Heb “A sound is heard on the hilltops, the weeping of the supplication of the children of Israel because [or indeed] they have perverted their way.” At issue here is whether the supplication is made to Yahweh in repentance because of what they have done or whether it is supplication to the pagan gods which is evidence of their perverted ways. The reference in this verse to the hilltops where idolatry was practiced according to 3:2 and the reference to Israel’s unfaithfulness in the preceding verse make the latter more likely. For the asseverative use of the Hebrew particle (here rendered “indeed”) where the particle retains some of the explicative nuance; cf. BDB 472-73 s.v. כִּי 1.e and 3.c.


Heb “have forgotten the Lord their God,” but in the view of the parallelism and the context, the word “forget” (like “know” and “remember”) involves more than mere intellectual activity.


Or “I will forgive your apostasies.” Heb “I will [or want to] heal your apostasies.” For the use of the verb “heal” ( רָפָא , rafa ’) to refer to spiritual healing and forgiveness see Hos 14:4 .


Or “They say.” There is an obvious ellipsis of a verb of saying here since the preceding words are those of the Lord and the following are those of the people. However, there is debate about whether these are the response of the people to the Lord ’s invitation, a response which is said to be inadequate according to the continuation in 4:1-4 , or whether these are the Lord ’s model for Israel’s confession of repentance to which he adds further instructions about the proper heart attitude that should accompany it in 4:1-4 . The former implies a dialogue with an unmarked twofold shift in speaker between 3:22 b-25 and 4:1-4:4 while the latter assumes the same main speaker throughout with an unmarked instruction only in 3:22 b-25. This disrupts the flow of the passage less and appears more likely.


Heb “Truly in vain from the hills the noise/commotion [and from] the mountains.” The syntax of the Hebrew sentence is very elliptical here.


Heb “Truly in the Lord our God is deliverance for Israel.”


Heb “From our youth the shameful thing has eaten up…” The shameful thing is specifically identified as Baal in Jer 11:13 . Compare also the shift in certain names such as Ishbaal (“man of Baal”) to Ishbosheth (“man of shame”).


Heb “fathers” (also in v. 25 ).


Heb “Let us lie down in….”


Heb “Let us be covered with disgrace.”


Or “If you, Israel, want to turn [away from your shameful ways (those described in 3:23-25 )]…then you must turn back to me.” Or perhaps, “Israel, you must turn back…Yes, you must turn back to me.”


Heb “disgusting things.”


Or possibly, “If you get those disgusting idols out of my sight, you will not need to flee.” This is less probable because the normal meaning of the last verb is “to wander,” “ to stray.”


Heb “If you [= you must, see the translator’s note on the word “do” later in this verse] swear/take an oath, ‘As the Lord lives,’ in truth, justice, and righteousness…”


4:1-2 a consists of a number of “if” clauses, two of which are formally introduced by the Hebrew particle אִם (’ im ) while the others are introduced by the conjunction “and,” followed by a conjunction (“and” = “then”) with a perfect in 4:2 b which introduces the consequence. The translation “You must…. If you do,” was chosen to avoid a long and complicated sentence.


Heb “bless themselves in him and make their boasts in him.”


The Hebrew particle is obviously asseverative here since a causal connection appears to make little sense.


Heb “Plow up your unplowed ground and do not sow among the thorns.” The translation is an attempt to bring out the force of a metaphor. The idea seems to be that they are to plow over the thorns and make the ground ready for the seeds which will produce a new crop where none had been produced before.


Heb “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskin of your heart.” The translation is again an attempt to bring out the meaning of a metaphor. The mention of the “foreskin of the heart” shows that the passage is obviously metaphorical and involves heart attitude, not an external rite.


The words “The Lord said” are not in the text, but it is obvious from v. 6 and v. 9 that he is the speaker. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


It is unclear who the addressees of the masculine plural imperatives are here. They may be the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah who are sounding the alarm to others. However, the first person reference to the Lord in v. 6 and Jeremiah’s response in v. 10 suggest that this is a word from the Lord that he is commanded to pass on to the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah. If the imperatives are not merely rhetorical plurals they may reflect the practice referred to in Jer 23:18, 22 ; Amos 3:7 . A similar phenomenon also occurs in Jer 5:1 and also in Isa 40:1-2 . This may also be the explanation for the plural imperatives in Jer 31:6 . For further discussion see the translator’s note on Jer 5:1 .


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


Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.


Heb “Raise up a signal toward Zion.”


Heb “out of the north, even great destruction.”


Heb “A lion has left its lair.” The metaphor is turned into a simile for clarification. The word translated “lair” has also been understood to refer to a hiding place. However, it appears to be cognate in meaning to the word translated “lair” in Ps 10:9 ; Jer 25:38 , a word which also refers to the abode of the Lord in Ps 76:3 .


Heb “his place.”


Or “wail because the fierce anger of the Lord has not turned away from us.” The translation does not need to assume a shift in speaker as the alternate reading does.


Heb “In that day.”


The words “In response to all this” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to clarify the connection.


Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.


Or “You have deceived.” The Hiphil of נָשָׁא ( nasha ’, “to deceive”) is understood in a tolerative sense here: “to allow [someone] to be deceived.” IBHS 446 §27.5c notes that this function of the hiphil describes caused activity that is welcome to the undersubject, but unacceptable or disagreeable to a third party. Jerusalem and Judah welcomed the assurances of false prophets who deceived them. Although this was detestable to God, he allowed it.


Heb “this people and Jerusalem.”


Heb “Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace’”; or “You have deceived the people of Judah and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace.’” The words “you will be safe” are, of course, those of the false prophets (cf., Jer 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:16-17 ). It is difficult to tell whether the charge here is meant literally as the emotional outburst of the prophet (compare for example, Jer 15:18 ) or whether it is to be understood as a figure of speech in which a verb of direct causation is to be understood as permissive or tolerative, i.e., God did not command the prophets to say this but allowed them to do so. While it is not beyond God to use false prophets to accomplish his will (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19-23 ), he elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah directly denies having sent the false prophets to say such things as this (cf., e.g., Jer 14:14-15; 23:21, 32 ). For examples of the use of this figure of speech, see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 571, 823 and compare Ezek 20:25 . The translation given attempts to resolve the issue.


Heb “touches the throat/soul.” For this use of the word usually translated “soul” or “life” cf. HALOT 672 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 1, 2 and compare the use in Ps 105:18 .


Heb “A scorching wind from the hilltops in the desert toward…” sn The allusion is, of course, to the destructive forces of the enemy armies of Babylon compared above in 4:7 to a destructive lion and here to the destructive desert winds of the Near Eastern sirocco.


Heb “daughter of my people.” The term “daughter of” is appositional to “my people” and is supplied in the translation as a term of sympathy and endearment. Compare the common expression “daughter of Zion.”


Heb “not for winnowing and not for cleansing.” The words “It will not be a gentle breeze” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are supplied in the translation here for clarification.


The word “No” is not in the text but is carried over from the connection with the preceding line “not for…”


Heb “will speak judgments against them.”


Heb “he is coming up like clouds.” The words “The enemy” are supplied in the translation to identify the referent and the word “gathering” is supplied to try to convey the significance of the simile, i.e., that of quantity and of an approaching storm.


Heb “his chariots [are] like a whirlwind.” The words “roar” and “sound” are supplied in the translation to clarify the significance of the simile.


The words “I cry out” are not in the text, but the words that follow are obviously not the Lord ’s. They are either those of the people or of Jeremiah. Taking them as Jeremiah’s parallels the interjection of Jeremiah’s response in 4:10 which is formally introduced.


Heb “Woe to us!” The words “woe to” are common in funeral laments and at the beginning of oracles of judgment. In many contexts they carry the connotation of hopelessness or apprehensiveness of inevitable doom.


Heb “Oh, Jerusalem, wash your heart from evil.”


Heb “For a voice declaring from Dan and making heard disaster from the hills of Ephraim.”


The words “They are saying” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection and are supplied in the translation for clarification.


The word “surrounding” is not in the text but is implicit and is supplied in the translation for clarification.


Or “Here they come!” Heb “Look!” or “Behold!” Or “Announce to the surrounding nations, indeed [or yes] proclaim to Jerusalem, ‘Besiegers…’” The text is very elliptical here. Some of the modern English versions appear to be emending the text from הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold”) to either הֵנָּה ( hennah , “these things”; so NEB), or הַזֶּה ( hazzeh , “this”; so NIV). The solution proposed here is as old as the LXX which reads, “Behold, they have come.”


The words, “this message,” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to make the introduction of the quote easier.


Heb “Besiegers.” For the use of this verb to refer to besieging a city compare Isa 1:8 .


Heb “They have raised their voices against.” The verb here, a vav ( ו ) consecutive with an imperfect, continues the nuance of the preceding participle “are coming.”


Heb “will surround her.” The antecedent is Jerusalem in the preceding verse. The referent is again made explicit in the translation to avoid any possible lack of clarity. The verb form here is a form of the verb that emphasizes the fact as being as good as done (i.e., it is a prophetic perfect).


Heb “Your way and your deeds.”


Heb “How bitter!”


Heb “Indeed, it reaches to your heart.” The subject must be the pain alluded to in the last half of the preceding line; the verb is masculine, agreeing with the adjective translated “painful.” The only other possible antecedent “punishment” is feminine.


The words “I said” are not in the text. They are used to mark the shift from the Lord ’s promise of judgment to Jeremiah’s lament concerning it.


Heb “My bowels! My bowels!”


Heb “the walls of my heart!”


Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.


The translation reflects a different division of the last two lines than that suggested by the Masoretes. The written text (the Kethib ) reads “for the sound of the ram’s horn I have heard [or “you have heard,” if the form is understood as the old second feminine singular perfect] my soul” followed by “the battle cry” in the last line. The translation is based on taking “my soul” with the last line and understanding an elliptical expression “the battle cry [to] my soul.” Such an elliptical expression is in keeping with the elliptical nature of the exclamations at the beginning of the verse (cf. the literal translations of the first two lines of the verse in the notes on the words “stomach” and “heart”).


The words, “I see” are not in the text here or at the beginning of the third line. They are supplied in the translation to show that this is Jeremiah’s vision of what will happen as a result of the invasion announced in 4:5-9, 11-17 a.


Heb “my.” This is probably not a reference to Jeremiah’s own tents since he foresees the destruction of the whole land. Jeremiah so identifies with the plight of his people that he sees the destruction of their tents as though they were his very own. It would probably lead to confusion to translate literally and it is not uncommon in Hebrew laments for the community or its representative to speak of the community as an “I.” See for example the interchange between first singular and first plural pronouns in Ps 44:4-8 .


Heb “my.”


It is not altogether clear what Jeremiah intends by the use of this metaphor. In all likelihood he means that the defenses of Israel’s cities and towns have offered no more resistance than nomads’ tents. However, in light of the fact that the word “tent” came to be used generically for a person’s home (cf. 1 Kgs 8:66; 12:16 ), it is possible that Jeremiah is here referring to the destruction of their homes and the resultant feeling of homelessness and loss of even elementary protection. Given the lack of certainty the present translation is rather literal here.


Heb “the sound of ram’s horns,” but the modern equivalent is “bugles” and is more readily understandable.


These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to show clearly the shift in speaker. Jeremiah has been speaking; now the Lord answers, giving the reason for the devastation Jeremiah foresees.


Heb “For….” This gives the explanation for the destruction envisaged in 4:20 to which Jeremiah responds in 4:19, 21 .


Heb “They are senseless children.”


Heb “I looked at the land and behold...” This indicates the visionary character of Jeremiah’s description of the future condition of the land of Israel.


Heb “formless and empty.” This is a case of hendiadys (two nouns joined by “and” both describe the same thing): one noun retains its full nominal force, the other functions as an adjective. The words תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ ( tohu vavohu ) allude to Gen 1:2 , hyperbolically picturing a reversal of creation and return to the original precreation chaos.


Heb “there was no man/human being.”


Heb “because of the Lord , because of his blazing anger.”


Heb “For this is what the Lord said,”


Heb “has spoken and purposed.” This is an example of hendiadys where two verbs are joined by “and” but one is meant to serve as a modifier of the other.


Heb “will not turn back from it.”


Heb “And you that are doomed to destruction.” The referent is supplied from the following context and the fact that Zion/Jerusalem represents the leadership which was continually making overtures to foreign nations for help.


Heb “What are you accomplishing…?” The rhetorical question assumes a negative answer, made clear by the translation in the indicative.


Heb “clothing yourself in scarlet.”


Heb “enlarging your eyes with antimony.” Antimony was a black powder used by women as eyeliner to make their eyes look larger.


Heb “they seek your life.”


The particle כִּי ( ki ) is more likely asseverative here than causal.


Heb “spreading out her hands.” The idea of asking or pleading for help is implicit in the figure.


Heb “Woe, now to me!” See the translator’s note on 4:13 for the usage of “Woe to…”


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


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


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


Heb “who does justice and seeks faithfulness.”


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


Heb “forgive [or pardon] it.”


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


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


Heb “they swear falsely.”


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


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


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


Or “to repent”; Heb “to turn back.”


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


Heb “the way of the Lord .”


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Heb “your children.”


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


Heb “I satisfied them to the full.”


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


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


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


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


Heb “neighs after.”


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Heb “Therefore.”


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


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


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


Heb “this word.”


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


Heb “oracle of the Lord .”


Heb “Behold!”


Heb “house of Israel.”


Heb “All of them are mighty warriors.”


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


Heb “eat up.”


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


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


Heb “in those days.”


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


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


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


Heb “in the house of Jacob.”


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


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


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


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


Heb “say in their hearts.”


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


Heb “have turned these things away.”


Heb “have withheld the good from you.”


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


Heb “a destroying thing.”


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


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


Heb “therefore they have gotten great and rich.”


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


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


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


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


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


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


Heb “Flee for safety, people of Benjamin, out of the midst of Jerusalem.” sn Compare and contrast Jer 4:6 . There people in the outlying areas were warned to seek safety in the fortified city of Jerusalem. Here they are told to flee it because it was about to be destroyed. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “ram’s horn,” but the modern equivalent is “trumpet” and is more readily understandable.


Heb “leans down” or “looks down.” This verb personifies destruction leaning/looking down from its window in the sky, ready to attack.


Heb “[It will be] a severe fracture.” The nation is pictured as a limb being fractured. sn This passage is emotionally charged. There are two examples of assonance or wordplay in the verse: “sound” (Heb tiq ’ u , “blow”), which has the same consonants as “Tekoa” (Heb uvitqoa ’), and “signal fire,” which comes from the same root as “light” (Heb sÿ ’ u mas ’ et , “lift up”). There is also an example of personification where disaster is said to “lurk” ( Heb “look down on”) out of the north. This gives a sense of urgency and concern for the coming destruction.


The verb here is another example of the Hebrew verb form that indicates the action is as good as done (a Hebrew prophetic perfect).


Heb “The beautiful and delicate one I will destroy, the daughter of Zion. The English versions and commentaries are divided over the rendering of this verse because (1) there are two verbs with these same consonants, one meaning “to be like” and the other meaning “to be destroyed” (intransitive) or “to destroy” (transitive), and (2) the word rendered “beautiful” ( נָוָה , navah ) can be understood as a noun meaning “pasture” or as a defective writing of an adjective meaning “beautiful, comely” ( נָאוָה , na ’ vah ). Hence some render “Fair Zion, you are like a lovely pasture,” reading the verb form as an example of the old second feminine singular perfect. Although this may fit the imagery of the next verse, that rendering ignores the absence of a preposition ( לְ or אֶל , lÿ or ’ el , both of which can be translated “to”) that normally goes with the verb “be like” and drops the conjunction in front of the adjective “delicate.” The parallel usage of the verb in Hos 4:5 argues for the meaning “destroy.”


Heb “Shepherds and their flocks will come against it.” Rulers are often depicted as shepherds; see BDB 945 s.v. רָעָה 1.d(2) (cf. Jer 12:10 ). The translation of this verse attempts to clarify the point of this extended metaphor.


Heb “They will thrust [= pitch] tents around it.” The shepherd imagery has a surprisingly ominous tone. The beautiful pasture filled with shepherds grazing their sheep is in reality a city under siege from an attacking enemy.


Heb “They will graze each one his portion.” For the use of the verb “graze” to mean “strip” or “devastate” see BDB 945 s.v. רָעָה 2.c. For a similar use of the word normally meaning “hand” to mean portion compare 2 Sam 19:43 (19:44 HT). sn There is a wordplay involving “sound…in Tekoa” mentioned in the study note on “destruction” in v. 1 . The Hebrew verb “they will pitch” is from the same root as the word translated “sound” ( taqÿ ’ u [ תִּקְעוּ ] here and tiq ’ u [ תִּקְעוּ ] in v. 1 ).


These words are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Sanctify war.” This is probably an idiom from early Israel’s holy wars in which religious rites were to precede the battle.


These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity. Some commentaries and English versions see these not as the words of the enemy but as those of the Israelites expressing their fear that the enemy will launch a night attack against them and further destroy them. The connection with the next verse, however, fits better with them if they are the words of the enemy.


Heb “Woe to us!” For the usage of this phrase see the translator’s note on 4:13 . The usage of this particle here is a little exaggerated. They have lost the most advantageous time for attack but they are scarcely in a hopeless or doomed situation. The equivalent in English slang is “Bad news!”


Heb “For.” The translation attempts to make the connection clearer.


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


Heb “Cut down its trees and build up a siege ramp against Jerusalem.” The referent has been moved forward from the second line for clarity.


Or “must be punished.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The LXX reads, “Woe, city of falsehood!” The MT presents two anomalies: a masculine singular verb with a feminine singular subject in a verbal stem (Hophal) that elsewhere does not have the meaning “is to be punished.” Hence many follow the Greek which presupposes הוֹי עִיר הַשֶּׁקֶר ( hoy ’ ir hasheqer ) instead of הִיא הָעִיר הָפְקַד ( hi ’ ha ’ ir hofqad ). The Greek is the easier reading in light of the parallelism, and it would be hard to explain how the MT arose from it. KBL suggests reading a noun meaning “licentiousness” which occurs elsewhere only in Mishnaic Hebrew, hence “this is the city, the licentious one” (attributive apposition; cf. KBL 775 s.v. פֶּקֶר ). Perhaps the Hophal perfect ( הָפְקַד , hofÿqad ) should be revocalized as a Niphal infinitive absolute ( הִפָּקֹד , hippaqod ); this would solve both anomalies in the MT since the Niphal is used in this nuance and the infinitive absolute can function in place of a finite verb (cf. GKC 346 §113. ee and ff ). This, however, is mere speculation and is supported by no Hebrew ms .


Heb “All of it oppression in its midst.”


Heb “As a well makes cool/fresh its water, she makes cool/fresh her wickedness.” The translation follows the reading proposed by the Masoretes ( Qere ) which reads a rare form of the word “well” ( בַּיִר [ bayir ] for בְּאֵר [ bÿ ’ er ]) in place of the form written in the text ( Kethib , בּוֹר [ bor ]), which means “cistern.” The latter noun is masculine and the pronoun “its” is feminine. If indeed בַּיִר ( bayir ) is a byform of בְּאֵר ( be ’ er ), which is feminine, it would agree in gender with the pronoun. It also forms a more appropriate comparison since cisterns do not hold fresh water.


Heb “Violence and destruction are heard in it.”


Heb “Sickness and wound are continually before my face.”


This word is not in the text but is supplied in the translation. Jeremiah uses a figure of speech (enallage) where the speaker turns from talking about someone to address him/her directly.


Heb “lest my soul [= I] becomes disgusted with you.” sn The wordplay begun with “sound…in Tekoa” in v. 1 and continued with “they will pitch” in v. 3 is concluded here with “turn away” ( וּבִתְקוֹעַ תִּקְעוּ [ uvitqoa ’ tiq ’ u ] in v. 1 , תָּקְעוּ [ taq ’ u ] in v. 3 and תֵּקַע [ teqa ’] here).


The words “to me” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “They will thoroughly glean those who are left in Israel like a vine.” That is, they will be carried off by judgment. It is not necessary to read the verb forms here as two imperatives or an infinitive absolute followed by an imperative as some English versions and commentaries do. This is an example of a third plural verb used impersonally and translated as a passive (cf. GKC 460 §144. g ).


Heb “Pass your hand back over the branches like a grape harvester.” The translation is intended to clarify the metaphor that Jeremiah should try to rescue some from the coming destruction.


These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Or “To whom shall I speak? To whom shall I give warning? Who will listen?” Heb “Unto whom shall I speak and give warning that they may listen?”


Heb “are uncircumcised.”


Heb “Behold!”


Heb “They do not take pleasure in it.”


Heb “I am full of the wrath of the Lord .”


These words are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Pour it out.”


Heb “are to be captured.”


Heb “I will reach out my hand.” This figure involves both comparing God to a person (anthropomorphism) and substitution (metonymy) where hand is put for the actions or exertions of the hand. A common use of “hand” is for the exertion of power or strength (cf. BDB 290 s.v. יָד 2 and 289-90 s.v. יָד 1.e(2); cf. Deut 34:12 ; Ps 78:42 ; Jer 16:21 ).


Heb “They heal [= bandage] the wound of my people lightly”; TEV “They act as if my people’s wounds were only scratches.”


Heb “They say, ‘Peace! Peace!’ and there is no peace!”


Heb “They will fall among the fallen.”


The words, “to his people” are not in the text but are implicit in the interchange of pronouns in the Hebrew of vv. 16-17 . They are supplied in the translation here for clarity.


Heb “Stand at the crossroads and look.”


Heb “the ancient path,” i.e., the path the Lord set out in ancient times (cf. Deut 32:7 ).


Heb “the way of/to the good.”


These words are not in the text but are implicit in the interchange of pronouns in the Hebrew of vv. 16-17 . They are supplied in the translation here for clarity.


Heb “I appointed watchmen over you.”


Heb “Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet.” The word “warning” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.


These words are not in the text but are implicit from the flow of the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Know, congregation [or witness], what in [or against] them.” The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The meaning of the noun of address in the second line (“witness,” rendered as an imperative in the translation, “Be witnesses”) is greatly debated. It is often taken as “congregation” but the lexicons and commentaries generally question the validity of reading that word since it is nowhere else applied to the nations. BDB 417 s.v. עֵדָה 3 says that the text is dubious. HALOT 747 s.v. I עֵדָה , 4 emends the text to דֵּעָה ( de ’ ah ). Several modern English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, God’s Word) take it as the feminine singular noun “witness” (cf. BDB 729 s.v. II עֵדָה ) and understand it as a collective. This solution is also proposed by J. A. Thompson ( Jeremiah [NICOT], 259, n. 3) and appears to make the best sense in the context. The end of the line is very elliptical but is generally taken as either, “what I will do with/to them,” or “what is coming against them” (= “what will happen to them”) on the basis of the following context.


Heb “earth.”


Heb “Behold!”


Heb “disaster on these people, the fruit of their schemes.”


Heb “my word.”


Heb “To what purpose is it to me?” The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer.


The words “when they offer up to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the following context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable and your sacrifices are not pleasing to me.” “The shift from “your” to “their” is an example of the figure of speech (apostrophe) where the speaker turns from talking about someone to addressing him/her directly. Though common in Hebrew style, it is not common in English. The shift to the third person in the translation is an accommodation to English style.


This is an attempt to render the Hebrew particle rendered “behold” joined to the first person pronoun.


Heb “I will put stumbling blocks in front of these people.” In this context the stumbling blocks are the invading armies.


The words “and fall to their destruction” are implicit in the metaphor and are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “people.”


These words are not in the text, but, from the context, someone other than God is speaking and is speaking for and to the people (either Jeremiah or the people themselves). These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Or “We have lost our strength to do battle”; Heb “Our hands hang limp [or helpless at our sides].” According to BDB 951 s.v. רָפָה Qal.2, this idiom is used figuratively for losing heart or energy. The best example of its figurative use of loss of strength or the feeling of helplessness is in Ezek 21:12 where it appears in the context of the heart (courage) melting, the spirit sinking, and the knees becoming like water. For other examples compare 2 Sam 4:1 ; Zeph 3:16 . In Neh 6:9 it is used literally of the builders “dropping their hands from the work” out of fear. The words “with fear” are supplied in the translation because they are implicit in the context.


Heb “For the enemy has a sword.”


Heb “Terror is all around!”


These words are not in the text but are implicit from the context.


Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the translator’s note there.


Heb “suddenly.”


Heb “the destroyer.”


These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity. Note “I have appointed you.” Compare Jer 1:18 .


Heb “I have made you an assayer of my people, a tester [?].” The meaning of the words translated “assayer” ( בָּחוֹן , bakhon ) and “tester” ( מִבְצָר , mivtsar ) is uncertain. The word בָּחוֹן ( bakhon ) can mean “tower” (cf. BDB 103 s.v. בָּחוֹן ; cf. Isa 23:13 for the only other use) or “assayer” (cf. BDB 103 s.v. בָּחוֹן ). The latter would be the more expected nuance because of the other uses of nouns and verbs from this root. The word מִבְצָר ( mivtsar ) normally means “fortress” (cf. BDB 131 s.v. מִבְצָר ), but most modern commentaries and lexicons deem that nuance inappropriate here. HALOT follows a proposal that the word is to be repointed to מְבַצֵּר ( mÿvatser ) and derived from a root בָּצַר ( batsar ) meaning “to test” (cf. HALOT 143 s.v. IV בָּצַר ). That proposal makes the most sense in the context, but the root appears nowhere else in the OT.


Heb “test their way.”


These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity. Some takes these words to be the continuation of the Lord ’s commission of Jeremiah to the task of testing them. However, since this is the evaluation, the task appears to be complete. The words are better to be taken as Jeremiah’s report after he has completed the task.


Or “arch rebels,” or “hardened rebels.” Literally “rebels of rebels.”


Heb “The bellows blow fiercely; the lead is consumed by the fire.” The translation tries to clarify a metaphor involving ancient metallurgy. In the ancient refining process lead was added as a flux to remove impurities from silver ore in the process of oxidizing the lead. Jeremiah says that the lead has been used up and the impurities have not been removed. The translation is based on the recognition of an otherwise unused verb root meaning “blow” ( נָחַר [ nakhar ]; cf. BDB 1123 s.v. I חָרַר and HALOT 651 s.v. נָחַר ) and the Masoretes’ suggestion that the consonants מאשׁתם be read מֵאֵשׁ תַּם ( me ’ esh tam ) rather than as מֵאֶשָּׁתָם ( me ’ eshatam , “from their fire”) from an otherwise unattested noun אֶשָּׁה (’ eshah ).


Heb “The refiner refines them in vain.”


This translation is intended to reflect the wordplay in the Hebrew text where the same root word is repeated in the two lines.


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


Heb “Proclaim there…” The adverb is unnecessary in English style.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God Israel.” sn Compare the use of similar titles in 2:19; 5:14; 6:6 and see the explanation in the study note at 2:19 . In this instance the title appears to emphasize the Lord as the heavenly King who drags his disobedient vassals into court (and threatens them with judgment).


Or “Make good your ways and your actions.” J. Bright’s translation (“Reform the whole pattern of your conduct”; Jeremiah [AB], 52) is excellent.


Heb “place” but this might be misunderstood to refer to the temple.


Heb “Stop trusting in lying words which say.”


The words “We are safe!” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “The temple of the Lord , the temple of the Lord , the temple of the Lord are these (i.e., these buildings).” Elsewhere triple repetition seems to mark a kind of emphasis (cf. Isa 6:3 ; Jer 22:29 ; Ezek 21:27 [32 HT]). The triple repetition that follows seems to be Jeremiah’s way of mocking the (false) sense of security that people had in the invincibility of Jerusalem because God dwelt in the temple. They appeared to be treating the temple as some kind of magical charm. A similar feeling had grown up around the ark in the time of the judges (cf. 1 Sam 3:3 ) and the temple and city of Jerusalem in Micah’s day (cf. Mic 3:11 ). It is reflected also in some of the Psalms (cf., e.g., , especially v. 5 ).


The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.


Heb “you must do justice between a person and his fellow/neighbor.” The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis.


Heb “Stop oppressing foreigner, orphan, and widow.”


Heb “Stop shedding innocent blood.”


Heb “going/following after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom involved here.


Heb “going after other gods to your ruin.”


The translation uses imperatives in vv. 5-6 followed by the phrase, “If you do all this,” to avoid the long and complex sentence structure of the Hebrew sentence which has a series of conditional clauses in vv. 5-6 followed by a main clause in v. 7 .


Heb “live in this place, in this land.”


Heb “gave to your fathers [with reference to] from ancient times even unto forever.”


Heb “Behold!”


Heb “You are trusting in lying words.” See the similar phrase in v. 4 and the note there.


Heb “not profit [you].”


Heb “Will you steal…then say, ‘We are safe’?” Verses 9-10 are one long sentence in the Hebrew text.


Heb “You go/follow after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for an explanation of the idiom involved here.


Heb “over which my name is called.” For this nuance of this idiom cf. BDB 896 s.v. קָרָא Niph.2.d(4) and see the usage in 2 Sam 12:28 .


Or “‘We are safe!’ – safe, you think, to go on doing all those hateful things.” Verses 9-10 are all one long sentence in the Hebrew text. It has been broken up for English stylistic reasons. Somewhat literally it reads “Will you steal…then come and stand…and say, ‘We are safe’ so as to/in order to do…” The Hebrew of v. 9 has a series of infinitives which emphasize the bare action of the verb without the idea of time or agent. The effect is to place a kind of staccato like emphasis on the multitude of their sins all of which are violations of one of the Ten Commandments. The final clause in v. 8 expresses purpose or result (probably result) through another infinitive. This long sentence is introduced by a marker ( ה interrogative in Hebrew) introducing a rhetorical question in which God expresses his incredulity that they could do these sins, come into the temple and claim the safety of his protection, and then go right back out and commit the same sins. J. Bright ( Jeremiah [AB], 52) catches the force nicely: “What? You think you can steal, murder…and then come and stand…and say, ‘We are safe…’ just so that you can go right on…”


Heb “Is this house…a den/cave of robbers in your eyes?”


Heb “where I caused my name to dwell.” The translation does not adequately represent the theology of the Lord ’s deliberate identification with a place where he chose to manifest his presence and desired to be worshiped (cf. Exod 20:25 ; Deut 16:2, 6, 11 ).


This reflects a Hebrew idiom (e.g., 7:25; 11:7; 25:3, 4 ), i.e., an infinitive of a verb meaning “to do something early [or eagerly]” followed by an infinitive of another verb of action. Cf. HALOT 1384 s.v. שָׁכַם Hiph.2.


Heb “I called to you and you did not answer.” The words “to repent” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “fathers” (also in vv. 22, 25, 26 ).


Heb “I will do to this house which I…in which you put…and to this place which…as I did to Shiloh.”


Heb “the descendants of Ephraim.” However, Ephraim here stands (as it often does) for all the northern tribes of Israel.


The words “Then the Lord said” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “As for you.” The personal name Jeremiah is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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


Or “Just look at…” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.


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


The form for “queen” is unusual. It is pointed ( מְלֶכֶת [ mÿlekhet ] instead of מַלְכַּת [ malkat ]) as though the Masoretes wanted to read the word for “work” ( מְלֶאכֶת [ mÿle ’ khet ]), i.e., the “hosts of,” a word that several Hebrew mss read and an understanding the LXX reflects. The other ancient and modern versions generally, however, accept it as a biform for the word “queen.” sn The Queen of Heaven is probably a reference to the goddess known as Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Anat in Canaan, Ashtoreth in Israel. She was the goddess of love and fertility. For further discussion, see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 266-68.


Heb “to provoke me.” There is debate among grammarians and lexicographers about the nuance of the Hebrew particle לְמַעַן ( lÿma ’ an ). Some say it always denotes purpose, while others say it may denote either purpose or result, depending on the context. For example, BDB 775 s.v. לְמַעַן note 1 says that it always denotes purpose, never result, but that sometimes what is really a result is represented ironically as though it were a purpose. That explanation fits nicely here in the light of the context of the next verse. The translation is intended to reflect some of that ironic sarcasm.


Heb “Is it I whom they provoke?” The rhetorical question expects a negative answer which is made explicit in the translation.


Heb “Is it not themselves to their own shame?” The rhetorical question expects a positive answer which is made explicit in the translation.


Heb “Lord Yahweh.” The translation follows the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the Hebrew word for God for the proper name Yahweh.


Heb “this place.” Some see this as a reference to the temple but the context has been talking about what goes on in the towns of Judah and Jerusalem and the words that follow, meant as a further explanation, are applied to the whole land.


Heb “the trees of/in the field and the fruit of/in the ground.”


The words “The Lord said to the people of Judah” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift in addressee between vv. 16-20 and vv. 21-26 .


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


Heb “Add your burnt offerings to your [other] sacrifices and eat the meat!” See the following sn for explanation. This is an example of the rhetorical use of the imperative for a sarcastic challenge. Cf. GKC 324 §110. a ; cf. Amos 4:4 , “Go to Bethel and sin!” sn All of the burnt offering, including the meat, was to be consumed on the altar (e.g., Lev 1:6-9 ). The meat of the other sacrifices could be eaten by the priest who offered the sacrifice and the person who brought it (e.g., Lev 7:16-18, 32 ). Since, however, the people of Judah were making a mockery of the sacrificial system by offering sacrifices while disobeying the law, the Lord rejected the sacrifices (cf. 6:20 ). Since they were violating the moral law they might as well go ahead and violate the cultic law by eating the meat dedicated to God because he rejected it anyway.


Heb “For” but this introduces a long explanation about the relative importance of sacrifice and obedience.


Verses 22-23 a read in Hebrew, “I did not speak with your ancestors and I did not command them when I brought them out of Egypt about words/matters concerning burnt offering and sacrifice, but I commanded them this word:” Some modern commentators have explained this passage as an evidence for the lateness of the Pentateuchal instruction regarding sacrifice or a denial that sacrifice was practiced during the period of the wilderness wandering. However, it is better explained as an example of what R. de Vaux calls a dialectical negative, i.e., “not so much this as that” or “not this without that” ( Ancient Israel , 454-56). For other examples of this same argument see Isa 1:10-17 ; Hos 6:4-6 ; Amos 5:21-25 .


Heb “Obey me and I will be.” The translation is equivalent syntactically but brings out the emphasis in the command.


Heb “Walk in all the way that I command you.”


Or “They went backward and not forward”; Heb “They were to the backward and not to the forward.” The two phrases used here appear nowhere else in the Bible and the latter preposition plus adverb elsewhere is used temporally meaning “formerly” or “previously.” The translation follows the proposal of J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 57. Another option is “they turned their backs to me, not their faces,” understanding the line as a variant of a line in 2:27 .


Heb “from the day your ancestors…until this very day.” However, “day” here is idiomatic for “the present time.”


On the Hebrew idiom see the note at 7:13 .


There is some textual debate about the legitimacy of this expression here. The text reads merely “day” ( יוֹם , yom ). BHS suggests the word is to be deleted as a dittography of the plural ending of the preceding word. The word is in the Greek and Latin, and the Syriac represents the typical idiom “day after day” as though the noun were repeated. Either יוֹם has dropped out by haplography or a ם ( mem ) has been left out, i.e., reading יוֹמָם ( yomam , “daily”).


Or “But your predecessors…”; Heb “But they….” There is a confusing interchange in the pronouns in vv. 25-26 which has led to some leveling in the ancient versions and the modern English versions. What is involved here are four levels of referents, the “you” of the present generation (vv. 21-22 a), the ancestors who were delivered from Egypt (i.e., the “they” of vv. 22 b-24), the “you” of v. 25 which involves all the Israelites from the Exodus to the time of speaking, and the “they” of v. 26 which cannot be the ancestors of vv. 22-24 (since they cannot be more wicked than themselves) but must be an indefinite entity which is a part of the “you” of v. 25 , i.e., the more immediate ancestors of the present generation. If this is kept in mind, there is no need to level the pronouns to “they” and “them” or to “you” and “your” as some of the ancient versions and modern English versions have done.


Heb “hardened [or made stiff] their neck.”


The words, “Then the Lord said to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift from the second and third person plural pronouns in vv. 21-26 and the second singular in this verse. The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Faithfulness has vanished. It is cut off from their lips.” sn For the need for faithfulness see 5:1, 3 .


The word “mourn” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation for clarity to explain the significance of the words “Cut your hair and throw it away.” sn Cf. Mic 1:16 ; Job 1:20 for other examples of this practice which was involved in mourning.


The words, “you people of this nation” are not in the text. Many English versions supply, “Jerusalem.” The address shifts from second masculine singular addressing Jeremiah (vv. 27-28 a) to second feminine singular. It causes less disruption in the flow of the context to see the nation as a whole addressed here as a feminine singular entity (as, e.g., in 2:19, 23; 3:2, 3; 6:26 ) than to introduce a new entity, Jerusalem.


The verbs here are the Hebrew scheduling perfects. For this use of the perfect see GKC 312 §106. m .


Heb “the generation of his wrath.”


The words “I have rejected them” are not in the Hebrew text, which merely says “because.” These words are supplied in the translation to show more clearly the connection to the preceding.


Heb “have done the evil in my eyes.”


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


Heb “high places.” sn These places of worship were essentially open air shrines often located on hills or wooded heights. They were generally connected with pagan worship and equipped with altars of sacrifice and of incense and cult objects such as wooden poles and stone pillars which were symbols of the god and/or goddess worshiped at the sight. The Israelites were commanded to tear down these Canaanite places of worship ( Num 33:52 ) but they did not do so, often taking over the site for the worship of Yahweh but even then incorporating some of the pagan cult objects and ritual into their worship of Yahweh ( 1 Kgs 12:31, 32; 14:23 ). The prophets were especially opposed to these places and to this kind of syncretism ( Hos 10:8 ; Amos 7:9 ) and to the pagan worship that was often practiced at them ( Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35 ).


Heb “the high places of [or in] Topheth.” sn The noun Topheth is generally explained as an artificial formation of a word related to the Aramaic word for “cooking stove” combined with the vowels for the word for “shame.” Hence, Jewish piety viewed it as a very shameful act, one that was contrary to the law (see Lev 18:21; 20:2-6 ). Child sacrifice was practiced during the reigns of the wicked kings Ahaz and Manasseh and apparently during Jeremiah’s day (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6 ; Jer 32:35 ).


Heb “It never entered my heart.” The words “to command such a thing” do not appear in the Hebrew but are added for the sake of clarity.


Heb “Therefore, behold!”


Heb “it will no longer be said ‘Topheth’ or ‘the Valley of Ben Hinnom’ but ‘the valley of slaughter.’


Heb “And they will bury in Topheth so there is not room.”


Heb “Their dead bodies will be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.”


Heb “At that time.”


reads “the sun and all the stars.” Heb “the host of heaven.”


Heb “the sun, moon, and host of heaven which they…”


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


Heb “they will not” but the referent is far enough removed that it might be ambiguous.


Heb “like dung/manure on the surface of the ground.”


Heb “Death will be chosen rather than life by the remnant who are left from this wicked family in all the places where I have banished them.” The sentence is broken up and restructured to avoid possible confusion because of the complexity of the English to some modern readers. There appears to be an extra “those who are left” that was inadvertently copied from the preceding line. It is missing from one Hebrew ms and from the Greek and Syriac versions and is probably not a part of the original text.


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3 .


The words “the Lord said to me” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation to make clear who is speaking and who is being addressed.


The text is quite commonly emended, changing שׁוֹבְבָה הָעָם ( shovÿvah ha ’ am ) to שׁוֹבָב הָעָם ( shovav ha ’ am ) and omitting יְרוּשָׁלַםִ ( yÿrushalaim ); this is due to the anomaly of a feminine singular verb with a masculine singular subject and the fact that the word “Jerusalem” is absent from one Hebrew ms and the LXX. However, it is possible that this is a case where the noun “Jerusalem” is a defining apposition to the word “these people,” an apposition which GKC 425 §131. k calls “permutation.” In this case the verb could be attracted to the appositional noun and there would be no reason to emend the text. The MT is undoubtedly the harder reading and is for that reason to be preferred. map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Or “to their allegiance to false gods,” or “to their false professions of loyalty”; Heb “to deceit.” Either “to their mistaken beliefs” or “to their allegiance to false gods” would fit the preceding context. The former is more comprehensive than the latter and was chosen for that reason.


Heb “I have paid attention and I have listened.” This is another case of two concepts being joined by “and” where one expresses the main idea and the other acts as an adverbial or adjectival modifier (a figure called hendiadys).


Heb “What have I done?” The addition of the word “wrong” is implicit in the context and is supplied in the translation for clarity. The rhetorical question does not function as a denial of wrongdoing, but rather as contrite shock at one’s own wrongdoing. It is translated as a declaration for the sake of clarity.


Heb “each one of them turns aside into their own running course.” sn The wordplay begun in v. 4 is continued here. The word translated “turns aside” in the literal translation and “wayward” in the translation is from the same root as “go the wrong way,” “turn around,” “turn away from me,” “apostasy,” “turn back to me.” What God hoped for were confessions of repentance and change of behavior; what he got was denial of wrongdoing and continued turning away from him.


Heb “its appointed time.” The translation is contextually motivated to avoid lack of clarity.


There is debate in the commentaries and lexicons about the identification of some of these birds, particularly regarding the identification of the “swallow” which is more likely the “swift” and the “crane” which some identify with the “thrush.” For a discussion see the Bible encyclopedias and the UBS handbook Fauna and Flora of the Bible . The identity of the individual birds makes little difference to the point being made and “swallow” is more easily identifiable to the average reader than the “swift.”


Heb “keep.” Ironically birds, which do not think, obey the laws of nature, but Israel does not obey the laws of God.


Heb “do not know.” But here as elsewhere the word “know” is more than an intellectual matter. It is intended here to summarize both “know” and “follow” ( Heb “observe”) in the preceding lines.


Heb “the ordinance/requirement of the Lord .”


Heb “Surely, behold!”


Heb “the scribes.”


Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.


Heb “be trapped.” However, the word “trapped” generally carries with it the connotation of divine judgment. See BDB 540 s.v. לָכַד Niph.2, and compare usage in Jer 6:11 for support. The verbs in the first two lines are again the form of the Hebrew verb that emphasizes that the action is as good as done (Hebrew prophetic perfects).


Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.


Heb “They heal the wound of my people lightly.”


Heb “They say, ‘Peace! Peace!’ and there is no peace!”


Heb “They will fall among the fallen.”


Or “I will completely destroy them.” The translation which is adopted is based on the revocalization of the MT which appears to mean literally “gathering I will sweep them away,” a rather improbable grammatical combination. It follows the suggestion found in HALOT 705 s.v. סוּף (Hiph) of reading אֹסֵף אֲסִיפָם (’ ose , a first singular Qal imperfect of אָסַף [’ asaf ] followed by a noun אָסִיף [’ asif ] with possessive suffix) instead of the MT’s אָסֹף אֲסִיפֵם (’ aspf ’ asifem , a Qal infinitive absolute of אָסַף [’ asaf ] followed by the Hiphil imperfect of סוּף [ suf ] plus suffix). For parallel usage of the verb אָסַף ( asaf ) see BDB 62 s.v. אָסַף Qal.4, and for a similar form of the verb see Mic 4:6 . The alternate translation follows the suggestion in BDB 692 s.v. סוּף Hiph: אָסֹף (’ asof ) is to be interpreted as a form of the Hiphil infinitive absolute ( הָסֵף [ hasef ] would be expected) chosen for assonance with the following form. This suggestion would gain more credence if the MT is to be retained in Zeph 1:2 where parallel forms are found. However, that text too has been questioned on lexical and grammatical grounds. The translation adopted fits the following context better than the alternate one and is based on less questionable lexical and grammatical parallels. The Greek translation which reads “they shall gather their fruits” supports the translation chosen.


The meaning of this line is very uncertain. A possible alternate translation is: “They have broken the laws that I gave them.” The line reads rather literally “And I gave them they passed over them.” The translation adopted treats the first expression as a noun clause (cf. GKC 488-89 §155. n ) which is the subject of the following verb, i.e., “the things I gave them [contextually, the grapes, etc.] passed over from them.” The alternate translation treats the expression as a dangling object (a Hebrew casus pendens ) resumed by the pronoun “them” and understands “the things that I gave them” to be the law or some related entity which is often the object of this verb (see BDB 717 s.v. עָבַר Qal.1.i). Neither of these translations is without its weakness. The weakness of the translation which has been adopted is the unusual use it assigns to the object suffix of the verb translated “pass over.” The weakness of the alternate translation is the rather abrupt and opaque introduction of a new topic of reference (i.e., the laws) into the context. On the whole the latter weakness would appear to outweigh the former. This line is missing from the Greek version and J. Bright ( Jeremiah [AB]) and J. A. Thompson ( Jeremiah [NICOT]) despair of giving a translation. For other possible suggestions see, W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:285-86.


The words “The people say” are not in the text but are implicit in the shift of speakers between vv. 4-13 and vv. 14-16 . They are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Gather together and let us enter into the fortified cities.”


Heb “Let us die there.” The words “at least” and “fighting” are intended to bring out the contrast of passive surrender to death in the open country and active resistance to the death implicit in the context.


The words “of judgment” are not in the text but are intended to show that “poison water” is not literal but figurative of judgment at the hands of God through the agency of the enemy mentioned in v. 16 .


Heb “against the Lord .” The switch is for the sake of smoothness in English.


Heb “[We hoped] for a time of healing but behold terror.”


Heb “his stallions.”


The words “They are coming to destroy” are not in the text. They are inserted to break up a long sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.


These words which are at the end of the Hebrew verse are brought forward to show at the outset the shift in speaker.


Heb “Indeed [or For] behold!” The translation is intended to convey some of the connection that is suggested by the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) at the beginning of the verse.


Heb “I am sending against you snakes, poisonous ones which cannot be charmed.” In the light of the context literal snakes are scarcely meant. So the metaphor is turned into a simile to prevent possible confusion. For a similar metaphorical use of animals for enemies see 5:6 .


Heb “they will bite you.” There does not appear to be any way to avoid the possible confusion that literal snakes are meant here except to paraphrase. Possibly one could say “And they will attack you and ‘bite’ you,” but the enclosing of the word “bite” in quotations might lead to even further confusion.


The words, “Then I said” are not in the text but there is a general consensus that the words of vv. 18-19 a are the words of Jeremiah. These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


The meaning of this word is uncertain. The translation is based on the redivision and repointing of a word that occurs only here in the MT and whose pattern of formation is unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. The MT reads מַבְלִיגִיתִי ( mavligiti ) which BDB provisionally derives from a verb root meaning “to gleam” or “to shine.” However, BDB notes that the text is dubious (cf. BDB 114 s.v. מַבְלִיגִית ). The text is commonly emended to מִבְּלִי גְּהֹת ( mibbÿli gÿhot ) which is a Qal infinitive from a verb meaning “to heal” preceded by a compound negative “for lack of, to be at a loss for” (cf., e.g., HALOT 514 s.v. מַבְלִיגִית and 174 s.v. גּהה ). This reading is supported by the Greek text which has an adjective meaning “incurable,” which is, however, connected with the preceding verse, i.e., “they will bite you incurably.”


Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.


Heb “Behold the voice of the crying of the daughter of my people.”


Heb “Land of distances, i.e., of wide extent.” For parallel usage cf. Isa 33:17 .


Heb “her King” but this might be misunderstood by some to refer to the Davidic ruler even with the capitalization.


The words, “The Lord would answer” are not in the text but are implicit from the words that follow. They are supplied in the translation for clarity. Another option would be to add “And I can just hear the Lord reply.”


The words “They say” are not in the text; they are supplied in the translation to make clear that the lament of the people begun in v. 19 b is continued here after the interruption of the Lord ’s words in v. 19 c.


Heb “Harvest time has passed, the summer is over.” sn This appears to be a proverbial statement for “time marches on.” The people appear to be expressing their frustration that the Lord has not gone about his business of rescuing them as they expected. For a similar misguided feeling based on the offering of shallow repentance see Hos 6:1-3 (and note the Lord ’s reply in 6:4-6 ).


Heb “Because of the crushing of the daughter of my people I am crushed.”


Heb “I go about in black [i.e., mourning clothes]. Dismay has seized me.”


Heb “balm.” The more familiar “ointment” has been used in the translation, supplemented with the adjective “medicinal.” sn This medicinal ointment ( Heb “balm”) consisted of the gum or resin from a tree that grows in Egypt and Palestine and was thought to have medicinal value (see also Jer 46:11 ).


Heb “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?” In this context the questions are rhetorical and expect a positive answer, which is made explicit in the translation. sn The prophet means by this metaphor that there are still means available for healing the spiritual ills of his people, mainly repentance, obedience to the law, and sole allegiance to God, and still people available who will apply this medicine to them, namely prophets like himself.


Or more clearly, “restored to spiritual health”; Heb “Why then has healing not come to my dear people?” sn Jeremiah is lamenting that though there is a remedy available for the recovery of his people they have not availed themselves of it.


Heb “I wish that my head were water.”


Heb “I wish I had in the desert a lodging place [inn, or place to spend the night] for travelers.”


Or “bunch,” but this loses the irony; the word is used for the solemn assemblies at the religious feasts.


Heb “they are all adulterers, a congregation of unfaithful people.” However, spiritual adultery is, of course, meant, not literal adultery. So the literal translation would be misleading.


The words “The Lord says” have been moved up from the end of the verse to make clear that a change in speaker has occurred.


Heb “They have readied [or strung] their tongue as their bow for lies.”


Heb “but not through honesty.”


Heb “they go from evil to evil.”


Or “do not acknowledge me”; Heb “do not know me.” But “knowing” in Hebrew thought often involves more than intellectual knowledge; it involves emotional and volitional commitment as well. For יָדַע meaning “acknowledge” see 1 Chr 28:9 ; Isa 29:21 ; Hos 2:20 ; Prov 3:6 . This word is also found in ancient Near Eastern treaty contexts where it has the idea of a vassal king acknowledging the sovereignty of a greater king (cf. H. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yada,” BASOR 181 [1966]: 31-37).


Heb “Be on your guard…Do not trust.” The verbs are second masculine plural of direct address and there seems no way to translate literally and not give the mistaken impression that Jeremiah is being addressed. This is another example of the tendency in Hebrew style to turn from description to direct address (a figure of speech called apostrophe).


Heb “cheating, each of them will cheat.” sn There is perhaps an intentional pun and allusion here to Gen 27:36 and the wordplay on the name Jacob there. The text here reads עָקוֹב יַעְקֹב (’ aqob ya ’ qob ).


Heb “their tongues.” However, this is probably not a natural idiom in contemporary English and the tongue may stand as a part for the whole anyway.


An alternate reading for vv. 5 d-6b is: “They wear themselves out doing wrong. Jeremiah, you live in the midst of deceitful people. They deceitfully refuse to take any thought of/acknowledge me.” The translation which has been adopted is based on a redivision of the lines, a redivision of some of the words, and a revocalization of some of the consonants. The MT reads literally “doing wrong they weary themselves. Your sitting in the midst of deceit; in deceit they refuse to know me” ( הַעֲוֵה נִלְאוּ׃ שִׁבְתְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ מִרְמָה בְּמִרְמָה מֵאֲנוּ דַעַת־אוֹתִי ). The Greek version reads literally “they do wrong and they do not cease to turn themselves around. Usury upon usury and deceit upon deceit. They do not want to know me.” This suggests that one should read the Hebrew text as שֻׁב׃ תֹּךְ בְּתוֹךְ מִרְ־מָה בְּמִרְ־מָה מֵאֲנוּ דַעַת אוֹתִי הַעֲוֵה נִלְאוּ , which translated literally yields “doing evil [= “they do evil” using the Hiphil infinitive absolute as a finite verb (cf. GKC 346 §113. ff )] they are not able [cf. KBL 468 s.v. לָאָה Niph.3 and see Exod 7:18 for parallel use] to repent. Oppression on oppression [cf. BDB 1067 s.v. תֹּךְ , II תּוֹךְ ]; deceit on deceit. They refuse to know me.” This reading has ancient support and avoids the introduction of an unexpected second masculine suffix into the context. It has been adopted here along with a number of modern commentaries (cf., e.g., W. McKane, Jeremiah [ICC], 1:201) and English versions as the more likely reading.


Or “do not acknowledge me”; Heb “do not know me.” See the note on the phrase “do not take any thought of me” in 9:3 .


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3 .


Heb “I will refine/purify them.” The words “in the fires of affliction” are supplied in the translation to give clarity to the metaphor.


Heb “daughter of my people.” For the translation given here see 4:11 and the note on the phrase “dear people” there.


Heb “For how else shall I deal because of the wickedness of the daughter of my people.” The MT does not have the word “wickedness.” The word, however, is read in the Greek version. This is probably a case of a word dropping out because of its similarities to the consonants preceding or following it (i.e., haplography). The word “wickedness” ( רַעַת , ra ’ at ) has dropped out before the words “my dear people” ( בַּת־עַמִּי , bat- ’ ammi ). The causal nuance which is normal for מִפְּנֵי ( mippÿne ) does not make sense without some word like this, and the combination of רַעַת מִפְּנֵי ( mippÿne ra ’ at ) does occur in Jer 7:12 and one very like it occurs in Jer 26:3 .


This reading follows the Masoretic consonants (the Kethib , a Qal active participle from שָׁחַט , shakhat ). The Masoretes preferred to read “a sharpened arrow” (the Qere , a Qal passive participle from the same root or a homonym, meaning “hammered, beaten”). See HALOT 1354 s.v. II שָׁחַט for discussion. The exact meaning of the word makes little difference to the meaning of the metaphor itself.


Heb “They speak deceit.”


Heb “With his mouth a person speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he sets an ambush for him.”


Heb “Should I not punish them…? Should I not bring retribution…?” The rhetorical questions function as emphatic declarations. sn See 5:9, 29 . This is somewhat of a refrain at the end of a catalog of Judah’s sins.


The words “I said” are not in the text, but there is general agreement that Jeremiah is the speaker. Cf. the lament in 8:18-9:1 . These words are supplied in the translation for clarity. Some English versions follow the Greek text which reads a plural imperative here. Since this reading would make the transition between 9:10 and 9:11 easier it is probably not original but a translator’s way of smoothing over a difficulty.


Heb “I will lift up weeping and mourning.”


Heb “for the mountains.” However, the context makes clear that it is the grasslands or pastures on the mountains that are meant. The words “for the grasslands” are supplied in the translation for clarity.


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


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


Heb “a heap of ruins, a haunt for jackals.”


The words, “I said” are not in the text. It is not clear that a shift in speaker has taken place. However, the words of the verse are very unlikely to be a continuation of the Lord ’s threat. It is generally assumed that these are the words of Jeremiah and that a dialogue is going on between him and the Lord in vv. 9-14 . That assumption is accepted here.


Heb “Who is the wise man that he may understand this?”


Heb “And [who is the man] to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken that he may explain it?”


Heb “and they have not walked in it (with “it” referring to “my law”).


Heb “they have gone/followed after.” See the translator’s note at 2:5 for the idiom.


Heb “the Baals,” referring either to the pagan gods called “Baals” or the images of Baal (so NLT).


Or “forefathers,” or “ancestors.” Here the referent could be the immediate parents or, by their example, more distant ancestors.


Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” sn See the study notes on 2:9 and 7:3 .


Heb “Therefore, thus says the Lord …” The person is shifted from third to first to better conform with English style.


Heb “I will feed this people wormwood and make them drink poison water.” “Wormwood” and “poison water” are not to be understood literally here but are symbolic of judgment and suffering. See, e.g., BDB 542 s.v. לַעֲנָה .


Heb “fathers.”


Heb “I will send the sword after them.” The sword here is probably not completely literal but refers to death by violent means, including death by the sword.


Heb “Yahweh of armies.” sn For the significance of this title see the notes at 2:19 and 7:3 .


Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies.” However, without some addition it is not clear to whom the command is addressed. The words are supplied in the translation for clarity and to help resolve a rather confusing issue of who is speaking throughout vv. 16-21 . As has been evident throughout the translation, the speaker is not always indicated. Sometimes it is not even clear who the speaker is. In general the translation and the notes have reflected the general consensus in identifying who it is. Here, however, there is a good deal of confusion about who is speaking in vv. 18, 20-21 . The Greek translation has the Lord speaking throughout with second plural pronouns in vv. 18, 21 and the absence of the first line in v. 22 . It would be hard to explain how the MT arose if it were the original text. Critical commentators such as J. Bright, W. Holladay, and W. McKane resolve the issue by dropping out the introductory formula in v. 17 and the first line of v. 22 and assigning the whole lament to Jeremiah. It seems obvious from the first plural pronouns and the content of v. 18 (and probably v. 21 as well) and the fact that the Lord is referred to in other than the first person in v. 20 that he is not the speaker of those verses. I have attempted to resolve the issue by having Jeremiah report the Lord ’s command in v. 17 and have the rest of the speech be essentially that of Jeremiah. It should be admitted, however, that the issue is far from resolved. Most English versions simply ignore the problem. The GNB (= TEV) is a rare exception.


Heb “Consider!”


Heb “Call for the mourning women that they may come and send for the wise/skilled women that they may come.” The verbs here are masculine plural, addressed to the people.


The words “And I said, ‘Indeed” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to try and help clarify who the speaker is who identifies with the lament of the people.


The words “They will wail” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation to make clear that this is the wailing that will be heard. sn The destruction is still in the future, but it is presented graphically as though it had already taken place.


Heb “How we are ruined!”


The words “I said” are not in the text. The text merely has “Indeed, yes.” The words are supplied in the translation to indicate that the speaker is still Jeremiah though he now is not talking about the mourning woman but is talking to them. See the notes on 9:17-18 for further explanation.


It is a little difficult to explain how the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) is functioning here. W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:311) may be correct in seeing it as introducing the contents of what those who call for the mourning women are to say. In this case, Jeremiah picks up the task as representative of the people.


Heb “Listen to the word of the Lord .” sn In this context the “word of the Lord” that they are to listen for is the word of the lament that they are to teach their daughters and neighbors.


Or “‘Death has climbed…city squares. And the dead bodies of people lie scattered…They lie scattered…but has not been gathered.’ The Lord has told me to tell you this.” Or “For death will climb…It will enter…It will take away…who gather in the city squares. So tell your daughters and neighbors, ‘The Lord wants you to say, “The dead bodies of people lie scattered…They lie scattered…has not been gathered.”’” The main causes of ambiguity are the particle כִּי ( ki ) introducing v. 21 and the verb form דַּבֵּר ( dabber ) at the beginning of v. 22 . כִּי may be interpreted as introducing a causal sentence giving Jeremiah’s grounds for the commands of v. 19 in which case the verbs would best be understood as prophetic perfects (as in the second alternate translation). Or it may be interpreted as introducing the content of the lament the women are to teach their daughters and neighbors (as in the translation adopted and in the first alternate translation). The form דַּבֵּר may be interpreted as a Piel masculine singular imperative addressed to Jeremiah (as in the first alternate translation where it is placed at the end for the sake of clarity) or as a Piel infinitive absolute either explaining what the woman are to teach their daughters and neighbors (as in the second alternate translation; cf. GKC 341 §113. h , i for this use of the infinitive absolute) or as equivalent to an imperative addressed to the women telling them to tell their daughters and neighbors the reason for the lament, i.e., the Lord ’s promise of widespread death (cf. GKC 346 §113. bb for this use of the infinitive absolute). The translation chosen has opted for v. 21 as the content of the lament and v. 22 as the further explanation that Jeremiah has the women pass on to their neighbors and daughters. This appears to this interpreter to create the least confusion and dislocation in the flow of the passage.


Or “Strong people should not brag that they are strong.”


Heb “…in their wisdom…in their power…in their riches.”


Or “fairness and justice, because these things give me pleasure.” Verse 24 reads in Hebrew, “But let the one who brags brag in this: understanding and knowing me that I, the Lord , do faithfulness, justice, and righteousness in the earth for/that I delight in these.” It is uncertain whether the Hebrew particle כִּי ( ki ) before the clause “I delight in these things” is parallel to the כִּי introducing the clause “that I, the Lord , act…” or causal giving the grounds for the Lord acting the way he does. In the light of the contrasts in the passage and the emphasis that Jeremiah has placed on obedience to the covenant and ethical conduct in conjunction with real allegiance to the Lord not mere lip service, it is probable that the clauses are parallel. For the use of כִּי to introduce clauses of further definition after a direct object as here see GKC 365 §117. h and see BDB 393 s.v. יָדַע Qal.1.a. For parallels to the idea of Yahweh requiring these characteristics in people see Hos 6:6 , Mic 6:8 .


Heb “Behold!”


Heb “punish all who are circumcised in the flesh.” The translation is contextually motivated to better bring out the contrast that follows.


Heb “all those who are cut off on the side of the head who live in the desert.” KJV and some other English versions (e.g., NIV “who live in the desert in distant places”; NLT “who live in distant places”) have followed the interpretation that this is a biform of an expression meaning “end or remote parts of the [far] corners [of the earth].” This interpretation is generally abandoned by the more recent commentaries and lexicons (see, e.g. BDB 802 s.v. פֵּאָה 1 and HALOT 858 s.v. פֵּאָה 1. β ). It occurs also in 25:33; 49:32 .


Heb “For all of these nations are uncircumcised.” The words “I will do so” are supplied in the translation to indicate the connection with the preceding statement. sn A contrast is drawn here between circumcision as a mere external cutting of the flesh and a sign of commitment to the covenant and the God of the covenant. The people of these nations practiced circumcision but not as a sign of the covenant. The people of Israel engaged in it as a religious practice but without any obedience to the covenant that it was a sign of or any real commitment to the Lord .


Heb “house of Israel.”


Heb “And all the house of Israel is uncircumcised of heart.”


Heb “Do not learn the way of the nations.” For this use of the word “ways” ( דֶּרֶךְ , derekh ) compare for example Jer 12:16 and Isa 2:6 .


Heb “signs.” The words “that occur” are supplied in the translation for clarity. sn The Hebrew word translated here “things that go on in the sky” ( אֹתוֹת , ’ otot ) refers both to unusual disturbances such as eclipses, comets, meteors, etc., but also to such things as the changes in the position of the sun, moon, and stars in conjunction with the changes in seasons (cf. Gen 1:14 ). The people of Assyria and Babylonia worshiped the sun, moon, and stars, thinking that these heavenly bodies had some hold over them.


Heb “statutes.” According to BDB 350 s.v. חֻקָּה 2.b it refers to the firmly established customs or practices of the pagan nations. Compare the usage in Lev 20:23 ; 2 Kgs 17:8 . Here it is essentially equivalent to דֶּרֶךְ ( derekh ) in v. 1 , which has already been translated “religious practices.”


The pronoun is plural in Hebrew, referring to the parts.


Heb “And it is not in them to do good either.”


The words “I said” are not in the Hebrew text, but there appears to be a shift in speaker. Someone is now addressing the Lord . The likely speaker is Jeremiah, so the words “I said” are supplied in the translation for clarity.


The form that introduces this line has raised debate. The form מֵאֵין ( me ’ en ) normally means “without” and introduces a qualification of a term expressing desolation or “so that not” and introduces a negative result (cf. BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b). Neither of these nuances fit either this verse or the occurrence in v. 7 . BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b. γ notes that some have explained this as a strengthened form of אַיִן (’ ayin ) which occurs in a similar phrase five other times (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:23 ). Though many including BDB question the validity of this solution it is probably better than the suggestion that BDB gives of repointing to מֵאַיִן ( me ’ ayin , “whence”), which scarcely fits the context of v. 7 , or the solution of HALOT 41 s.v. I אַיִן , which suggests that the מ ( mem ) is a double writing (dittograph) of the final consonant from the preceding word. That would assume that the scribe made the same error twice or was influenced the second time by the first erroneous writing.


Heb “Great is your name in power.”


Heb “Who should not revere you…?” The question is rhetorical and expects a negative answer.


Heb “For it is fitting to you.”


Heb “their royalty/dominion.” This is a case of substitution of the abstract for the concrete “royalty, royal power” for “kings” who exercise it.


Or “Those wise people and kings are…” It is unclear whether the subject is the “they” of the nations in the preceding verse, or the wise people and kings referred to. The text merely has “they.”


Heb “The instruction of vanities [worthless idols] is wood.” The meaning of this line is a little uncertain. Various proposals have been made to make sense, most of which involve radical emendation of the text. For some examples see J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 323-24, fn 6. However, this is probably a case of the bold predication that discussed in GKC 452 §141. d , some examples of which may be seen in Ps 109:4 “I am prayer,” and Ps 120:7 “I am peace.”


This is a place of unknown location. It is mentioned again in Dan 10:5 . Many emend the word to “Ophir” following the Syriac version and the Aramaic Targum. Ophir was famous for its gold (cf. 1 Kgs 9:28 ; Job 28:16 ).


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


The words “They are” are not in the text. The text reads merely, “the work of the carpenter and of the hands of the goldsmith.” The words are supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Blue and purple their clothing.”


Aram “The gods who did not make…earth will disappear…” The sentence is broken up in the translation to avoid a long, complex English sentence in conformity with contemporary English style.


This verse is in Aramaic. It is the only Aramaic sentence in Jeremiah. Scholars debate the appropriateness of this verse to this context. Many see it as a gloss added by a postexilic scribe which was later incorporated into the text. Both R. E. Clendenen (“Discourse Strategies in ,” JBL 106 [1987]: 401-8) and W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 1:324-25, 334-35) have given detailed arguments that the passage is not only original but the climax and center of the contrast between the Lord and idols in vv. 2-16 . Holladay shows that the passage is a very carefully constructed chiasm (see accompanying study note) which argues that “these” at the end is the subject of the verb “will disappear” not the attributive adjective modifying heaven. He also makes a very good case that the verse is poetry and not prose as it is rendered in the majority of modern English versions. sn This passage is carefully structured and placed to contrast the Lord who is living and eternal (v. 10 ) and made the heavens and earth (v. 12 ) with the idols who did not and will disappear. It also has a very careful concentric structure in the original text where “the gods” is balanced by “these,” “heavens” is balance by “from under the heavens,” “the earth” is balanced by “from the earth,” and “did not make” is balanced and contrasted in the very center by “will disappear.” The structure is further reinforced by the sound play/wordplay between “did not make” ( Aram לָא עֲבַדוּ [ la ’ ’ avadu ]) and “will disappear” ( Aram יֵאבַדוּ [ ye ’ vadu ]). This is the rhetorical climax of Jeremiah’s sarcastic attack on the folly of idolatry.


The words “The Lord is” are not in the text. They are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation here because of the possible confusion of who the subject is due to the parenthetical address to the people of Israel in v. 11 . The first two verbs are participles and should not merely be translated as the narrative past. They are predicate nominatives of an implied copula intending to contrast the Lord as the one who made the earth with the idols which did not.


Heb “At the voice of his giving.” The idiom “to give the voice” is often used for thunder (cf. BDB 679 s.v. נָתַן Qal.1.x).


Heb “from the ends of the earth.”


Heb “he brings out the winds from his storehouses.”


Heb “Every man.” But in the context this is not a reference to all people without exception but to all idolaters. The referent is made explicit for the sake of clarity.


Or “nothing but a phony god”; Heb “a lie/falsehood.”


Heb “There is no breath in them.” The referent is made explicit so that no one will mistakenly take it to refer to the idolaters or goldsmiths.


Or “objects of mockery.”


The words “The Lord who is” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity. For the significance of the words that follow them see the study note that follows. sn The phrase the portion of Jacob’s descendants , which is applied to God here, has its background in the division of the land where each tribe received a portion of the land of Palestine except the tribe of Levi whose “portion” was the Lord . As the other tribes lived off what their portion of the land provided, the tribe of Levi lived off what the Lord provided, i.e., the tithes and offerings dedicated to him. Hence to have the Lord as one’s portion is to have him provide for all one’s needs (see Ps 16:5 in the context of vv. 2, 6 and Lam 3:24 in the context of vv. 22-23 ).


Heb “The Portion of Jacob.” “Descendants” is implied, and is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “And Israel is the tribe of his possession.”


Heb “Yahweh of armies is his name.” sn For this rendering of the name for God and its significance see 2:19 and the study note there.


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


Heb “you who are living in/under siege.” The pronouns in this verse are feminine singular in Hebrew. Jerusalem is being personified as a single woman. This personification carries on down through v. 19 where she speaks in the first person. It is difficult, however, to reflect this in a translation that conveys any meaning without being somewhat paraphrastic like this.


The meaning of this last line is somewhat uncertain: Heb “I will cause them distress in order that [or with the result that] they will find.” The absence of an object for the verb “find” has led to conjecture that the text is wrong. Some commentators follow the lead of the Greek and Latin versions which read the verb as a passive: “they will be found,” i.e., be caught and captured. Others follow a suggestion by G. R. Driver (“Linguistic and Textual Problems: Jeremiah,” JQR 28 [1937-38]: 107) that the verb be read not as “they will find” ( יִמְצָאוּ [ yimtsa ’ u ] from מָצָא [ matsa ’]) but “they will be squeezed/ drained” ( יִמְצוּ [ yimtsu ] from מָצָה [ matsah ]). The translation adopted assumes that this is an example of the ellipsis of the object supplied from the context (cf. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 8-12). For a similar nuance for the verb “find” = “feel/experience” see BDB 592 s.v. מָצָא Qal.1.f and compare the usage in Ps 116:3 .