, i.e. they mislead people into believing that their message is from the Lord . Elsewhere in the discussion of the issue of false prophecy the Lord will use the full formula ( Ezek 13:6-7 ). How ironic that their “Oracle of…” is punctuated by the triple “Oracle of the Lord ” (vv. 30, 31, 32 ; translated here “I, the Lord , affirm that…).


Heb “with their lies and their recklessness.” This is an example of hendiadys where two nouns (in this case a concrete and an abstract one) are joined by “and” but one is intended to be the adjectival modifier of the other.


The words “The Lord said to me, ‘Jeremiah” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity to show the shift between the Lord addressing the people (second masculine plural) and the Lord addressing Jeremiah (second masculine singular).


The meaning of vv. 33-40 is debated. The translation given here follows the general direction of NRSV and REB rather than that of NIV and the related direction taken by NCV and God’s Word. The meaning of vv. 33-40 are debated because of (1) the ambiguity involved in the word מָשָּׂא ( masa ’), which can mean either “burden” (as something carried or weighing heavily on a person; see, e.g., Exod 23:5 ; Num 4:27 ; 2 Sam 15:33 ; Ps 38:4 ) or “oracle” (of doom; see, e. g., Isa 13:1 ; Nah 1:1 ); (the translation is debated due to etymological concerns), (2) the ambiguity of the line in v. 36 which has been rendered “For what is ‘burdensome’ really pertains rather to what a person himself says” ( Heb “the burden is to the man his word”), and (3) the text in v. 33 of “you are the burden.” Many commentaries see a wordplay on the two words “burden” and “oracle” which are homonyms. However, from the contrasts that are drawn in the passage, it is doubtful whether the nuance of “oracle” ever is in view. The word is always used in the prophets of an oracle of doom or judgment; it is not merely revelation of God which one of the common people would have been uttering (contra NIV). Jeremiah never uses the word in that sense nor does anyone else in the book of Jeremiah. sn What is in view here is the idea that the people consider Jeremiah’s views of loyalty to God and obedience to the covenant “burdensome.” I.e., what burdensome demands is the Lord asking you to impose on us (See Jer 17:21, 22, 24, 27 where this same word is used regarding Sabbath observance which they chafed at). The Lord answers back that it is not he who is being burdensome to them; they are burdensome to him (See 15:6 : “I am weary” and compare Isa 1:14 where the verb rather than the noun is used).


The translation follows the Latin and Greek versions. The Hebrew text reads “What burden [i.e., burdensome message]?” The syntax of “what message?” is not in itself objectionable; the interrogative can function as an adjective (cf. BDB 552 s.v. מָה 1.a[a]). What is objectionable to virtually all the commentaries and lexicons is the unparalleled use of the accusative particle in front of the interrogative and the noun (see, e.g., BDB 672 s.v. III מָשָּׂא and GKC 365-66 §117. m , n. 3). The emendation only involves the redivision and revocalization of the same consonants: אֶת־מַה־מַשָּׂא (’ et-mah-masa ’) becomes אַתֶּם הַמָּשָּׂא (’ atem hammasa ’). This also makes a much more natural connection for the vav consecutive perfect that follows (cf. GKC 334 §112. x and compare Isa 6:7 ; Judg 13:3 ).


The meaning “cast you away” is questioned by some because the word is regularly used of “forsaking” or “abandoning” (see, e.g., Jer 7:29; 12:7; 15:6 ). However, it is clearly use of “casting down” or “throwing away” in Ezek 29:5; 32:4 and that meaning is virtually assured in v. 39 where the verb is combined with the phrase “from my presence” which is elsewhere used in rejection contexts with verbs like “send away,” “throw out,” or “remove” (see BDB 819 s.v. פָּנֶה II.8.a). This is another example of the bracketing effect of a key word and should be rendered the same in the two passages. Moreover, it fits in nicely with the play on “burden” here.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “burden of the Lord .”


Heb “And the prophet or the priest or the people [common person] who says, ‘The burden of the Lord ,” I will visit upon [= punish] that man and his house.” This is an example of the Hebrew construction call nominative absolute or casus pendens (cf. GKC 458 §143. d ).


The words “So, I, Jeremiah tell you” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity to show that it is he who is addressing the people, not the Lord . See “our God” in v. 38 and “Here is what the Lord says…” which indicate the speaker is other than he.


This line is sometimes rendered as a description of what the people are doing (cf. NIV). However, repetition with some slight modification referring to the prophet in v. 37 followed by the same kind of prohibition that follows here shows that what is being contrasted is two views toward the Lord ’s message, i.e., one of openness to receive what the Lord says through the prophet and one that already characterizes the Lord ’s message as a burden. Allusion to the question that started the discussion in v. 33 should not be missed. The prophet alluded to is Jeremiah. He is being indirect in his reference to himself.


Heb “the burden.”


Heb “The burden is [or will be] to a man his word.” There is a good deal of ambiguity regarding how this line is to be rendered. For the major options and the issues involved W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:651-52 should be consulted. Most of them are excluded by the observation that מַשָּׂא probably does not mean “oracle” anywhere in this passage (see note on v. 33 regarding the use of this word). Hence it does not mean “every man’s word becomes his oracle” as in NIV or “for that ‘burden’ [= oracle] is what he entrusts to the man of his word” (W. McKane, Jeremiah [ICC], 1:600-601). The latter is also ruled out by the fact that the antecedent of “his” on “his word” is clearly the word “man” in front of it. This would be the only case where the phrase “man of his word” occurs. There is also no textual reason for repointing the noun with the article as the noun with the interrogative to read “For how can his word become a burden to anyone?” There are, of course, other options but this is sufficient to show that the translation has been chosen after looking at other alternatives.


Heb “turning.” See BDB 245 s.v. הָפַךְ Qal.1.c and Lev 13:55 ; Jer 13:33 “changing, altering.”


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn See the study note on 2:19 for the explanation of the significance of this title.


See the note on v. 35 . sn As noted in v. 35 the prophet is Jeremiah. The message is directed against the prophet, priest, or common people who have characterized his message as a “burden from the Lord .”


The translation of v. 38 and the first part of v. 39 represents the restructuring of a long and complex Hebrew sentence: Heb “But if you say, ‘The burden of the Lord ,’ therefore this is what the Lord says, ‘Because you said this word, “The burden of the Lord ,” even though I sent unto saying, “you shall not say, ‘The burden of the Lord ,’ therefore…” The first “therefore” picks up the “if” (BDB 487 s.v. כֵּן 3.d) and the second answer the “because” (BDB 774 s.v. יַעַן 1).


The translation follows a few Hebrew mss and the major versions. The majority of Hebrew mss read “I will totally forget [or certainly forget] you.” In place of וְנָשִׁיתִי ( vÿnashiti ) a few Hebrew mss , LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read וְנָשָׂאתִי ( vÿnasa ’ ti ). Instead of the infinitive absolute נָשׁאֹ ( nasho ’) a number of Hebrew mss , Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read נָשׂאֹ ( naso ’). For the confusion of III א and III ה verbs presupposed by the miswriting of the Hebrew text see GKC 216 §75. qq and compare the forms of נָבָא ( nava ’) in Jer 26:9 and 1 Sam 10:6 . While the verb “forget” would not be totally inappropriate here it does not fit the concept of “throwing away from my presence” as well as “pick up” does. For the verb נָשָׂא ( nasa ’) meaning “carry you off” compare the usage in 1 Kgs 15:22; 18:12 (and see BDB 671 s.v. נָשָׂא 3.b). Many see the nuance “pick you up” carrying through on the wordplay in v. 33 . While that may be appropriate for the repetition of the verb “throw away” ( נָטַשׁ , natash ) that follows, it does not seem as appropriate for the use of the infinitive absolute that follows the verb which expresses some kind of forcefulness (see GKC 343 §113. q ).


Heb “throw you and the city that I gave you and your fathers out of my presence.” The English sentences have been broken down to conform to contemporary English style.


Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 .


Heb “I will set my eyes upon them for good.” For the nuance of “good” see Jer 21:10 ; Amos 9:4 (in these cases the opposite of harm; see BDB 375 s.v. טוֹבָה 1).


The words “There” and “firmly in the land” are not in the text but are implicit from the connection and the metaphor. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “I will give them a heart to know me that I am the Lord .” For the use of “heart” here referring to “inclinations, resolutions, and determinations of the will” see BDB 525 s.v. לֵב 4 and compare the usage in 2 Chr 12:14 . For the use of “know” to mean “acknowledge” see BDB 384 s.v. יָדַע Qal.1.f and compare the usage in Jer 39:4 . For the construction “know ‘someone’ that he…” = “know that ‘someone’…” see GKC 365 §117. h and compare the usage in 2 Sam 3:25 .


Heb “with all their heart.”


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


Heb “Like the bad figs which cannot be eaten from badness [= because they are so bad] surely [emphatic כִּי , ki ] so I regard Zedekiah, king of Judah, and his officials and the remnant of Jerusalem which remains in this land and those who are living in Egypt.” The sentence has been restructured in the translation to conform more to contemporary English style. For the use of נָתַן ( natan ) meaning “regard” or “treat like” see BDB 681 s.v. נָתַן 3.c and compare the usage in Ezek 28:6 ; Gen 42:30 .


Or “an object of reproach in peoples’ proverbs…an object of ridicule in people’s curses.” The alternate translation treats the two pairs which are introduced without vav s ( ו ) but are joined by vav s as examples of hendiadys. This is very possible here but the chain does not contain this pairing in 25:18; 29:18 . sn For an example of how the “example used in curses” worked, see Jer 29:22 . Sodom and Gomorrah evidently function much that same way (see 23:14; 49:18; 50:40 ; Deut 29:23 ; Zeph 2:9 ).


Heb “I will make them for a terror for disaster to all the kingdoms of the earth, for a reproach and for a proverb, for a taunt and a curse in all the places which I banish them there.” The complex Hebrew sentence has been broken down into equivalent shorter sentences to conform more with contemporary English style.


Heb “fathers.”


Heb “The word was to Jeremiah.” It is implicit from the context that it was the Lord ’s word. The verbal expression is more in keeping with contemporary English style.


For the idiom involved here see the notes at 7:13 and 11:7 .


The vav consecutive with the perfect in a past narrative is a little unusual. Here it is probably indicating repeated action in past time in keeping with the idiom that precedes and follows it. See GKC 332 §112. f for other possible examples.


Heb “inclined your ear to hear.” This is idiomatic for “paying attention.” It is often parallel with “listen” as here or with “pay attention” (see, e.g., Prov 4:20; 51:1 ).


Heb “saying.” The infinitive goes back to “he sent”; i.e., “he sent, saying.”


Heb “Turn [masc. pl.] each person from his wicked way and from the evil of your [masc. pl.] doings.” See the same demand in 23:22 .


Heb “gave to you and your fathers with reference to from ancient times even unto forever.” See the same idiom in 7:7 .


Heb “follow after.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for this idiom.


Heb “make me angry with the work of your hands.” The term “work of your own hands” is often interpreted as a reference to idolatry as is clearly the case in Isa 2:8; 37:19 . However, the parallelism in 25:14 and the context in 32:30 show that it is more general and refers to what they have done. That is likely the meaning here as well.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


This is a rather clear case where the Hebrew particle לְמַעַן ( lÿma ’ an ) introduces a consequence and not a purpose, contrary to the dictum of BDB 775 s.v. מַעַן note 1. They have not listened to him in order to make him angry but with the result that they have made him angry by going their own way. Jeremiah appears to use this particle for result rather than purpose on several other occasions (see, e.g., 7:18, 19; 27:10, 15; 32:29 ).


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn See the study note on 2:19 for an explanation of this title.


Heb “You have not listened to my words.”


The word used here was used in the early years of Israel’s conquest for the action of killing all the men, women, and children in the cities of Canaan, destroying all their livestock, and burning their cities down. This policy was intended to prevent Israel from being corrupted by paganism ( Deut 7:2; 20:17-18 ; Josh 6:18, 21 ). It was to be extended to any city that led Israel away from worshiping God ( Deut 13:15 ) and any Israelite who brought an idol into his house ( Deut 7:26 ). Here the policy is being directed against Judah as well as against her neighbors because of her persistent failure to heed God’s warnings through the prophets. For further usage of this term in application to foreign nations in the book of Jeremiah see 50:21, 26; 51:3 .


Heb “will utterly destroy them.” The referent (this land, its inhabitants, and the nations surrounding it) has been specified in the translation for clarity, since the previous “them” referred to Nebuchadnezzar and his armies. sn This is essentially the introduction to the “judgment on the nations” in vv. 15-29 which begins with Jerusalem and Judah (v. 18 ) and ultimately ends with Babylon itself (“Sheshach” in v. 26 ; see note there for explanation of the term).


Heb “I will make them an object of horror and a hissing and everlasting ruins.” The sentence has been broken up to separate the last object from the first two which are of slightly different connotation, i.e., they denote the reaction to the latter. sn Compare Jer 18:16 and 19:8 and the study note at 18:16 .


Heb “All this land.”


Heb “that nation.”


Heb “the land of the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the use of the term “Chaldeans.”


Heb “I will visit upon the king of Babylon and upon that nation, oracle of the Lord , their iniquity even upon the land of the Chaldeans and I will make it everlasting ruins.” The sentence has been restructured to avoid ambiguity and to conform the style more to contemporary English. sn Compare Isa 13:19-22 and Jer 50:39-40 .


Or “I will bring upon it everything that is to be written in this book. I will bring upon it everything that Jeremiah is going to prophesy concerning all the nations.” The reference to “this book” and “what Jeremiah has prophesied against the nations” raises issues about the editorial process underlying the current form of the book of Jeremiah. As the book now stands there is no earlier reference to any judgments against Babylon or any book (really “scroll”; books were a development of the first or second century a.d. ) containing them. A common assumption is that this “book” of judgment refers to the judgments against Babylon and the other nations contained at the end of the book of Jeremiah ( 46:1 –51:58). The Greek version actually inserts the prophecies of 46:1 – 51:58 here (but in a different order) and interprets “Which (= What) Jeremiah prophesied concerning all the nations” as a title. It is possible that the Greek version may represent an earlier form of the book. At least two earlier forms of the book are known that date roughly to the period dealt with here (Compare 36:1 with 25:1 and see 36:2, 4 and 36:28, 32 ). Whether reference here is made to the first or second of these scrolls and whether the Greek version represents either is impossible to determine. It is not inconceivable that the referent here is the prophecies which Jeremiah has already uttered in vv. 8-12 and is about to utter in conjunction with the symbolical act that the Lord commands him to perform (vv. 15-26, 30-38 ) and that these are proleptic of the latter prophecies which will be given later and will be incorporated in a future book. That is the tenor of the alternate translation. The verb forms involved are capable of either a past/perfect translation or a proleptic/future translation. For the use of the participle (in the alternate translation = Heb “that is to be written”; הַכָּתוּב , hakkatuv ) to refer to what is proleptic see GKC 356-57 §116. d , e , and compare usage in Jonah 1:3 ; 2 Kgs 11:2 . For the use of the perfect to refer to a future act (in the alternate translation “is going to prophesy,” נִבָּא , nibba ’) see GKC 312 §106. m and compare usage in Judg 1:2 . In support of this interpretation is the fact that the first verb in the next verse ( Heb “they will be subjected,” עָבְדוּ , ’ ovdu ) is undoubtedly prophetic [it is followed by a vav consecutive perfect; cf. Isa 5:14 ]). Reading the text this way has the advantage of situating it within the context of the passage itself which involves prophecies against the nations and against Babylon. Babylon is both the agent of wrath (the cup from which the nations drink, cf. 51:7 ) and the recipient of it (cf. v. 26 ). However, this interpretation admittedly does not explain the reference to “this book,” except as a proleptic reference to some future form of the book and there would be clearer ways of expressing this view if that were what was definitely intended.


Heb “make slaves of them.” The verb form here indicates that the action is as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). For the use of the verb rendered “makes slaves” see parallel usage in Lev 25:39, 46 (cf. BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3).


Heb “according to their deeds and according to the work of their hands.” The two phrases are synonymous; it would be hard to represent them both in translation without being redundant. The translation attempts to represent them by the qualifier “all” before the first phrase.


This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) which is probably being used in the sense that BDB 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c notes, i.e., the causal connection is somewhat loose, related here to the prophecies against the nations. “So” seems to be the most appropriate way to represent this.


Heb “Thus said the Lord , the God of Israel, to me.” It is generally understood that the communication is visionary. God does not have a “hand” and the action of going to the nations and making them drink of the cup are scarcely literal. The words are supplied in the translation to show the figurative nature of this passage.


There is some debate about the meaning of the verb here. Both BDB 172 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hithpo and KBL 191 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hitpol interpret this of the back and forth movement of staggering. HALOT 192 s.v. גָּעַשׁ Hitpo interprets it as vomiting. The word is used elsewhere of the up and down movement of the mountains ( 2 Sam 22:8 ) and the up and down movement of the rolling waves of the Nile ( Jer 46:7, 8 ). The fact that a different verb is used in v. 27 for vomiting would appear to argue against it referring to vomiting (contra W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:674; it is “they” that do this not their stomachs).


Heb “because of the sword that I will send among them.” Here, as often elsewhere in Jeremiah, the sword is figurative for warfare which brings death. See, e.g., 15:2 . The causal particle here is found in verbal locutions where it is the cause of emotional states or action. Hence there are really two “agents” which produce the effects of “staggering” and “acting insane,” the cup filled with God’s wrath and the sword. The sword is the “more literal” and the actual agent by which the first agent’s action is carried out.


The words “the wine of his wrath” are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor (see vv. 15-16 ). They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


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


The words “I made” and “drink it” are not in the text. The text from v. 18 to v. 26 contains a list of the nations that Jeremiah “made drink it.” The words are supplied in the translation here and at the beginning of v. 19 for the sake of clarity. See also the note on v. 26 .


Heb “in order to make them a ruin, an object of…” The sentence is broken up and the antecedents are made specific for the sake of clarity and English style.


See the study note on 24:9 for explanation.


Heb “as it is today.” This phrase would obviously be more appropriate after all these things had happened as is the case in 44:6, 23 where the verbs referring to these conditions are past. Some see this phrase as a marginal gloss added after the tragedies of 597 b.c. or 586 b.c . However, it may refer here to the beginning stages where Judah has already suffered the loss of Josiah, of its freedom, of some of its temple treasures, and of some of its leaders ( Dan 1:1-3 . The different date for Jehoiakim there is due to the different method of counting the king’s first year; the third year there is the same as the fourth year in 25:1 ).


The meaning of this term and its connection with the preceding is somewhat uncertain. This word is used of the mixture of foreign people who accompanied Israel out of Egypt ( Exod 12:38 ) and of the foreigners that the Israelites were to separate out of their midst in the time of Nehemiah ( Neh 13:3 ). Most commentators interpret it here of the foreign people who were living in Egypt. (See BDB 786 s.v. I עֶרֶב and KBL 733 s.v. II עֶרֶב .)


For location see Map1-A2 ; Map2-G2 ; Map4-A1 ; JP3-F3 ; JP4-F3 .


For the discussion regarding the meaning of the terms here see the notes on 9:26 . sn See Jer 9:26 where these are mentioned in connection with Moab, Edom, and Ammon.


Or “and all the kings of people of mixed origin who.” The Greek version gives evidence of having read the term only once; it refers to the “people of mixed origin” without reference to the kings of Arabia. While the term translated “people of mixed origin” seems appropriate in the context of a group of foreigners within a larger entity (e.g. Israel in Exod 12:38 ; Neh 13:3 ; Egypt in Jer 50:37 ), it seems odd to speak of them as a separate entity under their own kings. The presence of the phrase in the Hebrew text and the other versions dependent upon it can be explained as a case of dittography. sn See further Jer 49:28-33 for judgment against some of these Arabian peoples.


The words “have drunk the wine of the Lord ’s wrath” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity at the end of the list to serve as a transition to the next sentence which does not directly mention the cup or the Lord ’s wrath.


Heb “the king of Sheshach.” “Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ ( shin ) is substituted for Hebrew ב ( bet ) and Hebrew כ ( kaf ) is substituted for Hebrew ל ( lamed ). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it.


The words “Then the Lord said to me” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity, to connect this part of the narrative with vv. 15, 17 after the long intervening list of nations who were to drink the cup of God’s wrath in judgment.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this extended title.


Heb “Tell them, ‘Thus says the Lord ….’” The translation is intended to eliminate one level of imbedded quotation marks to help avoid confusion.


The words “this cup” are not in the text but are implicit to the metaphor and the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Drink, and get drunk, and vomit and fall down and don’t get up.” The imperatives following drink are not parallel actions but consequent actions. For the use of the imperative plus the conjunctive “and” to indicate consequent action, even intention see GKC 324-25 §110. f and compare usage in 1 Kgs 22:12 ; Prov 3:3 b-4a.


Heb “because of the sword that I will send among you.” See the notes on 2:16 for explanation.


Heb “Tell them, ‘Thus says the Lord …’” The translation is intended to eliminate one level of imbedded quote marks to help avoid confusion.


The translation attempts to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute preceding the finite verb which is here an obligatory imperfect. (See Joüon 2:371-72 §113.m and 2:423 §123.h, and compare usage in Gen 15:13 .)


Heb “which is called by my name.” See translator’s note on 7:10 for support.


This is an example of a question without the formal introductory particle following a conjunctive vav introducing an opposition. (See Joüon 2:609 §161.a.) It is also an example of the use of the infinitive before the finite verb in a rhetorical question involving doubt or denial. (See Joüon 2:422-23 §123.f, and compare usage in Gen 37:8 .)


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for explanation of this extended title.


Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.”


The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation to make clear who is being addressed.


Heb “Prophesy against them all these words.”


The words “like a lion about to attack” are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor. The explicit comparison of the Lord to a lion is made at the end of the passage in v. 38 . The words are supplied in the translation here for clarity. sn For the metaphor of the Lord going forth against his enemies like an attacking lion see Jer 49:19; 50:44 ; Isa 31:4 in all of which the Lord comes against the nations in defense of his people. In Hos 5:14 the metaphor is turned against his own people. The figure of a lion ravaging people has already been used in Jer 4:7 of the enemy from the north (Babylon).


For the use of this word see Amos 2:2 ; Hos 10:14 ; Ps 74:23 . See also the usage in Isa 66:6 which is very similar to the metaphorical usage here.


Heb “the Lord has a lawsuit against the nations.” For usage of the term see Hos 4:1 ; Mic 6:2 , and compare the usage of the related verb in Jer 2:9; 12:1 .


Heb “give the wicked over to the sword.” sn There is undoubtedly a deliberate allusion here to the reference to the “wars” ( Heb “sword”) that the Lord had said he would send raging through the nations (vv. 16, 27 ) and the “war” ( Heb “sword”) that he is proclaiming against them (v. 29 ).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “will go forth from nation to nation.”


Heb “Wail and cry out, you shepherds. Roll in the dust, you leaders of the flock.” The terms have been reversed to explain the figure. sn The term “shepherd” has been used several times in the book of Jeremiah to refer to the leaders of the people who were responsible for taking care of their people who are compared to a flock. (See Jer 23:1-4 and the notes there.) Here the figure has some irony involved in it. It is the shepherds who are to be slaughtered like sheep. They may have considered themselves “choice vessels” (the literal translation of “fine pottery”), but they would be slaughtered and lie scattered on the ground (v. 33 ) like broken pottery.


The meaning of this line is debated. The Greek version does not have the words “lie scattered” and it reads the words “like broken pieces of fine pottery” ( Heb “like choice vessels”; כִּכְלִי חֶמְדָּה , kikhli khemdah ) as “like choice rams” ( כְּאֵילֵי חֶמְדָּה , kÿ ’ ele khemdah ); i.e., “the days have been completed for you to be slaughtered and you will fall like choice rams.” The reading of the Greek version fits the context better, but is probably secondary for that very reason. The word translated “lie scattered” ( תְּפוֹצָה , tÿfotsah ) occurs nowhere else and the switch to the simile of “choice vessels” is rather abrupt. However, this section has been characterized by switching metaphors. The key to the interpretation and translation here is the consequential nature of the verbal actions involved. “Fall” does not merely refer to the action but the effect, i.e., “lie fallen” (cf. BDB 657 s.v. נָפַל 7 and compare Judg 3:25 ; 1 Sam 31:8 ). Though the noun translated “lie scattered” does not occur elsewhere, the verb does. It is quite commonly used of dispersing people and that has led many to see that as the reference here. The word, however, can be used of scattering other things like seed ( Isa 28:25 ), arrows ( 2 Sam 22:15 ; metaphorical for lightning), etc. Here it follows “slaughtered” and refers to their dead bodies. The simile ( Heb “ fallen like choice vessels”) is elliptical, referring to “broken pieces” of choice vessels. In this sense the simile fits in perfectly with v. 33 .


Heb “Flight [or “place of escape”] will perish from the shepherds.” sn Judging from Gen 14:10 and Judg 8:12 (among many others), it was not uncommon for the leaders to try to save their own necks at the expense of their soldiers.


Heb “their pastures,” i.e., the place where they “shepherd” their “flocks.” The verb tenses in this section are not as clear as in the preceding. The participle in this verse is followed by a vav consecutive perfect like the imperatives in v. 34 . The verbs in v. 38 are perfects but they can be and probably should be understood as prophetic like the perfect in v. 31 ( נְתָנָם , nÿtanam ) which is surrounded by imperfects, participles, and vav consecutive perfects. sn Jer 25:36-38 shifts to the future as though the action were already accomplished or going on. It is the sound that Jeremiah hears in his “prophetic ears” of something that has begun (v. 29 ) but will find its culmination in the future (vv. 13, 16, 27, 30-35 ).


For this meaning of the verb used here see HALOT 217 s.v. דָּמַם Nif. Elsewhere it refers to people dying (see, e.g., Jer 49:26; 50:30 ) hence some see a reference to “lifeless.”


Heb “because of the burning anger of the Lord .”


Heb “Like a lion he has left his lair.” sn The text returns to the metaphor alluded to in v. 30 . The bracketing of speeches with repeated words or motifs is a common rhetorical device in ancient literature.


This is a way of rendering the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) which is probably here for emphasis rather than indicating cause (see BDB 473 s.v. כִּי 1.e and compare usage in Jer 22:22 ).


Heb “by the sword of the oppressors.” The reading here follows a number of Hebrew mss and the Greek version. The majority of Hebrew mss read “the anger of the oppressor.” The reading “the sword of the oppressors” is supported also by the parallel use of this phrase in Jer 46:16; 50:16 . The error in the MT may be explained by confusion with the following line which has the same beginning combination ( מִפְּנֵי חֲרוֹן [ mippÿne kharon ] confused for מִפְּנֵי חֶרֶב [ mippÿne kherev ]). This reading is also supported by the Targum, the Aramaic paraphrase of the OT. According to BDB 413 s.v. יָנָה Qal the feminine singular participle ( הַיּוֹנָה , hayyonah ) is functioning as a collective in this idiom (see GKC 394 §122. s for this phenomenon). sn The connection between “war” ( Heb “the sword”) and the wrath or anger of the Lord has already been made in vv. 16, 27 and the sword has been referred to also in vv. 29, 31 . The sword is of course a reference to the onslaughts of the Babylonian armies (see later Jer 51:20-23 ).


The words “to Jeremiah” are not in the Hebrew text. They are added by the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and the Syriac versions. They are implicit, however, to the narrative style which speaks of Jeremiah in the third person (cf. vv. 7, 12 ). They have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “will turn from his wicked way.”


For the idiom and translation of terms involved here see 18:8 and the translator’s note there. sn The Lord is being consistent in the application of the principle laid down in Jer 18:7-8 that reformation of character will result in the withdrawal of the punishment of “uprooting, tearing down, destroying.” His prophecies of doom are conditional threats, open to change with change in behavior.


Heb “because of the wickedness of their deeds.”


Heb “thus says the Lord , ‘…’.” The use of the indirect quotation in the translation eliminates one level of embedded quotation to avoid confusion.


Heb “by walking in my law which I set before you.” sn Examples of those laws are found in Jer 7:5-6, 9 . The law was summarized or epitomized in the ten commandments which are called the “words of the covenant” in Exod 34:28 , but it contained much more. However, when Israel is taken to task by God, it often relates to their failure to live up to the standards of the ten commandments ( Heb “the ten words”; see Hos 4:1-3 ; Jer 7:9 ).


See the translator’s note on 7:13 for the idiom here.


26:4-6 are all one long sentence containing a long condition with subordinate clauses (vv. 4-5 ) and a compound consequence in v. 6 : Heb “If you will not obey me by walking in my law…by paying attention to the words of the prophets which…and you did not pay heed, then I will make…and I will make…” The sentence has been broken down in conformity to contemporary English style but an attempt has been made to reflect all the subordinations in the English translation.


The translation again represents an attempt to break up a long complex Hebrew sentence into equivalent English ones that conform more to contemporary English style: Heb “And as soon as Jeremiah finished saying all that…the priests…grabbed him and said…” The word “some” has been supplied in the translation, because obviously it was not all the priests, the prophets, and all the people, but only some of them. There is, of course, rhetorical intent here to show that all were implicated, although all may not have actually participated. (This is a common figure called synecdoche where all is put for a part – all for all kinds or representatives of all kinds. See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 614-19, and compare usage in Acts 10:12 ; Matt 3:5 .)


Or “You must certainly die!” The construction here is again emphatic with the infinitive preceding the finite verb (cf. Joüon 2:423 §123.h, and compare usage in Exod 21:28 ).


Heb “Why have you prophesied in the Lord ’s name, saying, ‘This house will become like Shiloh and this city will become a ruin without inhabitant?’” It is clear from the context here and in 7:1-15 that the emphasis is on “in the Lord ’s name” and that the question is rhetorical. The question is not a quest for information but an accusation, a remonstrance. (For this figure see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 953-54, who calls a question like this a rhetorical question of remonstrance or expostulation. For good examples see Pss 11:1; 50:16 .) For the significance of “prophesying in the Lord ’s name” see the study note on 14:14 . The translation again utilizes the indirect quote to eliminate one level of embedded quotation. sn They are questioning his right to claim the Lord ’s authority for what they see as a false prophecy. They believed that the presence of the Lord in the temple guaranteed their safety ( 7:4, 10, 14 ) and that the Lord could not possibly be threatening its destruction. Hence they were ready to put him to death as a false prophet according to the law of Moses ( Deut 18:20 ).


Heb “these things.”


Heb “they sat” or “they took their seats.” However, the context is one of judicial trial. sn The gateway or gate complex of an ancient Near Eastern city was often used for court assemblies (cf. Deut 21:19; 22:15 ; Ruth 4:1 ; Isa 29:21 ). Here the gate of the temple was used for the convening of a court to try Jeremiah for the charge of being a false prophet.


The translation follows many Hebrew mss and ancient versions in reading the word “house” (= temple) here. The majority of Hebrew mss do not have this word. It is, however, implicit in the construction “the New Gate of the Lord .” sn The location of the New Gate is uncertain. It is mentioned again in Jer 36:10 where it is connected with the upper (i.e., inner) court of the temple. Some equate it with the Upper Gate that Jotham rebuilt during his reign ( 2 Kgs 15:35 ; Jotham reigned from 750-735 b.c. ). That gate, however, has already been referred to as the Upper Gate of Benjamin in Jer 20:2 (for more detail see the study note there) and would not likely have been called something different here.


Heb “the priests and prophets said to the leaders and the people….” The long sentence has been broken up to conform better with contemporary English style and the situational context is reflected in “laid their charges.”


Heb “a sentence of death to this man.”


Heb “it.”


Heb “Jeremiah said to all the leaders and all the people….” See the note on the word “said” in the preceding verse.


Heb “Make good your ways and your actions.” For the same expression see 7:3, 5; 18:11 .


Heb “And I, behold I am in your hand.” Hand is quite commonly used for “power” or “control” in biblical contexts.


Heb “For in truth the Lord has sent me to you to speak in your ears all these words/things.”


Heb “Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets…”


Heb “For in the name of the Lord our God he has spoken to us.” The emphasis is on “in the name of…” sn The priests and false prophets claimed that they were speaking in the Lord ’s name (i.e., as his representatives and with his authority [see 1 Sam 25:9 ; 1 Kgs 21:8 and cf. the study note on Jer 23:27 ]) and felt that Jeremiah’s claims to be doing so were false (see v. 9 ). Jeremiah (and the Lord ) charged that the opposite was the case (cf. 14:14-15; 23:21 ). The officials and the people, at least at this time, accepted his claims that the Lord had sent him (vv. 12, 15 ).


Heb “elders of the land.” sn The elders were important land-owning citizens, separate from the “heads” or leaders of the tribes, the officers and the judges. They were very influential in both the judicial, political, and religious proceedings of the cities and the state. (See, e.g., Josh 24:1 ; 2 Sam 19:11 ; 2 Kgs 23:1 for elders of Israel/Judah, and Deut 21:1-9 ; Ruth 4:1-2 for elders of the cities.)


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn For an explanation of this title for God see the study note on 2:19 .


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


This Hebrew idiom ( חָלָה פָּנִים , khalah panim ) is often explained in terms of “stroking” or “patting the face” of someone, seeking to gain his favor. It is never used in a literal sense and is found in contexts of prayer ( Exod 32:11 ; Ps 119:158 ), worship ( Zech 8:21-22 ), humble submission ( 2 Chr 3:12 ), or amendment of behavior ( Dan 9:13 ). All were true to one extent or another of Hezekiah.


The he interrogative ( הַ )with the negative governs all three of the verbs, the perfect and the two vav ( ו ) consecutive imperfects that follow it. The next clause has disjunctive word order and introduces a contrast. The question expects a positive answer.


For the translation of the terms involved here see the translator’s note on 18:8 .


Or “great harm to ourselves.” The word “disaster” (or “harm”) is the same one that has been translated “destroying” in the preceding line and in vv. 3 and 13 .


Heb “in the name of the Lord ,” i.e., as his representative and claiming his authority. See the study note on v. 16 .


Heb “Now also a man was prophesying in the name of the Lord , Uriah son of…, and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah.” The long Hebrew sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the major emphasis brought out by putting his prophesying first, then identifying him.


Heb “all his mighty men/soldiers.” It is unlikely that this included all the army. It more likely was the palace guards or royal bodyguards (see where the same word is used of David’s elite corps).


Heb “his words.”


Heb “But Uriah heard and feared and fled and entered Egypt.”


Heb “from Egypt.” sn A standard part of international treaties at this time was a stipulation of mutual extradition of political prisoners. Jehoiakim was a vassal of Pharaoh Necho (see 2 Kgs 23:34-35 ) and undoubtedly had such a treaty with him.


Heb “Nevertheless, the hand of Ahikam son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah so that he would not be given (even more literally, ‘so as not to give him’) into the hand of the people to kill him.” “Hand” is often used for “aid,” “support,” “influence,” “power,” “control.”


The reading here is based on a few Hebrew mss and the Syriac and Arabic versions. The majority of Hebrew mss and most of the versions read “At the beginning of the reign of Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim king of Judah” as in 26:1 . The LXX does not have this whole verse. It has long been recognized that the text of 27:1 is textually corrupt. The date formula in the majority of Hebrew mss at 27:1 is contradictory both with the context of the passage which deals with an event in the reign of Zedekiah (see vv. 3, 13 and v. 20 which presupposes that Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, has been taken captive [i.e., after the death of Jehoiakim!]) and the date formula in 28:1 which refers to an event “in that same year” and then qualifies it with “Early in the reign of Zedekiah.” Hence it is preferable to read “Zedekiah” here in place of “Jehoiakim” and explain the error in the Hebrew manuscripts as an erroneous copying of 26:1 . sn If the text of 28:1 is correct, the date here would be sometime in the fourth year of Zedekiah which would be 594/3 b.c . Zedekiah had been placed on the throne as a puppet king by Nebuchadnezzar after he deposed Zedekiah’s nephew, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and sent him, his family, some of the temple treasures, and some of the Judean leaders away to Babylon ( 2 Kgs 23:8-17 ). The author does not state directly why the envoys from the nations mentioned in v. 3 were in Jerusalem, but the implication is that they were there trying to interest Zedekiah in rebelling. Modern scholars have used the data here and in 28:1 and in the Babylonian Chronicles (it contains a record of major events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) to suggest a plausible background for such a meeting. Nebuchadnezzar had to put down an uprising in the east and quell a rebellion in Babylon itself in the two years prior to this meeting. Some “prophets” in the nation of Israel and in these other nations (see vv. 9-10 ) saw in these events hopes for not having to pay tribute to (i.e., submit to the yoke of) Nebuchadnezzar and were counseling rebellion. Jeremiah saw this as foolhardy and counseled otherwise. Again, there is a conflict between “prophets” which is what this whole section (–29) is all about.


There is some disjunction in the narrative of this chapter. The introduction in v. 1 presents this as a third person narrative. But the rest of the passage reports the narrative in first person. Thus the text reads here “Thus the Lord said to me…” In vv. 12, 16 the narrative picks up in first person report and never indicates that Jeremiah carried out the command in vv. 2-4 that introduces the message which he repeats in summary form himself to Zedekiah. The report is thus an “unedited” first person report. This may create some confusion for some readers, but it is best to leave it in first person here because of the continuation in vv. 12, 16 .


For location see Map1-A2 ; Map2-G2 ; Map4-A1 ; JP3-F3 ; JP4-F3 .


Heb “send by means of them” [i.e., the straps and crossbars made into a yoke] to…through.” The text is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style. Many English versions ignore the suffix on the end of “send” and find some support for this on the basis of its absence in the Lucianic Greek text. However, it is probably functioning metonymically here for the message which they see symbolized before them and is now explained clearly to them.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the significance of this title.


Heb “Give them a charge to their masters saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, “Thus you shall say unto your masters…”’” The sentence is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style.


Heb “by my great power and my outstretched arm.” Again “arm” is symbolical for “strength.” Compare the similar expression in 21:5 .


Heb “have given…into the hand of.”


Heb “I have given…to him to serve him.” The verb “give” in this syntactical situation is functioning like the Hiphil stem, i.e., as a causative. See Dan 1:9 for parallel usage. For the usage of “serve” meaning “be subject to” compare 2 Sam 22:44 and BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3. sn This statement is rhetorical, emphasizing the totality of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. Neither here nor in Dan 2:38 is it to be understood literally.


Heb “until the time of his land, even his, comes.” The independent pronoun is placed here for emphasis on the possessive pronoun. The word “time” is used by substitution for the things that are done in it (compare in the NT John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20 “his hour had not yet come”). sn See Jer 25:12-14, 16 .


Heb “him.” This is a good example of the figure of substitution where the person is put for his descendants or the nation or subject he rules. (See Gen 28:13-14 for another good example and Acts 22:7 in the NT.)


Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. 2 for the figure.


Heb “oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “The nation and/or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck in the yoke of the king of Babylon, by sword, starvation, and disease I will punish [or more literally, “visit upon”] that nation, oracle of the Lord .” The long complex Hebrew sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the figures interpreted for the sake of clarity. The particle אֵת , the sign of the accusative, before “which will not put…” is a little unusual here. For its use to introduce a new topic (here a second relative clause) see BDB 85 s.v. אֵת 3. α .


Heb “with/by the sword.”


The verb translated “destroy” ( תָּמַם , tamam ) is usually intransitive in the stem of the verb used here. It is found in a transitive sense elsewhere only in Ps 64:7 . BDB 1070 s.v. תָּמַם 7 emends both texts. In this case they recommend תִּתִּי ( titi ): “until I give them into his hand.” That reading is suggested by the texts of the Syriac and Targumic translations (see BHS fn c). The Greek translation supports reading the verb “destroy” but treats it as though it were intransitive “until they are destroyed by his hand” (reading תֻּמָּם [ tummam ]). The MT here is accepted as the more difficult reading and support is seen in the transitive use of the verb in Ps 64:7 . tn Heb “I will punish that nation until I have destroyed them [i.e., its people] by his hand.” “Hand” here refers to agency. Hence, “I will use him.”


The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligatory imperfect. See IBHS 508-9 §31.4g for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of positive obligation.


The words “Don’t listen to them” have been repeated from v. 9 a to pick up the causal connection between v. 9 a and v. 10 that is formally introduced by a causal particle in v. 10 in the original text.


Heb “they are prophesying a lie.”


Heb “lies will result in your being taken far…” ( לְמַעַן [ lÿma ’ an ] + infinitive). This is a rather clear case of the particle לְמַעַן introducing result (contra BDB 775 s.v. מַעַן note 1. There is no irony in this statement; it is a bold prediction).


The words “out of your country” are not in the text but are implicit in the meaning of the verb. The words “in exile” are also not in the text but are implicit in the context. These words have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


The words “Things will go better for” are not in the text. They are supplied contextually as a means of breaking up the awkward syntax of the original which reads “The nation which brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and subjects itself to him, I will leave it…”


Heb “I spoke to Zedekiah…according to all these words, saying.”


Heb “Why should you and your people die…?” The rhetorical question expects the answer made explicit in the translation, “There is no reason!”


Heb “…disease according to what the Lord spoke concerning the nation that…”


The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligatory imperfect. See IBHS 508 §31.4g for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of positive obligation.


Heb “…drive you out and you will perish, you and the prophets who are prophesying lies.” sn For the fulfillment of this prophecy see Jer 39:5-7; 52:7-11 ; 2 Kgs 25:4-7 .


Heb “don’t listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you….” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of English style and one level of embedded quotes has been eliminated to ease complexity.


The imperative with vav ( ו ) here and in v. 12 after another imperative are a good example of the use of the imperative to introduce a consequence. (See GKC 324-25 §110. f and see Gen 42:18 . This is a common verb in this idiom.)


According to E. W. Bullinger ( Figures of Speech , 954) both this question and the one in v. 13 are examples of rhetorical questions of prohibition / “don’t let this city be made a pile of rubble.”


The words “I also told them” are not in the text, but it is obvious from the fact that the Lord is spoken about in the third person in vv. 18, 19, 21 that he is not the speaker. This is part of Jeremiah’s own speech to the priests and the people (v. 16 ). These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the word of the Lord is with them.”


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn For the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19 .


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For the significance of this title see the note at 2:19 .


The words “two bronze” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. sn The two bronze pillars are the two free-standing pillars at the entrance of the temple (Jakin and Boaz) described in 1 Kgs 7:15-22 .


The words “the large bronze basin called” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. sn “The Sea” refers to the large basin that was mounted on twelve bronze bulls. It stood in front of the temple and contained water for the priests to bathe themselves ( 2 Chr 4:6 ; cf. Exod 30:17-21 ). It is described in 1 Kgs 7:23-26 .


The words “movable bronze” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. See the study note for further reference. sn The bronze stands are the movable bronze stands described in 1 Kgs 7:27-37 . They were the stands for the bronze basins described in 1 Kgs 7:38-39 . According to 2 Chr 4:6 the latter were used to wash the burnt offerings. The priests would have been very concerned especially about the big bronze basin and the movable stands and their basins because they involved their ritual purification apart from which they would have had no sanctity. These articles (or furnishings in this case) were broken up and the bronze carried away to Babylon along with all the other bronze, silver, and gold furnishings when the temple and the city were destroyed in 587 b.c. (see 2 Kgs 25:13-15 ; Jer 52:17-19 ).


27:19-20 are all one long sentence in Hebrew. It has been broken up for the sake of English style. Some of the sentences still violate contemporary English style (e.g., v. 20 ) but breaking them down any further would lose the focus. For further discussion see the study note on v. 21 .


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For the significance of this title see the note at 2:19 .


This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish [someone].” It is also used in the opposite of sense of taking note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6 ). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by the actions that follow, bringing them back and restoring them.


Heb “oracle of the Lord .”


The original text is unusually full here and deemed by many scholars to be corrupt: Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month Hananiah…said to…” Many scholars see a contradiction between “in the fourth year” and “in the beginning of the reign.” These scholars point to the fact that the Greek version does not have “in that year” and “in the beginning of the reign of”; it merely reads “in the fourth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month.” These scholars generally also regard the heading at 27:1 to be unoriginal and interpret the heading in the MT here as a faulty harmonization of the original (that in the Greek version) with the erroneous one in the Hebrew of 27:1 . However, it is just as possible that the Greek version in both places is an attempt to harmonize the data of 27:1 and 28:1 . I.e., it left out both the heading at 27:1 , and “in that year” and “at the beginning of the reign of” in the heading here because it thought the data was contradictory. However, it is just as likely that there is really no contradiction here. I.e., the term “beginning of the reign” can include the fourth year. E. H. Merrill has argued that the term here refers not to the accession year (see the translator’s note on 26:1 ) but to the early years in general (“The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” JANESCU 19 [1989]: 105-6, and cf. note 18 for bibliography on Akkadian parallels). Hence the phrase has been translated both here and in 27:1 “early in the reign of…” For other attempts at harmonization see the discussion in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 41, n. 1a. sn The dating here is very full and precise. “In that same year” ties the events here in with the messages that Jeremiah delivered to the envoys, the king and his court, and the priests and people while wearing the yoke symbolizing servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. The text wants to show that the events here transpired shortly after those in and that Jeremiah is still wearing the yoke. The supplying of the precise month is important because the end of the chapter will show that Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Hananiah was fulfilled two months later. Hence Jeremiah is the true prophet and Hananiah and the others ( 27:16 ) are false. The supplying of the year is perhaps significant because the author states in 51:59 that Zedekiah went to Babylon that same year, probably to pledge his loyalty. The suggestion lies ready to hand that the events of this chapter and the preceding one lead to his dismissal of the false prophet Hananiah’s advice and the acceptance of Jeremiah’s.


Heb “to me.” The rest of the chapter is all in third person narrative (see vv. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15 ). Hence, many explain the first person here as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation “to Jeremiah” ( אֶל יִרְמִיָּה [’ el yirmiyyah ] = אֵלַי , [’ elay ]). It is just as likely that there is a similar kind of disjunction here that was found in 27:1-2 only in the opposite direction. There what started out as a third person report was really a first person report. Here what starts out as a first person report is really a third person report. The text betrays both the hands of the narrator, probably Baruch, and the reportee, Jeremiah, who dictated a synopsis of his messages and his stories to Baruch to write down ( Jer 36:4, 32 ).


Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, Hananiah son of Azzur the prophet who was from Gibeon said to me in…” The sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the flavor given in modern equivalent terms.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .” sn Notice again that the “false” prophet uses the same formula and claims the same source for his message as the true prophet has (cf. 27:22 ).


Heb “Listen to this word/message which I am about to speak in your ears and the ears of all these people.”


The word “invariably” is not in the text but is implicit in the context and in the tense of the Hebrew verb. It is supplied in the translation for clarity and to help bring out the contrast in the next verse.


Many Hebrew mss read “starvation/famine” which is the second member of a common triad “sword, famine, and plague” in Jeremiah. This triad occurs thirteen times in the book and undoubtedly influenced a later scribe to read “starvation [= famine]” here. For this triad see the note on 14:14 . The words “disaster and plagues” are missing in the LXX.


The verbs in this verse are to be interpreted as iterative imperfects in past time rather than as futures because of the explicit contrast that is drawn in the two verses by the emphatic syntactical construction of the two verses. Both verses begin with a casus pendens construction to throw the two verses into contrast: Heb “ The prophets who were before me and you from ancient times, they prophesied… The prophet who prophesied peace, when the word of that prophet came true, that prophet was known that the Lord truly sent him .”


Heb “I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from upon the necks of all the nations.”


Heb “Then the prophet Jeremiah went his way.”


Heb “Hananiah, ‘Thus says the Lord ….” The translation uses an indirect quotation here used to eliminate one level of embedded quotation.


The Greek version reads “I have made/put” rather than “you have made/put.” This is the easier reading and is therefore rejected.


Heb “the yoke bars of wood you have broken, but you have made in its stead yoke bars of iron.” sn This whole incident (and the preceding one in ) is symbolic. Jeremiah’s wearing of the yoke was symbolic of the Lord ’s message to submit to Babylonian authority. Hananiah’s breaking of the yoke was a prediction that that authority would not last beyond two years. By breaking the yoke he was encouraging rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar’s (and hence the Lord ’s) authority (cf. 27:9, 14 ). However, rebelling would only result in further, harsher, more irresistible measures by Nebuchadnezzar to control such rebellion.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for this title.


Heb “An iron yoke I have put on the necks of all these nations.”


Or “You are giving these people false assurances.”


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


Jer 29:1-3 are all one long sentence in Hebrew containing a parenthetical insertion. The text reads “These are the words of the letter which the prophet Jeremiah sent to the elders…people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon after King Jeconiah…had gone from Jerusalem by the hand of Elasah…whom Zedekiah sent…saying, ‘Thus says the Lord …’” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of contemporary English style and clarity.


This term is often mistakenly understood to refer to a “eunuch.” It is clear, however, in Gen 39:1 that “eunuchs” could be married. On the other hand it is clear from Isa 59:3-5 that some who bore this title could not have children. In this period, it is possible that the persons who bore this title were high officials like the rab saris who was a high official in the Babylonian court (cf. Jer 39:3, 13; 52:25 ). For further references see HALOT 727 s.v. סָרִיס 1.c.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.


Heb “I sent.” This sentence exhibits a rapid switch in person, here from the third person to the first. Such switches are common to Hebrew poetry and prophecy (cf. GKC 462 §144. p ). Contemporary English, however, does not exhibit such rapid switches and it creates confusion for the careful reader. Such switches have regularly been avoided in the translation. sn Elsewhere Nebuchadnezzar is seen as the one who carried them into exile (cf. 27:20; 29:1 ). Here and in v. 14 the Lord is seen as the one who sends them into exile. The Lord is the ultimate cause and Nebuchadnezzar is his agent or servant (cf. 25:9; 27:6 and notes).


Heb “prophesying lies to you in my name.” sn For the significance of “in my name” see the study notes on 14:14 and 23:27 .


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


See the translator’s note on Jer 27:22 for this term.


Verse 10 is all one long sentence in the Hebrew original: “According to the fullness of Babylon seventy years I will take thought of you and I will establish my gracious word to you by bringing you back to this place.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style.


Heb “this place.” The text has probably been influenced by the parallel passage in 27:22 . The term appears fifteen times in Jeremiah and is invariably a reference to Jerusalem or Judah. sn See Jer 27:22 for this promise.


Heb “I know the plans that I am planning for you, oracle of the Lord , plans of well-being and not for harm to give to you….”


Or “the future you hope for”; Heb “a future and a hope.” This is a good example of hendiadys where two formally coordinated nouns (adjectives, verbs) convey a single idea where one of the terms functions as a qualifier of the other. For this figure see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 658-72. This example is discussed on p. 661.


Heb “come and pray to me.” This is an example of verbal hendiadys where two verb formally joined by “and” convey a main concept with the second verb functioning as an adverbial qualifier.


Or “You will call out to me and come to me in prayer and I will hear your prayers.” The verbs are vav consecutive perfects and can be taken either as unconditional futures or as contingent futures. See GKC 337 §112. kk and 494 §159. g and compare the usage in Gen 44:22 for the use of the vav consecutive perfects in contingent futures. The conditional clause in the middle of 29:13 and the deuteronomic theology reflected in both Deut 30:1-5 and 1 Kgs 8:46-48 suggest that the verbs are continent futures here. For the same demand for wholehearted seeking in these contexts which presuppose exile see especially Deut 30:2 , 1 Kgs 8:48 .


Or “If you wholeheartedly seek me”; Heb “You will seek me and find [me] because you will seek me with all your heart.” The translation attempts to reflect the theological nuances of “seeking” and “finding” and the psychological significance of “heart” which refers more to intellectual and volitional concerns in the OT than to emotional ones.


Heb “I will let myself be found by you.” For this nuance of the verb see BDB 594 s.v. מָצָא Niph.1.f and compare the usage in Isa 65:1 ; 2 Chr 15:2 . The Greek version already noted that nuance when it translated the phrase “I will manifest myself to you.”


Heb “restore your fortune.” Alternately, “I will bring you back from exile.” This idiom occurs twenty-six times in the OT and in several cases it is clearly not referring to return from exile but restoration of fortunes (e.g., Job 42:10 ; Hos 6:11 –7:1; Jer 33:11 ). It is often followed as here by “regather” or “bring back” (e.g., Jer 30:3 ; Ezek 29:14 ) so it is often misunderstood as “bringing back the exiles.” The versions (LXX, Vulg., Tg., Pesh.) often translate the idiom as “to go away into captivity,” deriving the noun from שְׁבִי ( shÿvi , “captivity”). However, the use of this expression in Old Aramaic documents of Sefire parallels the biblical idiom: “the gods restored the fortunes of the house of my father again” (J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [BibOr], 100-101, 119-20). The idiom means “to turn someone's fortune, bring about change” or “to reestablish as it was” ( HALOT 1386 s.v. 3 .c). In Ezek 16:53 it is paralleled by the expression “to restore the situation which prevailed earlier.” This amounts to restitutio in integrum , which is applicable to the circumstances surrounding the return of the exiles.


The words “of good news” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “But thus says the Lord about.” The words “just listen to what” are supplied in the translation to help show the connection with the preceding. sn Jeremiah answers their claims that the Lord has raised up prophets to encourage them that their stay will be short by referring to the Lord ’s promise that the Lord ’s plans are not for restoration but for further destruction.


The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to identify the referent and avoid the possible confusion that “this city” refers to Babylon.


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of this title.


Heb “the sword.”


The meaning of this word is somewhat uncertain. It occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. BDB 1045 s.v. שֹׁעָר relates it to the noun “horrible thing” (translated “something shocking”) in Jer 5:30; 23:14 and defines it as “horrid, disgusting.” HALOT 1495 s.v. שֹׁעָר relates it to the same noun and define it as “rotten; corrupt.” That nuance is accepted here. sn Compare Jer 24:8-10 in its context for the figure here.


Heb “with the sword.”


See the translator’s note on 7:13 for an explanation of this idiom.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The word “exiles” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation to clarify the referent of “you.”


Heb “pay attention to the word of the Lord .” However, the Lord is speaking in the words just previous to this and in the words which follow (“whom I have sent”). This is another example of the shift from third person referent to first person which is common in Hebrew poetry and prophecy but is not common in English style. The person has been adjusted in the translation to avoid confusion.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” sn See study notes on 2:19 and 7:3 for the explanation of this title.


Heb “prophesying lies in my name.” For an explanation of this idiom see the study notes on 14:14 and 23:27 .


It is commonly assumed that this word is explained by the two verbal actions that follow. The word ( נְבָלָה , nÿvalah ) is rather commonly used of sins of unchastity (cf., e.g., Gen 34:7 ; Judg 19:23 ; 2 Sam 13:12 ) which would fit the reference to adultery. However, the word is singular and not likely to cover both actions that follow. The word is also used of the greedy act of Achan ( Josh 7:15 ) which threatened Israel with destruction and the churlish behavior of Nabal ( 1 Sam 25:25 ) which threatened him and his household with destruction. The word is also used of foolish talk in Isa 9:17 ( 9:16 HT) and Isa 32:6 . It is possible that this refers to a separate act, one that would have brought the death penalty from Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., the preaching of rebellion in conformity with the message of the false prophets in Jerusalem and other nations (cf. 27:9, 13 ). Hence it is possible that the translation should read: “This will happen because of their vile conduct. They have propagated rebellion. They have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives. They have spoken words that I did not command them to speak. They have spoken lies while claiming my authority.”


The words “The Lord told Jeremiah” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation here to indicate the shift in topic and the shift in addressee (the imperative “tell” is second singular). The introduction supplied in the translation here matches that in v. 30 where the words are in the text.


It is unclear whether this is a family name or a place name. The word occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.


Heb “Tell Shemaiah the Nehelamite, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel….” The indirect quotation is used in the translation to avoid the complexity of embedding a quotation within a quotation.


Heb “In your [own] name.” See the study note on 23:27 for the significance of this idiom.


Heb “letters.” Though GKC 397 §124. b , n. 1 denies it, this is probably a case of the plural of extension. For a similar usage see Isa 37:14 where the plural “letters” is referred to later as an “it.” Even if there were other “letters,” the focus is on the letter to Zephaniah.


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


The words “In your letter you said to Zephaniah” are not in the text: Heb “you sent a letter to…, saying.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style and these words have been supplied in the translation to make the transition to the address to Zephaniah in vv. 26-28 .


Heb “in place of Jehoiada the priest.” The word “the priest” is unnecessary to the English sentence.


Heb “The Lord has appointed you priest in place of the priest Jehoiada to be overseer in the house of the Lord for/over.” The translation is based on a reading presupposed by several of the versions. The Hebrew text reads “The Lord has…to be overseers [in] the house of the Lord for/over.” The reading here follows that of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions in reading פָּקִיד בְּבֵית ( paqid bÿvet ) in place of פְּקִדִים בֵּית ( pÿqidim bet ). There has been a confusion of the ם ( mem ) and בּ ( bet ) and a transposition of the י ( yod ) and ד ( dalet ).


The verb here is a good example of what IBHS 431 §26.2f calls the estimative-declarative reflexive where a person presents himself in a certain light. For examples of this usage see 2 Sam 13:5 ; Prov 13:7 .


See the translator’s note on 20:2 for this word which only occurs here and in 20:2-3 .


This word only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible. All the lexicons are agreed as seeing it referring to a collar placed around the neck. The basis for this definition are the cognate languages (see, e.g., HALOT 958-59 s.v. צִינֹק for the most complete discussion).


Heb “So why have you not reprimanded Jeremiah…?” The rhetorical question functions as an emphatic assertion made explicit in the translation.


Heb “For he has sent to us in Babylon, saying….” The quote, however, is part of the earlier letter.


Heb “in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.”


Or “is giving you false assurances.”


Heb “Therefore.”


Compare the headings at 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1 and the translator’s note at those places.


Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, saying….” For significance of the title “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel” see the note at 2:19 .


Heb “Write all the words which I speak to you in a scroll.” The verb “which I speak” is the instantaneous use of the perfect tense (cf. GKC 311-12 §106. i or IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1d). The words that the Lord is about to speak follow in chs. –31. sn Reference is made here to the so-called “Book of Consolation” which is the most extended treatment of the theme of hope or deliverance in the book. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet both of judgment (of tearing down and destroying) and of deliverance (of replanting and rebuilding; see Jer 1:10 ). Jeremiah lamented that he had to predominantly pronounce judgment but he has periodically woven in prophecies of hope after judgment in 3:14-18; 16:14-15; 23:3-8; 24:4-7; 29:10-14, 32 . The oracles of hope contained in these chapters are undated but reference is made in them to the restoration of both Israel which had gone into exile in Assyria in 722 b.c. and Judah which began to be exiled in 605 and 597 b.c . Jeremiah had already written as early as the reign of Zedekiah about the exiles who were the good figs who were to experience the “good” of restoration ( 24:4-7; 29:10-14 ) and had spoken of the further exile of those who remained in Judah. So it is possible that these oracles fit in roughly the same time frame as chapters –29.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “restore the fortune.” For the translation and meaning of this idiom see the note at 29:14 .


Heb “fathers.”


Heb “And these are the words/things that the Lord speaks concerning Israel and Judah.”


The particle כִּי ( ki ) is functioning here as loosely causal or epexegetical of the preceding introduction. For this usage cf. BDB 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c. This nuance borders on that of the intensive use of כִּי . See the discussion in BDB 472 s.v. כִּי note and כִּי 1.e.


Heb “We have heard the sound of panic and of fear, and there is no peace.” It is generally agreed that the person of the verb presupposes that this is an unintroduced quote of the people.


Heb “Ask and see/consider.”


Heb “with their hands on their loins.” The word rendered “loins” refers to the area between the ribs and the thighs.


Heb “Alas [or Woe] for that day will be great.” For the use of the particle “Alas” to signal a time of terrible trouble, even to sound the death knell for someone, see the translator’s note on 22:13 . sn The reference to a terrible time of trouble ( Heb “that day”) is a common shorthand reference in the prophets to “the Day of the Lord .” The “Day of the Lord ” refers to a time when God intervenes in judgment against the wicked. The time referent can be either near or far, referring to something as near as the Assyrian threat in the time of Ahaz ( Isa 7:18, 20, 21, 23 ) or as distant as the eschatological battle of God against Gog when he attacks Israel ( Ezek 38:14, 18 ). The judgment can be against Israel’s enemies and result in Israel’s deliverance ( Jer 50:30-34 ). At other times as here the Day of the Lord involves judgment on Israel itself. Here reference is to the judgment that the northern kingdom, Israel, has already experienced (cf., e.g., Jer 3:8 ) and which the southern kingdom, Judah, is in the process of experiencing and which Jeremiah has lamented over several times and even described in hyperbolic and apocalyptic terms in Jer 4:19-31 .


Heb “It is a time of trouble for Jacob but he will be saved out of it.” sn Jacob here is figurative for the people descended from him. Moreover the figure moves from Jacob = descendants of Jacob to only a part of those descendants. Not all of his descendants who have experienced and are now experiencing trouble will be saved. Only a remnant (i.e., the good figs, cf., e.g., Jer 23:3; 31:7 ) will see the good things that the Lord has in store for them ( Jer 24:5-6 ). The bad figs will suffer destruction through war, starvation, and disease (cf., e.g., Jer 24:8-10 among many other references).


Heb “And it shall happen in that day.” sn The time for them to be rescued ( Heb “that day”) is the day of deliverance from the trouble alluded to at the end of the preceding verse, not the day of trouble mentioned at the beginning. Israel (even the good figs) will still need to go through the period of trouble (cf. vv. 10-11 ).


Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for explanation of the title for God.


Heb “I will break his yoke from upon your neck.” For the explanation of the figure see the study note on 27:2 . The shift from third person at the end of v. 7 to second person in v. 8 c, d and back to third person in v. 8 e is typical of Hebrew poetry in the book of Psalms and in the prophetic books (cf., GKC 351 §114. p and compare usage in Deut 32:15 ; Isa 5:8 listed there). The present translation, like several other modern ones, has typically leveled them to the same person to avoid confusion for modern readers who are not accustomed to this poetic tradition. sn In the immediate context the reference to the yoke of their servitude to foreign domination ( Heb “his yoke”) should be understood as a reference to the yoke of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar which has been referred to often in Jer 27-28 (see, e.g., 27:8, 12; 28:2, 4, 11 ). The end of that servitude has already been referred to in 25:11-14; 29:11-14 . Like many other passages in the OT it has been given a later eschatological reinterpretation in the light of subsequent bondages and lack of complete fulfillment, i.e., of restoration to the land and restoration of the Davidic monarchy.


Heb “I will tear off their bands.” The “bands” are the leather straps which held the yoke bars in place (cf. 27:2 ). The metaphor of the “yoke on the neck” is continued. The translation reflects the sense of the metaphor but not the specific referent.


The word “subject” in this verse and “subjugate” are from the same root word in Hebrew. A deliberate contrast is drawn between the two powers that they will serve.


Heb “and to David their king whom I will raise up for them.” sn The Davidic ruler which I will raise up as king over them refers to a descendant of David who would be raised up over a regathered and reunited Israel and Judah. He is called “David” in Hos 3:5 , Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 and referred to as a shoot or sprig of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10 and a “righteous branch” springing from David (the Davidic line). He is called “David” because he is from the Davidic line and because David is the type of the ideal king whom the prophets looked forward to. See further the study notes on 23:5 for this ideal king and for his relation to the NT fulfillment in the person of Jesus the Christ.


Heb “So do not be afraid, my servant Jacob, oracle of the Lord .” Here and elsewhere in the verse the terms Jacob and Israel are poetic for the people of Israel descended from the patriarch Jacob. The terms have been supplied throughout with plural referents for greater clarity.


Heb “For I will rescue you from far away, your descendants from the land of their captivity.”


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The translation “entirely unpunished” is intended to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb.


The particle כִּי ( ki ) here is parallel to the one in v. 5 that introduces the first oracle. See the discussion in the translator’s note there.


The pronouns in vv. 10-17 are second feminine singular referring to a personified entity. That entity is identified in v. 17 as Zion, which here stands for the people of Zion.


The translation of these first two lines follows the redivision of the lines suggested in NIV and NRSV rather than that of the Masoretes who read, “There is no one who pleads your cause with reference to [your] wound.” sn This verse exhibits a mixed metaphor of an advocate pleading someone’s case (cf., Jer 5:28; 22:18 ) and of a physician applying medicine to wounds and sores resulting from them (see, e.g., Jer 8:18 for the latter metaphor). Zion’s sins are beyond defense and the wounds inflicted upon her beyond healing. However, God, himself, in his own time will forgive her sins ( Jer 31:34; 33:8 ) and heal her wounds ( Jer 30:17 ).


Heb “forgotten you.”


Heb “attacked you like…with the chastening of a cruel one because of the greatness of your iniquity [and because] your sins are many.” The sentence has been broken down to conform to contemporary English style and better poetic scansion.


For the translation of this particle, which is normally translated “therefore” and often introduces an announcement of judgment, compare the usage at Jer 16:14 and the translator’s note there. Here as there it introduces a contrast, a rather unexpected announcement of salvation. For a similar use see also Hos 2:14 ( 2:16 HT). Recognition of this usage makes the proposed emendation of BHS of לָכֵן כָּל ( lakhen kol ) to וְכָל ( vÿkhol ) unnecessary.


Again the particle כִּי ( ki ) appears to be intensive rather than causal. Compare the translator’s note on v. 12 . It is possible that it has an adversative sense as an implicit contrast with v. 13 which expresses these concepts in the negative (cf. BDB 474 s.v. כִּי 3.e for this use in statements which are contextually closer to one another).


Heb “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his habitations.” For the meaning of the idiom “restore the fortunes of” see the translator’s note on 29:14 . The “tents of Jacob” refers to their homes or houses (see BDB 14 s.v. אֹהֶל 2 and compare usage in Judg 19:9 ; Mal 2:12 ). The word “ruined” has been supplied in the translation to show more clearly the idea of restoration of their houses on their former sites in conformity to the concepts in the latter half of the verse.


Heb “according to its custom [or plan].” Cf. BDB 1049 s.v. מִשְׁפָּט 6.d and compare usage in 1 Sam 27:11 .


Heb “Out of them will come thanksgiving and a sound of those who are playful.”


Heb “his children will be as in former times and his congregation/community will be established before me.” “His children” refers to “Jacob” who has been referred to in v. 18 in the phrase “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob.” “His children” are thus the restored exiles. Some commentaries see the reference here to the restoration of numbers in accordance with the previous verse. However, the last line of this verse and the reference to the ruler in the following verse suggests rather restoration of the religious and political institutions to their former state. For the use of the word translated “community” ( עֵדָה , ’ edah ) to refer to a political congregation as well as its normal use to refer to a religious one see 1 Kgs 12:20 . For the idea of “in my favor” (i.e., under the eye and regard of) for the Hebrew phrase used here ( לְפָנַי , lÿfanay ) see BDB 817 s.v. פָּנֶה II.4.a(b).


Heb “For who is he who would pledge his heart to draw near to me.” The question is a rhetorical one expecting the answer “no one” and is a way of expressing an emphatic negative (see BDB 566 s.v. מִי f[c]). The concept of “pledging” something refers to putting up security in guarantee of payment. Here the word is used figuratively of “putting up one’s heart [i.e., his very being (cf. BDB 524 s.v. לֵב 7 and Ps 22:26 )]” for the privilege of access to God. The rhetorical question denies that any one would do that if he were not bidden by God to do so.


Heb “who survived the sword.” sn This refers to the remnant of northern Israel who had not been killed when Assyria conquered Israel in 722 b.c. or who had not died in exile. References to Samaria in v. 5 and to Ephraim in vv. 6, 9 make clear that northern Israel is in view here.


Or “The people of Israel who survived the onslaughts of Egypt and Amalek found favor in the wilderness as they journeyed to find rest. At that time long ago the Lord manifested himself to them. He said, ‘I have…That is why I have drawn you to myself through my unfailing kindness.’” For the basis for each of these translations see the translator’s note. There is debate whether the reference here is to God’s preservation of Israel during their wandering in the Sinai desert or his promise to protect and preserve them on their return through the Arabian desert on the way back from Assyria and Babylon (see e.g., Isa 42:14-16; 43:16-21 ; Jer 16:14-15; 23:7-8 ). The only finite verbs in vv. 2-3 a before the introduction of the quote are perfects which can denote either a past act or a future act viewed as certain of fulfillment (the prophetic perfect; see GKC 312-13 §106. n and see examples in Jer 11:16; 13:17; 25:14; 28:4 ). The phrase at the beginning of v. 3 can either refer to temporal (cf. BDB 935 s.v. רָחוֹק 2.b and Isa 22:11 ) or spatial distance (cf. BDB 935 s.v. רָחוֹק 2.a[2] and Isa 5:29; 59:14 ). The verb in the final clause in v. 3 can refer to either the continuance of God’s love as in Ps 36:10 (cf. BDB 604 s.v. מָשַׁךְ Qal.5) or drawing someone to him in electing, caring love as in Hos 11:4 (cf. BDB 604 s.v. מָשַׁךְ Qal.1). The translation has opted for the prophetic reference to future deliverance because of the preceding context, the use of מֵרָחוֹק ( merakhoq ) to refer to the far off land of exile in Jer 30:10; 46:27; 51:50 , and the reference to survivors from the sword being called on to remember the Lord in that far off land in 51:50 .


Heb “Virgin Israel.” sn For the significance of this metaphor see the note on Jer 14:17 . Here the emphasis appears on his special love and care for his people and the hint (further developed in vv. 21-22 ) that, though guilty of sin, he considers them like an innocent young virgin.


For location see Map2-B1 ; Map4-D3 ; Map5-E2 ; Map6-A4 ; Map7-C1 .


See the translator’s notes on 30:5, 12 .


Heb “for the head/chief of the nations.” See BDB 911 s.v. רֹאשׁ 3.c and compare usage in Ps 18:44 referring to David as the “chief” or “foremost ruler” of the nations.


It is unclear who the addressees of the masculine plural imperatives are in this verse. Possibly they are the implied exiles who are viewed as in the process of returning and praying for their fellow countrymen.


Or “The Lord will rescue his people. He will deliver those of Israel who remain alive.” The translation used in the text follows the Hebrew: “Rescue your people, O Lord , the remnant of Israel.” The alternate translation which is preferred by several modern English versions (e.g., REB, TEV) and a majority of modern commentaries (see, e.g., J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 569; J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 273, n. s-s) follows the reading of the Greek version and the Aramaic Targum and appears more appropriate to the context of praise presupposed by the preceding imperatives. The difference in the two readings are the omission of one vowel letter and the confusion of a final ךְ ( kaf ) and a וֹ ( holem-vav ) which are very similar in form. (The Greek presupposes הוֹשִׁיעַ יְהוָה אֶת־עַמּוֹ [ hoshi ’ a yÿhvah ’ et- ’ ammo ] for the Hebrew הוֹשַׁע יְהוָה אֶת־עַמְּךְ [ hosha ’ yÿhvah ’ et- ’ ammÿkh ].) The key to a decision here is the shift from the verbs of praise to the imperative “say” which introduces the quotation; there is a shift from praise to petition. The shift in mood is not uncommon, occurring, for example, in Ps 118:25 and 126:4 ; it is the shift in mood between praise for what has begun to petition for what is further hoped for. It is easier to explain the origin contextually of the Greek and Targum than it is the Hebrew text, thus the Greek and Targum are probably a secondary smoothing of the text (this is the decision of the D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 4:263). The mood of prayer also shows up in v. 9 and again in vv. 17-18 .


The words “And I will reply” are not in the text but the words vv. 8-9 appear to be the answer to the petition at the end of v. 7 . These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “They will come with weeping; I will bring them with supplication.” The ideas of contrition and repentance are implicit from the context (cf. vv. 18-19 ) and are supplied for clarity.


Heb “from the hand/power of the one too strong for him.”


Reading a Qal perfect from the root II נָהַר ( nahar ; so KBL 509 s.v. and HALOT 639 s.v.) rather than I נָהַר (so BDB 625 s.v.).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .” This phrase has been brought up to the beginning of v. 13 from the end of v. 14 to introduce the transition from third person description by Jeremiah to first person address by the Lord .


The translation follows the reading of the LXX (Greek version). The Hebrew reads “will dance and be glad, young men and old men together.” The Greek version presupposes a Qal imperfect of a rare verb ( יַחְדּוּ [ yakhdu ] from the verb חָדָה [ khadah ]; see BDB 292 s.v. II חָדָה Qal) as opposed to the Hebrew text which reads a common adverb יַחְדָּו ( yakhdav ). The consonantal text is the same but the vocalization is different. There are no other examples of the syntax of the adverb used this way (i.e., of a compound subject added to a third subject) and the vocalization of the Hebrew text can be explained on the basis of a scribe misvocalizing the text based on his greater familiarity with the adverb.


Heb “I will satiate the priests with fat.” However, the word translated “fat” refers literally to the fat ashes of the sacrifices (see Lev 1:16; 4:2 and cf. BDB 206 s.v. דֶּשֶׁן 2. The word is used more abstractly for “abundance” or “rich food” (see Job 36:16 and BDB 206 s.v. דֶּשֶׁן 1). The people and the priests were prohibited from eating the fat ( Lev 7:23-24 ).


Or “gone into exile” (cf. v. 16 ), though some English versions take this as meaning “dead” (e.g., NCV, CEV, NLT), presumably in light of Matt 2:18 .


The words “to her” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Refrain your voice from crying and your eyes from tears.”


Heb “your work.” Contextually her “work” refers to her weeping and refusing to be comforted, that is, signs of genuine repentance (v. 15 ).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


For this nuance for the Hebrew word אַחֲרִית (’ akharit ) see BDB 31 s.v. אַחֲרִית d and compare usage in Pss 37:38; 109:13 . Others translate “your future” but the “future” lies with the return of her descendants, her posterity.


The use of “indeed” is intended to reflect the infinitive absolute which precedes the verb for emphasis (see IBHS 585-86 §35.3.1f).


Heb “Ephraim.” See the study note on 31:9 . The more familiar term is used, the term “people” added to it, and plural pronouns used throughout the verse to aid in understanding.


Heb “like an untrained calf.” The metaphor is that of a calf who has never been broken to bear the yoke (cf. Hos 4:16; 10:11 ). sn Jer 2:20; 5:5 already referred to Israel’s refusal to bear the yoke of loyalty and obedience to the Lord ’s demands. Here Israel expresses that she has learned from the discipline of exile and is ready to bear his yoke.


The verb here is from the same root as the preceding and is probably an example of the “tolerative Niphal,” i.e., “I let myself be disciplined/I responded to it.” See IBHS 389-90 §23.4g and note the translation of some of the examples there, especially Isa 19:22; 65:1 .


Heb “Bring me back in order that I may come back.” For the use of the plural pronouns see the marginal note at the beginning of the verse. The verb “bring back” and “come back” are from the same root in two different verbal stems and in the context express the idea of spiritual repentance and restoration of relationship not physical return to the land. (See BDB 999 s.v. שׁוּב Hiph.2.a for the first verb and 997 s.v. Qal.6.c for the second.) For the use of the cohortative to express purpose after the imperative see GKC 320 §108. d or IBHS 575 §34.5.2b. sn There is a wordplay on several different nuances of the same Hebrew verb in vv. 16-19 . The Hebrew verb shub refers both to their turning away from God (v. 19 ) and to their turning back to him (v. 18 ). It is also the word that is used for their return to their homeland (vv. 16-17 ).


For this meaning of the verb see HAL 374 s.v. יָדַע Nif 5 or W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon , 129. REB translates “Now that I am submissive” relating the verb to a second root meaning “be submissive.” (See HALOT 375 s.v. II יָדַע and J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament , 19-21, for evidence for this verb. Other passages cited with this nuance are Judg 8:16 ; Prov 10:9 ; Job 20:20 .)


Heb “I struck my thigh.” This was a gesture of grief and anguish (cf. Ezek 21:12 [ 21:17 HT]). The modern equivalent is “to beat the breast.”