Heb “because I bear the reproach of my youth.” For the plural referents see the note at the beginning of v. 18 . sn The expression the disgraceful things we did in our earlier history refers to the disgrace that accompanied the sins that Israel did in her earlier years before she learned the painful lesson of submission to the Lord through the discipline of exile. For earlier references to the sins of her youth (i.e., in her earlier years as a nation) see 3:24-25; 22:21 and see also 32:29 . At the time that these verses were written, neither northern Israel or Judah had expressed the kind of contrition voiced in vv. 18-19 . As one commentator notes, the words here are both prophetic and instructive.


Heb “Is Ephraim a dear son to me or a child of delight?” For the substitution of Israel for Ephraim and the plural pronouns for the singular see the note on v. 18 . According to BDB 210 s.v. הֲ 1.c the question is rhetorical having the force of an impassioned affirmation. See 1 Sam 2:27 ; Job 41:9 ( 41:1 HT) for parallel usage.


Heb “my stomach churns for him.” The parallelism shows that this refers to pity or compassion.


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The words “I will say” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation to mark the transition from the address about Israel in a response to Rachel’s weeping (vv. 15-20 ) to a direct address to Israel which is essentially the answer to Israel’s prayer of penitence (cf. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 121.) sn The Lord here invites Israel to stop dilly-dallying and prepare themselves to return because he is prepared to do something new and miraculous.


Heb “Virgin Israel.” For the significance see the study note on 31:3 .


Heb “Set your mind to the highway, the way which you went.” The phrase “the way you went” has been translated “the road you took when you were carried off” to help the reader see the reference to the exile implicit in the context. The verb “which you went” is another example of the old second feminine singular which the Masoretes typically revocalize ( Kethib הָלָכְתִּי [ halakhti ]; Qere הָלָכְתְּ [ halakht ]). The vocative has been supplied in the translation at the beginning to help make the transition from third person reference to Ephraim/Israel in the preceding to second person in the following and to identify the referent of the imperatives. Likewise, this line has been moved to the front to show that the reference to setting up sign posts and landmarks is not literal but figurative, referring to making a mental note of the way they took when carried off so that they can easily find their way back. Lines three and four in the Hebrew text read, “Set up sign posts for yourself; set up guideposts/landmarks for yourself.” The word translated “telltale signs marking the way” occurs only here. Though its etymology and precise meaning are unknown, all the lexicons agree in translating it as “sign post” or something similar based on the parallelism.


The translation “dilly-dally” is suggested by J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 276. The verb occurs only here in this stem (the Hitpael) and only one other time in any other stem (the Qal in Song 5:6 ). The dictionaries define it as “to turn this way and that” (cf., e.g., BDB 330 s.v. חָמַק Hithp.). In the context it refers to turning this way and that looking for the way back.


Heb “For the Lord will create.” The person has been shifted to avoid the possible confusion for some readers of a third person reference to the Lord in what has otherwise been a first person address. The verb “will create” is another one of the many examples of the prophetic perfect that have been seen in the book of Jeremiah. For the significance of the verb “create” here see the study note on “bring about something new.”


The meaning of this last line is uncertain. The translation has taken it as proverbial for something new and unique. For a fairly complete discussion of most of the options see C. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” EBC 6:571. For the nuance of “protecting” for the verb here see BDB 686 s.v. סָבַב Po‘ 1 and compare the usage in Deut 32:10 .


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See 7:3 and the study note of 2:19 for the rendering of this title and an explanation of its significance.


Heb “They [i.e., people (the indefinite plural, GKC 460 §144. g )] will again say in the land of Judah and in its cities when I restore their fortunes.” For the meaning of the idiom “to restore the fortunes” see the translator’s note on 29:14 .


The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but it is implicit in the titles that follow. They have been supplied in the translation for clarity to aid in identifying the referent. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


The translation “those who move about with their flocks” is based on an emendation of the Hebrew text which reads a third plural Qal perfect ( נָסְעוּ , nos ’ u ) to a masculine plural Qal participle in the construct ( נֹסְעֵי , nosÿ ’ e ) as suggested in the BHS fn. For the use of the construct participle before a noun with a preposition see GKC 421 §130. a . It is generally agreed that three classes of people are referred to here, townspeople, farmers, and shepherds. But the syntax of the Hebrew sentence is a little awkward: “And they [i.e., “people” (the indefinite plural, GKC 460 §144. g )] will live in it, Judah and all its cities [an apposition of nearer definition (GKC 425-26 §131. n )], [along with] farmers and those who move about with their flocks.” The first line refers awkwardly to the townspeople and the other two classes are added asyndetically (i.e., without the conjunction “and”).


The verbs here again emphasize that the actions are as good as done (i.e., they are prophetic perfects; cf. GKC 312-13 §106. n ). sn For the concept here compare Jer 31:12 where the promise was applied to northern Israel. This represents the reversal of the conditions that would characterize the exiles according to the covenant curse of Deut 28:65-67 .


Or “When I, Jeremiah, heard this, I woke up and looked around. My sleep had been very pleasant.” The text is somewhat enigmatic. It has often been explained as an indication that Jeremiah had received this communication ( 30:3 –31:26) while in a prophetic trance (compare Dan 10:9 ). However, there is no other indication that this is a vision or a vision report. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers ( Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 124, 128-29) suggest that this is a speech of the restored (and refreshed) exiles like that which is formally introduced in v. 23 . This speech, however, is not formally introduced. This interpretation is also reflected in TEV, CEV and is accepted here as fitting the context better and demanding less presuppositions. The Hebrew text reads literally, “Upon this I awoke and looked and my sleep was sweet to me.” Keown, Scalise, and Smothers have the best discussion of these two options as well as several other options.


Heb “Behold days are coming!” The particle “Behold” is probably used here to emphasize the reality of a fact. See the translator’s note on 1:6 . sn This same expression is found in the introduction to the Book of Consolation ( Jer 30:1-3 ) and in the introduction to the promise of a new covenant (or covenant; 31:31 ). In all three passages it is emphasized that the conditions apply to both Israel and Judah. The Lord will reverse their fortunes and restore them to their lands ( 30:3 ), increase their numbers and build them up ( 31:27-28 ), and make a new covenant with them involving forgiveness of sins ( 31:31-34 ).


Heb “Behold, the days are coming and [= when] I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of people and of animals.” For the significance of the metaphor see the study note. sn The metaphor used here presupposes that drawn in Hos 2:23 ( 2:25 HT) which is in turn based on the wordplay with Jezreel (meaning “God sows”) in Hos 2:22 . The figure is that of plant seed in the ground which produces a crop; here what are sown are the “seeds of people and animals.” For a similar picture of the repopulating of Israel and Judah see Ezek 36:10-11 . The promise here reverses the scene of devastation that Jeremiah had depicted apocalyptically and hyperbolically in Jer 4:23-29 as judgment for Judah’s sins.


Heb “Just as I watched over them to uproot and to tear down, to destroy and demolish, so I will watch over them to build and to plant.” The words here repeat those of 1:10 and 1:12 .


This word only occurs here and in the parallel passage in Ezek 18:2 in the Qal stem and in Eccl 10:10 in the Piel stem. In the latter passage it refers to the bluntness of an ax that has not been sharpened. Here the idea is of the “bluntness” of the teeth, not from having ground them down due to the bitter taste of sour grapes but to the fact that they have lost their “edge,” “bite,” or “sharpness” because they are numb from the sour taste. For this meaning for the word see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:197. sn This is a proverbial statement that is also found in Ezek 18:2 . It served to articulate the complaint that the present generation was suffering for the accrued sins of their ancestors (cf. Lam 5:7 ) and that the Lord was hence unjust ( Ezek 18:25, 29 ). However, Jeremiah had repeatedly warned his own generation that they were as guilty or even more so than their ancestors. The ancestors were indeed guilty of sin but the present generation had compounded the problem by their stubborn refusal to turn back to God despite repeated warnings from the prophets and hence God would withhold judgment no longer (cf. especially Jer 16:10-13 and compare Jer 7:24-34; 9:12-16 ( 9:11-15 HT); 11:1-13 ).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Or “a renewed covenant” (also in vv. 22-23 ).


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


The word “old” is not in the text but is implicit in the use of the word “new.” It is supplied in the translation for greater clarity.


Heb “fathers.” sn This refers to the Mosaic covenant which the nation entered into with God at Sinai and renewed on the plains of Moab. The primary biblical passages explicating this covenant are –24 and the book of Deuteronomy; see as well the study note on Jer 11:2 for the form this covenant took and its relation to the warnings of the prophets. The renewed document of Deuteronomy was written down and provisions made for periodic public reading and renewal of commitment to it ( Deut 31:9-13 ). Josiah had done this after the discovery of the book of the law (which was either Deuteronomy or a synopsis of it) early in the ministry of Jeremiah ( 2 Kgs 23:1-4 ; the date would be near 622 b.c. shortly after Jeremiah began prophesying in 627 [see the note on Jer 1:2 ]). But it is apparent from Jeremiah’s confrontation with Judah after that time that the commitment of the people was only superficial (cf. Jer 3:10 ). The prior history of the nations of Israel and Judah and Judah’s current practice had been one of persistent violation of this covenant despite repeated warnings of the prophets that God would punish them for that (see especially Jer 7, 11 ). Because of that, Israel had been exiled (cf., e.g., Jer 3:8 ), and now Judah was threatened with the same (cf., e.g., Jer 7:15 ). –31 look forward to a time when both Israel and Judah will be regathered, reunited, and under a new covenant which includes the same stipulations but with a different relationship (v. 32 ).


Heb “when I took them by the hand and led them out.”


Or “I was their master.” See the study note on 3:14 . sn The metaphor of Yahweh as husband and Israel as wife has been used already in and is implicit in the repeated allusions to idolatry as spiritual adultery or prostitution. The best commentary on the faithfulness of God to his “husband-like” relation is seen in the book of Hosea, especially in Hos 1-3 .


Heb “with the house of Israel.” All commentators agree that the term here refers to both the whole nation which was divided into the house of Israel and the house of Judah in v. 30 .


Heb “after those days.” Commentators are generally agreed that this refers to the return from exile and the repopulation of the land referred to in vv. 27-28 and not to something subsequent to the time mentioned in v. 30 . This is the sequencing that is also presupposed in other new covenant passages such as Deut 30:1-6 ; Ezek 11:17-20; 36:24-28 .


Heb “‘But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days:’ says the Lord , ‘I will….’” The sentence has been reworded and restructured to avoid the awkwardness of the original style.


Heb “in their inward parts.” The Hebrew word here refers to the seat of the thoughts, emotions, and decisions ( Jer 9:8 [ 9:7 HT]). It is essentially synonymous with “heart” in Hebrew psychological terms.


The words “and minds” is not in the text but is supplied in the translation to bring the English psychology more into line with the Hebrew where the “heart” is the center both of knowing/thinking/reflecting and deciding/willing. sn Two contexts are relevant for understanding this statement. First is the context of the first or old covenant which was characterized by a law written on stone tablets (e.g., Exod 32:15-16; 34:1, 28 ; Deut 4:13; 5:22; 9:10 ) or in a “book” or “scroll” ( Deut 31:9-13 ) which could be lost (cf. 2 Kgs 22:8 ), forgotten ( Hos 4:6 ), ignored ( Jer 6:19 ; Amos 4:2 ), or altered ( Jer 8:8 ). Second is the context of the repeated fault that Jeremiah has found with their stubborn ( 3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17 ), uncircumcised ( 4:4; 9:26 ), and desperately wicked hearts ( 4:4; 17:9 ). Radical changes were necessary to get the people to obey the law from the heart and not just pay superficial or lip service to it ( 3:10; 12:2 ). Deut 30:1-6 ; Ezek 11:17-20; 36:24-28 speak of these radical changes. The Lord will remove the “foreskin” of their heart and give them a circumcised heart, or take away their “stony” heart and give them a new heart. With this heart they will be able to obey his laws, statutes, ordinances, and commands ( Deut 30:8 ; Ezek 11:20; 36:27 ). The new covenant does not entail a new law; it is the same law that Jeremiah has repeatedly accused them of rejecting or ignoring ( 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 26:4; 44:10 ). What does change is their inner commitment to keep it. Jeremiah has already referred to this in Jer 24:7 and will refer to it again in Jer 32:39 .


Heb “teach…, saying, ‘Know the Lord .’” The indirect quote has been chosen for stylistic reasons, i.e., to better parallel the following line. sn As mentioned in the translator’s note on 9:3 ( 9:2 HT) “knowing” God in covenant contexts like this involves more than just an awareness of who he is ( 9:23 [ 9:22 HT]). It involves an acknowledgment of his sovereignty and whole hearted commitment to obedience to him. This is perhaps best seen in the parallelisms in Hos 4:1; 6:6 where “the knowledge of God” is parallel with faithfulness and steadfast love and in the context of refers to obedience to the Lord ’s commands.


The Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) that introduces this clause refers to more than just the preceding clause (i.e., that all will know the Lord ) but to all of vv. 31-34 a (See BDB 474 s.v. כִּי 3.c).


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for this title. In the Hebrew text the verse reads: “Thus says the Lord who provides the sun for light by day, the fixed ordering of the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, whose name is Yahweh of armies, ‘…’” The hymnic introduction to the quote which does not begin until v. 36 has been broken down to avoid a long awkward sentence in English. The word “said” has been translated “made a promise” to reflect the nature of the content in vv. 36-37 . The first two lines of the Hebrew poetry are a case of complex or supplementary ellipsis where the complete idea of “providing/establishing the fixed laws” is divided between the two lines (cf. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 110-13). The necessity for recombining the ellipsis is obvious from reference to the fixed ordering in the next verse. (Some commentators prefer to delete the word as an erroneous glossing of the word in the following line (see, e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 277, n. y).


Heb “‘If these fixed orderings were to fail to be present before me,’ oracle of the Lord , ‘then the seed of Israel could cease from being a nation before me forever (or more literally, “all the days”).’” The sentence has been broken up to conform more to modern style. The connection has been maintained by reversing the order of condition and consequence and still retaining the condition in the second clause. For the meaning of “cease to operate” for the verb מוּשׁ ( mush ) compare the usage in Isa 54:10 ; Ps 55:11 ( 55:12 HT); Prov 17:13 where what is usually applied to persons or things is applied to abstract things like this (see HALOT 506 s.v. II מוּשׁ Qal for general usage).


Heb “If the heavens above could be measured or the foundations of the earth below be explored, then also I could reject all the seed of Israel for all they have done.”


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The words “is coming” ( בָּאִים , ba ’ im ) are not in the written text ( Kethib ) but are supplied in the margin ( Qere ), in several Hebrew mss and in the versions. It is part of the idiom that also occurs in vv. 27, 31 . sn On this idiom compare vv. 27, 31 .


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


Heb “the city will be built to [or for] the Lord .” The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been supplied in the translation for clarity. However, the word occurs in a first person speech so the translation has accommodated the switch in person as it has in a number of other places (compare also NIV, TEV, ICV).


The word “westward” is not in the text but is supplied in the translation to give some orientation. sn The Tower of Hananel is referred to in Neh 3:1; 12:39 ; Zech 14:10 . According to the directions given in it was in the northern wall, perhaps in the northeast corner, north of the temple mount. The Corner Gate is mentioned again in 2 Kgs 14:13 ; 2 Chr 25:23; 26:9 ; Zech 14:10 . It is generally agreed that it was located in the northwest corner of the city.


The words “west” and “southward” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to give some orientation. sn The location of the Hill of Gareb and the place called Goah are not precisely known. However, it has been plausibly suggested from the other localities mentioned that the reference is to the hill west of the Hinnom valley mentioned in Josh 15:8 . The location of Goah is generally placed south of that near the southwest corner of the Hinnom Valley which is referred to in the next verse.


The translation here follows the Qere and a number of Hebrew mss in reading שְׁדֵמוֹת ( shÿdemot ) for the otherwise unknown word שְׁרֵמוֹת ( shÿremot ) exhibiting the common confusion of ר ( resh ) and ד ( dalet ). The fields of Kidron are mentioned also in 2 Kgs 23:4 as the place where Josiah burned the cult objects of Baal.


The words “on the east” and “north” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to give orientation.


The words “will be included within this city that is” are not in the text. The text merely says that “The whole valley…will be sacred to the Lord .” These words have been supplied in the translation because they are really implicit in the description of the whole area as being included within the new city plan, not just the Hinnom and terraced fields as far as the Kidron Valley. sn The area that is here delimited is larger than any of the known boundaries of Jerusalem during the OT period. Again, this refers to the increase in population of the restored community (cf. 31:27 ).


Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the eleventh year of…” See 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1 for this same formula. sn The dating formulas indicate that the date was 588/87 b.c . Zedekiah had begun to reign in 598/97 and Nebuchadnezzar had begun to reign in 605/604 b.c . The dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule here includes the partial year before he was officially crowned on New Year’s day. See the translator’s note on 25:1 for the method of dating a king’s reign.


Heb “the courtyard of the guarding” or “place of guarding.” This expression occurs only in the book of Jeremiah ( 32:2, 8, 12; 33:1; 37:21; 38:6, 12, 28; 39:14, 15 ) and in Neh 3:25 . It is not the same as an enclosed prison which is where Jeremiah was initially confined ( 37:15-16 ; literally a “house of imprisoning” [ בֵּית הָאֵסוּר , bet ha ’ esur ] or “house of confining” [ בֵּית הַכֶּלֶא , bet hakkele ’]). It is said to have been in the palace compound ( 32:2 ) near the citadel or upper palace ( Neh 3:25 ). Though it was a place of confinement ( 32:2; 33:1; 39:15 ) Jeremiah was able to receive visitors, e.g., his cousin Hanamel ( 32:8 ) and the scribe Baruch ( 32:12 ), and conduct business there ( 32:12 ). According to 32:12 other Judeans were also housed there. A cistern of one of the royal princes, Malkijah, was located in this courtyard, so this is probably not a “prison compound” as NJPS interpret but a courtyard adjacent to a guardhouse or guard post (so G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 151, and compare Neh 12:39 where reference is made to a Gate of the Guard/Guardhouse) used here for housing political prisoners who did not deserve death or solitary confinement as some of the officials though Jeremiah did.


Heb “Zedekiah king of Judah.”


The translation represents an attempt to break up a very long Hebrew sentence with several levels of subordination and embedded quotations and also an attempt to capture the rhetorical force of the question “Why…” which is probably an example of what E. W. Bullinger ( Figures of Speech , 953-54) calls a rhetorical question of expostulation or remonstrance (cf. the note on 26:9 and compare also the question in 36:29 . In all three of these cases NJPS translates “How dare you…” which captures the force nicely). The Hebrew text reads, “For Zedekiah king of Judah had confined him, saying, ‘Why are you prophesying, saying, “Thus says the Lord , ‘Behold I am giving this city into the hands of the king of Babylon and he will capture it.’”’”


Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.


Heb “his [Zedekiah’s] mouth will speak with his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] mouth and his eyes will see his eyes.” The verbs here are an obligatory imperfect and its vav consecutive perfect equivalent. (See IBHS 508-9 §31.4g for discussion and examples of the former and IBHS 528 §32.2.1d, n. 16, for the latter.)


This is the verb ( פָּקַד , paqad ) that has been met with several times in the book of Jeremiah, most often in the ominous sense of “punish” (e.g., 6:15; 11:22; 23:24 ) but also in the good sense of “resume concern for” (e.g., 27:22; 29:10 ). Here it is obviously in the ominous sense referring to his imprisonment and ultimate death ( 52:11 ). sn Compare Jer 34:2-3 for this same prophecy. The incident in Jer 34:1-7 appears to be earlier than this one. Here Jeremiah is confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse; there he appears to have freedom of movement.


Heb “The word of the Lord came to me, saying.” This verse resumes the narrative introduction in v. 1 which was interrupted by the long parenthetical note about historical background. There is again some disjunction in the narrative (compare the translator’s notes on 27:2 and 28:1 ). What was begun as a biographical (third person) narrative turns into an autobiographical (first person) narrative until v. 26 where the third person is again resumed. Again this betrays the hand of the narrator, Baruch.


Heb “your right.” The term מִשְׁפָּט ( mishpat ) here and in v. 8 refers to legal entitlement for the option to purchase a property (BDB 1049 s.v. מִשְׁפָּט 5; cf. Deut 21:17 ).


Heb “I weighed out the money [more literally, “silver”] for him, seventeen shekels of silver.” sn Coins were not in common use until the postexilic period. Payment in gold and silver was made by cutting off pieces of silver or gold and weighing them in a beam balance using standard weights as the measure. A shekel weighed approximately 0.4 ounce or 11.4 grams. The English equivalents are only approximations.


The words “of purchase” are not in the text but are implicit. The qualification is spelled out explicitly in vv. 11, 12, 13 . These words are supplied in the translation for clarity. An alternative translation would be “I put the deed in writing.” However, since the same idiom כָּתַב בְּסֵפֶר ( catav bÿsefer ) is used later in v. 12 with respect to the witnesses, it is likely that it merely refers to signing the document.


The words “to the purchase” are not in the text but are implicit in the idiom “I had some witnesses serve as witness.” The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


There is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the phrases translated “the order of transfer and the regulations.” The translation follows the interpretation suggested by J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 237; J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 586, n. 5; and presumably BDB 349 s.v. חֹק 7, which defines the use of חֹק ( khoq ) here as “conditions of the deed of purchase.”


Heb “the deed, the purchase.” This is a case of apposition of species in place of the genitive construction (cf. GKC 423 §131. b and compare the usage in Exod 24:5 ).


Heb “I took the deed of purchase, both that which was sealed [and contained] the order and the regulations and that which was open [i.e., unsealed], and I gave the deed of purchase to Baruch…in the presence of my cousin Hanamel and in the presence of…and in the presence of….” It is awkward to begin a sentence with “I took…” without finishing the thought, and the long qualifiers in v. 12 make that sentence too long. The sentence is broken up in accordance with contemporary English style. The reference to the “deed of purchase” in v. 12 should be viewed as a plural consisting of both written and sealed copies as is clear from v. 11 and also v. 14 . Part of the confusion is due to the nature of this document which consisted of a single papyrus scroll, half of which was rolled up and sealed and the other half which was left “opened” or unsealed. J. Bright ( Jeremiah [AB], 237-38) is probably incorrect in assuming that the copies were duplicate since the qualification “containing the order of transfer and the regulations” is only applied to the appositional participle, “the sealed one [or copy].” sn Aramaic documents from a slightly later period help us understand the nature of such deeds. The document consisted of a single papyrus sheet divided in half. One half contained all the particulars and was tightly rolled up, bound with strips of cloth or thread, sealed with wax upon which the parties affixed their seal, and signed by witnesses. The other copy consisted of an abstract and was left loosely rolled and unsealed (i.e., open to be consulted at will). If questions were raised about legality of the contract then the sealed copy could be unsealed and consulted.


The translation follows a number of Hebrew mss and the Greek and Syriac version in reading “the son of my uncles (= my cousin; בֶּן דֹּדִי , ben dodi ).” The majority of Hebrew mss do not have the word “son of ( בֶּן ).”


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


Heb “many days.” See BDB s.v. יוֹם 5.b for this usage.


Heb “Lord Yahweh.” For an explanation of the rendering here see the study note on 1:6 . sn The parallel usage of this introduction in Jer 1:6; 4:10; 14:13 shows that though this prayer has a lengthy introductory section of praise vv. 17-22 , this prayer is really one of complaint or lament.


This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle normally translated “behold.” See the translator’s note on 1:6 for the usage of this particle.


Heb “by your great power and your outstretched arm.” See 21:5; 27:5 and the marginal note on 27:5 for this idiom.


Or “to thousands of generations.” The contrast of showing steadfast love to “thousands” to the limitation of punishing the third and fourth generation of children for their parents’ sins in Exod 20:5-6 ; Deut 5:9-10 ; Exod 34:7 has suggested to many commentators and translators (cf., e.g., NRSV, TEV, NJPS) that reference here is to “thousands of generations.” The statement is, of course, rhetorical emphasizing God’s great desire to bless as opposed to the reluctant necessity to punish. It is part of the attributes of God spelled out in Exod 34:6-7 .


Heb “pays back into the bosom of their children the sin of their parents.”


Heb “Nothing is too hard for you who show…and who punishes…the great [and] powerful God whose name is Yahweh of armies, [you who are] great in counsel…whose eyes are open…who did signs…” Jer 32:18-22 is a long series of relative clauses introduced by participles or relative pronouns in vv. 18-20 a followed by second person vav consecutive imperfects carrying on the last of these relative clauses in vv. 20 b-22. This is typical of hymnic introductions to hymns of praise (cf., e.g., ) but it is hard to sustain the relative subordination which all goes back to the suffix on “hard for you.” The sentences have been broken up but the connection with the end of v. 17 has been sacrificed for conformity to contemporary English style.


Heb “[you are] great in counsel and mighty in deed.”


Heb “your eyes are open to the ways of the sons of men.”


Heb “giving to each according to his way [= behavior/conduct] and according to the fruit of his deeds.”


Or “You did miracles and amazing deeds in the land of Egypt. And you continue to do them until this day both in Israel and among mankind. By this mean you have gained a renown…” The translation here follows the syntactical understanding reflected also in NJPS. The Hebrew text reads: “you did miracles and marvelous acts in the land of Egypt until this day and in Israel and in mankind and you made for yourself a name as this day.” The majority of English versions and commentaries understand the phrases “until this day and in Israel and in mankind” to be an elliptical sentence with the preceding verb and objects supplied as reflected in the alternate translation. However, the emphasis on the miraculous deeds in Egypt in this section both before and after this elliptical phrase and the dominant usage of the terms “signs and wonders” to refer to the plagues and other miraculous signs in Egypt calls this interpretation into question. The key here is understanding “both in Israel and in mankind” as an example of a casus pendens construction (a dangling subject, object, or other modifier) before a conjunction introducing the main clause (cf. GKC 327 §111. h and 458 §143. d and compare the usage in Jer 6:19; 33:24 ; 1 Kgs 15:13 ). This verse is the topic sentence which is developed further in v. 21 and initiates a narrative history of the distant past that continues until v. 22 b where reference is made to the long history of disobedience which has led to the present crisis.


Heb “You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders and with a mighty hand and with outstretched arm and with great terror.” For the figurative expressions involved here see the marginal notes on 27:5 . The sentence has been broken down to better conform to contemporary English style.


Heb “fathers.”


For an alternative translation of the expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” see the translator’s note on 11:5 .


Or “They did not do everything that you commanded them to do.” This is probably a case where the negative ( לֹא , lo ’) negates the whole category indicated by “all” ( כָּל , kol ; see BDB 482 s.v. כָּל 1.e(c) and compare usage in Deut 12:16; 28:14 ). Jeremiah has repeatedly emphasized that the history of Israel since their entry into the land has been one of persistent disobedience and rebellion (cf., e.g. 7:22-26; 11:7-8 ). The statement, of course, is somewhat hyperbolical as all categorical statements of this kind are.


Heb “Siege ramps have come up to the city to capture it.”


Heb “sword.”


Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.


Heb “And the city has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans who are fighting against it because of the sword, starvation, and disease.” The verb “has been given” is one of those perfects that view the action as good as done (the perfect of certainty or prophetic perfect).


The word “ Lord ” is not in the text but is supplied in the translation as a reminder that it is he who is being addressed.


Heb “And what you said has happened and behold you see it.”


Heb “And you, Lord Yahweh, have said to me, ‘Buy the field for…’ even though the city will be given into the hands of the Babylonians.” The sentence has been broken up and the order reversed for English stylistic purposes. For the rendering “is sure to fall into the hands of” see the translator’s note on the preceding verse.


Heb “Lord God .” For the rendering of this title see the study note on 1:6 .


Heb “call in witnesses to witness.”


Heb “Behold, I am the Lord , the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?” The question is rhetorical expecting an emphatic negative answer (cf. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949, citing the parallel in Gen 18:14 ). The Hebrew particle “Behold” ( הִנֵּה , hinneh ) introduces the grounds for this rhetorical negative (cf. T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew , 170, §135 [3]), i.e., “Since I am the Lord , the God of all mankind, there is indeed nothing too hard for me [or is there anything too hard for me?].” sn This statement furnishes the grounds both for the assurance that the city will indeed be delivered over to Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 28-29 a) and that it will be restored and repopulated (vv. 37-41 ). This can be seen from the parallel introductions in vv. 28 , “Therefore the Lord says” and “Now therefore the Lord says.” As the creator of all and God of all mankind he has the power and authority to do with his creation what he wishes (cf. Jer 27:5-6 ).


Heb “Thus says the Lord .” However, the speech has already been introduced as first person. So the first person style has been retained for smoother narrative style.


Heb “Behold, I will give this city into the hand of…”


Heb “that which is evil in my eyes.” For this idiom see BDB 744 s.v. עַיִן 3.c and compare usage in 18:10 .


Heb “from their youth.” sn Compare Jer 3:24-25; 11:21 . The nation is being personified and reference is made to her history from the time she left Egypt onward (cf. 2:2 ).


Heb “the people of Israel.” However, since “people of Israel” has been used in the preceding line for the northern kingdom as opposed to the kingdom of Judah, it might lead to confusion to translate literally. Moreover, the pronoun “they” accomplishes the same purpose.


Heb “by the work of their hands.” See the translator’s note on 25:6 and the parallelism in 25:14 for this rendering rather than referring it to the making of idols as in 1:16; 10:3 .


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


The statements in vv. 28-29 regarding the certain destruction of the city are motivated by three parallel causal clauses in vv. 30 a, b, 31, the last of which extends through subordinate and coordinate clauses until the end of v. 35 . An attempt has been made to bring out this structure by repeating the idea “This/it will happen” in front of each of these causal clauses in the English translation.


Heb “from the day they built it until this day.” sn The Israelites did not in fact “build” Jerusalem. They captured it from the Jebusites in the time of David. This refers perhaps to the enlarging and fortifying of the city after it came into the hands of the Israelites ( 2 Sam 5:6-10 ).


Heb “For this city has been to me for a source of my anger and my wrath from the day they built it until this day so as remove it.” The preposition ְל ( lamed ) with the infinitive ( Heb “so as to remove it”; לַהֲסִירָהּ , lahasirah ) expresses degree (cf. R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 37, §199, and compare usage in 2 Sam 13:2 ).


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


Heb “remove it from my sight 32:33 because of all the wickedness of the children of Israel and the children of Judah which they have done to make me angry, they, their kings, their officials, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and an attempt has been made to preserve the causal connections.


Heb “they have turned [their] backs to me, not [their] faces.” Compare the same idiom in 2:27 .


For the idiom involved here see the translator’s note on 7:13 . The verb that introduces this clause is a Piel infinitive absolute which is functioning in place of the finite verb (see, e.g., GKC 346 §113. ff and compare usage in Jer 8:15; 14:19 . This grammatical point means that the versions cited in BHS fn a may not be reading a different text after all, but may merely be interpreting the form as syntactically equivalent to a finite verb as the present translation has done.). sn This refers to God teaching them through the prophets whom he has sent as indicated by the repeated use of this idiom elsewhere in 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5, 19 .


Heb “But they were not listening so as to accept correction.”


Heb “the house which is called by my name.” Cf. 7:10, 11, 14 and see the translator’s note on 7:10 for the explanation for this rendering.


Heb “They built high places to Baal which are in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to cause their sons and daughters to pass through [the fire] to Molech [a thing] which I did not command them and [which] did not go up into my heart [= “mind” in modern psychology] to do this abomination so as to make Judah liable for punishment.” For the use of the Hiphil of חָטָא ( khata ’) to refer to the liability for punishment see BDB s.v. חָטָא Hiph.3 and compare the usage in Deut 24:8 . Coming at the end as this does, this nuance is much more likely than “cause Judah to sin” which is the normal translation assigned to the verb here. The particle לְמַעַן ( lÿma ’ an ) that precedes it is here once again introducing a result and not a purpose (compare other clear examples in 27:10, 15 ). The sentence has been broken down in conformity to contemporary English style and an attempt has been made to make clear that what is detestable and not commanded is not merely child sacrifice to Molech but child sacrifice in general.


Heb “you.” However, the pronoun is plural and is addressed to more than just Jeremiah (v. 26 ). It includes Jeremiah and those who have accepted his prophecy of doom.


Heb “sword.”


Heb “And now therefore thus says the Lord , the God of Israel, concerning this city which you [masc. pl.] are saying has been given [prophetic perfect = will be given] into the hand of the king of Babylon through sword, starvation, and disease.” The translation attempts to render the broader structure mentioned in the study note and to break the sentence down in a way that conforms more to contemporary English style and that will lead into the speech which does not begin until the next verse. As in v. 28 the third person introduction has been changed to first person for smoother narrative style in a first person speech (i.e., vv. 27-44 are all the Lord ’s answer to Jeremiah’s prayer). The words “right in” added to “are saying” are intended to reflect the connection between v. 28 and the statement here (which is a repetition of v. 24 ). I.e., God does not deny that Jeremiah’s assessment is correct; he affirms it but has something further to say in answer to Jeremiah’s prayer.


The verb here should be interpreted as a future perfect; though some of the people have already been exiled (in 605 and 597 b.c. ), some have not yet been exiled at the time this prophesy is given (see study note on v. 1 for the date). However, contemporary English style does not regularly use the future perfect, choosing instead to use the simple future or the simple perfect as the present translation has done here.


Heb “I will give to them one heart and one way to [= in order that they may] fear me all the days for good to them.” The phrase “one heart” refers both to unanimity of will and accord (cf. 1 Chr 12:38 [ 12:39 HT]; 2 Chr 30:12 ) and to singleness of purpose or intent (cf. Ezek 11:19 and see BDB 525 s.v. ֵלב 4 where reference is made to “inclinations, resolutions, and determinations of the will”). The phrase “one way” refers to one way of life or conduct (cf. BDB 203 s.v. דֶּרֶךְ 6.a where reference is made to moral action and character), a way of life that is further qualified by the goal of showing “fear, reverence, respect” for the Lord . The Hebrew sentence has been broken up to avoid a long complex sentence in English which is contrary to contemporary English style. However, an attempt has been made to preserve all the connections of the original. sn Other passages also speak about the “single-minded purpose” ( Heb “one heart”) and “living in a way that shows respect for me.” Deut 30:6-8 speaks of a circumcised heart that will love him, obey him, and keep his commands. Ezek 11:20-21 speaks of the removal of a stony heart and the giving of a single-minded, “fleshy” heart and a new spirit that will follow his decrees and keep his laws. Ezek 36:26-27 speaks of the removal of a stony heart and the giving of a new, “fleshy” heart and a new spirit and an infusion of God’s own spirit so that they will be able to follow his decrees and keep his laws. Jer 24:7 speaks of the giving of a (new) heart so that they might “know” him. And Jer 31:33 speaks of God writing his law on their hearts. All this shows that there is a new motivation and a new enablement for fulfilling the old stipulations, especially that of whole-hearted devotion to him (cf. Deut 6:4-6 ).


Heb “an everlasting covenant.” For the rationale for the rendering “agreement” and the nature of the biblical covenants see the study note on 11:2 . sn For other references to the lasting (or everlasting) nature of the new covenant see Isa 55:3; 61:8 ; Jer 50:5 ; Ezek 16:60; 37:26 . The new covenant appears to be similar to the ancient Near Eastern covenants of grants whereby a great king gave a loyal vassal a grant of land or dynastic dominion over a realm in perpetuity in recognition of past loyalty. The right to such was perpetual as long as the great king exercised dominion, but the actual enjoyment could be forfeited by individual members of the vassal’s dynasty. The best example of such an covenant in the OT is the Davidic covenant where the dynasty was given perpetual right to rule over Israel. Individual kings might be disciplined and their right to enjoy dominion taken away, but the dynasty still maintained the right to rule (see 2 Sam 23:5 ; Ps 89:26-37 and note especially 1 Kgs 11:23-39 ). The new covenant appears to be the renewal of God’s promise to Abraham to always be the God of his descendants and for his descendants to be his special people ( Gen 17:7 ) something they appear to have forfeited by their disobedience (see Hos 1:9 ). However, under the new covenant he promises to never stop doing them good and grants them a new heart, a new spirit, the infusion of his own spirit, and the love and reverence necessary to keep from turning away from him. The new covenant is not based on their past loyalty but on his gracious forgiveness and his gifts.


Or “stop being gracious to them” or “stop blessing them with good”; Heb “turn back from them to do good to them.”


Or “I will make them want to fear and respect me so much that”; Heb “I will put the fear of me in their hearts.” However, as has been noted several times, “heart” in Hebrew is more the center of the volition (and intellect) than the center of emotions as it is in English. Both translations are intended to reflect the difference in psychology.


The words “never again” are not in the text but are implicit from the context and are supplied not only by this translation but by a number of others.


Heb “will plant them in the land with faithfulness with all my heart and with all my soul.” The latter expressions are, of course, anthropomorphisms (see Deut 6:5 ).


Heb “For thus says the Lord .” See the translator’s notes on 32:27, 36 .


Heb “As I have brought all this great disaster on these people so I will bring upon them all the good fortune which I am promising them.” The translation has broken down the longer Hebrew sentence to better conform to English style. sn See the same guarantee in Jer 31:27 .


Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.


The noun is singular with the article, but it is a case of the generic singular (cf. GKC 406 §126. m ).


Heb “Fields will be bought in this land of which you [masc. pl.] are saying, ‘It will be desolate [a perfect of certainty or prophetic perfect] without man or beast; it will be given into the hand of the Chaldeans.’” The original sentence has been broken down to better conform to contemporary English style.


Heb “They will buy fields with silver and write in the deed and seal [it] and have witnesses witness [it] in the land of Benjamin, in the environs of Jerusalem, in the towns in Judah, in the towns in the hill country, in the towns in the Shephelah, and in the towns in the Negev.” The long Hebrew sentence has again been restructured to better conform to contemporary English style. The indefinite “they will buy” is treated as a passive. It is followed by three infinitive absolutes which substitute for the finite verb (cf. GKC 345 §113. y ) which is a common feature of the style of the book of Jeremiah. sn For the geographical districts mentioned here compare Jer 17:26 .


Or “I will reverse their fortunes.” For this idiom see the translator’s note on 29:14 and compare the usage in 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23 .


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Or “I, the Lord , made the earth. I formed it in such a way as to firmly establish it”; Heb “Thus says the Lord who makes/does it, the Lord who forms it to establish it, whose name is the Lord .” It is unclear what the antecedent of “it” is. The Greek version supplies the object “the earth.” However, as D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 4:269, notes, this is probably a smoothing of a text which had no object other than the pronoun. No other text or version has an object other than the pronoun. It could be argued that “the earth” is to be understood as the intended referent from other contexts within the book of Jeremiah ( Jer 10:12, 16; 51:15 ) where these verbs refer to the Lord as creator and from the prior context in 32:17 where the Lord ’s power as creator is the basis for the assertion that nothing is too hard for him. This is the object that is supplied in a number of modern English versions and commentaries. However, the use of the feminine singular pronoun in other contexts to refer to an indefinite reality which is spelled out in the preceding or following context (cf. 2 Kgs 19:25 ; Isa 22:11; 37:26; 44:7 ) lends credence to the suggestion by the committee for The Hebrew Old Testament Project that the pronoun refers to the work or plan of the Lord , a view which is reflected in the NJPS and has been adopted here. For the use of the verb “form” here in the sense of “plan” see BDB 427 s.v. יָצַר 2.b and compare the usage in Isa 22:11; 37:26 . The best discussion of options is given in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 169-70, who see the pronoun referring ahead to the great and hidden things of v. 3 . As in several other cases our translation has opted for a first person introduction rather than the third person of the original because the Lord himself is speaking.


This passive participle or adjective is normally used to describe cities or walls as “fortified” or “inaccessible.” All the lexicons, however, agree in seeing it used here metaphorically of “secret” or “mysterious” things, things that Jeremiah could not know apart from the Lord ’s revelation. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers ( Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 170) make the interesting observation that the word is used here in a context in which the fortifications of Jerusalem are about to fall to the Babylonians; the fortified things in God’s secret counsel fall through answer to prayer.


Heb “the sword.” The figure has been interpreted for the sake of clarity.


Heb “Because I have hidden my face from.” The modern equivalent for this gesture of rejection is “to turn the back on.” See Ps 13:1 for comparable usage. The perfect is to be interpreted as a perfect of resolve (cf. IBHS 488-89 §30.5.1d and compare the usage in Ruth 4:3 ).


The translation and meaning of vv. 4-5 are somewhat uncertain. The translation and precise meaning of vv. 4-5 are uncertain at a number of points due to some difficult syntactical constructions and some debate about the text and meaning of several words. The text reads more literally, “ 33:4 For thus says the Lord , the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah which have been torn down on account the siege ramps and the sword 33:5 going to fight the Chaldeans and to fill them with the dead bodies of the men whom I have killed in my anger and in my wrath and on account of all whose wickedness I have hidden my face from this city.” There are two difficult syntactical forms (1) the participle at the beginning of v. 5 “going [or those going] to fight” ( בָּאִים , ba ’ im ) and (2) the infinitive plus suffix that introduces the next clause “and to fill them” ( וּלְמַלְאָם , ulÿmal ’ am ). The translation has interpreted the former as a verbal use of the participle with an indefinite subject “they” (= the defenders of Jerusalem who have torn down the buildings; cf. GKC 460-61 §144. i for this point of grammar). The conjunction plus preposition plus infinitive construct has been interpreted as equivalent to a finite verb (cf. IBHS 611 §36.3.2a, i.e., “and they will fill them [the houses and buildings of v. 4 ]”). Adopting the Greek text of these two verses would produce a smoother reading. It reads “For thus says the Lord concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah which have been pulled down for mounds and fortifications to fight against the Chaldeans and to fill it [should be “them”] with the corpses of men whom I smote in my anger and my wrath and I turned away my face from them [rather than from “this city” of the Hebrew text] for all their wickedness: Behold I will…” The Greek does not have the problem with the participle because it has seen it as part of a word meaning fortification. This also eliminates the problem with the infinitive because it is interpreted as parallel with “to fight.” I.e., the defenders used these torn-down buildings for defensive fortifications and for burial places. It would be tempting to follow this reading. However, there is no graphically close form for “fortification” that would explain how the more difficult בָּאִים הֶחָרֶב ( hekharev ba ’ im ) of the Hebrew text arose and there is doubt whether סֹלְלוֹת ( solÿlot ) can refer to a defense mound. W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:221, 225) has suggested reading הַחֲרַכִּים ( hakharakim ) in place of הֶחָרֶב ( hekharev ) in the technical sense of “crenels,” the gaps between the raised portion on top of the wall (which raised portion he calls “merlons” and equates with סֹלְלוֹת , solÿlot ). He does not, however, further suggest seeing בָּאִים ( ba ’ im ) as part of this corrupted form, choosing to see it rather as a gloss. His emendation and interpretation, however, have been justly criticized as violating the usage of both סֹלְלוֹת which is elsewhere “siege mound” and חֲרַכִּים ( kharakim ) which elsewhere refers only to the latticed opening of a window ( Song 2:9 ). Until a more acceptable explanation of how the difficult Hebrew text could have arisen from the Greek, the Hebrew should be retained, though it is admittedly awkward. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers ( Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 166, 172) have perhaps the best discussion of the issues and the options involved here.


Heb “Behold I am healing.” For the usage of the particle “behold” indicating certainty see the translator’s note on 1:6 . These are the great and hidden things that the Lord promised to reveal. The statements in v. 5 have been somewhat introductory. See the usage of הִנְנִי ( hinni ) after the introductory “Thus says the Lord ” in Jer 32:28, 37 .


The meaning and text of this word is questioned by KBL 749 s.v. עֲתֶרֶת . However, KBL also emends both occurrences of the verb from which BDB 801 s.v. עֲתֶרֶת derives this noun. BDB is more likely correct in seeing this and the usage of the verb in Prov 27:6 ; Ezek 35:13 as Aramaic loan words from a root meaning to be rich (equivalent to the Hebrew עָשַׁר , ’ ashar ).


Heb “I will reverse [or restore] the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel.” For this idiom see the translator’s note on Jer 29:14 and see the usage in 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44 .


This phrase simply means “as formerly” (BDB 911 s.v. רִאשׁוֹן 3.a). The reference to the “as formerly” must be established from the context. See the usage in Judg 20:32 ; 1 Kgs 13:6 ; Isa 1:26 . sn Reference is to the reunification of Israel and Judah to the state that they were before the division after Solomon. Compare Jer 3:18; 30:3; 31:27 and see the study note on 30:3 .


Heb “Thus says the Lord .” For the first person rendering see the translator’s note at the end of v. 2 . sn The phrase here is parallel to that in v. 4 and introduces a further amplification of the “great and mysterious things” of v. 3 .


Heb “You.” However, the pronoun is plural as in 32:36, 43 . See the translator’s note on 32:36 .


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


Heb “ 33:10 Thus says the Lord , ‘There will again be heard in this place of which you are saying [masc. pl.], “It is a ruin without people and without animals,” [that is] in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem which are desolate without people and without inhabitants and without animals 33:11 the sound of….” The long run-on sentence in Hebrew has been broken down to better conform with contemporary English style.


Or “I will restore the fortunes of the land.” sn See the study note on Jer 29:18 and compare 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7 for the meaning and usage of this idiom. The promise here repeats that in 33:7 .


This phrase simply means “as formerly” (BDB 911 s.v. רִאשׁוֹן 3.a). The reference to the “as formerly” must be established from the context. See the usage in Judg 20:32 ; 1 Kgs 13:6 ; Isa 1:26 . sn This refers to the reunification of Israel and Judah to the state that they were before the division after Solomon. Compare Jer 3:18; 30:3; 31:27 and see the study note on 30:3 .


Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” For the explanation for the first person introduction see the translator’s notes on 33:2, 10 . Verses 4, 10, 12 introduce three oracles, all under the answer to the Lord ’s promise to Jeremiah to show him “great and mysterious things which you still do not know about.”


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .” For the first person form of address see the translator’s notes on vv. 2, 10, 12 .


Heb “sprig” or “shoot.” sn For the meaning of this term and its significance in biblical prophecy see the study note on 23:5 .


For the translation of this term in this context see the parallel context in 23:6 and consult the translator’s note there.


Heb “And this is what will be called to it: ‘The Lord our righteousness.’” sn For the significance of this title see the study note on the parallel text in 23:6 . Other titles by which Jerusalem is to be known are found in Isa 62:2-4 ; Jer 3:17 ; Ezek 48:35 ; Zech 8:3 emphasizing that the Lord takes up his relation with it once again, dwells in it, delights in it, and finds it faithful once more (cf. Isa 1:26 ). In 23:6 the title is applied to the Davidic ruler that the Lord will raise up over them who will do what is just and right. God’s vindication of the city by its restoration after exile and his provision of this just ruler over it is the probable source for the title.


Heb “a man shall not be cut off to David [i.e., belonging to the Davidic line] sitting on the throne of the house of Israel.”


Heb “And to the Levites, the priests [= the Levitical priests, the apposition in place of the adjective] there shall not be cut off a man from before me who offers up burnt offering, sacrifices a cereal offering, or makes a sacrifice all the days.”


Heb “And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying.” See v. 1 . This is a continuation of “the second time.”


Heb “Thus says the Lord .” However, the Lord is speaking so the first person introduction has again been adopted. The content of the verse shows that it is a promise to David (vv. 21-22 ) and the Levites based on a contrary to fact condition (v. 20 ). See further the translator’s note at the end of the next verse for explanation of the English structure adopted here.


The word יוֹמָם ( yomam ) is normally an adverb meaning “daytime, by day, daily.” However, here and in v. 25 and in Jer 15:9 it means “day, daytime” (cf. BDB 401 s.v. יוֹמָם 1).


Heb “you.” The pronoun is plural as in 32:36, 43; 33:10 .


The very complex and elliptical syntax of the original Hebrew of vv. 20-21 has been broken down to better conform with contemporary English style. The text reads somewhat literally (after the addition of a couple of phrases which have been left out by ellipsis): “Thus says the Lord , ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night so that there is not to be daytime and night in their proper time then also my covenant can be broken with my servant David so that there is not to him a son reigning upon his throne [and also my covenant can be broken] with the Levites [so there are not] priests who minister to me.” The two phrases in brackets are elliptical, the first serving double duty for the prepositional phrase “with the Levites” as well as “with David” and the second serving double duty with the noun “priests” which parallels “a son.” The noun “priests” is not serving here as appositional because that phrase is always “the priests, the Levites,” never “the Levites, the priests.” sn This refers to a reaffirmation of the Davidic covenant (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 7:11-16, 25-29 ; Ps 89:3-4, 19-29 ) and God’s covenant with the Levites (cf. Num 25:10-13 ; Mal 2:4-6 ; Deut 32:8-11 ).


Heb “Just as the stars in the sky cannot be numbered or the sand on the seashore cannot be measured, so I will greatly increase [or multiply] the seed of my servant David and the Levites who minister before me.” The word “seed of” does not carry over to the “the Levites” as a noun governing two genitives because “the Levites” has the accusative marker in front of it. The sentence has been broken down in conformity with contemporary English style. sn Context makes it clear that what is in view is an innumerable line of descendants from the righteous ruler that the Lord raises up over Israel and Judah after their regathering and restoration to the land. What is in view, then, is a reinstitution or reinstatement of the Davidic covenant of grant, the perpetual right of the Davidic dynasty to rule over the nation of Israel for all time (see also v. 26 ). This is guaranteed by the creation order which is the object of both God’s creative decree ( Gen 1:14-19 ) and his covenant with Noah after the flood ( Gen 8:22 ). (For further discussion on the nature of a covenant of grant see the study note on 32:40 .) The rejection of the lines of Jehoiakim ( 36:30 ) and Jeconiah ( 22:30 ) and the certain captivity and death of Zedekiah ( 32:4 ) may have called into question the continuance of the Davidic promise which always had a certain conditional nature to it (cf. 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5 ). This promise and this guarantee show that the covenant of grant still stands and will ultimately find its fulfillment. Because this promise never found its fulfillment after the return from exile, it is left to the NT to show how it is fulfilled (cf., e.g., Matt 1:1-17 where it is emphasized that Jesus is the son (and heir) of both Abraham and David).


Heb “Have you not seen what this people have said, saying.” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. The sentence has been broken in two to better conform with contemporary English style.


Heb “The two families which the Lord chose, he has rejected them.” This is an example of an object prepositioned before the verb and resumed by a redundant pronoun to throw emphasis of focus on it (called casus pendens in the grammars; cf. GKC 458 §143. d ). Some commentators identify the “two families” as those of David and Levi mentioned in the previous verses, and some identify them as the families of the Israelites and of David mentioned in the next verse. However, the next clause in this verse and the emphasis on the restoration and regathering of Israel and Judah in this section (cf. 33:7, 14 ) show that the reference is to Israel and Judah (see also 30:3, 4; 31:27, 31 and 3:18 ).


Heb “and my people [i.e., Israel and Judah] they disdain [or look down on] from being again a nation before them.” The phrase “before them” refers to their estimation, their mental view (cf. BDB s.v. פָּנֶה II.4.a[g]). Hence it means they look with disdain on the people being a nation again (cf. BDB s.v. עוֹד 1.a[b] for the usage of עוֹד [’ od ] here).


Heb “Thus says the Lord .” See the translator’s note at the beginning of v. 20 for the style adopted here. Here the promise is in v. 26 following the contrary to fact condition in v. 25 . The Hebrew text of vv. 25-26 reads: “Thus says the Lord , “If I have not established my covenant with day and night [and] the laws/statutes of heaven and earth, also I could reject the seed of Jacob and David my servant from taking from his seed as rulers over the seed of Abraham…” The syntax of the original is a little awkward because it involves the verbs “establish” and “reject” governing two objects, the first governing two similar objects “my covenant” and “the regulations” and the second governing two dissimilar objects “the seed of Jacob” and “my servant David from taking [so as not to take].” The translation has sought to remove these awkward syntactical constructions and also break down the long complex original sentence in such a way as to retain its original intent, i.e., the guarantee of the continuance of the seed of Jacob and of the rule of a line of David’s descendants over them based on the fixed order of God’s creation decrees.


The Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) is probably intensive here as it has been on a number of occasions in the book of Jeremiah (see BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e for the category).


Or “I will make them prosperous once again,” or “I will bring them back from captivity.” sn For the meaning of this idiom see the translator’s note on Jer 29:14 and compare the usage in 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11 . This has been the emphasis on this section which is called by some commentators “The Book of Consolation.” Jeremiah’s emphasis up until chapters 30-33 had been on judgment but he was also called to be the prophet of restoration (cf. Jer 1:10 ). Promises of restoration though rare up to this point have, however, occurred on occasion (see, e.g., Jer 3:18; 23:5-7; 24:6-7; 29:10-14 ).


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


Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord while Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and all his army and all the kingdoms of the earth under the dominion of his hand and all the peoples were fighting against Jerusalem and against all its towns, saying.” The sentence is obviously too long and the qualifiers obviously too ill-defined to translate literally. This same introductory formula has occurred in 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1; 32:1 but without such a long introductory phrase. It is generally agreed that the phrase “all the peoples” should be seen as a parallel term to “all the kingdoms” under the qualifying “under the dominion of his hand/ control” and what is referred to are contingent forces supplied by these vassal kingdoms and peoples under the terms of their vassal treaties with Nebuchadnezzar. Some of the nature of the make-up of these forces may be seen from a reference to Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite raiders in the earlier attacks on Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiakim ( 2 Kgs 24:2 ). sn It is difficult to assign dates to passages which have no dating formulas but there is sufficient detail in this passage to show that this incident occurred sometime early in the siege of Jerusalem while Jeremiah was still free to come and go (see v. 2 and compare 37:4 and see the second study note on 32:2 ). The Babylonian forces blockaded Jerusalem and attacked the outlying cities, reducing them one by one until Jerusalem had no further help. According to v. 7 Azekah and Lachish in the western foothills still held out and there is evidence from some of the correspondence from Lachish at this period that help was being sought from Egypt.


Heb “told him”; the referent (Jeremiah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Your eyes will see the eyes of the king of Babylon and his mouth will speak with your mouth.” For this same idiom in reverse order see 32:4 and consult the translator’s note there for the obligatory nuance given to the verbs. sn For the fulfillment of this see Jer 52:7-11 .


Heb “However, hear the word of the Lord , Zedekiah king of Judah, ‘Thus says the Lord to you, “You will not die by the sword.”’” The translation has tried to avoid the complexity created by embedding quotes within quotes and has used the first person address within the Lord ’s speech as has also been done elsewhere.


Heb “And like the burning [of incense] for your fathers, the former kings who were before you, so will they burn [incense] for you.” The sentence has been reversed for easier style and the technical use of the terms interpreted. sn For the custom referred to compare 2 Chr 16:14; 21:19 .


Heb “For [or Indeed] I myself have spoken [this] word.”


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “And the army of the king of Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah which were left, [namely] against Lachish and Azekah for they alone were left of the cities of Judah as fortified cities.” The intent of this sentence is to serve as a circumstantial sentence to v. 6 (= “while the army…”). That thought is picked up by “he did this while….” The long complex sentence in v. 7 has been broken down and qualifying material placed in the proper places to convey the same information in shorter English sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.


Usually translated “covenant.” See the study note on 11:2 for the rationale for the translation here. sn There are no details regarding the nature of this covenant, but it was probably a parity covenant in which the people agreed to free their slaves in exchange for some concessions from the king (see the study note on 11:2 for more details on the nature of ancient Near Eastern covenants). More details about this covenant are given in vv. 15, 18-19 where it is said to have been made before the Lord in the temple and involved passing between the pieces of a cut-up calf. Hence it involved their swearing an oath invoking the Lord ’s name (cf. Gen 21:23; 31:51-53 ; 1 Sam 20:42 ) and pronouncing self-maledictory curses on themselves calling down on themselves a fate similar to that of the dead calf if they failed to keep it. (This latter practice is illustrated in treaty documents from the ancient Near East and is reflected in the covenant ceremony in Gen 15:8-16 .)


Heb “after King Zedekiah made a covenant…to proclaim liberty to them [the slaves mentioned in the next verse] so that each would send away free his male slave and his female slave, the Hebrew man and the Hebrew woman, so that a man would not hold them in bondage, namely a Judean, his brother [this latter phrase is explicative of “them” because it repeats the preposition in front of “them”].” The complex Hebrew syntax has been broken down into shorter English sentences but an attempt has been made to retain the proper subordinations. sn Through economic necessity some of the poorer people of the land had on occasion to sell themselves or their children to wealthier Hebrew landowners. The terms of their servitude were strictly regulated under Hebrew law (cf. Exod 21:2-11 ; Lev 25:39-55 ; Deut 15:12-18 ). In brief, no Hebrew was to serve a fellow Hebrew for any longer than six years. In the seventh year he or she was to go free. The period could even be shortened if the year of jubilee intervened since all debts were to be canceled, freedom restored, and indentured property returned in that year. Some see the covenant here coming in conjunction with such a jubilee year since it involved the freedom of all slaves regardless of how long they had served. Others see this covenant as paralleling an old Babylonian practice of a king declaring liberty for slaves and canceling all debts generally at the beginning of his reign (but also at other significant times within it) in order to ingratiate himself with his subjects.


Heb “And they complied, [that is] all the leaders and all the people who entered into the covenant that they would each let his male slave and his female slave go free so as not to hold them in bondage any longer; they complied and they let [them] go.” The verb “they complied” ( Heb “they hearkened”) is repeated at the end after the lengthy description of the subject. This is characteristic of Hebrew style. The translation has resolved the complex sentence by making the relative clauses modifying the subject independent sentences describing the situational background before mentioning the main focus, “they had complied and let them go.”


Heb “they had brought them into subjection for male and female slaves.” However, the qualification of “male and female” is already clear from the preceding and is unnecessary to the English sentence.


Heb “And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord , saying.” This is the resumption of the introduction in v. 8 after the lengthy description of the situation that had precipitated the Lord ’s message to Jeremiah. “That was when” is intended to take the reader back to v. 8 .


Heb “Thus says the Lord , the God of Israel, ‘…’” The style adopted here has been used to avoid a longer, more complex English sentence.


Heb “fathers” (also in vv. 14, 15 ).


Heb “out of the house of bondage.” sn This refers to the Mosaic covenant, initiated at Mount Sinai and renewed on the plains of Moab. The statement “I brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” functions as the “historical prologue” in the Ten Commandments which is the Lord ’s vassal treaty with Israel in miniature. (See the study note on 11:2 and see Exod 20:2 ; Deut 5:6 and Exod 34:8 . As such it was a motivating factor in their pledge of loyalty to him. This statement was also invoked within the law itself as a motivation for kindly treatment of slaves including their emancipation (see Deut 15:15 ).)


Heb “made a covenant, saying.” This was only one of several stipulations of the covenant. The form used here has been chosen as an indirect way of relating the specific stipulation that is being focused upon to the general covenant that is referred to in v. 13 .


The presence of the independent pronoun in the Hebrew text is intended to contrast their actions with those of their ancestors.


Heb “and you brought them into subjection to be to you for male and female slaves.” See the translator’s note on v. 11 for the same redundant repetition which is not carried over into the contemporary English sentence.


The Hebrew text has a compound object, the two terms of which have been synonyms in vv. 14, 15 . G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers ( Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 189) make the interesting observation that these two terms ( Heb “brother” and “neighbor”) emphasize the relationships that should have taken precedence over their being viewed as mere slaves.


There is a little confusion in the syntax of this section because the noun “the calf” does not have any formal conjunction or preposition with it showing how it relates to the rest of the sentence. KJV treats it and the following words as though they were a temporal clause modifying “covenant which they made.” The majority of modern English versions and commentaries, however, understand it as a second accusative after the verb + object “I will make the men.” This fits under the category of what GKC 375 §118. r calls an accusative of comparison (compare usage in Isa 21:8 ; Zech 2:8 ). Stated baldly, “I will make the people…the calf,” it is, however, more forceful than the formal use of the noun + preposition כְּ just as metaphors are generally more forceful than similes. The whole verse is one long, complex sentence in Hebrew: “I will make the men who broke my covenant [referring to the Mosaic covenant containing the stipulation to free slaves after six years] [and] who did not keep the terms of the covenant which they made before me [referring to their agreement to free their slaves] [like] the calf which they cut in two and passed between its pieces.” The sentence has been broken down into shorter sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.


For the rendering of this term see the translator’s note on 29:2 .


This verse is not actually a sentence in the Hebrew original but is a prepositioned object to the verb in v. 20 , “I will hand them over.” This construction is called casus pendens in the older grammars and is used to call attention to a subject or object (cf. GKC 458 §143. d and compare the usage in 33:24 ). The same nondescript “I will punish” which was used to resolve the complex sentence in the previous verse has been chosen to introduce the objects here before the more specific “I will hand them over” in the next verse.


Heb “And Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their lives and into the hands of the army of the king of Babylon which has gone up from against them.” The last two “and into the hand” phrases are each giving further explication of “their enemies” (the conjunction is explicative [cf. BDB 252 s.v. וְ 1.b]). The sentence has been broken down into shorter English sentences in conformity with contemporary English style. sn This refers to the relief offered by the withdrawal of the Babylonian troops to fight against the Egyptians which were coming to Zedekiah’s aid (cf. 37:5, 7, 11 ).


Heb “Oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, saying.”


Heb “the house of the Rechabites.” “House” is used here in terms of “household” or “family” (cf. BDB 109 s.v. בַּיִת 5.a, b). sn Nothing is known about the Rechabite community other than what is said about them in this chapter. From vv. 7-8 it appears that they were a nomadic tribe that had resisted settling down and taking up farming. They had also agreed to abstain from drinking wine. Most scholars agree in equating the Jonadab son of Rechab mentioned as the leader who had instituted these strictures as the same Jonadab who assisted Jehu in his religious purge of Baalism following the reign of Ahab ( 2 Kgs 10:15, 23-24 ). If this is the case, the Rechabites followed these same rules for almost 250 years because Jehu’s purge of Baalism and the beginning of his reign was in 841 b.c. and the incident here took place some time after Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 603 b.c. (see the study note on v. 1 ).


Heb “the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah, the man of God.” The reference to “sons” and to “man of God” fits the usage of these terms elsewhere to refer to prophets and their disciples (see BDB 43-44 s.v. אֱלֹהִים 3(b) and compare usage in 2 Kgs 4:40 for the former and BDB 121 s.v. בֵּן 7.a and compare the usage in 2 Kgs 4:38 for the latter).


Heb “Drink wine.”


Heb “Don’t plant a vineyard and it shall not be to you [= and you shall/must not have one].”


Heb “Don’t…and don’t…but live…in order that you might….”


Heb “We have not drunk wine all our days.” Actually vv. 8 b-9a are a series of infinitive constructs plus the negative לְבִלְתִּי ( lÿvilti ) explaining the particulars of how they have obeyed, i.e., by not drinking wine…and by not building….” The more direct declarative statement is used here to shorten the sentence and is more in keeping with contemporary style.


Heb “We have obeyed and done according to all which our ancestor Jonadab commanded us.”


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


Heb “Chaldean.” For explanation see the study note on 21:4 .


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19 .


Heb “ 35:12 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel, “Go and say…‘Will you not learn…’”’” The use of the indirect introduction has been chosen here as in 34:1-2 to try to cut down on the confusion created by embedding quotations within quotations.


The words “from this” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They have been supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


Heb “Will you not learn a lesson…?” The rhetorical question here has the force of an imperative, made explicit in the translation.


Heb “The words of Jonadab son of Rechab which he commanded his descendants not to drink wine have been carried out.” (For the construction of the accusative of subject after a passive verb illustrated here see GKC 388 §121. b .) The sentence has been broken down and made more direct to better conform to contemporary English style.


The vav ( ו ) plus the independent pronoun before the verb is intended to mark a sharp contrast. It is difficult, if not impossible to mark this in English other than “But I.”


On this idiom (which occurs again in the following verse) see the translator’s note on 7:13 for this idiom and compare its use in 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14, 15; 44:9 .


Heb “Turn, each of you, from his [= your] wicked way and make good your deeds.” Compare 18:11 where the same idiom occurs with the added term of “make good your ways.”


Heb “Don’t go after/follow other gods.” See the translator’s note on 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom and see 11:10; 13:10; 25:6 for the same idiom.


This is an attempt to represent the particle כִּי ( ki ) which is probably not really intensive here (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e) but is one of those causal uses of כִּי that BDB discusses on 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c where the cause is really the failure of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to listen/obey. I.e., the causal particle is at the beginning of the sentence so as not to interrupt the contrast drawn.


Heb “this people.” However, the speech is addressed to the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem, so the second person is retained in English. In addition to the stylistic difference that Hebrew exhibits in the rapid shift between persons (second to third and third to second, which have repeatedly been noted and documented from GKC 462 §144. p ) there may be a subtle rhetorical reason for the shift here. The shift from direct address to indirect address which characterizes this verse and the next may reflect the Lord ’s rejection of the people he is addressing. A similar shift takes place in Wisdom’s address to the simple minded, fools, and mockers in Prov 1:28-32 after the direct address of 1:22-27 .


Heb “Therefore, thus says the Lord , the God of armies, the God of Israel.” For the title see 7:13 and the study note on 2:19 . The first person address is again used in the translation because this whole section is a speech from the Lord (see vv. 12-13 ).


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For this title, which occurs again in the following verse, see the notes on 7:3 and the study note on 2:19 .


Heb “There shall not be cut to Jonadab son of Rechab a man standing before me all the days.” For the first part of this idiom see 33:17-18 where it is applied to David always having a descendant to occupy the throne and the Levites will always have priests to offer up sacrifices. For the latter part of the idiom “to stand before” referring to service see BDB 764 s.v. עָמַד 1.e and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 1:2 ; 2 Kgs 3:14 ; Jer 15:19 ; Deut 10:8 . As comparison with those passages will show, it refers to attending on, or serving a superior, a king, or the Lord . It is used of both prophets (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:1 ) and priests (e.g., Deut 10:8 ) serving the Lord . Its most common use is to refer to priestly service. The nature of the service is not further defined in this case, though several of the commentaries point out a Mishnaic tradition that the Rechabites later were given the function of bringing wood for the altar.


Heb “This word came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah the king of Judah, saying.”


Heb “will turn each one from his wicked way.”


Heb “their iniquity and their sin.” sn The offer of withdrawal of punishment for sin is consistent with the principles of Jer 18:7-8 and the temple sermon delivered early in the reign of this king (cf. 26:1-3; 7:5-7 ).


Heb “Then Baruch wrote down on a scroll from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord which he [the Lord ] had spoken to him [Jeremiah].” The syntax of the Hebrew sentence is awkward and hard to reproduce “literally” in any meaningful way. The English sentence has been restructured to reproduce all the pertinent facts in more simplified language.


Heb “I am restrained; I cannot go into.” The word “restrained” is used elsewhere in Jeremiah of his being confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse ( 33:1; 39:15 ). However, that occurred only later during the tenth year of Zedekiah ( Jer 32:1-2 ) and Jeremiah appears here to be free to come and go as he pleased (vv. 19, 26 ). The word is used in the active voice of the Lord preventing Sarah from having a baby ( Gen 16:2 ). The probable nuance is here “I am prevented/ debarred” from being able to go. No reason is given why he was prevented/debarred. It has been plausibly suggested that he was prohibited from going into the temple any longer because of the scathing sermon he delivered there earlier ( Jer 26:1-3; 7:1-15 ).


Heb “So you go and read from the scroll which you have written from my mouth the words of the Lord in the ears of the people in the house of the Lord on a fast day, and in that way [for the explanation of this rendering see below] you will be reading them in the ears of all Judah [= the people of Judah] who come from their towns [i.e., to the temple to fast].” Again the syntax of the original is awkward, separating several of the qualifying phrases from the word or phrase they are intended to modify. In most of the “literal” English versions the emphasis on “what the Lord said” tends to get lost and it looks like two separate groups are to be addressed rather than one. The intent of the phrase is to define who the people are who will hear; the וַ that introduces the clause is explicative (BDB 252 s.v. וַ 1.b) and the גַּם ( gam ) is used to emphasize the explicative “all Judah who come in from their towns” (cf. BDB 169 s.v. גַּם 2). If some force were to be given to the “literal” rendering of that particle here it would be “actually.” This is the group that is to be addressed according to v. 3 . The complex Hebrew sentence has been restructured to include all the relevant information in more comprehensible and shorter English sentences.


Heb “For great is the anger and the wrath which the Lord has spoken against this people.” The translation uses the more active form which is more in keeping with contemporary English style.


Heb “And Baruch son of Neriah did according to all that the prophet Jeremiah commanded him with regard to reading from the scroll the words of the Lord in the temple of the Lord .” The sentence has been broken down and the modifiers placed where they belong to better conform to contemporary English style.


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


There is some debate about the syntax of the words translated “All the people living in Jerusalem and all the people who came into Jerusalem from the towns in Judah.” As the sentence is structured in Hebrew it looks like these words are the subject of “proclaim a fast.” However, most commentaries point out that the people themselves would hardly proclaim a fast; they would be summoned to fast (cf. 1 Kgs 21:9, 12 ; Jonah 3:7 ). Hence many see these words as the object of the verb which has an impersonal subject “they.” This is most likely unless with J. Bright ( Jeremiah [AB], 180) the word “proclaim” is used in a looser sense as “observed.” The translation has chosen to follow this latter tack rather than use the impersonal (or an equivalent passive) construction in English. For a similar problem see Jonah 3:5 which precedes the official proclamation in 3:7 . The Hebrew text reads: “In the fifth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, in the ninth month they proclaimed a fast before the Lord , all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came from the cities of Judah into Jerusalem.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style. sn Judging from v. 22 this was one of the winter months meaning that the reckoning is based on the calendar which starts with April rather than the one which starts with September (Nisan to Nisan rather than Tishri to Tishri). The ninth month would have been Kislev which corresponds roughly to December. According to Babylonian historical records this is the same year and the same month when Ashkelon was captured and sacked. The surrender of Jerusalem and the subsequent looting of the temple in the previous year ( Dan 1:1 ) and the return of the menacing presence of Nebuchadnezzar in the near vicinity were probably the impetus for the fast.


The syntax of the original is complicated due to all the qualifying terms: Heb “And Baruch read from the scroll the words of Jeremiah in the house of the Lord in (i.e., in the entrance of) the room of Gemariah son of Shaphan the scribe in the upper court at the entrance of the New Gate in the house of the Lord in the ears of all the people.” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to contain all the same information in shorter English sentences that better conform with contemporary English style.


Heb “Micaiah son of Gemariah son of Shaphan heard all the words of the Lord from upon the scroll.” The words “heard Baruch read” are implicit from the context and are supplied in the translation for smoothness.


Heb “Micaiah reported to them all the words which he heard when Baruch read from the scroll in the ears of the people.”


Heb “in your hand.”


The original has another example of a prepositioned object (called casus pendens in the grammars; cf. GKC 458 §143. b ) which is intended to focus attention on “the scroll.” The Hebrew sentence reads: “The scroll which you read from it in the ears of the people take it and come.” Any attempt to carry over this emphasis into the English translation would be awkward. Likewise, the order of the two imperatives has been reversed as more natural in English.


Heb “So Baruch son of Neriah took the scroll in his hand and went to them.” The clause order has been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Or “‘to us personally’…to them personally”; Heb “‘in our ears’…in their ears.” Elsewhere this has been rendered “in the hearing of” or “where they could hear.” All three of those idioms sound unnatural in this context. The mere personal pronoun seems adequate.


Heb “all the words.”


According to BDB 808 s.v. פָּחַד Qal.1 and 40 s.v. אֶל 3.a, this is an example of the “pregnant” use of a preposition where an implied verb has to be supplied in the translation to conform the normal range of the preposition with the verb that is governing it. The Hebrew text reads: “they feared unto one another.” BDB translates “they turned in dread to each other.” The translation adopted seems more appropriate in this context.


Heb “We must certainly report to the king all these things.” Here the word דְּבָרִים ( dÿvarim ) must mean “things” (cf. BDB 183 s.v. דָּבָר IV.3) rather than “words” because a verbatim report of all the words in the scroll is scarcely meant. The present translation has chosen to use a form that suggests a summary report of all the matters spoken about in the scroll rather than the indefinite “things.”


Or “Did Jeremiah dictate them to you?” The words “Do they actually come from Jeremiah’s mouth?” assume that the last phrase ( מִפִּיו , mippiv ) is a question, either without the formal he ( הֲ ) interrogative (see GKC 473 §150. a and compare usage in 1 Sam 16:4 ; Prov 5:16 ) or with a letter supplied from the end of the preceding word (single writing of a letter following the same letter [haplography]; so the majority of modern commentaries). The word is missing in the Greek version. The presence of this same word at the beginning of the answer in the next verse suggests that this was a question (probably without the he [ הֲ ] interrogative to make it more emphatic) since the common way to answer affirmatively is to repeat the emphatic word in the question (cf. GKC 476 §150. n and compare usage in Gen 24:58 ). The intent of the question is to make sure that these were actually Jeremiah’s words not Baruch’s own creation (cf. Jer 42:2-3 for a similar suspicion).


The verbal forms emphasize that each word came from his mouth. The first verb is an imperfect which emphasizes repeated action in past time and the second verb is a participle which emphasizes ongoing action. However, it is a little awkward to try to express this nuance in contemporary English. Even though it is not reflected in the translation, it is noted here for future reference.


The verbs here are both direct imperatives but it sounds awkward to say “You and Jeremiah, go and hide” in contemporary English. The same force is accomplished by phrasing the statement as strong advice.


Heb “they deposited.” For the usage of the verb here see BDB 824 s.v. פָּקַד Hiph.2.b and compare the usage in Jer 37:21 where it is used for “confining” Jeremiah in the courtyard of the guardhouse.


Heb “all the matters.” Compare the translator’s note on v. 16 .


Both here and in the next verse the Hebrew has “in the ears of” before “the king” (and also before “all the officials”). As in v. 15 these words are not represented in the translation due to the awkwardness of the idiom in contemporary English (see the translator’s note on v. 15 ).


Heb “and Jehudi read it.” However, Jehudi has been the subject of the preceding; so it would be awkward in English to use the personal subject. The translation has chosen to bring out the idea that Jehudi himself read it by using the reflexive.


Heb “in the autumn house.” Commentators are agreed that this was not a separate building or palace but the winter quarters in the palace. sn Larger houses, including the palace, were two-storied buildings with a lower quarters better suited for the cold of winter and an upper quarters which was better ventilated to provide cool in the summer. Since this was the ninth month (December) the king had taken up residence in the lower, warmer quarters which were equipped with a portable fire pot or brazier to keep him warm.


Heb “the fire in the firepot was burning before him.” The translation assumes that the word “fire” ( אֵשׁ , ’ esh ) has dropped out after the particle אֶת (’ et ) because of the similar beginnings of the two words. The word “fire” is found in the Greek, Syriac, and Targumic translations according to BHS . The particle אֵת should be retained rather than dropped as an erroneous writing of אֵשׁ . Its presence is to be explained as the usage of the sign of the accusative introducing a new subject (cf. BDB 85 s.v. אֶת 3. α and compare the usage in 27:8; 38:16 [in the Kethib ]; 45:4 ).


Heb “doors.” This is the only time the word “door” is used in this way but all the commentaries and lexicons agree that it means “columns.” The meaning is figurative based on the similarity of shape.


Heb “he.” The majority of commentaries and English versions are agreed that “he” is the king. However, since a penknife ( Heb “a scribe’s razor”) is used to cut the columns off, it is possible that Jehudi himself did it. However, even if Jehudi himself did it, he was acting on the king’s orders.


Heb “until the whole scroll was consumed upon the fire which was in the fire pot.”


Heb “Neither the king nor any of his servants who heard all these words were afraid or tore their clothes.” The sentence has been broken up into two shorter sentences to better conform to English style and some of the terms explained (e.g., tore their clothes) for the sake of clarity. sn There are some interesting wordplays and contrasts involved here. The action of the king and his attendants should be contrasted with that of the officials who heard the same things read (v. 16 ). The king and his officials did not tear their garments in grief and sorrow; instead the king cut up the scroll (the words “tear” and “cut off” are the same in Hebrew [ קָרַע , qara ’]). Likewise, the actions of Jehoiakim and his attendants is to be contrasted with that of his father Josiah who some twenty or more years earlier tore his clothes in grief and sorrow ( 2 Kgs 22:11-20 ) and led the people in renewing their commitment to the covenant ( 2 Kgs 23:1-3 ). That was what the Lord had hoped would happen when the king and the people heard the warnings of Jeremiah ( Jer 36:2-3 ). Instead, Jehoiakim expressed his contempt for the word of God by destroying the scroll.


Heb “And also Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah urged [or had urged] the king not to burn the scroll, but he did not listen to them.” The translation attempts to lessen the clash in chronological sequencing with the preceding. This sentence is essentially a flash back to a time before the scroll was totally burned (v. 23 ).


Heb “the son of the king.” Many of the commentaries express doubt that this actually refers to Jehoiakim’s own son since Jehoiakim was only about thirty at this time and one of his sons would not have been old enough to have been in such a position of authority. The same doubt is expressed about the use of this term in 38:6 and in 1 Kgs 22:26 . The term need not refer to the ruling king’s own son but one of the royal princes.


Heb “Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll and the words [= containing the words] which Baruch wrote down from the mouth of Jeremiah, saying.”


Heb “Return, take another.” The verb “return” is used in the sense of repetition “take again” (cf. BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב Qal.8). The idea is already contained in “Get another” so most modern English versions do not represent it.


Heb “all the former words/things.”


Heb “first [or former] scroll.”


Or “In essence you asked.” For explanation see the translator’s note on the end of the verse.


Heb “You burned this scroll, saying, ‘Why did you write on it, saying, “The king of Babylon will certainly come [the infinitive absolute before the finite verb expresses certainty here as several places elsewhere in Jeremiah] and destroy this land and exterminate from it both man and beast.”’” The sentence raises several difficulties for translating literally. I.e., the “you” in “why did you write” is undefined, though it obviously refers to Jeremiah. The gerund “saying” that introduces ‘Why did you write’ does not fit very well with “you burned the scroll.” Gerunds of this sort are normally explanatory. Lastly, there is no indication in the narrative that Jehoiakim ever directly asked Jeremiah this question. In fact, he had been hidden out of sight so Jehoiakim couldn’t confront him. The question is presented rhetorically, expressing Jehoiakim’s thoughts or intents and giving the rational for burning the scroll, i.e., he questioned Jeremiah’s right to say such things. The translation has attempted to be as literal as possible without resolving some of these difficulties. One level of embedded quotes has been eliminated for greater simplicity. For the rendering of “How dare you” for the interrogative “why do you” see the translator’s note on 26:9 .


Heb “for their iniquity.”


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


Heb “And he wrote upon it from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned in the fire. And many words like these were added to them besides [or further].” The translation uses the more active form in the last line because of the tendency in contemporary English style to avoid the passive. It also uses the words “everything” for “all the words” and “messages” for “words” because those are legitimate usages of these phrases, and they avoid the mistaken impression that Jeremiah repeated verbatim the words on the former scroll or repeated verbatim the messages that he had delivered during the course of the preceding twenty-three years.


Heb “Coniah.” For explanation of the rendering here see the translator’s note on 22:4 .


Heb “And Zedekiah son of Josiah whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah ruled as king instead of Coniah son of Jehoiakim.” The sentence has been restructured and simplified to better conform to contemporary English style.


The words “as he pleased” are not in the text but are implicit in the idiom both in Hebrew and in English. They have been supplied in the translation for clarity and the sake of English idiom.


Heb “the Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for the rendering “Babylonian.” The word “forces” is supplied in the translation here for the sake of clarity.