Heb “If you return [ = repent], I will restore [more literally, ‘cause you to return’] that you may stand before me.” For the idiom of “standing before” in the sense of serving see BDB 764 s.v. עָמַד Qal.1.e and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 10:8; 12:8; 17:1 ; Deut 10:8 .


Heb “you shall be as my mouth.” sn For the classic statement of the prophet as God’s “mouth/mouthpiece,” = “spokesman,” see Exod 4:15-16; 7:1-2 .


Heb “They must turn/return to you and you must not turn/return to them.” sn Once again the root “return” ( שׁוּב , shuv ) is being played on as in 3:1 –4:4. See the threefold call to repentance in 3:12, 14, 22 . The verb is used here four times “repent,” “restore,” and “become” twice. He is to serve as a model of repentance, not an imitator of their apostasy. In accusing God of being unreliable he was coming dangerously close to their kind of behavior.


Heb “For thus says the Lord concerning…”


Heb “Thus says the Lord concerning the sons and daughters who are born in the place and concerning their mothers who give them birth and their fathers who fathered them in this land.”


Heb “For thus says the Lord …”


Heb “my peace.” The Hebrew word שְׁלוֹמִי ( shÿlomi ) can be translated “peace, prosperity” or “well-being” (referring to wholeness or health of body and soul).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “For thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel.” The introductory formula which appears three times in vv. 1-9 (vv. 1, 3, 5 ) has been recast for smoother English style. sn For the title “the Lord God of Israel who rules over all” see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19 .


Heb “before your eyes and in your days.” The pronouns are plural including others than Jeremiah.


Heb “all these words/things.” sn The actions of the prophet would undoubtedly elicit questions about his behavior and he would have occasion to explain the reason.


These two sentences have been recast in English to break up a long Hebrew sentence and incorporate the oracular formula “says the Lord ( Heb ‘oracle of the Lord ’)” which occurs after “Your fathers abandoned me.” In Hebrew the two sentences read: “When you tell them these things and they say, ‘…’, then tell them, ‘Because your ancestors abandoned me,’ oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “fathers” (also in vv. 12, 13, 15, 19 ).


Heb “followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the explanation of the idiom.


Heb “But me they have abandoned and my law they have not kept.” The objects are thrown forward to bring out the contrast which has rhetorical force. However, such a sentence in English would be highly unnatural.


The particle translated here “Yet” ( לָכֵן , lakhen ) is regularly translated “So” or “Therefore” and introduces a consequence. However, in a few cases it introduces a contrasting set of conditions. Compare its use in Judg 11:8 ; Jer 48:12; 49:2; 51:52 ; and Hos 2:14 ( 2:16 HT).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .” The Lord has been speaking; the first person has been utilized in translation to avoid a shift which might create confusion.


Heb “Behold the days are coming.”


These two verses which constitute one long sentence with compound, complex subordinations has been broken up for sake of English style. It reads, “Therefore, behold the days are coming, says the Lord [ Heb ‘oracle of the Lord ’] and it will not be said any longer, ‘By the life of the Lord who…Egypt’ but ‘by the life of the Lord who…’ and I will bring them back….”


Heb “Behold I am about to send for many fishermen and they will catch them. And after that I will send for many hunters and they will hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the cracks in the rocks.” sn The picture of rounding up the population for destruction and exile is also seen in Amos 4:2 and Hab 1:14-17 .


Heb “For my eyes are upon all their ways. They are not hidden from before me. And their sin is not hidden away from before my eyes.”


Heb “First.” Many English versions and commentaries delete this word because it is missing from the Greek version and is considered a gloss added by a postexilic editor who is said to be responsible also for vv. 14-16 . This is not the place to resolve issues of authorship and date. It is the task of the translator to translate the “original” which in this case is the MT supported by the other versions. The word here refers to order in rank or order of events. Compare Gen 38:28 ; 1 Kgs 18:25 . Here allusion is made to the restoration previously mentioned. First in order of events is the punishment of destruction and exile, then restoration.


Heb “double.” However, usage in Deut 15:18 and probably Isa 40:2 argues for “full compensation.” This is supported also by usage in a tablet from Alalakh in Syria. See P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley, J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC), 218, for bibliography.


Heb “my inheritance.” sn For earlier references to the term used here see Jer 2:7 where it applies as here to the land, Jer 10:16; 12:8-9 where it applies to the people, and Jer 12:7 where it applies to the temple.


Many of the English versions take “lifeless statues of their detestable idols” with “filled” as a compound object. This follows the Masoretic punctuation but violates usage. The verb “fill” never takes an object preceded by the preposition בְּ ( bet ).


The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation to show the shift from God, who has been speaking to Jeremiah, to Jeremiah, who here addresses God. sn The shift here is consistent with the interruptions that have taken place in chapters 14 and 15 and in Jeremiah’s response to God’s condemnation of the people of Judah’s idolatry in chapter (note especially vv. 6-16 ).


Heb “O Lord , my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of trouble. The literal which piles up attributes is of course more forceful than the predications. However, piling up poetic metaphors like this adds to the length of the English sentence and risks lack of understanding on the part of some readers. Some rhetorical force has been sacrificed for the sake of clarity.


Once again the translation has sacrificed some of the rhetorical force for the sake of clarity and English style: Heb “Only falsehood did our ancestors possess, vanity and [things in which?] there was no one profiting in them.” sn This passage offers some rather forceful contrasts. The Lord is Jeremiah’s source of strength, security, and protection. The idols are false gods, worthless idols, that can offer no help at all.


Heb “and they are ‘no gods.’” For the construction here compare 2:11 and a similar construction in 2 Kgs 19:18 and see BDB 519 s.v. לֹא 1.b(b).


The words “The Lord said” are not in the text. However, it is obvious that he is the speaker. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Or “So I will make known to those nations, I will make known to them at this time my power and my might. Then they will know that my name is the Lord .” tn There is a decided ambiguity in this text about the identity of the pronoun “them.” Is it his wicked people he has been predicting judgment upon or the nations that have come to recognize the folly of idolatry? The nearer antecedent would argue for that. However, usage of “hand” (translated here “power”) in 6:12; 15:6 and later 21:5 and especially the threatening motif of “at this time” (or “now”) in 10:18 suggest that the “So” goes back logically to vv. 16-18 , following a grounds of judgment with the threatened consequence as it has in at least 16 out of 18 occurrences thus far. Moreover it makes decidedly more sense that the Jews will know that his name is the Lord as the result of the present (“at this time”) display of his power in judgment than that the idolaters will at some later (cf. Isa 2:2-4 for possible parallel) time. There has been a decided emphasis that the people of Israel do not “know” him (cf. 2:8; 4:22; 9:3, 6 ). Now they will, but in a way they did not wish to. There is probably an allusion (and an ironic reversal) here to Exod 3:13-15; 34:5-7 . They have presumed upon his graciousness and forgotten that his name not only involves being with them to help but being against them to punish sin. Even if the alternate translation is followed the reference is still to God’s mighty power made known in judging the wicked Judeans. The words “power” and “might” are an example of hendiadys in which two nouns joined by “and” in which one modifies the other.


The chapter division which was not a part of the original text but was added in the middle ages obscures the fact that there is no new speech here. The division may have resulted from the faulty identification of the “them” in the preceding verse. See the translator’s note on that verse.


The adjective “stone-hard” is not in the Hebrew text. It is implicit in the metaphor and is supplied in the translation for clarity. Cf. Ezek 11:19; 36:26 ; and Job 19:24 for the figure.


Heb “adamant.” The word “diamond” is an accommodation to modern times. There is no evidence that diamond was known in ancient times. This hard stone (perhaps emery) became metaphorical for hardness; see Ezek 3:9 and Zech 7:12 . For discussion see W. E. Staples, “Adamant,” IDB 1:45.


This verse has been restructured for the sake of the English poetry: Heb “The sin of Judah is engraved [or written] with an iron pen, inscribed with a point of a diamond [or adamant] upon the tablet of their hearts and on the horns of their altars.” sn There is biting sarcasm involved in the use of the figures here. The law was inscribed on the tablets of stone by the “finger” of God ( Exod 31:18; 32:16 ). Later under the new covenant it would be written on their hearts ( Jer 31:33 ). Blood was to be applied to the horns of the altar in offering the sin offering (cf., e.g., Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 20 ) and on the bronze altar to cleanse it from sin on the Day of Atonement ( Lev 16:18 ). Here their sins are engraved (permanently written, cf. Job 19:24 ) on their hearts (i.e., control their thoughts and actions) and on their altars (permanently polluting them).


It is difficult to convey in good English style the connection between this verse and the preceding. The text does not have a finite verb but a temporal preposition with an infinitive: Heb “while their children remember their altars…” It is also difficult to translate the verb “literally.” (i.e., what does “remember” their altars mean?). Hence it has been rendered “always think about.” Another possibility would be “have their altars…on their minds.” sn There is possibly a sarcastic irony involved here as well. The Israelites were to remember the Lord and what he had done and were to commemorate certain days, e.g., the Passover and the Sabbath which recalled their deliverance. Instead they resorted to the pagan altars and kept them in mind.


This reading follows many Hebrew mss and ancient versions. Many other Hebrew mss read “your” [masc. pl.].


This reading follows some of the ancient versions. The MT reads, “hills. My mountain in the open field [alluding to Jerusalem] and your wealth…I will give.” The vocalization of the noun plus pronoun and the unusual form of the expression to allude to Jerusalem calls into question the originality of the MT. The MT reads הֲרָרִי ( harari ) which combines the suffix for a singular noun with a pointing of the noun in the plural, a form which would be without parallel (compare the forms in Ps 30:8 for the singular noun with suffix and Deut 8:9 for the plural noun with suffix). Likewise, Jerusalem was not “in the open field.” For a similar expression compare Jer 13:27 .


Or “I will give away your wealth, all your treasures, and your places of worship…” The translation follows the emendation suggested in the footnote in BHS , reading בִּמְחִיר ( bimkhir ) in place of בָּמֹתֶיךָ ( bamotekha ). The forms are graphically very close and one could explain the origin of either from the other. The parallel in 15:13-14 reads לֹא בִּמְחִיר ( lo ’ bimkhir ). The text here may be a deliberate play on that one. The emended text makes decidedly better sense contextually than the MT unless some sardonic reference to their idolatry is intended.


Or “Through your own fault you will lose the land…” As W. McKane ( Jeremiah [ICC], 1:386) notes the ancient versions do not appear to be reading וּבְךָ ( uvÿkha ) as in the MT but possibly לְבַדְּךָ ( lÿvaddÿkha ; see BHS fn). The translation follows the suggestion in BHS fn that יָדְךָ ( yadÿkha , literally “your hand”) be read for MT וּבְךָ . This has the advantage of fitting the idiom of this verb with “hand” in Deut 15:2 (see also v. 3 there). The Hebrew text thus reads “You will release your hand from your heritage.”


A few Hebrew mss and two Greek mss read “a fire is kindled in my anger” (reading קָדְחָה , qodkha ) as in 15:14 in place of “you have kindled a fire in my anger” (reading קָדַחְתֶּם , qadakhtem ) in the majority of Hebrew mss and versions. The variant may be explained on the basis of harmonization with the parallel passage. tn Heb “you have started a fire in my anger which will burn forever.”


Heb “who make flesh their arm.” The “arm” is the symbol of strength and the flesh is the symbol of mortal man in relation to the omnipotent God. The translation “mere flesh and blood” reflects this.


This word occurs only here and in Jer 48:6 . It has been identified as a kind of juniper, which is a short shrub with minute leaves that look like scales. For a picture and more discussion see Fauna and Flora of the Bible , 131.


Heb “Blessed is the person who trusts in the Lord , and whose confidence is in the Lord .” However, because this is a statement of the Lord and the translation chooses to show that the blessing comes from him, the first person is substituted for the divine name.


Or “incurably deceitful”; Heb “It is incurable.” For the word “deceitful” compare the usage of the verb in Gen 27:36 and a related noun in 2 Kgs 10:19 . For the adjective “incurable” compare the usage in Jer 15:18 . It is most commonly used with reference to wounds or of pain. In Jer 17:16 it is used metaphorically for a “woeful day” (i.e., day of irreparable devastation). sn The background for this verse is Deut 29:18-19 ( 29:17-18 HT) and Deut 30:17 .


The term rendered “mind” here and in the previous verse is actually the Hebrew word for “heart.” However, in combination with the word rendered “heart” in the next line, which is the Hebrew for “kidneys,” it is best rendered “mind” because the “heart” was considered the center of intellect, conscience, and will and the “kidneys” the center of emotions. sn For an earlier reference to this motif see Jer 11:20 . For a later reference see Jer 20:12 . See also Ps 17:2-3 .


The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The word translated “broods over” occurs only here and Isa 34:15 . It is often defined on the basis of an Aramaic cognate which means “to gather” with an extended meaning of “to gather together under her to hatch.” Many commentators go back to a Rabbinic explanation that the partridge steals the eggs of other birds and hatches them out only to see the birds depart when they recognize that she is not the mother. Modern studies question the validity of this zoologically. Moreover, W. L. Holladay contests the validity on the basis of the wording “and she does hatch them” ( Heb “bring them to birth”). See W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:498, and see also P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley, J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC), 229. The point of the comparison is that the rich gather their wealth but they do not get to see the fruits of it.


The Hebrew text merely says “it.” But the antecedent might be ambiguous in English so the reference to wealth gained by unjust means is here reiterated for clarity.


Heb “he will be [= prove to be] a fool.”


The words, “Then I said” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity to show the shift in speaker. sn The Lord is no longer threatening judgment but is being addressed. For a similar doxological interruption compare Jer 16:19-20 .


Heb “O glorious throne, O high place from the beginning, O hope of Israel, O Lord .” Commentators and translators generally understand these four lines (which are three in the Hebrew original) as two predications, one eulogizing the temple and the other eulogizing God. However, that does not fit the context very well and does not take into account the nature of Jeremiah’s doxology in Jeremiah 16:19-20 (and compare also 10:6-7 ). There the doxology is context motivated, focused on God, and calls on relevant attributes in the form of metaphorical epithets. That fits nicely here as well. For the relevant parallel passages see the study note. sn As King and Judge seated on his heavenly throne on high the Lord metes out justice. For examples of this motif see Jer 25:30 ; Ps 11:4; 9:4, 7 ( 9:5, 8 HT). As the place of sanctuary he offers refuge for those who are fleeing for safety. Ezek 11:16 and Isa 18:1-4 are examples of passages using that motif. Finally, the Lord has been referred to earlier as the object of Israel’s hope ( Jer 14:8 ). All of these are relevant to the choices that the Lord has placed before them, trust or turn away, and the threat that as all-knowing Judge he will reward people according to their behavior.


The translation is based on an emendation suggested in W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:500, n. b-b. The emendation involves following the reading preferred by the Masoretes (the Qere ) and understanding the preposition with the following word as a corruption of the suffix on it. Thus the present translation reads וּסוּרֶיךָ אֶרֶץ ( usurekha ’ erets ) instead of וּסוּרַי בָּאֶרֶץ ( usuray ba ’ erets , “and those who leave me will be written in the earth”), a reading which is highly improbable since all the other pronouns are second singular.


Or “to the world of the dead.” An alternative interpretation is: “will be as though their names were written in the dust”; Heb “will be written in the dust.” The translation follows the nuance of “earth” listed in HALOT 88 s.v. אֶרֶץ 4 and found in Jonah 2:6 ( 2:7 HT); Job 10:21-22 . For the nuance of “enrolling, registering among the number” for the verb translated here “consign” see BDB 507 s.v. כָּתַב Qal.3 and 508 s.v. Niph.2 and compare usage in Ezek 13:9 and Ps 69:28 ( 69:29 HT).


Heb “The fountain of living water.” For an earlier use of this metaphor and the explanation of it see Jer 2:13 and the notes there. There does not appear to be any way to retain this metaphor in the text without explaining it. In the earlier text the context would show that literal water was not involved. Here it might still be assumed that the Lord merely gives life-giving water.


The translation fills in the details of the metaphor from a preceding context ( 15:18 ) and from the following context ( 17:18 ). The literal translation “Heal me and I will be healed. Rescue me and I will be rescued.” does not make much sense if these details are not filled in. The metaphor is filled in for clarity for the average reader.


Heb “Behold, they are saying to me.”


Heb “Where is the word of the Lord . Let it come [or come to pass] please.”


Heb “I have not run after you for the sake of disaster.” The translation follows the suggestion of some ancient versions. The Hebrew text reads “I have not run from being a shepherd after you.” The translation follows two Greek versions (Aquila and Symmachus) and the Syriac in reading the word “evil” or “disaster” here in place of the word “shepherd” in the Hebrew text. The issue is mainly one of vocalization. The versions mentioned are reading a form מֵרָעָה ( mera ’ ah ) instead of מֵרֹעֶה ( mero ’ eh ). There does not appear to be any clear case of a prophet being called a shepherd, especially in Jeremiah where it is invariably used of the wicked leaders/rulers of Judah, the leaders/rulers of the enemy that he brings to punish them, or the righteous ruler that he will bring in the future. Moreover, there are no cases where the preposition “after” is used with the verb “shepherd.” Parallelism also argues for the appropriateness of this reading; “disaster” parallels the “incurable day.” The thought also parallels the argument thus far. Other than 11:20; 12:3; 15:15 where he has prayed for vindication by the Lord punishing his persecutors as they deserve, he has invariably responded to the Lord ’s word of disaster with laments and prayers for his people (see 4:19-21; 6:24; 8:18; 10:19-25; 14:7-9, 19-22 ).


Heb “the incurable day.” For the use of this word see the note on 17:9 .


Heb “that which goes out of my lip is right in front of your face.”


Heb “do not be a source of dismay for me.” For this nuance of מְחִתָּה ( mÿkhittah ) rather than “terror” as many of the English versions have it see BDB 370 s.v. מְחִתָּה 1.b and the usage in Prov 21:15 . Compare also the usage of the related verb which occurs in the next verse (see also BDB 369 s.v. חָתַת Qal.2).


Or “complete destruction.” See the translator’s note on 16:18 . sn Jeremiah now does what he says he has not wanted to do or been hasty to do. He is, however, seeking his own vindication and that of God whose threats they have belittled.


Heb “Be careful at the risk of your lives.” The expression with the preposition בְּ ( bet ) is unique. Elsewhere the verb “be careful” is used with the preposition לְ ( lamed ) in the sense of the reflexive. Hence the word “soul” cannot be simply reflexive here. BDB 1037 s.v. שָׁמַר Niph.1 understands this as a case where the preposition בְּ introduces the cost or price (cf. BDB 90 s.v. בּ III.3.a).


Heb “carry loads on the Sabbath and bring [them] in through.” The two verbs “carry” and “bring in” are an example of hendiadys (see the note on “Be careful…by carrying”). This is supported by the next line where only “carry out” of the houses is mentioned.


Heb “Do not carry any loads out of your houses on the Sabbath day and do not do any work.” Translating literally might give the wrong impression that they were not to work at all. The phrase “on the Sabbath day” is, of course, intended to qualify both prohibitions.


Heb “But sanctify [or set apart as sacred] the Sabbath day.” The idea of setting it apart as something sacred to the Lord is implicit in the command. See the explicit statements of this in Exod 20:10; 31:5; 35:2 ; Lev 24:8 . For some readers the idea of treating the Sabbath day as something sacred won’t mean much without spelling the qualification out specifically. Sabbath observance was not just a matter of not working.


Heb “fathers.”


Heb “They.” The antecedent is spelled out to avoid any possible confusion.


Heb “They hardened [or made stiff] their neck so as not to.”


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “If you will carefully obey me by not bringing…and by sanctifying…by not doing…, then kings will….” The structure of prohibitions and commands followed by a brief “if” clause has been used to break up a long condition and consequence relationship which is contrary to contemporary English style.


Heb “who sit [or are to sit] on David’s throne.”


Heb “There will come through the gates of this city the kings and princes…riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials…” The structure of the original text is broken up here because of the long compound subject which would make the English sentence too long. The term “princes” is often omitted as a supposed double writing of the word that follows it and looks somewhat like it (the Hebrew reads here וְשָׂרִים יֹשְׁבִים , vÿsarim yoshÿvim ) or the same word which occurs later in the verse and is translated “officials” (the word can refer to either). It is argued that “princes” are never said to sit on the throne of David (translated here “follow in the succession of David”). However, the word is in all texts and versions and the concept of sitting on the throne of someone is descriptive of both past, present, and future and is even used with the participle in a proleptic sense of “the one who is to sit on the throne” (cf. Exod 11:5; 12:29 ).


Heb “will be inhabited forever.”


Heb “There will come from the cities of Judah and from the environs of Jerusalem and from…those bringing…incense and those bringing thank offerings.” This sentence has been restructured from a long complex original to conform to contemporary English style.


Heb “carry loads on the Sabbath and bring [them] in through.” The translation treats the two verbs “carry” and “bring in” are an example of hendiadys (see the note on “through” in 17:21 ).


Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord , saying:” This same formula occurs ten other times in Jeremiah. It has already occurred at 7:1 and 11:1 .


Heb “Get up and go down.” The first verb is not literal but is idiomatic for the initiation of an action. See 13:4, 6 for other occurrences of this idiom.


Heb “And I will cause you to hear my word there.”


Heb “And behold he was working.”


The verbs here denote repeated action. They are the Hebrew perfect with the vav ( ו ) consecutive. The text then reads somewhat literally, “Whenever the vessel he was molding…was ruined, he would remold…” For this construction see Joüon 2:393-94 §118.n and 2:628-29 §167.b, and compare the usage in Amos 4:7-8 .


The usage of the preposition בְּ ( bet ) to introduce the material from which something is made in Exod 38:8 and 1 Kgs 15:22 should lay to rest the rather forced construction that some (like J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 121) put on the variant כַּחֹמֶר ( kakhomer ) found in a few Hebrew mss . Bright renders that phrase as an elliptical “as clay sometimes will.” The phrase is missing from the Greek version.


Heb “he would turn and work.” This is an example of hendiadys where one of the two verbs joined by “and” becomes the adverbial modifier of the other. The verb “turn” is very common in this construction (see BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב Qal.8 for references).


Heb “as it was right in his eyes to do [or work it].” For this idiom see Judg 14:3, 7 ; 1 Sam 18:20, 26 ; 2 Sam 17:4 .


This phrase (literally “Oracle of the Lord ”) has been handled this way on several occasions when it occurs within first person addresses where the Lord is the speaker. See, e.g., 16:16; 17:24 .


The words “deals with the clay” are not in the text. They are part of an elliptical comparison and are supplied in the translation here for clarity.


The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text but it is implicit from the introduction in v. 5 that he is being addressed. It is important to see how the rhetoric of this passage is structured. The words of vv. 7-10 lead up to the conclusion “So now” in v. 11 which in turns leads to the conclusion “Therefore” in v. 13 . The tense of the verb in v. 12 is very important. It is a vav consecutive perfect indicating the future (cf. GKC 333 §112. p , r ); their response is predictable. The words of vv. 7-10 are addressed to Jeremiah (v. 5 ) in fulfillment of the Lord ’s promise to speak to him (v. 2 ) and furnish the basis for the Lord ’s words of conditional threat to a people who show no promise of responding positively (vv. 11-12 ). Verse six then must be seen as another example of the figure of apostrophe (the turning aside from description about someone to addressing them directly; cf., e.g., Ps 6:8-9 ( 6:9-10 HT). Earlier examples of this figure have been seen in 6:20; 9:4; 11:13; 12:13; 15:6 .


Heb “One moment I may speak about a nation or kingdom to…” So also in v. 9 . The translation is structured this way to avoid an awkward English construction and to reflect the difference in disposition. The constructions are, however, the same.


Heb “turns from its wickedness.”


There is a good deal of debate about how the word translated here “revoke” should be translated. There is a good deal of reluctance to translate it “change my mind” because some see that as contradicting Num 23:19 and thus prefer “relent.” However, the English word “relent” suggests the softening of an attitude but not necessarily the change of course. It is clear that in many cases (including here) an actual change of course is in view (see, e.g., Amos 7:3, 6 ; Jonah 3:9 ; Jer 26:19 ; Exod 13:17; 32:14 ). Several of these passages deal with “conditional” prophecies where a change in behavior of the people or the mediation of a prophet involves the change in course of the threatened punishment (or the promised benefit). “Revoke” or “forgo” may be the best way to render this in contemporary English idiom. sn There is a wordplay here involving the word “evil” ( רָעָה , ra ’ ah ) which refers to both the crime and the punishment. This same play is carried further in Jonah 3:10-4:1 where Jonah becomes very displeased ( Heb “it was very evil to Jonah with great evil”) when God forgoes bringing disaster (evil) on Nineveh because they have repented of their wickedness (evil).


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


Heb “Turn, each one from his wicked way.” See v. 8 .


Or “Make good your ways and your actions.” See the same expression in 7:3, 5 .


Heb “It is useless!” See the same expression in a similar context in Jer 2:25 .


Heb “We will follow our own plans and do each one according to the stubbornness of his own wicked heart.” sn This has been the consistent pattern of their behavior. See 7:24; 9:13; 13:10; 16:12 .


The precise translation of this verse is somewhat uncertain. Two phrases in this verse are the primary cause of discussion and the source of numerous emendations, none of which has gained consensus. The phrase which is rendered here “rocky slopes” is in Hebrew צוּר שָׂדַי ( tsur saday ), which would normally mean something like “rocky crag of the field” (see BDB 961 s.v. שָׂדַי 1.g). Numerous emendations have been proposed, most of which are listed in the footnotes of J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 436. The present translation has chosen to follow the proposal of several scholars that the word here is related to the Akkadian word shadu meaning mountain. The other difficulty is the word translated “cease” which in the MT is literally “be uprooted” ( יִנָּתְשׁוּ , yinnatshu ). The word is usually emended to read יִנָּשְׁתוּ ( yinnashtu , “are dried up”) as a case of transposed letters (cf., e.g., BDB 684 s.v. נָתַשׁ Niph). This is probably a case of an error in hearing and the word נָטַשׁ ( natash ) which is often parallel to עָזַב (’ azav ), translated here “vanish,” should be read in the sense that it has in 1 Sam 10:2 . Whether one reads “are plucked up” and understands it figuratively of ceasing (“are dried” or “cease”), the sense is the same. For the sense of “distant” for the word זָרִים ( zarim ) see 2 Kgs 19:24 . sn Israel’s actions are contrary to nature. See the same kind of argumentation in Jer 2:11; 8:7 .


There may be a deliberate double meaning involved here. The word translated here “an object of horror” refers both to destruction (cf. 2:15; 4:17 ) and the horror or dismay that accompanies it (cf. 5:30; 8:21 ). The fact that there is no conjunction or preposition in front of the noun “hissing” that follows this suggests that the reaction is in view here, not the cause.


Heb “an object of lasting hissing. All who pass that way will be appalled and shake their head.” sn The actions of “shaking of the head” and “hissing” were obviously gestures of scorn and derision. See Lam 2:15-16 .


Heb “I will show them [my] back and not [my] face.” This reading follows the suggestion of some of the versions and some of the Masoretes. The MT reads “I will look on their back and not on their faces.” sn To “turn the back” is universally recognized as a symbol of rejection. The turning of the face toward one is the subject of the beautiful Aaronic blessing in Num 6:24-26 .


Heb “They.” The referent is unidentified; “some people” has been used in the translation.


Heb “Let us make plans against Jeremiah.” See 18:18 where this has sinister overtones as it does here.


Heb “Instruction will not perish from priest, counsel from the wise, word from the prophet.” sn These are the three channels through whom God spoke to his people in the OT. See Jer 8:8-10 and Ezek 7:26 .


Heb “Let us smite him with our tongues.” It is clear from the context that this involved plots to kill him.


The words “Then I said” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity to show that Jeremiah turns from description of the peoples’ plots to his address to God to deal with the plotters.


Heb “the voice of my adversaries.” sn Jeremiah’s prayers against the unjust treatment of his enemies here and elsewhere (see 11:18-20; 12:1-4; 15:15-18; 17:14-18 ) have many of the elements of the prayers of the innocent in the book of Psalms: an invocation of the Lord as just judge, a lament about unjust attacks, an appeal to innocence, and a cry for vindication which often calls for the Lord to pay back in kind those who unjustly attack the petitioner. See for examples Pss 5, 7, 17, 54 among many others.


Or “They are plotting to kill me”; Heb “They have dug a pit for my soul.” This is a common metaphor for plotting against someone. See BDB 500 s.v. כָּרָה Qal and for an example see Pss 7:16 ( 7:15 HT) in its context.


Heb “to speak good concerning them” going back to the concept of “good” being paid back with evil.


Heb “to turn back your anger from them.” sn See Jer 14:7-9, 19-21 and 15:1-4 for the idea.


Heb “be poured out to the hand [= power] of the sword.” For this same expression see Ezek 35:5 ; Ps 63:10 ( 63:11 HT). Comparison with those two passages show that it involved death by violent means, perhaps death in battle.


Heb “be slain by death.” The commentaries are generally agreed that this refers to death by disease or plague as in 15:2 . Hence, the reference is to the deadly trio of sword, starvation, and disease which were often connected with war. See the notes on 15:2 .


Heb “when you bring marauders in against them.” For the use of the noun translated here “bands of raiders to plunder them” see 1 Sam 30:3, 15, 23 and BDB 151 s.v. גְּדוּד 1.


Heb “in the time of your anger.”


The word “Jeremiah” is not in the text. Some Hebrew mss and some of the versions have “to me.” This section, 19:1 –20:6 appears to be one of the biographical sections of the book of Jeremiah where incidents in his life are reported in third person. See clearly 9:14 and 20:1-3 . The mss and versions do not represent a more original text but are translational or interpretive attempts to fill in a text which had no referent. They are like the translational addition that has been supplied on the basis of contextual indicators.


Heb “an earthenware jar of the potter.” sn The word translated “clay” here refers to a clay which has been baked or fired in a kiln. In the clay was still soft and pliable, capable of being formed into different kinds of vessels. Here the clay is set, just as Israel is set in its ways. The word for jar refers probably to a water jug or decanter and is onomatopoeic, baqbuq , referring to the gurgling sound made by pouring out the water.


The words “Take with you” follow the reading of the Syriac version and to a certain extent the reading of the Greek version (the latter does not have “with you”). The Hebrew text does not have these words but they are undoubtedly implicit.


Heb “elders” both here and before “of the people.” sn The civil and religious leaders are referred to here. They were to be witnesses of the symbolic act and of the message that Jeremiah proclaimed to the leaders of Jerusalem and its citizens (see v. 3 ).


Heb “the words that I will speak to you.”


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


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


Heb “which everyone who hears it [or about it] his ears will ring.” This is proverbial for a tremendous disaster. See 1 Sam 3:11 ; 2 Kgs 21:12 for similar prophecies.


The text merely has “they.” But since a reference is made later to “they” and “their ancestors,” the referent must be to the people that the leaders of the people and leaders of the priests represent.


Heb “fathers.”


Heb “the blood of innocent ones.” This must be a reference to child sacrifice as explained in the next verse. Some have seen a reference to the sins of social injustice alluded to in 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4 but those are connected with the city itself. Hence the word children is supplied in the translation to make the referent explicit.


The word “here” is not in the text. However, it is implicit from the rest of the context. It is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The words “such sacrifices” are not in the text. The text merely says “to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal which I did not command.” The command obviously refers not to the qualification “to Baal” but to burning the children in the fire as burnt offerings. The words are supplied in the translation to avoid a possible confusion that the reference is to sacrifices to Baal. Likewise the words should not be translated so literally that they leave the impression that God never said anything about sacrificing their children to other gods. The fact is he did. See Lev 18:21 ; Deut 12:30; 18:10 .


This phrase ( Heb “Oracle of the Lord ”) has been handled this way on several occasions when it occurs within first person addresses where the Lord is the speaker. See, e.g., 16:16; 17:24; 18:6 .


Heb “it will no longer be called to this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom but the Valley of Slaughter.” sn See Jer 7:31-32 for an almost word for word repetition of vv. 5-6 .


Heb “I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and in the hand of those who seek their soul [= life].” In this context the two are meant as obvious qualifications of one entity, not two. Some rearrangement of the qualifiers had to be made in the English translation to convey this.


Heb “all its smitings.” This word has been used several times for the metaphorical “wounds” that Israel has suffered as a result of the blows from its enemies. See, e.g., 14:17 . It is used in the Hebrew Bible of scourging, both literally and metaphorically (cf. Deut 25:3 ; Isa 10:26 ), and of slaughter and defeat ( 1 Sam 4:10 ; Josh 10:20 ). Here it refers to the results of the crushing blows at the hands of her enemies which has made her the object of scorn.


This verse has been restructured to try to bring out the proper thought and subordinations reflected in the verse without making the sentence too long and complex in English: Heb “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. And they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the straits which their enemies who are seeking their lives reduce them to.” This also shows the agency through which God’s causation was effected, i.e., the siege. sn Cannibalism is one of the penalties for disobedience to their covenant with the Lord effected through the Mosaic covenant. See Deut 28:53, 55, 57 . For examples of this being carried out see 2 Kgs 6:28-29 ; Lam 4:10 .


The words “And the Lord continued” are not in the text. However, they are necessary to take us clearly back to the flow of the narrative begun in vv. 1-2 and interrupted by the long speech in vv. 3-9 .


Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” For this title see the study note on 2:19 . The translation attempts to avoid the confusion of embedding quotes within quotes by reducing this one to an indirect quote.


The adverb “Thus” or “Like this” normally points back to something previously mentioned. See, e.g., Exod 29:35 ; Num 11:15; 15:11 ; Deut 25:9 .


Heb “Like this I will break this people and this city, just as one breaks the vessel of a potter which is not able to be repaired.”


The words “by dead bodies” is not in the text but is implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the host of heaven.”


Heb “And Jeremiah entered from Topheth where the Lord had sent him to prophesy and he stood in the courtyard of the Lord ’s temple.”


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


Heb “all its towns.”


Heb “They hardened [or made stiff] their neck so as not to.”


Heb “chief overseer/officer.” The translation follows the suggestion of P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley, J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC), 267, based on the parallel passage in 29:26-27 where this official appears to have been in charge of maintaining order in the temple. sn Judging from a comparison of this passage with Jer 29:26-27 and that passage in turn with 2 Kgs 25:18 , Pashhur held an office second in rank only to the high priest. He was in charge of keeping order in the temple and took offense at what he heard Jeremiah saying.


Heb “And Pashhur son of Immer, the priest and he [= who] was chief overseer [or officer] in the house of the Lord heard Jeremiah prophesying these words/things 20:2 and Pashhur had the prophet Jeremiah flogged.” This verse and the previous one has been restructured in the translation to better conform with contemporary English style.


The meaning of this word is uncertain. It occurs only here, in 29:26 where it is followed by a parallel word that occurs only there and is generally translated “collar,” and in 2 Chr 16:10 where it is preceded by the word “house of.” It is most often translated “stocks” and explained as an instrument of confinement for keeping prisoners in a crooked position (from its relation to a root meaning “to turn.” See BDB 246 s.v. מַהְפֶּכֶת and KBL 500 s.v. מַהְפֶּכֶת for definition and discussion.) For a full discussion including the interpretation of the ancient versions see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:542-43.


This name is translated rather than transliterated to aid the reader in understanding this name and connect it clearly with the explanation that follows in the next verse. For a rather complete discussion on the significance of this name and an attempt to explain it as a pun on the name “Pashhur” see J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 455, n. 35. sn The name Pashhur is essentially a curse pronounced by Jeremiah invoking the Lord ’s authority. The same phrase occurs in Jer 6:25; 46:5; 49:29 which are all in the context of war. In ancient Israelite culture the change in name denoted a change in status or destiny. See, for example, the shift from Jacob (“He grabs the heel” and “Cheater” or “Deceiver,” Gen 25:26; 27:36 ) to Israel (“He perseveres with God,” Gen 32:28 ).


Heb “I will make you an object of terror to both you and your friends.”


Heb “And they will fall by the sword of their enemies and [with] your eyes seeing [it].”


Heb “Take them [the goods, etc.] as plunder and seize them.”


Heb “all who live in your house.” This included his family and his servants.


The translation is admittedly interpretive but so is every other translation that tries to capture the nuance of the verb rendered here “coerced.” Here the Hebrew text reads: “You [ – ]ed me and I let myself be [ – ]ed. You overpowered me and prevailed.” The value one assigns to [ – ] is in every case interpretive based on what one thinks the context is referring to. The word is rendered “deceived” or “tricked” by several English versions (see, e.g., KJV, NASB, TEV, ICV) as though God had misled him. It is rendered “enticed” by some (see, e.g., NRSV, NJPS) as though God had tempted him with false hopes. Some go so far as to accuse Jeremiah of accusing God of metaphorically “raping” him. It is true that the word is used of “seducing” a virgin in Exod 22:15 and that it is used in several places to refer to “deceiving” someone with false words ( Prov 24:28 ; Ps 78:36 ). It is also true that it is used of “coaxing” someone to reveal something he does not want to ( Judg 14:15; 16:5 ) and of “enticing” someone to do something on the basis of false hopes ( 1 Kgs 22:20-22 ; Prov 1:10 ). However, it does not always have negative connotations or associations. In Hos 2:14 ( 2:16 HT) God “charms” or “woos” Israel, his estranged ‘wife,’ into the wilderness where he hopes to win her back to himself. What Jeremiah is alluding to here is crucial for translating and interpreting the word. There is no indication in this passage that Jeremiah is accusing God of misleading him or raising false hopes; God informed him at the outset that he would encounter opposition ( 1:17-19 ). Rather, he is alluding to his call to be a prophet, a call which he initially resisted but was persuaded to undertake because of God’s persistence ( Jer 1:7-10 ). The best single word to translate ‘…’ with is thus “persuaded” or “coerced.” The translation spells out the allusion explicitly so the reader is not left wondering about what is being alluded to when Jeremiah speaks of being “coerced.” The translation “I let you do it” is a way of rendering the Niphal of the same verb which must be tolerative rather than passive since the normal passive for the Piel would be the Pual (See IBHS 389-90 §23.4g for discussion and examples.). The translation “you overcame my resistance” is based on allusion to the same context ( 1:7-10 ) and the parallel use of חָזַק ( khazaq ) as a transitive verb with a direct object in 1 Kgs 16:22 .


Heb “speak,” but the speaking is in the context of speaking as a prophet.


Heb “I cry out, I proclaim.”


Heb “Violence and destruction.” sn The words “ Violence and destruction… ” are a synopsis of his messages of judgment. Jeremiah is lamenting that his ministry up to this point has been one of judgment and has brought him nothing but ridicule because the Lord has not carried out his threats. He appears in the eyes of the people to be a false prophet.


Heb “the word of the Lord .” For the use of כִּי … כִּי ( ki … ki ) here in the sense of “for…and” see KBL 432 s.v. כּי 10.


Heb “speak in his name.” This idiom occurs in passages where someone functions as the messenger under the authority of another. See Exod 5:23 ; Deut 18:19, 29:20 ; Jer 14:14 . The antecedent in the first line is quite commonly misidentified as being “him,” i.e., the Lord . Comparison, however, with the rest of the context, especially the consequential clause “then it becomes” ( וְהָיָה , vÿhayah ), and Jer 23:36 shows that it is “the word of the Lord .”


The English sentence has again been restructured for the sake of English style. The Hebrew construction involves two vav consecutive perfects in a condition and consequence relation, “If I say to myself…then it [his word] becomes.” See GKC 337 §112. kk for the construction.


It would be difficult to render accurately the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) that introduces this verse without lengthening the English line unduly. It probably means something like “This is true even though I…,” i.e., the particle is concessive (cf. BDB s.v. כִּי 2.c). No other nuance seems appropriate. The particle is left out of the translation, but its presence is acknowledged here.


The phrase translated “Those who would cause me terror are everywhere” has already occurred in 6:25 in the context of the terror caused by the enemy from the north and in 20:3 in reference to the curse pronounced on Pashhur who would experience it first hand. Some have seen the phrase here not as Jeremiah’s ejaculation of terror but of his assailant’s taunts of his message or even their taunting nickname for him. But comparison of this passage with the first two lines of Ps 31:13 ( 31:14 HT) which are word for word the same as these two will show that it refers to the terror inspired by the plots of his enemies to do away with him. It is also clear from the context of that passage and the following context here that the “whispering of many” (the literal translation of “many whispering words of intrigue against me) refers to intrigues to take vengeance on him and do away with him.


Heb “Denounce and let us denounce him.” The verb which is translated “denounce” ( נָגַד , nagad ) does not take an accusative object of person as it does here very often. When it does it usually means to inform someone. The only relevant passage appears to be Job 17:5 where it means something like “denounce.” What is probably involved here are the attempts to portray Jeremiah as a traitor ( Jer 26:10 ) and a false prophet (see his conflict with Hananiah in ).


Heb “the men of my peace [who are concerned about my welfare].” For this phrase compare Ps 41:9 ( 41:10 HT); Jer 38:22 . It is generally agreed that irony is being invoked here, hence “so-called” is supplied in the translation to bring out the irony.


Heb “watching my stumbling [for me to stumble].” Metaphorically they were watching for some slip-up that would lead to his downfall. Compare the use in Pss 35:15 and 38:17 ( 38:18 HT).


All the text says literally is “Perhaps he can be enticed so that we can prevail over him.” However the word “enticed” needs some qualification. As W. McKane ( Jeremiah [ICC], 1:479) notes it should probably be read in the context of the “stumbling” (= “something that would lead to my downfall”). Hence “slipping up” has been supplied as an object. It is vague enough to avoid specifics as the original text does but suggests some reference to “something that would lead to my downfall.” sn There is an interesting ironical play on words here with the earlier use of these same Hebrew words in v. 7 to refer to the Lord coercing him into being his spokesman and overcoming his resistance. Jeremiah is lamenting that it was God’s call to speak his word which he could not (and still cannot) resist that has led ironically to his predicament, which is a source of terror to him.


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


Heb “ Lord of armies, the one who tests the righteous, who sees kidneys and heart.” The sentence has been broken up to avoid a long and complex English sentence. The translation is more in keeping with contemporary English style. sn This verse is almost an exact duplication of the petition in one of Jeremiah’s earlier prayers and complaints. See Jer 11:20 and notes there for explanation of the Hebrew psychology underlying the use of “kidneys and heart” here. For the thoughts expressed here see .


Heb “Cursed be the man who brought my father the news saying, ‘A son, a male, has been born to you,’ making glad his joy.” This verse has been restructured for English stylistic purposes. sn The birth of a child was an occasion of great joy. This was especially true if the child was a boy because it meant the continuance of the family line and the right of retention of the family property. See Ruth 4:10, 13-17 .


Heb “because he did not kill me from the womb so my mother might be to me for my grave and her womb eternally pregnant.” The sentence structure has been modified and the word “womb” moved from the last line to the next to the last line for English stylistic purposes and greater clarity.


Heb “Why did I come forth from the womb to see [= so that I might see] trouble and grief and that my days might be consumed in shame.”


Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord .”


Heb “sent to him…Maaseiah, saying,….”


The verb used here is often used of seeking information through a prophet (e.g., 2 Kgs 1:16; 8:8 ) and hence many translate “inquire of the Lord for us.” However, it is obvious from the following that they were not seeking information but help. The word is also used for that in Pss 34:4 ( 34:5 HT); 77:2 ( 77:3 HT).


The dominant spelling of this name is actually Nebuchadrezzar which is closer to his Babylonian name Nebu kudduri uzzur . An alternate spelling which is found 6 times in the book of Jeremiah and 17 times elsewhere is Nebuchadnezzar which is the form of the name that is usually used in English versions. sn Nebuchadnezzar was the second and greatest king of Babylon. He is known in the Bible both for his two conquests of Jerusalem in 597 b.c. ( 2 Kgs 24:10-17 ) and 587 b.c. ( 2 Kgs 25:1-7 ) and for his having built Babylon the Great ( Dan 4:28-30 ).


Heb “Perhaps the Lord will do according to his miracles that he may go up from against us.” sn The miracles that they may have had in mind would have included the Exodus, the conquest of Jericho, the deliverance of Jehoshaphat ( 2 Chr 20:1-30 ), etc., but predominant in their minds was probably the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib in the times of Hezekiah ( Isa 37:33-38 ).


Heb “Tell Zedekiah, ‘Thus says the Lord , the God of Israel.’” Using the indirect quote eliminates one level of embedded quotation and makes it easier for the reader to follow.


Heb “the weapons which are in your hand.” Weapons stands here by substitution for the soldiers who wield them.


The structure of the Hebrew sentence of this verse is long and complex and has led to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. There are two primary points of confusion: 1) the relation of the phrase “outside the walls,” and 2) the antecedent of “them” in the last clause of the verse that reads in Hebrew: “I will gather them back into the midst of the city.” Most take the phrase “outside the walls” with “the Babylonians….” Some take it with “turn back/bring back” to mean “from outside….” However, the preposition “from” is part of the idiom for “outside….” The phrase goes with “fighting” as J. Bright ( Jeremiah [AB], 215) notes and as NJPS suggests. The antecedent of “them” has sometimes been taken mistakenly to refer to the Babylonians. It refers rather to “the forces at your disposal” which is literally “the weapons which are in your hands.” This latter phrase is a figure involving substitution (called metonymy) as Bright also correctly notes. The whole sentence reads in Hebrew: “I will bring back the weapons of war which are in your hand with which you are fighting Nebuchadrezzar the King of Babylon and the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside your wall and I will gather them into the midst of the city.” The sentence has been restructured to better reflect the proper relationships and to make the sentence conform more to contemporary English style.


Heb “with outstretched hand and with strong arm.” These are, of course, figurative of God’s power and might. He does not literally have hands and arms. sn The phrases in this order are unique but a very similar phrase “by strong hand and outstretched arm” are found several times with reference to God’s mighty power unleashed against Egypt at the exodus (cf., Deut 4:34; 5:15; 26:8 ; Jer 32:21 ; Ps 136:12 ). Instead of being directed at Israel’s enemies it will now be directed against her.


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


Heb “And afterward.”


Heb “oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “And/But unto this people you shall say…” “But” is suggested here by the unusual word order which offsets what they are to say to Zedekiah (v. 3 ).


Heb “these people.”


Heb “Behold I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death.”


Heb “his life will be to him for spoil.” sn Spoil was what was carried off by the victor (see, e.g., Judg 5:30 ). Those who surrendered to the Babylonians would lose their property, their freedom, and their citizenship but would at least escape with their lives. Jeremiah was branded a traitor for this counsel (cf. 38:4 ) but it was the way of wisdom since the Lord was firmly determined to destroy the city (cf. v. 10 ).


Heb “I have set my face against this city for evil [i.e., disaster] and not for good [i.e., well-being].” For the use of the idiom “set one’s face against/toward” see, e.g., usage in 1 Kgs 2:15 ; 2 Kgs 2:17 ; Jer 42:15, 17 and note the interesting interplay of usage in Jer 44:11-12 .


Heb “he will burn it with fire.”


The words “The Lord told me to say” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation for clarity. This text has been treated in two very different ways depending upon how one views the connection of the words “and to/concerning the household of the King of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord :…’” with the preceding and following. Some treat the words that follow as a continuation of Jeremiah’s response to the delegation sent by Zedekiah (cf. vv. 3, 8 ). Others treat this as introducing a new set of oracles parallel to those in 23:9-40 which are introduced by the heading “to/concerning the prophets.” There are three reasons why this is the more probable connection: (1) the parallelism in expression with 23:9 ; (2) the other introductions in vv. 3, 8 use the preposition אֶל (’ el ) instead of לְ ( lÿ ) used here, and they have the formal introduction “you shall say…”; (3) the warning or challenge here would mitigate the judgment pronounced on the king and the city in vv. 4-7 . Verses 8-9 are different. They are not a mitigation but an offer of escape for those who surrender. Hence, these words are a title “Now concerning the royal court.” (The vav [ ו ] that introduces this is disjunctive = “Now.”) However, since the imperative that follows is masculine plural and addressed to the royal house, something needs to be added to introduce it. Hence the translation supplies “The Lord told me to say” to avoid confusion or mistakenly connecting it with the preceding.


Heb “house” or “household.” It is clear from 22:1-6 that this involved the King, the royal family, and the court officials.


Heb “house of David.” This is essentially equivalent to the royal court in v. 11 .


Heb “to the morning” = “morning by morning” or “each morning.” See Isa 33:2 and Amos 4:4 for parallel usage.


Heb “from the hand [or power] of.”


Heb “Lest my wrath go out like fire and burn with no one to put it out because of the evil of your deeds.”


Or “Listen, Jerusalem, you…”; Heb text of v. 21a-b reads, “Behold I am against you [fem. sg.], O inhabitant [fem. sg.] of the valley [and of] the rock of the plain, oracle of the Lord , who are saying [masc. pl.].” Verses 13-14 are generally treated as a separate oracle addressed to Jerusalem. The basis for this is (1) the appropriateness of the description here to the city of Jerusalem; (2) the rather similar reference to Jerusalem smugly living in her buildings made from cedars of Lebanon in 22:23 ; (3) the use of the second feminine singular pronoun “you” in other places in reference to Jerusalem (cf. clearly in 4:14; 6:8; 13:20; 15:5-6 ); (4) the use of the feminine singular participle to refer to personified Jerusalem in 10:17 as well as 20:23. However, the description in 21:13 is equally appropriate to the royal household that the Lord has been addressing; the palace stood on the Ophel or fill between the northern and southern hill just south of the temple and overlooked the Kidron valley. Moreover, the word “enthroned” is even more fitting to the royal household than to Jerusalem. The phrase “enthroned above the valley” is literally “inhabitant of the valley.” But since the literal is inappropriate for either Jerusalem or the royal palace, the phrase is regularly interpreted after the parallel phrase referring to the Lord “enthroned above the cherubim.” The royal house was “enthroned” more literally than Jerusalem was. Taking this to refer to the royal court rather than Jerusalem also introduces one less unintroduced entity by the shift in pronoun in vv. 11-14 as well as eliminating the introduction of an otherwise unintroduced oracle. The “you” of “you boast” is actually the masculine plural participle ( Heb “who say”) that modifies the feminine singular participle “you who sit enthroned” and goes back to the masculine plural imperatives in v. 12 rather than introducing a new entity, the people of the city. The participle “you who sit enthroned” is to be interpreted as a collective referring to the royal court not a personification of the city of Jerusalem (cf. GKC 394 §122. s and see, e.g., Isa 12:6 ; Mic 1:11 ). Moreover, taking the referent to be the royal court makes the reference to the word translated “palace” much more natural. The word is literally “forest” and is often seen to be an allusion to the armory which was called the “Forest of Lebanon” ( 1 Kgs 7:2; 10:17; 10:21 ; Isa 22:8 and see also Ezek 17:3 in an allegory ( 17:2-18 ) which may have been contemporary with this oracle). Taking the oracle to refer to the royal court also makes this oracle more parallel with the one that follows where destruction of the palace leads also to the destruction of the city.


Heb “I am against you.”


Heb “Who can swoop…Who can penetrate…?” The questions are rhetorical and expect a negative answer. They are rendered as negative affirmations for clarity. sn What is being expressed here is the belief in the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem carried to its extreme. Signal deliverances of Jerusalem such as those experienced under Jehoshaphat () and Hezekiah ( Isa 37:36-37 ) in the context of promises to protect it ( Isa 31:4-5; 37:33-35; 38:6 ) led to a belief that Zion was unconquerable. This belief found expression in several of Israel’s psalms ( Pss 46, 48, 76 ) and led to the mistaken assumption that God would protect it regardless of how the people treated God or one another. Micah and Jeremiah both deny that (cf. Mic 3:8-12 ; Jer 21:13-14 ).


Heb “I will set fire in its forest and it will devour its surroundings.” The pronouns are actually third feminine singular going back to the participle “you who sit enthroned above the valley.” However, this is another example of those rapid shifts in pronouns typical of the biblical Hebrew style which are uncommon in English. They have regularly been leveled to the same person throughout in the translation to avoid possible confusion for the English reader.


The word “me “ is not in the text. It is, however, implicit and is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And speak there this word:” The translation is intended to eliminate an awkward and lengthy sentence.


Heb “who sits on David’s throne.”


Heb “Hear the word of the Lord , O king of Judah who sits on the throne of David, you, and your officials and your people who pass through these gates.”


Heb “aliens, orphans, or widows” treating the terms as generic or collective. However, the term “alien” carries faulty connotations and the term “orphan” is not totally appropriate because the Hebrew term does not necessarily mean that both parents have died. sn These were classes of people who had no one to look out for their rights. The laws of Israel, however, were careful to see that their rights were guarded (cf. Deut 10:18 ) and that provision was made for meeting their needs (cf. Deut 24:19-21 ). The Lord promised to protect them (cf. Ps 146:9 ) and a curse was called down on any who deprived them of justice (cf. Deut 27:19 ).


Heb “Do not shed innocent blood.” sn Do not kill innocent people . For an example of one of the last kings who did this see Jer 36:20-23 . Manasseh was notorious for having done this and the book of 2 Kgs attributes the ultimate destruction of Judah to this crime and his sin of worshiping false gods ( 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4 ).


The translation here reflects the emphasizing infinitive absolute before the verb.


Heb “There will come through the gates of this city the kings…riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials…” The structure of the original text is broken up here because of the long compound subject which would make the English sentence too long. Compare 17:25 for the structure and wording of this sentence.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “Gilead you are to me, the height of Lebanon, but I will surely make you a wilderness [with] cities uninhabited.” The points of comparison are made explicit in the translation for the sake of clarity. See the study note for further explanation. For the use of the preposition לְ ( lamed ) = “in my eyes/in my opinion” see BDB 513 s.v. לְ 5.a(d) and compare Jonah 3:3 ; Esth 10:3 . For the use of the particles אִם לֹא (’ im lo ’) to introduce an emphatic oath see BDB 50 s.v. אִם 1.b(2). sn Lebanon was well known for its cedars and the palace (and the temple) had used a good deal of such timber in its construction (see 1 Kgs 5:6, 8-10; 7:2-3 ). In this section several references are made to cedar (see vv. 7, 14, 15, 23 ) and allusion has also been made to the paneled and colonnade armory of the Forest of Lebanon ( 2:14 ). It appears to have been a source of pride and luxury, perhaps at the expense of justice. Gilead was also noted in antiquity for its forests as well as for its fertile pastures.


The word “king” is not in the original text of either the first or the third line. It is implicit in the connection and is supplied in the translation for clarity. sn As the next verse makes clear, the king who will never return to see his native land is Shallum, also known as Jehoahaz (cf. 1 Chr 3:15 ; 2 Kgs 23:30, 33-34 ). He was made king by popular acclaim after the death of his father, Josiah, who was killed at Megiddo trying to stop Pharaoh Necho from going to the aid of the Assyrians. According to 2 Kgs 23:32 he was a wicked king. He was deposed by Necho and carried into exile where he died. The dead king alluded to is his father, Josiah, who was a godly king and was accordingly spared from seeing the destruction of his land ( 2 Kgs 22:20 ).


Heb “For thus said the Lord concerning Shallum son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of his father who went away from this place: He will not return there again.”


Heb “Woe to the one who builds his house by unrighteousness and its upper rooms with injustice using his neighbor [= countryman] as a slave for nothing and not giving to him his wages.” sn This was a clear violation of covenant law (cf. Deut 24:14-15 ) and a violation of the requirements set forth in Jer 22:3 . The allusion is to Jehoiakim who is not mentioned until v. 18 . He was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho and ruled from 609-598 b.c . He became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar but rebelled against him, bringing about the siege of 597 b.c. in which his son and many of the Judean leaders were carried off to Babylon ( 2 Kgs 23:34 –24:16). He was a wicked king according to the author of the book of Kings ( 2 Kgs 23:37 ). He had Uriah the prophet killed ( Jer 26:23 ) and showed no regard for Jeremiah’s prophecies, destroying the scroll containing them ( Jer 36:23 ) and ordering Jeremiah’s arrest ( Jer 36:23 ).


The MT should be emended to read חַלֹּנָיו וְסָפוֹן ( khallonayv vÿsafon ) instead of חַלֹּנָי וְסָפוּן ( khallonay vÿsafon ), i.e., the plural noun with third singular suffix rather than the first singular suffix and the infinitive absolute rather than the passive participle. The latter form then parallels the form for “paints” and functions in the same way (cf. GKC 345 §113. z for the infinitive with vav [ ו ] continuing a perfect). The errors in the MT involve reading the וְ once instead of twice (haplography) and reading the וּ ( u ) for the וֹ ( o ).


The word translated “red” only occurs here and in Ezek 23:14 where it refers to the pictures of the Babylonians on the wall of the temple. Evidently this was a favorite color for decoration. It is usually identified as vermilion, a mineral product from red ocher (cf. C. L. Wickwire, “Vermilion,” IDB 4:748).


For the use of this verb see Jer 12:5 where it is used of Jeremiah “competing” with horses. The form is a rare Tiphel (see GKC 153 §55. h ).


Heb “Your father, did he not eat and drink and do justice and right.” The copulative vav in front of the verbs here (all Hebrew perfects) shows that these actions are all coordinate not sequential. The contrast drawn here between the actions of Jehoiakim and Josiah show that the phrase eating and drinking should be read in the light of the same contrasts in which ends with the note of contentment in Eccl 2:24 (see also Eccl 3:13; 5:18 [ 5:17 HT]; 8:15 ). The question is, of course, rhetorical setting forth the positive role model against which Jehoiakim’s actions are to be condemned. The key terms here are “then things went well with him” which is repeated in the next verse after the reiteration of Josiah’s practice of justice.


The words “for Judah” are not in the text, but the absence of the preposition plus object as in the preceding verse suggests that this is a more general statement, i.e., “things went well for everyone.”


Heb “Is that not what it means to know me.” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. It is translated in the light of the context. sn Comparison of the usage of the words “know me” in their context in Jer 2:8; 9:3, 6, 24 and here will show that more than mere intellectual knowledge is involved. It involves also personal commitment to God and obedience to the demands of the agreements with him. The word “know” is used in ancient Near Eastern treaty contexts of submission to the will of the overlord. See further the notes on 9:3 .


Heb “Your eyes and your heart do not exist except for dishonest gain and for innocent blood to shed [it] and for fraud and for oppression to do [them].” The sentence has been broken up to conform more to English style and the significance of “eyes” and “heart” explained before they are introduced into the translation.


The translation follows the majority of scholars who think that the address of brother and sister are the address of the mourners to one another, lamenting their loss. Some scholars feel that all four terms are parallel and represent the relation that the king had metaphorically to his subjects; i.e., he was not only Lord and Majesty to them but like a sister or a brother. In that case something like: “How sad it is for the one who was like a brother to us! How sad it is for the one who was like a sister to us.” This makes for poor poetry and is not very likely. The lover can call his bride sister in Song of Solomon ( Song 4:9, 10 ) but there are no documented examples of a subject ever speaking of a king in this way in Israel or the ancient Near East.


The words “people of Jerusalem” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation to clarify the referent of the imperative. The imperative is feminine singular and it is generally agreed that personified Zion/Jerusalem is in view. The second feminine singular has commonly been applied to Jerusalem or the people of Judah throughout the book. The reference to allies (v. 20, 22 ) and to leaders (v. 22 ) make it very probable that this is the case here too. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “from Abarim.” This was the mountain range in Moab from which Moses viewed the promised land (cf. Deut 32:49 ).


Heb “your lovers.” For the usage of this term to refer to allies see 30:14 and a semantically similar term in 4:30 . sn If the passages in this section are chronologically ordered, this refers to the help that Jehoiakim relied on when he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.


Heb “I spoke to you in your security.” The reference is to the sending of the prophets. Compare this context with the context of 7:25 . For the nuance “security” for this noun ( שַׁלְוָה , shalvah ) rather than “prosperity” as many translate see Pss 122:7; 30:6 and the related adjective ( שָׁלֵו , shalev ) in Jer 49:31 ; Job 16:2; 21:23 .


Heb “from your youth.” Compare the usage in 2:2; 3:24 and compare a similar idea in 7:25 .


Heb “A wind will shepherd away all your shepherds.” The figures have all been interpreted in the translation for the sake of clarity. For the use of the word “wind” as a metaphor or simile for God’s judgment (using the enemy forces) see 4:11-12; 13:24; 18:17 . For the use of the word “shepherd” to refer to rulers/leaders 2:8; 10:21; and 23:1-4 . For the use of the word “shepherd away” in the sense of carry off/drive away see BDB 945 s.v. רָעָה 2.d and compare Job 20:26 . There is an obvious wordplay involved in two different senses of the word “shepherd,” one referring to their leaders and one referring to the loss of those leaders by the wind driving them off. There may even be a further play involving the word “wickedness” which comes from a word having the same consonants. If the oracles in this section are chronologically ordered this threat was fulfilled in 597 b.c. when many of the royal officials and nobles were carried away captive with Jehoiachin (see 2 Kgs 24:15 ) who is the subject of the next oracle.


The use of the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) is intensive here and probably also at the beginning of the last line of v. 21 . (See BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e.)


Heb “You who dwell in Lebanon, you who are nested in its cedars, how you….” The metaphor has been interpreted for the sake of clarity. The figure here has often been interpreted of the people of Jerusalem living in paneled houses or living in a city dominated by the temple and palace which were built from the cedars of Lebanon. Some even interpret this as a reference to the king who has been characterized as living in a cedar palace, in a veritable Lebanon (cf. vv. 6-7, 14 and see also the alternate interpretation of 21:13-14 ). However, the reference to “nesting in the cedars” and the earlier reference to “feeling secure” suggests that the figure is rather like that of Ezek 31:6 and Dan 4:12 . See also Hab 2:9 where a related figure is used. The forms for “you who dwell” and “you who are nested” in the literal translation are feminine singular participles referring again to personified Jerusalem. (The written forms of these participles are to be explained as participles with a hireq campaginis according to GKC 253 §90. m . The use of the participle before the preposition is to be explained according to GKC 421 §130. a .)


The verb here should be identified as a Niphal perfect of the verb אָנַח (’ anakh ) with the א ( aleph ) left out (so BDB 336 s.v. חָנַן Niph and GKC 80 §23. f , n. 1). The form is already translated that way by the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “Coniah.” This is the spelling of this king’s name here and in v. 28 and 37:1 . Elsewhere in Jeremiah he is called Jeconiah ( 24:1; 27:20; 28:4; 29:2 [see also 1 Chr 3:16, 17 ; Esth 2:6 ]) and Jehoiachin ( 52:31, 33 [see also 2 Kgs 24:6, 8, 12, 15; 25:27, 29 ; 2 Chr 36:8, 9 ; Ezek 1:2 ]). For the sake of consistency the present translation uses the name Jeconiah throughout. sn According to 2 Kgs 24:8-9 Jeconiah (= Jehoiachin) succeeded his father Jehoiakim and evidently followed in his anti-Babylon, anti-God stance. He surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar shortly after he became king and along with his mother, his family, his officials, and some of the leading men of Jerusalem and Judah was carried into exile in 597 b.c . According to Jer 28:4, 10 , there were popular hopes that he would be restored from exile and returned to the throne. This oracle flatly denies that hope. Allusion has already been made to the loss of regal authority by this king and his mother in 13:18-19 .


Heb “As surely as I live, Jeconiah, King of Judah, son of Jehoiakim will not be a signet ring on my right hand. Indeed I will tear you off from it [i.e., pull you off of my finger as a signet ring].” The signet ring was the king’s seal by which he verified all his legal and political transactions. To have the signet ring was to exercise authority in the king’s name. For examples of this see Gen 41:42, 43 ; 1 Kgs 21:8 ; Esth 3:10; 8:2 . The figure has been interpreted in the translation for the sake of clarity. The particles כִּי אִם ( ki ’ im ) that stand after the oath formula “As I live” introduce a negative statement according to the usage of Hebrew grammar (cf. BDB 474 s.v. כִּי אִם 1.a and BDB 50 s.v. אִם 1.b[2] and compare 2 Sam 3:35 ). The particle כִּי that stands in front of “I will tear you off” introduces a positive affirmation according to the same rules of Hebrew grammar (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.c and compare 1 Sam 14:39, 44 ). The Lord is swearing emphatically that Jeconiah will not be the earthly representative of his rule; i.e., not carry the authority of the signet ring bearer. As in several other places in Jeremiah there is a sudden shift from the third person to the second person which runs throughout vv. 24-27 . The pronouns are leveled in the translation to the second person to avoid confusion. The figures are interpreted in the translation to convey the proper significance. See the study note for explanation. sn According to the Davidic covenant the Davidic king sat on God’s throne over God’s kingdom, Israel (cf. 2 Chr 29:30; 28:5 ). As God’s representative he ruled in God’s stead and could even be addressed figuratively as God (cf. Ps 45:6 [ 45:7 HT]) and compare the same phenomenon for the earthly judges, Exod 22:7-8 ; Ps 82:1, 6 ). Jeconiah is being denied the right to function any longer as the Davidic king and any hopes of ever regaining that right in his lifetime or through the succession of his sons is also denied. This oracle is reversed by the later oracle of the prophet Haggai to his grandson Zerubbabel in Hag 2:20-23 and both Jeconiah and Zerubbabel are found in the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:12-13 .


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


Heb “I will hurl you and your mother…into another land where…” The verb used here is very forceful. It is the verb used for Saul throwing a spear at David ( 1 Sam 18:11 ) and for the Lord unleashing a violent storm on the sea ( Jonah 1:4 ). It is used both here and in v. 28 for the forceful exile of Jeconiah and his mother.


Heb “And unto the land to which they lift up their souls to return there, there they will not return.” Once again there is a sudden shift in person from the second plural to the third plural. As before the translation levels the pronouns to avoid confusion. For the idiom “to lift up the soul to” = “to long/yearn to/for” see BDB 670 s.v. נָשָׂא 1.b(9).


The word translated “clay vessel” occurs only here. Its meaning, however, is assured on the basis of the parallelism and on the basis of the verb root which is used for shaping or fashioning in Job 10:8 . The KJV renders it as “idol,” but that word, while having the same consonants, never appears in the singular. The word is missing in the Greek version but is translated “vessel” in the Latin version. The word “clay” is supplied in the translation to clarify what sort of vessel is meant; its inclusion is justified based on the context and the use of the same verb root in Job 10:8 to refer to shaping or fashioning, which would imply clay pots or vessels.


Heb “Is this man, Coniah, a despised, broken vessel or a vessel that no one wants?” The question is rhetorical expecting a positive answer in agreement with the preceding oracle. sn For the image of the rejected, broken vessel see Jer 19:1-13 (where, however, the vessel is rejected first and then broken) and compare also the image of the linen shorts which are good for nothing in (see especially vv. 10-11 ).


There is no certain explanation for the triple repetition of the word “land” here. F. B. Huey ( Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC], 209) suggests the idea of exasperation, but exasperation at what? Their continued apostasy which made these exiles necessary? Or exasperation at their pitiful hopes of seeing Jeconiah restored? Perhaps “pitiful, pitiful, pitiful land of Judah” would convey some of the force of the repetition without being any more suggestive of why the land is so addressed.


Heb “Write this man childless.” For the explanation see the study note. The word translated “childless” has spawned some debate because Jeconiah was in fact not childless. There is record from both the Bible and ancient Near Eastern texts that he had children (see, e.g., 1 Chr 3:17 ). G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Jeremiah,” JQR 28 (1937-38): 115, has suggested that the word both here and in Lev 20:20-21 should be translated “stripped of honor.” While that would relieve some of the difficulties here, the word definitely means “childless” in Gen 15:2 and also in Sir 16:3 where it is contrasted with having godless children. The issue is not one of childlessness but of having “one of his sons” succeed to the Davidic throne. The term for “one of his sons” is literally “from his seed a man” and the word “seed” is the same one that is used to refer to his “children” who were forced into exile with him (v. 28 ). sn The figure here is of registering a person on an official roll of citizens, etc. (cf. Num 11:26 ; 1 Chr 4:41 ; Ps 87:6 ). Here it probably refers to the “king list” of dynastic succession. While Jeconiah did have children ( 2 Chr 3:17 ) none of them ever returned to Judah or ruled over it. What is being denied here is his own succession and that of his immediate sons contrary to the popular hopes expressed in Jer 28:4 . His grandson Zerubbabel did return to Judah, became governor ( Hag 1:1; 2:2 ), and along with the high priest Joshua was responsible for rebuilding the second temple (e.g., Ezra 5:2 ).


Heb “Woe to the shepherds who are killing and scattering the sheep of my pasture.” See the study note on 22:13 for the significance of “Sure to be judged” ( Heb “Woe”) See the study note for the significance of the metaphor introduced here. sn Verses 1-4 of ch. are an extended metaphor in which the rulers are compared to shepherds and the people are compared to sheep. This metaphor has already been met with in 10:21 and is found elsewhere in the context of the Lord ’s covenant with David (cf. 2 Sam 7:7-8 ; Ps 78:70-72 ). The sheep are God’s people and he is the ultimate shepherd who is personally concerned about their care (cf. Pss 23:1; 80:2 ). He has set rulers over them as his under-shepherds and they are responsible to him for the care of his sheep (see 22:3-4 ). They have been lax shepherds, allowing the sheep to be scattered and destroyed. So he will punish them. As the true shepherd of Israel he will regather his scattered flock and place new shepherds (rulers) over them. These verses lead to a promise of an ideal ruler set over an Israel which has experienced a new and better Exodus (vv. 6-8 ). For a more complete development of this metaphor with similar messianic and eschatological implications see . The metaphor has been interpreted in the translation but some of the flavor left in the simile.


Heb “about the shepherds who are shepherding my people. ‘You have caused my sheep….’” For the metaphor see the study note on the previous verse.


Heb “Therefore, thus says the Lord , the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who should be shepherding my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away and you have not taken care of them. Behold I will visit upon you the evil of your deeds.” “Therefore” announces the judgment which does not come until “Behold.” It is interrupted by the messenger formula and a further indictment. The original has been broken up to conform more to contemporary English style, the metaphors have been interpreted for clarity and the connections between the indictments and the judgments have been carried by “So.”


Heb “my sheep.”


Heb “their fold.”


Heb “shepherds.”


There are various nuances of the word פָּקַד ( paqad ) represented in vv. 2, 4 . See Ps 8:4 ( 8:5 HT) and Zech 10:3 for “care for/take care of” (cf. BDB 823 s.v. פָּקַד Qal.A.1.a). See Exod 20:5 ; Amos 3:2 ; Jer 9:24; 11:22 for “punish” (cf. BDB 823 s.v. פָּקַד Qal.A.3). See 1 Kgs 20:39 and 2 Kgs 10:19 for “be missing” (cf. BDB 823 s.v. פָּקַד Niph.1). sn There is an extended play on the Hebrew word פָּקַד which is a word with rather broad English equivalents. Here the word refers to the fault of the shepherds/rulers who have not “taken care” of the sheep/people (v. 2 ), the “punishment” for the evil they have done in not taking care of them (v. 2 ), and the fact that after the Lord assigns new shepherds/rulers over them they will be cared for in such a way that none of them “will turn up missing” (v. 4 ).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “Behold the days are coming.”


Heb “a righteous sprig to David” or “a righteous shoot” (NAB). sn This passage and the parallel in Jer 33:15 are part of a growing number of prayers and prophecies regarding an ideal ruler to come forth from the Davidic line who will bring the justice, security, and well-being that the continuing line of Davidic rulers did not. Though there were periodic kings like Josiah who did fulfill the ideals set forth in Jer 22:3 (see Jer 22:15 ), by and large they were more like Jehoiakim who did not (see Jer 22:13 ). Hence the Lord brought to an end the Davidic rule. The potential for the ideal, however, remained because of God’s promise to David ( 2 Sam 7:16 ). The Davidic line became like a tree which was cut down, leaving only a stump. But from that stump God would bring forth a “shoot,” a “sprig” which would fulfill the ideals of kingship. See Isa 11:1-6 and Zech 3:8, 6:12 for this metaphor and compare Dan 4:14-15, 23, 26 for a different but related use of the metaphor.


Heb “he will reign as king and act wisely.” This is another example of the use of two verbs joined by “and” where one becomes the adverbial modifier of the other (hendiadys). For the nuance of the verb “act wisely” rather than “prosper” see Amos 5:13 ; Ps 2:10 (cf. BDB 968 s.v. שָׂכַל Hiph.5).


Heb “In his days [= during the time he rules].”


Parallelism and context (cf. v. 4 ) suggest this nuance for the word often translated “be saved.” For this nuance elsewhere see Ps 119:117 ; Prov 28:18 for the verb ( יָשַׁע [ yasha ’] in the Niphal); and Ps 12:6 ; Job 5:4, 11 for the related noun ( יֶשַׁע , yesha ’).


Heb “his name will be called ‘The Lord our righteousness’.” sn The Hebrew word translated “justice” here is very broad in its usage, and it is hard to catch all the relevant nuances for this word in this context. It is used for “vindication” in legal contexts (see, e.g., Job 6:29 ), for “deliverance” or “salvation” in exilic contexts (see, e.g., Isa 58:8 ), and in the sense of ruling, judging with “justice” (see, e.g., Lev 19:15 ; Isa 32:1 ). Here it probably sums up the justice that the Lord provides through raising up this ruler as well as the safety, security, and well-being that result (see vv. 5-6 a). In the NT this takes on soteriological connotations (see 1 Cor 1:31 in its context).


Heb “descendants of the house of Israel.”


It is probably preferable to read the third masculine singular plus suffix ( הִדִּיחָם , hiddikham ) here with the Greek version and the parallel passage in 16:15 rather than the first singular plus suffix in the MT ( הִדַּחְתִּים , hiddakhtim ). If this is not a case of mere graphic confusion, the MT could have arisen under the influence of the first person in v. 3 . Though sudden shifts in person have been common in the book of Jeremiah, that is unlikely in a context reporting an oath.


This passage is the same as 16:14-15 with a few minor variations in Hebrew wording. The notes on that passage should be consulted for the rendering here. This passage has the Niphal of the verb “to say” rather than the impersonal use of the Qal. It adds the idea of “bringing out” to the idea of “bringing up out” and ( Heb “who brought up and who brought out,” probably a case of hendiadys) before “the people [here “seed” rather than “children”] of Israel [here “house of Israel”] from the land of the north.” These are minor variations and do not affect the sense in any way. So the passage is rendered in much the same way. sn This passage looks forward to a new and greater Exodus, one that so outstrips the earlier one that the earlier will not serve as the model of deliverance any longer. This same ideal was the subject of Isaiah’s earlier prophecies in Isa 11:11-12, 15-16; 43:16-21; 49:8-13; 51: 1-11 .


The word “false” is not in the text, but it is clear from the context that these are whom the sayings are directed against. The words “Here is what the Lord says” are also not in the text. But comparison with 46:2; 48:1; 49:1, 7, 23, 28; and 21:11 will show that this is a heading. The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “My heart is crushed within me. My bones tremble.” It has already been noted several times that the “heart” in ancient Hebrew psychology was the intellectual and volitional center of the person, the kidneys were the emotional center, and the bones the locus of strength and also the subject of joy, distress, and sorrow. Here Jeremiah is speaking of his distress of heart and mind in modern psychology, a distress that leads him to trembling of body which he compares to that of a drunken person staggering around under the influence of wine.


Heb “wine has passed over him.”


Heb “adulterers.” But spiritual adultery is clearly meant as also in 3:8-9; 9:2 , and probably also 5:7 .


For the word translated “They live…lives” see usage in Jer 8:6 . For the idea of “misusing” their power ( Heb “their power is not right” i.e., used in the wrong way) see 2 Kgs 7:9; 17:9 . In the original text this line (really two lines in the Hebrew poetry) are at the end of the verse. However, this places the antecedent too far away and could lead to confusion. The lines have been rearranged to avoid such confusion.


For the use of this verb see 12:4 and the note there.


The translation follows the majority of Hebrew mss ( מֵאָלָה , me ’ alah ) rather than the Greek and Syriac version and a few Hebrew mss which read “because of these” ( מֵאֵלֶּה [ me ’ elleh ], referring to the people unfaithful to him). sn The curse is, of course, the covenant curse. See Deut 29:20-21 ( 29:19-20 HT) and for the specific curse see Deut 28:23-24 . The curse is appropriate since their “adultery” lay in attributing their fertility to the god Baal (see Hos 2:9-13 ( 2:11-15 HT) and violating the covenant (see Hos 4:1-3 ).


The particle כִּי ( ki ) which begins this verse is parallel to the one at the beginning of the preceding verse. However, the connection is too distant to render it “for.” “Moreover” is intended to draw the parallel. The words “the Lord says” ( Heb “Oracle of the Lord ”) have been drawn up to the front to introduce the shift in speaker from Jeremiah, who describes his agitated state, to God, who describes the sins of the prophets and priests and his consequent judgment on them.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


For the last two lines see 11:23 and the notes there.


The words “The Lord says” are not in the text, but it is clear from the content that he is the speaker. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


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


According to BDB 1074 s.v. תִּפְלָּה this word means “unseemly, unsavory.” The related adjective is used in Job 6:6 of the tastelessness of something that is unseasoned.


Heb “by Baal.” sn Prophesying in the name of the god Baal was a clear violation of Mosaic law and punishable by death (see Deut 13:1-5 ). For an example of the apostasy encouraged by prophets of Baal in the northern kingdom of Israel see 1 Kgs 18:16-40 .


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


Or “they commit adultery and deal falsely.” The word “shocking” only occurs here and in 5:30 where it is found in the context of prophesying lies. This almost assures that the reference to “walking in lies” ( Heb “in the lie”) is referring to false prophesy. Moreover the references to the prophets in 5:13 and in 14:13-15 are all in the context of false prophesy as are the following references in this chapter in 23:24, 26, 32 and in 28:15 . This appears to be the theme of this section. This also makes it likely that the reference to adultery is not literal adultery, though two of the false prophets in Babylon were guilty of this ( 29:23 ). The reference to “encouraging those who do evil” that follows also makes more sense if they were preaching messages of comfort rather than messages of doom. The verbs here are infinitive absolutes in place of the finite verb, probably used to place greater emphasis on the action (cf. Hos 4:2 in a comparable judgment speech.)


Heb “So they strengthen the hands of those doing evil so that they do not turn back from their evil.” For the use of the figure “strengthen the hands” meaning “encourage” see Judg 9:24 ; Ezek 13:22 (and cf. BDB 304 s.v. חָזַק Piel.2). The vav consecutive on the front of the form gives the logical consequence equivalent to “so” in the translation.


Heb “All of them are to me like Sodom and its [Jerusalem’s] inhabitants like Gomorrah.” sn The rhetoric of this passage is very forceful. Like Amos who focuses attention on the sins of the surrounding nations to bring out more forcefully the heinousness of Israel’s sin, God focuses attention on the sins of the prophets of Samaria to bring out the even worse sin of the prophets of Jerusalem. (The oracle is directed at them, not at the prophets of Samaria. See the announcement of judgment that follows.) The Lord has already followed that tack with Judah in (cf. 2:11 ). Moreover, he here compares the prophets and the evil-doing citizens of Jerusalem, whom they were encouraging through their false prophesy, to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who were proverbial for their wickedness ( Deut 32:32 ; Isa 1:10 ).


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


Heb “Therefore, thus says the Lord …concerning the prophets.” The person is shifted to better conform with English style and the word “of Jerusalem” is supplied in the translation to avoid the possible misunderstanding that the judgment applies to the prophets of Samaria who had already been judged long before.


Heb “I will feed this people wormwood and make them drink poison water.” For these same words of judgment on another group see 9:15 ( 9:14 HT). “Wormwood” and “poison water” are not to be understood literally here but are symbolic of judgment and suffering. See, e.g., BDB 542 s.v. לַעֲנָה .


The compound preposition מֵאֵת ( me ’ et ) expresses source or origin (see BDB 86 s.v. אֵת 4.c). Context shows that the origin is in their false prophesying which encourages people in their evil behavior.


The words “to the people of Jerusalem” are not in the Hebrew text but are supplied in the translation to reflect the masculine plural form of the imperative and the second masculine plural form of the pronoun. These words have been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “They tell of a vision of their own heart [= mind] not from the mouth of the Lord .”


The translation reflects an emphatic construction where the infinitive absolute follows a participle (cf. GKC 343 §113. r ).


The translation follows the Greek version. The Hebrew text reads, “who reject me, ‘The Lord has spoken, “Things…”’” The Greek version is to be preferred here because of (1) the parallelism of the lines “reject what the Lord has said” // “follow the stubborn inclinations of their own hearts;” (2) the preceding context which speaks of “visions of their own imaginations not of what the Lord has given them;” (3) the following context which denies that they have ever had access to the Lord ’s secrets; (4) the general contexts earlier regarding false prophecy where rejection of the Lord ’s word is in view ( 6:14 [see there v. 10 ]; 8:11 [see there v. 9 ]); (5) the meter of the poetic lines (the Hebrew meter /5/4/3; the meter presupposed by the translation /3/4/3 with the 3’s being their words). The difference is one of vocalization of the same consonants. The vocalization of the MT is יְהוָה מְנַאֲצַי דִּבֶּר [ mÿna ’ atsay dibber yÿhvah ]; the Hebrew Vorlage behind the Greek would be vocalized as מְנַאֲצֵי דְּבַר יְהוָה ( mÿna ’ atsey dÿvar yÿhvah ).


Heb “You will have peace.” But see the note on 14:13 . See also 6:14 and 8:11 .


Or “has been the Lord ’s confidant.” sn The Lord ’s inner circle refers to the council of angels ( Ps 89:7 [ 89:8 HT]; 1 Kgs 22:19-22 ; Job 1-2 ; Job 15:8 ) where God made known his counsel/plans ( Amos 3:7 ). They and those they prophesied to will find out soon enough what the purposes of his heart are, and they are not “peace” (see v. 20 ). By their failure to announce the impending doom they were not turning the people away from their wicked course (vv. 21-22 ).


The form here is a jussive with a vav of subordination introducing a purpose after a question (cf. GKC 322 §109. f ).


Heb “his word.” In the second instance (“what he has said” at the end of the verse) the translation follows the suggestion of the Masoretes ( Qere ) and many Hebrew mss rather than the consonantal text ( Kethib ) of the Leningrad Codex.


Heb “Behold!”


The syntax of this line has generally been misunderstood, sometimes to the point that some want to delete the word wrath. Both here and in 30:23 where these same words occur the word “anger” stands not as an accusative of attendant circumstance but an apposition, giving the intended referent to the figure. Comparison should be made with Jer 25:15 where “this wrath” is appositional to “the cup of wine” (cf. GKC 425 §131. k ).


The translation is deliberate, intending to reflect the repetition of the Hebrew root which is “swirl/swirling.”


Heb “until he has done and until he has carried out the purposes of his heart.”


Heb “in the latter days.” However, as BDB 31 s.v. אַחֲרִית b suggests, the meaning of this idiom must be determined from the context. Sometimes it has remote, even eschatological, reference and other times it has more immediate reference as it does here and in Jer 30:23 where it refers to the coming days of Babylonian conquest and exile.


The translation is intended to reflect a Hebrew construction where a noun functions as the object of a verb from the same root word (the Hebrew cognate accusative).


Heb “Yet they ran.” sn The image is that of a messenger bearing news from the king. See 2 Sam 18:19-24 ; Jer 51:31 ; Isa 40:9; 52:7 ; Hab 2:2 (the tablet/scroll bore the message the runner was to read to the intended recipients of his message). Their message has been given in v. 17 (see notes there for cross references).


Or “had been my confidant.” See the note on v. 18 .


The words “Do you people think” at the beginning of this verse and “Do you really think” at the beginning of the next verse are not in the text but are a way of trying to convey the nature of the rhetorical questions which expect a negative answer. They are also a way of trying to show that the verses are still connected with the preceding discussion addressed to the people (cf. 23:16, 20 ).