The MewCentury Bible " g^-c^, Jeremiah & W53 Lamentations DwisioQ Section THE NEW-CENTURY BIBLE JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS THE NEW-CENTURY BIBLE *GENESIS, by the Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D. *EXODUS, by the Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D. ^LEVITICUS AND NUMBERS, by the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy, M. A., D.D. *DEUTERONOMY AND JOSHUA, by the Rev. Prof. H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A. *JUDGES AND RUTH, by the Rev. G. W. Thatcher, M.A., B.D. *I AND n SAMUEL, by the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy, M.A., D.D. *I AND II KINGS, by the Rev. Prof. Skinner, D.D. «I AND II CHRONICLES, by the Rev. W. Harvey-Jellie, M.A.. B.D. *EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER, by the Rev. Prof. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., D.D. *JOB, by Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. *PSALMS (Vol. I) I to LXXII, by the Rev. Prof. Davison, M.A., D.D. *P3ALMS (Vol. II) LXXIII TO END, by the Rev. Prof. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., D.D. *PROVERBS, ECCLESTASTES, And SONG OF SOLOMOxN, by the Rev. Prof. G. Currie I^Iartin, iM.A., B.D. *ISAIAH I-XXXIX, by the Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A., D.D. *ISAIAH XL-LXVI, by the Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A , D.D. *JEREMIAH (Vol. I), by Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. •JEREMIAH (Vol. II), AND LAMENTATIONS, by Prof. A. S. Peake. M.A. , D.D. *EZEKIEL, by the Rev. Prof. W. F. Lofthouse, M.A. DANIEL, by the Rev. Prof. R. H. Charles, D.D. *MIXOR PROPHETS: Hosea, Joel, Amos. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, by the Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A., D.D. "MINOR PROPHETS: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, by the Rev. Canon Driver. Litt. D., D.D. •i. MATTHEW, by the Rev. Prof. W. F. Slater, M.A. *2. MARK, by the late Principal Salmond^ D.D. *3. LUKE, by Principal W. F. Adeney, M.A., D.D. *4. JOHN, by the Rev. J. A. McClymont, D.D. *«;. ACTS, by the Rev. Prof. J. Vernon Bartlet. M.A., D.D. *6. ROMANS, by the Rev. Prof. A. E. Garvie, M.A., D.D. *7. 1 and II CORINTHIANS, by Prof. J. Massie. M.A., D.D. *8. EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, PHILIPPIANS, by the Rev. Prof. G. CuRRiB Martin, M.A.. B.D. *o I and II THESSALONIANS, GALATIANS, by Principal W. F. Adenev, M.A., D.D. »io. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, by the Rev. R. F. HoRTO.v, M.A., D.D *ii. HEBREWS, by Prof A. S. PeAke, M.A.,D.D. ! *12. THE GENERAL EPISTLES, by the Rev. Prof.W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., I D.D. *i3. REVELATION, by the Rev. Prof. C. Anderson Scott, M.A., B D. I \_Those marked* are already publis/ied.] L — — General Editor : Principal Walter F. Adeney, M.A., D.D. J[eremia ani SamtntationB VOL. II JEREMIAH XXV to LII LAMENTATIONS INTRODUCTION REVISED VERSION WITH NOTES MAP AND INDEX EDITED BY A. S. PEAKE, D.D. YLANDS PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTEI/ TUTOR IM TUB PRIMITIVE METHOUIST COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, ANIJ LECTURER IN LANCASHIRE INDEPENDENT COLLEGE ; SOiMETUIE FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE, AND LECTURER IN MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD NEW YORK: HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMERICAN BRANCH EDINBURGH : T. C. & E. C. JACK The Revised Version is printed by pertJiission of the Universities of Oxford aftd Cambridge PREFACE In sending forth the second volume of this work I desire to renew my thanks to the scholars named in the Preface of the first volume, and add an expression of gratitude to those whose writings have been helpful for the Commentary on Lamentations, especially Lohr, Budde, and Cheyne. I am grateful for the cordial welcome which the first volume has received, and trust that its successor may be equally fortunate. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of meeting some criticisms which have been urged in a friendly spirit by two competent reviewers. Prof. Jordan {^Review of Theology and Philosophy^ vol. vi) thinks that it would have been an improvement to print the 'poems of Jeremiah' in parallel lines. But this would have been to depart from the practice which obtains in the series ; it would have made demands on space that could be ill afforded; and the permission to print the Revised Version hardly included the permission to rearrange it. And where a text has been so expanded by glosses as is often the case with ours, the attempt to indicate poetical struct- ure could not be satisfactorily carried through ; since the poetical form could not be indicated unless the glosses were removed from the text. But in a work Hke the present the editor has no right to tamper with the Revisers' text. What Prof. Jordan wishes is an admirable object in itself ; but could be legitimately attained only in an independent translation. On the criticism that too much space is taken up for the quotation of conflicting opinions I may say that my practice was adopted quite deliberately. It is an injustice to the student for an editor to impose his own view, which may be wrong, upon him, without vi PREFACE giving him warning that eminent authorities take a different view. And in a Commentary on Jeremiah it is specially incumbent on the writer to observe this rule, in view of the very important work recently done on the book, which is not accessible to the English reader ; of the new problems which have been raised ; and the fact that much information required by students in Universities and Colleges is as yet provided for them in English nowhere else. My friend Prof. Bennett finds my treatment of Jere- miah and the Chaldean party more one-sided than what I should have given in a more technical work {Review of Theology and Philosophy^ August, 19 1 1). Anything he said on an Old Testament subject would always claim my careful attention ; but especially would this be the case in a subject where he has himself done such admirable work. It is one of the misfortunes incident to the piecemeal publication of this work, that impres- sions have been made by the summary statement in the Introduction to the first volume, which would perhaps have been removed by the qualifications which are given in the second volume. I have left my notes on the episode of Hananiah as they were written before Prof Bennett's review appeared ; and I trust that he will feel that I have done full jus- tice to Hananiah's sincerity. But I cannot retreat from my conviction that Jeremiah (I say nothing of *the Chaldean party,' of which I know next to nothing) was entirely in the right in the policy he laid down. Here, I fear, there is a real difference between us ; but I hope my judgement is not warped by the hero-wor- ship to which I am happy to plead guilty. ARTHUR S. PEAKE. December 15, 191 1. CONTENTS JEREMIAH PACE Text of the Revised Version with Aknotations . 3 LAMENTATIONS Editor's Introduction 289 I. Position in Canon, and Title .... 289 II. Literary Form 289 III. Authorship and Date 292 IV. Selected Literature 297 Text of the Revised Version with Annotations . 3°^ Index 35i Map. The kingdoms of J udah and Israel . . at front THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH CHAPTERS XXV-LII REVISED VERSION WITH ANNOTATIONS II THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH [R] The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the 25 XXV. Judgement on Judah and the Nations at the Hand OF THE Chaldeans. With this chapter we return from the reign of Zedekiah to that of Jehoiakim. The fourth year of that monarch, to which the oracle is assigned, was a critical year not merely for the prophet and for Judah but for universal history. In it Jeremiah received his commission to collect all his prophecies, that the people might have an opportunity of escaping by amendment of life from the evil which Yahweh purposed against them. In this year, accord- ing to xlvi. 2 (though it may have been a year earlier : see note on XXV. i), the battle of Carchemish took place, in which the defeat of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar settled the contest between Egypt and Babylon for the rule of Western Asia in favour of the latter. This year was therefore critical not only for the Jews, since it trans- ferred them from the short-lived suzerainty of Pharaoh to that of Nebuchadnezzar, but for other peoples as well. It was fitting therefore that Jeremiah should at such a time gather up his teaching for one great cumulative appeal ; and we might anticipate that he would, as a prophet set over the nations (i. lo), embrace them also in his survey of the situation created by this decisive turn in the fortunes of his world. Such an anticipation seems to be justified by the present chapter, in which the prophet not only appeals to his long-continued warnings to Judah and predicts the vengeance of God upon it, but includes many peoples in his vision of judgement. But although the chapter seems to suit the historical situation, it presents numerous critical difficulties, which have excited such suspicion that several scholars have rejected its authenticity alto- gether, while others eliminate considerable parts of it. The most noteworthy fact about the chapter is that between 13 and 15 the LXX has inserted the oracles on the foreign nations, xlvi-li (xxv. 14 being absent in the LXX). The order in which these chapters are placed differs in the Hebrew and the Greek text, but this is a matter to be considered when these chapters are discussed. But the criticism of the present chapter is connected with that of xlvi-li in two ways. A denial of the Jeremianic origin of the B 2 4 JEREMIAH 25. i. K people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son oracles on the foreign nations tends to draw with it a rejection of XXV. And there is also the question whether these oracles originally stood in immediate connexion with xxv. The former of these questions cannot be profitably discussed at this stage ; it belongs rather to the examination of these oracles. It must suffice to say at this point that, while in their present form they contain not a little non-Jeremianic matter, they j'et have a genuine nucleus ; so that we may approach the present chapter without any prejudice against its authenticity derived from a similar con- viction with reference to the oracles on the nations. The second question, however, calls for attention here. It cannot be denied that this chapter is closely connected with the oracles on the nations. In both cases the same peoples to a large extent recur with considerable, though by no means complete, agreement in order. Further xxv. 13 refers definitely to a book in which a prophecy against Babylon is contained, and such a prophecy we have in 1-li. But is the position accorded to these oracles by the LXX after xxv. 13 original? In its present form xxv. 1-13 leads up well to such a series of oracles on the nations, and the reference to ' this book ' implies that a collection of oracles was appended. Moreover, the LXX takes the closing words of xxv. 13 as a title to this collection. Probably the Hebrew should also be interpreted in the same way (see note on 12-14). But, if so, we have definite evidence that at one time xlvi-li stood after xxv. 13 not only in the LXX but in the Hebrew text itself. It is nevertheless very improbable that this was its original position. The insertion of these oracles at this point tears xxv in two, separating sections that are really connected. Further, the vision of the goblet of Yahweh's wrath obviously cannot have followed the detailed prophecies on the nations. It leads up to them ad- mirably, but its effect is completely lost if it is placed after them. And it is questionable whether xxv. 1-13 was fitted in its original form to be an introduction to xlvi-li. Schwally (in Stade's Zeitschrift for 1888, pp. 177-217) has argued that the original text of 1-13 has undergone a revision in the LXX which has been carried a stage further in the Hebrew. Cornill, on the basis of Schwally's investigation, defends the position that it is only in this doubly revised form that the passage constitutes a good intro- duction to xlvi-li, and that the second revision was definitely intended to fit it for this purpose. If so, the same conclusion would result that xlvi-li did not originally follow xxv. 1-13. The validity of this last argument is rather a problem in the detailed exegesis of the passage, but the other arguments suffice to render it improbable that the oracles against the foreign nations are correctly placed in the LXX. JEREMIAH 25. i. R 5 of Josiah, king of Judah ; the same was the first year of What then was their original position ? In view of the fact that in the Hebrew they once occupied the same position as they now hold in the LXX, it is not an arbitrary suggestion that they were originally connected with xxv, a suggestion which is corroborated by the community of subject-matter. Since, however, they must follow rather than precede the vision of the goblet, we should pro- bably place them at the close of xxv in its original form. But this raises the further question as to the reason for their transposition from the close of xxv to the position they now hold in the LXX and once held in the Hebrew text. Cornill points out that a difficulty was created by the fact that the anticipations expressed in the vision of the goblet of Yahweh's wrath were not really ful- filled after Carchemish, so that it became advisable to detach the oracles on the nations from the vision, a course which was also recommended by the feeling in the later period that such a vision was too great to be treated as a mere description of political cata- strophes, and had to be brought into connexion with God's final judgement on the world. In confirmation of this he points to the working over which xxv. 15-38 has experienced. This has been in the direction of heightening the apocalyptic character of the passage, and turning it into a description of the Divine judgement on the nations as the later Jewish eschatology conceived it. But the vision as thus transformed no longer permitted the oracles on the nations with their relevance to the historical situation to stand as its explication, and this provided a further reason for removing them from their original connexion. The date in xlvi. 2, ' in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,' was identical with that in xxv, i, and occasioned the connexion with xxv. 1-13, from which, with the exception of the title, the oracles on the nations were subsequently removed to the position they now hold in the Hebrew text. The question as to the authenticity of the chapter still remains. Schwally, who has discussed it in connexion with xlvi-li, has pro- nounced against its genuineness, and the same view is taken by some other iicholars. As against 1-13 even in its earliest form he argues that it cannot be authentic, not only because it contains the most general ideas which would be suitable at any time, but because it does not contain any reflection on the possibility of repentance, which is never missing in Jeremiah's prophecies, not even in those which were uttered near the end of the siege of Jerusalem (p. 184). Cornill replies that this objection overlooks the difference between the situation in the fourth year of Jehoi- akim, and the close of Zedekiah's reign. In the former case it was an upheaval affecting the whole of Jeremiah's world, for which Judah had no responsibility ; in the latter case it was 6 JEREMIAH 25. 2. R 3 Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon ; the which Jeremiah a dispute between the king of Babylon and his rebellious vassal. Moreover, after Carchemish matters had turnedout quite differently from what might have been expected. It was natural to anticipate that Nebuchadnezzar would act with the same ferocity as other con- querors, and we can well understand that Jeremiah believed that at last the foe from the north had come to fulfil his long-deferred prophecies of judgement. But matters took an unexpected turn. Nebuchadnezzar after his victory at Carchemish learnt of his father's death, and had to return to Babylon, after concluding peace with Pharaoh. Thus Jeremiah, remembering the mercy of God in averting this catastrophe, could exhort his countrymen to reform even after Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance, whereas in 605 he had no reason to expect anything but the worst, and there- fore no longer called them to repentance. The genuineness of xxv. 15-38 is set aside on grounds similar to those which are urged against xlvi-li, and because Jeremiah is not allowed to be a prophet to the nations. Neither ground is conclusive ; for the former see the discussion of those chapters, for the latter what is said in vol. i, pp. 77, 78. Cornill pointed out in his Introduction to the Old Testament that the figure of the goblet of Yahweh's wrath is absent from the earlier literature, but after Jeremiah's time becomes prominent. Giesebrecht, who agreed that there was a genuine Jeremianic element in the passage, replied that Cornill had overlooked Nahum iii. ir. Cornill, however, does not admit that this passage, 'Thou also shalt be drunken,' has any reference to the cup of Divine anger, and still maintains that the currency which the metaphor received after Jeremiah's time points to its Jeremianic origin. Giesebrecht in his second edition repeats his objection without any reference to Cornill's reply. We may accordingly recognize a genuine element in both sections of the chapter. A discussion of the extent to which it has undergone editorial expansion may be left for the notes. xxv. 1-7. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim Jeremiah reminded his people how, since the thirteenth year of Josiah, he had urged them to abandon their evil way that they might dwell in the land, but they had refused to listen. 8-1 1. Therefore the northern people will come against their land and the surrounding peoples, and lay the land waste, and the Babylonian supremacy shall last seventy years. 12-14. Then after seventy years the king of Babylon shall be punished, and the land of the Chaldeans shall be desolate, accord- ing to all that is written in this book ; and many nations shall make them their servants. Thus Yahweh will requite them for their deeds. JEREMIAH 25. 3. R JS 7 the prophet spake unto all the people of Judah, and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying : [JS] From the 3 thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, 15-29. Yahweh bade me take from His hand the cup of His fury, and make the nations drink to whom He sent me. So I took the cup and made the nations drink it, beginning with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, then Egypt and other kingdoms. He told me to bid them drink and fall, never more to rise. And if they refused I must tell them in His name that they should surely drink, for He would begin His chastisement with His own city, and they should certainly not be spared. 30-33. Yahweh will roar against Judah, and shout as in the treading of the grapes against all the inhabitants of the world. The noise of battle is heard to the end of the earth, for Yahweh is contending with all flesh. Evil goes from nation to nation ; the slain of Yahweh shall lie unburied on the ground from end to end of the earth. 34-38. Let the rulers and nobles lament for their inevitable doom. Yahweh lays waste their abodes. He has left His retreat to ravage the land in anger. XXV. 1. The synchronism in the latter part of the verse may perhaps be original, but it is absent in the LXX and is probably the insertion of an editor. For the date of Nebuchadnezzar cf. xxxii. I, lii. 12, 2 Kings xxiv. 12, xxv. 8. Nebuchadnezzar was not actually king of Babylon when the decisive battle of Carchemish took place, but on the death of his father Nabopolassar, which occurred shortly afterwards, he succeeded to the throne. The synchronism seems to conflict with xlvi. 2. If the fourth year of Jehoiakim (604 B.C.) was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, we should apparently place the battle of Carchemish in 605, i.e. the third year of Jehoiakim. But it is very questionable if the synchronism in this verse can be trusted. 2. The LXX omits Jeremiah the prophet, reading simply which he spake. It was apparently added for the sake of clearness by a scribe who took the unnecessary precaution of explaining that Jeremiah, and not one of the three people mentioned after him, was the speaker. 3. The date, the thirteenth year of Josiah, is that of Jeremiah's call, as we learn from i. 2. The interval of twenty- three years was made up of nineteen under Josiah, three months under Jehoahaz, and the portion of Jehoiakim's reign which had elapsed at this time. The passage naturally suggests that during this period Jeremiah had exercised a continuous ministry, but this seems hardly to have been the case, for in the latter part of 8 JEREMIAH 25. 4, 5. JS S JS even unto this day, these three and twenty years, the word of the Lord hath come unto me, and I have spoken unto you, rising up early and speaking; [s] but ye have not 4 hearkened. And the Lord hath sent unto you all his servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them ; but ye have not hearkened, nor inclined your ear to hear ; 5 [JS] saying, Return ye now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings, and dwell in the land that the Lord hath given unto you and to your fathers^ Josiah's reign he appears to have kept silence. The expression accordingly ought not to be pressed. the word of the IJORD hath come unto me. This is absent in the LXX, and has apparently been introduced from i. 2. On the last clause of the verse, which similarly is absent in the LXX, see the next note. 4. This verse is rejected by several scholars as a gloss. The reference to the activity of the earlier prophets is out of place, where the question concerns the disobedience of Jeremiah's contemporaries to the message he proclaimed, for, as Cornill points out, however vain the work of earlier prophets had been, judgement would have been averted had the people repented at the preaching of Jeremiah. Besides, according to this verse the words which follow in 5, 6 are the words of Yahweh through these prophets, but 7 in its original form shows that they are Jeremiah's words, 'Ye hearkened not unto me,' as indeed we should expect from 3. With this verse we should also omit the closing words of 3, 'but ye have not hearkened,' which are omitted by the LXX, and thus restore the connexion of 5 with 3 in its original form. The verse is derived from vii. 25, 26, xi. 7, 8. The LXX continues 3 without change of subject, ' And I sent unto you all my servants.' The Hebrew * And Yahweh sent ' is clearly a correction ; this confirms the view that the verse is a later insertion. 5. saying*. According to the present text this must connect with 4*; and 4^ ('but . . . hear') must be treated as a parenthesis. But when 4 and the last clause of 3 have been struck out (see preceding note), it connects with ' I have spoken unto you,' &c. in 3, and introduces the content of Jeremiah's preaching. and dwell: expresses the consequence that will follow from obedience to the injunction ; true reformation will secure the permanent enjoyment of the land, which in Yahweh's original intention had been allotted to them as their perpetual inheritance. the LOBD hath given. The LXX ' I have given ' is probably JEREMIAH 25. 6-8. JS J 9 from of old and even for evermore : and go not after other 6 gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the work of your hands ; and I will do you no hurt. Yet ye have not hearkened unto me, 7 saith the Lord ; that ye might provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to your own hurt, [j] Therefore 8 not to be preferred. It is a correction of the Hebrew, carrying out more consistently the consequences of the insertion of 4, in which Yahweh is represented as the speaker. 6. Ccrnill treats this as an insertion, on the ground that the close of 5 forms a natural conclusion to the summary of the prophet's message, after which nothing more is to be expected. Duhm retains it, regarding the idea that the pre-exilic people was completely given up to idolatry as characteristic of the later supplementers of the book, to whom he assigns this chapter. It is not necessary, however, to strike it out, even if we hold fast a genuine Jeremianic element in the passage. Cornill's argument for deletion is quite inadequate, and Duhm's bias against the authenti- city of passages which denounce idolatry suffers from exaggeration. But the text needs correction. For 'provoke me not,' in which the LXX agrees with the Hebrew, we should read ' provoke not Yahweh,' the abbreviated form of the Divine name being misread as the pronominal suffix. Jeremiah thus continues to speak in his own person. Similarly at the close of the verse we should substi- tute for * and I will do you no hurt' the closing words of 7, * to your own hurt' (see note on that verse). V. The whole of the verse, with the exception of 'Yet ye have not hearkened unto me,' should be struck out, with the LXX. The insertion of 'saith the Lord' has been occasioned by the mistaken idea that Yahweh was the speaker ; the rest of the verse is simply a variant of 6'*, for which, however, we may be grateful since it has preserved the correct text of the closing words * to your own hurt.' By the aid of the LXX we have thus been enabled to restore a consistent text in which Jeremiah is the sole speaker and Yahweh is throughout referred to in the third person. ■ante me: i.e. Jeremiah. 8. Such then has been the tragic history of the prophet's ministry. For three and twenty years he has spoken to his people the message of Yahweh, bidding them repent and turn from their evil doings and idolatrous practices. But they have not listened to his words. What then remains ? The day of grace is past, the invitation to return is extended no longer. Yahv/ch Himself now pronounces the doom which such obstinate disobedi- lo JEREMIAH 25. 9. J thus saith the Lord of hosts : Because ye have not heard 9 my words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and / will send unto Nebu- chadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about ; and ence has so richly merited. The foe from the north, whose coming has been so long foretold, will now come indeed, and inflict the uttermost vengeance on the rebellious nation, in whose downfall the surrounding nations will be involved. 9. all tlie families : cf. i. 15. The LXX omits ' all ' and reads the singular (cf. v. 15, vi. 22) ; the Hebrew is preferable, since the omission of ' all ' in the Greek was probably due to its similarity to the following word, and the plural pronominal suffix ('them') favours a plural antecedent. On the other hand, the LXX is probably right in omitting 'saith the Lord,' which is unnecessary in an utterance of Yahweh. and I will send . . . my servant. This is rightly omitted by the LXX. The Hebrew is very awkward, and the subordinate position assigned to Nebuchadnezzar is hardly what we should expect. my servant: so called as the instrument of Yahweh's ven- geance, not of course as a worshipper of Yahweh. It is note- worthy that the LXX omits the title when applied to Nebuchad- nezzar elsewhere in the book (xxvii. 6, xliii. 10), probably because the translator objected to the designation of an idolater by so honourable a title. and against all these nations round about. Schwally, Bleeker, and Duhm strike out the whole clause. But while the prophet is naturally thinking of Judah in the first instance, the political situation drew the surrounding peoples with it. Jeremiah, it is true, seems, if this clause is genuine, to trace the overthrow of these nations to the guilt of Judah. But this is not unexampled : the storm which threatened to overwhelm Jonah, who represents Israel, and the heathen sailors in a common destruction, was due solely to Jonah's sin ; and a similar attitude is observable else- where. Jeremiah, like other prophets, was preoccupied with the sin of his own people and its punishment ; apparently he felt no problem to be raised by the overthrow of other peoples which he expected to accompany it. We should, however, follow the LXX in omitting * these,' and read simply 'the nations round about,' especially as the only nations hitherto mentioned are ' the families of the north,' who of course are not intended. JEREMIAH 25. lo. J ii I will ^ utterly destroy them, and make them an astonish- ment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations. More- lo * Heb. devote. I will utterly destroy them. The Hebrew means ' I will put them under the ban,' the ban being a sacred vow by which its object was devoted to utter destruction. Thus Achan brought disaster on Israel by ' a trespass in the devoted thing,' having appropriated gold, silver, and raiment from the spoil of Jericho (Joshua vii) ; while Saul is represented as rejected by God because he had not carried out the ban upon Amaiek, but had spared Agag and the choicest of the spoil (i Sam. xv). The expression is often used with reference to the extermination of Canaanites in Deuter- onomy and Joshua. It is questionable, however, whether the text is correct. The LXX reads * I will make them desolate,' which involves the change of a single consonant. It is not quite easy to choose between them, since, as Cornill points out, both verbs occur elsewhere in the book only in the non-Jeremianic section 1, li. He prefers the LXX, on the ground that the same root frequently occurs in Jeremiah, while the root of the alternative word does not occur. desolations. The LXX reads * reproach ' : cf. xxiii. 40, xxiv. g. In xxix. 18 the same three nouns, 'an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach,' are combined. It is on the whole proba- ble that we should read ' reproach ' here. It is true that we might suspect assimilation to xxix. 18 ; but in view of the similarity of the two words it is unlikely that the change is to be accounted for in this way, and it is much more likely that * reproach ' was changed into ' desolations' under the influence of the verb * I will make them desolate ' which occurs just before (see preceding note). 10. For the former part of the verse cf. vii. 34, xvi. 9, xxxiii. ir. But here we have a significant addition. For the voice of mirth and gladness, or of the bridegroom and the bride, might be hushed vhen the land was still thronged with inhabitants. The absence of joyful song and the sound of merriment would mean that a great sorrow was brooding over the people when feasting and marriage could not fitly be celebrated. But in times of the deepest dejection the urgent physical needs must be satisfied, the hand-mill must grind the daily supply of corn, the lamp must be lit as the darkness closes in. The sound of the grinding, which can be heard at a distance in the early morning, is the invariable sign of human life in the East, and even in the poorest home the lamp is indis- pensable. The deathly stillness when the harsh sound of the mill no longer falls on the ear, the darkness in which no light glimmers from the cottage, are infallible tokens that the land has been 12 JEREMIAH 25. ii. J over I will «• take from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle. And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment ; and these nations shall ^ Heb. cause to perish from them. stripped of its inhabitants. It is with the instinct of genius that the poet has seized on the absence of these signs to indicate the fate which is to overtake Judah and the surrounding peoples. In the Revelation of John the same signs are borrowed to describe the desolation of Babylon, i.e. Rome (xviii. 22, 23). millstones. The hand-mill consisted of two stones ; the ' nether millstone ' was stationary, the upper revolved upon it, being often turned by two women (Matt. xxiv. 41, Luke xvii. 35), one of whom fed the mill with her right hand through the hole in the upper stone. Deut. xxiv. 6 forbids the mill or the upper millstone to be taken in pledge, * for he taketh a man's life to pledge,' so indis- pensable was it to the provision of the daily bread. The LXX reads 'scent of myrrh.' The word rendered 'millstones' is the dual of a word very similar to that for ' scent,' and the Greek words for ' myrrh ' and ' mill ' are also very similar. The reading has no claim to be considered as original, but it apparently arose from both the causes mentioned, not simply from the latter. candle : rather lamp, as the R.V. usually renders. 11. and these nations shall serve the king' of Babylon seventy years. This is a difficult passage. The LXX reads simply 'And they shall serve among the nations seventy years.' It is probable that it correctly represents the original text in its omission of 'these' and 'the king of Babylon,' also that a retrans- lation of its text gives us the original Hebrew. It is questionable, however, whether the Greek translator rightly understood it. The Hebrew verb is used with the preposition rendered ' among ' in the sense 'to use as subjects' (literally 'to serve with :' Duhm compares the expression ' to work with cattle.' or ' work by means of). The phrase occurs in 14, where it is rendered 'shall serve themselves of : ' cf. xxvii. 7, xxx. 8, Ezek. xxxiv. 27, in xxii. 13 to use the service of. If this sense is to be maintained here, we must take the meaning to be that the foe out of the north will enslave the nations and keep them in bondage for seventy years. Against this it may be urged that the natural subject of the verb is not * the families of the north,' though with this translation they alone are suitable. Cornill argues forcibly that the LXX gives the true meaning, and that we need not combine the verb and preposition in the sense JEREMIAH 25. 12. JS 13 serve the king of Babylon seventy years, [s] And it 12 * to use as slaves,' but take the verb as used absolutely (as e. g. in ii. 20, ' I will not serve '), and the preposition as used in its local sense * among.' We thus learn what becomes of the inhabitants who have been torn from their homes : they are doomed to slavery among the nations. "The Hebrew text may have arisen through the desire to provide the verb with a subject, other passages per- haps co-operating (e.g. xxvii. 7% and 'the king of Babylon' was inserted to provide the verb w^ith an object. The prediction that the captivity would last seventy years is ♦ suspected as non-Jeremianic by many scholars, including some who regard the chapter as a whole as Jeremiah's, and admit his author- ship of the similar prediction in xxix. 10. It is remarkable that the latter passage was written several years later, in the reign of Zedekiah, and that the same number is mentioned there as here. But we need not be disturbed by this discrepancy, unless we insist that the number was meant to be taken literally. More probably we must regard it as a round number, just as the same period is described in xxvii. 7 as embracing the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar 'and his son, and his son's son.' Duhm considers that the author took it from Zech. i. 12, 'how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?' (cf. vii. 5). But it is more likely that Zechariah's reference to the seventy 3'ears was occa- sioned by his acquaintance ^vith Jeremiah's prophecy. The angel of Yahweh enforces his plea by the reminder that the seventy years which had been laid down in prophecy as the period of Jerusalem's humiliation had now expired. In any case the actual duration of the captivity was less than seventy years, if we assume that the first return of Jews took place in 536 b.c. Nor did the Babylonian supremacy last quite seventy years. Had the representation of the subjection to Babylon as lasting seventy years originated in the post-exilic period, we should have expected a closer agreement with history. At the same time it is not unlikely that the clause did not originally belong to this context, if the reconstruction of the original close of the oracle suggested in the next note is correct. 12-14. This passage is regarded by many scholars as a later insertion, and was so treated even by Graf (along with 11^) and by Hitzig (except for 14''), who had been preceded by not a few critics, while others rejected only 13. Orelli still substantially defends their authenticity, apart from 13^ A prophecy of Baby- lon's overthrow is not in place here. It is true that it does not link on badly to 11^, which, while it predicts a long captivity, suggests that a turn of fortune, such as the overthrow of Babylon, is to come at the end of seventy years. But it disastrously disturbs 14 JEREMIAH 25. 12. S shall come to pass, when seventy years are accompUshed, the connexion with 15 ff., which, introduced as it is by ' For,' must follow immediately on a prophecy of the overthrow of Judah and the surrounding peoples. Moreover, 13 in its present form is exposed to additional objections. It is quite unexampled for the prophet in the course of his prophecy to refer to himself in the third person, and the language implies that a book of prophecies containing the oracle on Babylon, presumably 1-li. 58, lay before the writer. But this oracle on Babylon is not from the pen of Jere- miah, and even li. 59 fF. contains a narrative from the time of Zedekiah, whereas our chapter belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim. As a whole then 12-14 must be regarded as a later insertion. But the question must still be raised whether the whole passage needs to be struck out. While some scholars treat 13 as itself an inser- tion within an insertion, Schwally and Cornill have argued that part of it belongs to the original structure, to which it is also referred by Rothstein. It is obvious that the closing words, with their reference to Jeremiah in the third person, cannot be part of the prophecy. But the LXX is probably correct in taking them as the title of the prophecies against the foreign nations (xlvi-li), which once stood here in the Hebrew text as they do now in the LXX. If we take out the words * What Jeremiah prophesied concerning the nations' (omitting 'all,' with the LXX), the rest of the verse might belong to Jeremiah's prophecy if we supposed the original reference in * that land ' to have been to Judah rather than to Babylon. In this case the ' book ' will presumably be the book in which Jeremiah had collected his prophecies during the three and twenty years of his ministry, i. e. the roll written at his dictation by Baruch and burnt by Jehoiakim. We may thus assume that in its original form this section of the chapter closed with II*, 13**^: 'And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment ; and I will bring upon this land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book.' We have thus a conclusion which better corresponds to the beginning, in which Jeremiah speaks of the words he has for so long been proclaiming to his people. And the vision of the wine-cup links well to the passage in this restored form. 12. The verse should run in the briefer form presupposed by the LXX, ' And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish (Heb. visit) that nation ; and I will make it desolate for ever.' The verse is based on xxix. 10, where Yahweh promises to ' visit ' His people, i.e. in mercy. The author of this verse keeps the same word, but uses it in the sense to 'punish.' The expression 'desolate for ever' is literally * perpetual desolations j ' it comes apparently from the oracle on JEREMIAH 25. 13-15. SJRSJ 15 that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans ; and I will make it ^ desolate for ever, [j] And 13 I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, [R] which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations, [s] For many nations and great kings ^ shall serve 14 themselves of them, even of them : and I will recom- pense them according to their deeds, and according to the work of their hands. [j] For thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, unto me: '5 * Heb. everlasting desolations. ^ Or, have served themselves or, made bondmen Babylon, li. 26, 62 : cf. xlix, 33, Ezek. xxxv. 9 (from v^^hich it may have been originally derived). 13. See note on 12-14. 14. Since the closing words of 13 constitute in the LXX a title to xlvi-li, v^^hich immediately follows, there is no place for 14 and it is omitted. But inasmuch as the oracles against the foreign nations once stood in the same position in the Hebrew text, we may infer that 14 and 12, which is inseparably connected with it, were introduced into the Hebrew text after xlvi-li had been removed to the end of the book. 14* is derived from xxvii. 7^ Hitzig took 14^ to be the continuation of ii*^, but Graf pointed out in reply that the expressions in it seemed to be borrowed from the oracle on Babylon, 1. 29, li. 24: cf. 1. 15, li. 6, 56. serve themselves of them. This expression occurs in xxii. 13, where it is rendered * to use the service of; ' it means here to employ them as slaves ; so xxvii. 11, xxx, 8. See note on 11. 15. We now come to the striking vision of the wine-cup of Yahweh's fur}', which is linked closely to the preceding section by * For' (naturally omitted by the LXX). Duhm recognizes that the conception itself is worthy of a Jeremiah, and that the passage itself would be if the author's gift of expression had been on a level with the conception. This objection may perhaps be met by the elimination of insertions ; Duhm's further objection that the conception itself cannot be Jeremiah's, since he was no prophet to the nations, has been sufficiently dealt with already (see vol. i, PP- 77> 7^)- The giving of the draught to the nations can be thought of only as a transaction in the mind of the prophet, since an actual visit to the nations is out of the question, and like the i6 JEREMIAH 25. 16-18. JJS Take the cup of the wine of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. 16 And they shall drink, and reel to and fro, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them. 17 Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me : iS [JS] /^z£;/V, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings view that he gave the wine to their assembled ambassadors, could occur only to a degraded literalism. It is not, however, a mere allegory, but a psychic experience, in which Jeremiah really seems to himself to be forcing the goblet on the nations which he enu- merates. It thus falls into the same category as similar instances in Ezekiel. the wine of this fury. The second noun is in apposition to the first, explaining what ' the wine ' really is. The LXX reads * of this unmixed wine ' (cf. Ps. Ixxv. 8), and Duhm and Erbt prefer this. Cornill thinks no explanation was needed, and that one of the words should be struck out. Since no one would have thought of inserting 'wine* if the original text had been * cup of fury,' he reads ' take this cup of wine.' Rothstein goes a step further, and reads simply ' take this cup,' impoverishing the des- cription for the prosaic scruple that the cup does not actuallj' contain wine. He compares Isa. li. 21, ' drunken, but not with wine.' 16. The effects caused by the drinking of this mystic wine are now described. The nations reel under the shock of disaster, and are helpless in perplexity and dismay. At the close of the verse the figure is spoiled by the intrusion of the reality, if the sword intended is that of the foe ; and even if it be * the sword of the Lord,' the unity of the description is disturbed by this alien element. It should therefore be omitted. It has been inserted probably from 27. 18-26. The following list can hardly in its present form be attributed to Jeremiah. An enumeration of the peoples to which the cup was given is quite in place, but the list has been swollen by later additions. In 20 the LXX omits 'and all the kings of the land of Uz ; ' in 24 either ' and all the kings of Arabia ' or ' and all the kings of the mingled people;' in 25 'and all the kings of Zimri.' In each case the LXX is probably correct. Since all are characterized by the phrase 'and all the kings of,' Giesebrecht, with the concurrence of Cornill, uses this phrase as a criterion of additions. The original catalogue he takes to have included Judah, Egypt, Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tema, Buz, and JEREMIAH 25. iy,2c. JS 17 thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desola- tion, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse ; as it is this day ; Pharaoh king of Egypt, and his servants, and his 19 princes, and all his people ; and all the mingled people, 20 and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Ashkelon, and Gaza, and 'those that have the corners of their hair polled.' In several cases the phrase 'all the kings of has no very intelligible meaning, for it is prefixed to cities or countries which had only one king. Besides we have ' all the kings of the Philistines ' mentioned, and then in addition to them 'Ashkelon, and Gaza, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod,' i.e. Philistia is enumerated twice. 18. The closing words, ' as it is this day,' must be an addition, made after the State had been overthrown and Jerusalem laid in ruins. It is possible that they were inserted by Jeremiah himself or Baruch, but hardly probable, for they are not in the LXX. Perhaps all after ' Judah ' is an insertion ; ' the kings thereof is suspicious. Cornill, who takes this view, thinks that originally Pharaoh headed the list. This would correspond to the historical fact that he was the protagonist in the conflict with Babylon, and it was his defeat at Carchemish which formed the decisive turning- point in the history of the period. Judah had only a subordinate part to play, her fate depended on that of Egypt. If this were the original order, the placing of Judah at the head of the list would be due to a scribe who did not tolerate that his country should be anything but first — even in punishment. 19. If the view that ' all the kings of is in each case a sign of later insertion is correct, Egypt is the only one of the heathen nations whose king is mentioned. But that is quite natural in view of the tremendous significance attaching to his overthrow (see preceding note"). The princes are perhaps the petty kings of Egypt who regarded the Pharaoh as their suzerain. 20. and all the miug'led people. This clause (deleted by Giesebrecht and by Cheyne, Enc. Bib. 3099) should go with the preceding verse : it includes the foreigners who had settled in Egypt, who while retaining their own nationality were subject to Egyptian rule. and all the kings of the land of Uz. This clause is omitted in the LXX, and its position in the enumeration is surprising. It is apparently an insertion. On the situation of Uz see the editor's note on Job i. i, also on 23 in the present chapter. It was closely connected with Edom. and aU the kings of the land of the Philistines. The LXX II C i8 JEREMIAH 25. 21-23. JS 21 Ekron,and the remnant of Ashdod; Edom,and Moab,and 22 the children of Ammon ; and all the kings of Tyre, and all the kings of Zidon,and the kings of the ''^isle which is be- as yond the sea; Dedan,and Tema,and Buz, and all that have * fOr, coastland omits * the land of,' but the whole clause is an insertion, since it duplicates in a summary way what follows. Of the five cities of the Philistines Gath is not mentioned. Amos (i. 6-8) similarly omits it, and the same is true of Zeph. ii. 4, Zech. ix. 5, 6. the remnant of Ashdod. This Philistine city had, we learn from Herodotus (ii. 157), been captured and destroyed by Psammetichus (king of Egypt 666-610 b. c.) about a quarter of a century previously, after a siege of twenty-nine years. The ' remnant ' means the few miserable survivors. ' We can imagine that he would not be disposed to lenient dealings with the town upon its capture' (Cheyne, in the Pulpit Commentary). The town was in existence again in the age of Nehemiah, who complacently plumes himself on the ferocity with which he treated his countrymen who had married women of Ashdod, and whose * children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language ' (Neh. xiii. 23 ff.). The city was captured in the Maccabean period by Judas Maccabaeus (i Mace. v. 68), andagain by Jonathan (i Mace. x. 84), but it is not reasonable to suppose that the reference is to either of these events. 22. This verse is struck out by Giesebrecht and Cornill on the ground already mentioned, of the formula ' all the kings of.* The omission of Phoenicia may seem surprising, but it is absent from the list in ix. 25, and from xlvi-li. The * coastland which is beyond the sea ' seems, on account of its association with Tyre and Zidon, to be the Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean Sea and on its coasts. The LXX reads simply ' the kings beyond the sea,' 23. Dedan and Tema were North-Arabian tribes, which are mentioned as neighbours in Isa. xxi. 13, 14. The latter, which is also referred to in Job vi. 19, where it is coupled with Sheba, is according to Gen. xxv. 15 an Ishmaelite clan. Its home was about 250 miles to the south-east of Edom, and is to be identified with Teima. Dedan (xlix. 8, where it is connected with Edom : cf. Ezek. xxv. 13) is described in Gen. x. 7 along with Sheba, with which it is elsewhere associated (Ezek. xxxviii. 13), as a Hamitic people of Cushite stock. It is referred to as a trading people in Ezek, xxvii. 15, 20. Buz, according to Gen. xxii. 21, is represented as a son of Nahor and brother of Uz, and Gen. x. 23 makes Uz a son of Aram. These data point to Naharina as the home of JEREMIAH 25. 24, 25. JS S 19 the corners of their hair polled ; [S] and all the kings of 24 Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the wilderness ; and all the kings of Zimri, and all 25 both. But other data connect Uz with Edom (especially Gen. xxxvi. 28, Lam. iv. 21, and the fact that Job's friend Eliphaz was a Temanite), and the present verse strongly favours a similar situation for Buz, to which Elihu belonged (Job xxxii. 2% On the whole question see the note on Job i. i. For the 'corner- clipped' people see on ix. 26. 24. In the unpointed Hebrew text * and all the kings of Arabia ' is identical with ' and all the kings of the mingled people,' so that of the two clauses one should be struck out as due to mistaken repetition. The LXX read only one, taking it in the sense of the latter. ' The mingled people ' is a term difficult to interpret in this connexion ; on the analogy of 20 it should mean people of foreign stock who lived among the tribes just mentioned. But we should adopt the other clause, reading the verse ' And all the kings of Arab that dwell in the wilderness.' The rendering * Arabia ' is unfortunate, since all that is covered by the term here is one or more tribes in North Arabia. It never in the O.T. means Arabia in our sense of the term. We may perhaps illustrate this passage from Isa. xxi. 13, but it is dubious whether the word there is a proper name. The whole verse is treated as an insertion by Cornill ; Giesebrecht retains * and the Arabs who dwell in the wilderness.' 25, 26. The rest of the description is struck out by Giesebrecht and Cornill, not merely on account of the formula 'and all the kings of,' but to some extent on the LXX evidence, and largely on the ground of contents. The wider and wider sweep of the enumeration stamps the verses as coloured by the later eschatology. and all the kings of Zimri. This is absent in the LXX. Zimri is quite unknown ; it has commonly been identified with Zimran, the son of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2). But this is very dubious, nor do the cuneiform inscriptions give us any trustworthy information. Curiously it is marked as east of the Tigris on the map of Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia in the Enc. Bib., and on the map of Mesopotamia. Duhm makes the interesting suggestion that the word may be a cypher for a name at which the writer only dared to hint, such as '■ Romans,' which has the same numerical value. This, however, would imply a very late date for the insertion, and although we have a cypher in the next verse, it is not natural to look for one here. If the text is correct, we must resign ourselves to ignorance. Gomer (Ezek. xxxviii. 6) would be an easy emendation, but it is doubtful whether it would be suitable here, in spite of the eschatological hue of the passage. C 2 20 JEREMIAH 25. 26. S 26 the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes ; and all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another ; and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth : and the king of ^ Sheshach shall drink * According to ancient tradition, a cypher for BabcL See ch. li. 41. Since this note was written the editor has seen that Rost and Peiser had previously suggested the same emendation in the form * Gomeri ' or ' Gimirri.' Elam: see on xlix. 34. It lay beyond the Tigris, east of Babylonia, south of Assyria and Media, and reaching to the Persian Gulf on the south. Its combination with Media here is interesting in the light of Isa. xxi. 2, which was probably written shortly before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Cf. also Isa. xxii. 6. all the king's of the north. This is not a very suitable addition, since the * families of the north ' are those who are the agents of Divine vengeance, but it is accounted for by the eschatological interest, which is still more evident in the following clause in which a universal judgement is announced, whereas a selection of nations is implied in the prophet's commission ; * the nations to whom I send thee' (15, cf. 17). one with another. The words may be taken with ' far and near ' to mean whether they are near to or far from one another, or they may mean one after another. of the world. The LXX omits this. It is not only unneces- sary but ungrammatical in the Hebrew. and the king" of Sheshach shall drink after them. Sheshach is a secret mode of writing Babel : cf. li. 41. The cypher employed here and in li. i, 41 is known as Atbash, since the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet was interchanged with the first, the last but one with the second, the last but two with the third, and so on. When thus interpreted Sheshach is read Babel. It is employed here either because at the time this verse was inserted it was dangerous to speak of the fall of Babylon in plain language, or because the writer had the apocalyptic fondness for mysterious designations. In view of the freedom with which Babylon is mentioned in prophecies of its downfall towards the close of the exile, and especially of the use of Babel in the same breath with Sheshach in li. 41, the former motive seems not to have operated. We may accordingly assume that it was chosen under the latter impulse, but also because the name contained in itself a congenial sugges- tion. To the Hebrew ear the name would suggest * humiliation.' The clause cannot well have belonged to Jeremiah's original prophccj', though it may be granted that some of the objections which may be urged against la, 14 are not applicable here, and it JEREMIAH 25. a-, 2S. S 21 after them. And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith 37 the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel : Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you. And it shall 28 be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of is by no means incredible that Jeremiah, who anticipated a restoration for his people after seventy years, should have appended a prophecy of Babylon's overthrow. It is not likely, however, that he would have done so at the time when the prophecy was first written, or on its republication after the des- truction of the roll. It is, moreover, probable that the clause was not written by Jeremiah at all. The objection that after the enumeration of the lands which have to drink the cup has been closed by the general statements in the earlier part of the verse, it is unfitting that a definite kingdom should be mentioned, is of little moment. For it lies in the nature of the case that if Babylon is the instrument of this universal judgement, the king of Babylon must be the last to drink ; and it is the very opposite of unfitting that he should be definitely mentioned at the close, corresponding to Pharaoh at the beginning of the list. And this argument has no weight if we have already denied to Jeremiah the rest of the verse. All we could infer from it, if it were sound, would be that the last clause of 26 was not from the same hand as the rest of the verse ; but unless we claim the earlier part of the verse for Jere- miah, it has no bearing on the Jeremianic origin of its conclusion. Nevertheless this is rendered improbable by its absence from the LXX, by the connexion of the passage with 1-li, and by the use of a cypher which smacks of apocalyptic rather than prophecy, and is unexampled in Jeremiah's genuine writings. How old the Atbash cypher is we do not know. 2'7-29. It is surprising, after we have learnt in 17 that the prophet had made all the nations drink to whom Yahweh had sent him, to find the drinking regarded as something still lying in the future, which the nations may try to resist. Moreover from 17 onwards Jeremiah is the speaker, while here it is Yahweh, though no indication of the change is given. It would largely meet these difficulties if we could transpose these verses and bring them into connexion with 15, 16. And the points of contact between 16 and 27 may seem to favour this. "We must not press the * unaesthetic description ' in 27 against Jeremianic authorship, in view of such passages as Isa. xxviii. 8, Hos. vii. 5, to say nothing of 2 Pet. ii. 3, and the caution we need constantly to bear in mind that we must not apply our canons of taste to ancient authors. But 28, 29 can 22 JEREMIAH 25. 29, 30. S 29 hosts : Ye shall surely drink. For, lo, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished ? Ye shall not be unpunished : for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the 30 earth, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore prophesy thou hardly be from the pen of Jeremiah. The thought that the nations might refuse to drink is in itself strange, in view of the visionary character of the experience. We have at the close of 29 the same universal scope of the judgement which we have met with in 26. But even more incompatible with Jeremiah's attitude is the point of view from which 29 is written. Is it credible that the prophet, who proclaims with such tremendous energy the inexcusable character of Judah's sin, and represents it as unparal- leled among the heathen (ii. 10, 11), should have said that since Judah was punished, the nations should not escape ? The language suggests, if it does not imply, a favouritism towards Israel which the pre-exilic prophets from Amos onwards earnestly oppose. It is written rather from the standpoint represented by the Second Isaiah, from which Judah was regarded as relatively innocent in contrast with the heathen, though the great prophet of the exile drew a different inference. He says that the sufferings of the comparatively innocent' Israel are vicariously borne to atone for the guilt of the heathen. The author of 28, 29 regards it as intolerable that Judah should suffer alone ; if Judah is punished, a fortiori the rest of the world. In xlix. 12 the thought recurs in a form still more extreme. But 28, 29 cannot stand alone, they need 27. Verses 27-29, however, cannot very well be thrust in before 17 ff., and the last clause of 27 is as inconsistent with Jere- miah's authorship in this verse as in 16. Accordingly it is best to regard 27-29 as a later insertion unskilfully made at an inappro- priate point. 29. which is called by my name : see vii. 10. 30-38. A more poetical style is here resumed, but grave doubts may be urged against Jeremiah's authorship of the passage. It is very imitative in character, and the eschatological tendency is very pronounced. 30. The opening of the poem seems to have been imitated from Amos i. 2, ' Yahweh shall roar from Zion , and utter his voice from Jerusalem ' (cf, Joel iii. 16). Amos continues, ' and the pastures of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither.' This may have suggested the word rendered ' fold ' (marg. ' pas- ture') and the mention of the 'shepherds' later in the passage. Here, however, Yahweh utters His lion-like roar ' from on high,' *from His holy habitation,' i.e. from His heavenly temple. He JEREMIAH 25. 31, 32. S 23 against them all these words, and say unto them, The Lord shall roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation ; he shall mightily roar against his '^fold; he shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes^ against all the inhabitants of the earth. A noise 31 shall come even to the end of the earth ; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh ; as for the wicked, he will give them to the sword, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts. Behold, evil shall go 32 * Or, pasture thunders against His pasture or homestead, i. e. the land of Judah, where His flock is feeding. In the latter part of the verse the figure changes and the judgement embraces all the earth. Instead of the lion roaring against the homestead, we have the vintage shout of the grape traders. The word rendered 'shout' which bears this particular application is used similarly in the oracle on Moab, Isa. xvi. 10, and in its expansion Jer. xlviii. 33. Here it is a vintage shout, but Yahweh is treading human grapes, and the wine is the blood of men, as in Lam. i. 15 and the powerful but terrible description of the judgement on Edom in Isa. Ixiii. 1-6. See further on xlviii. 33. According to the present text, it is all the inhabitants of the earth that are in Yahweh's winepress, but Duhm may be right in regarding this clause, which has no parallel line, as an insertion. In any case the universal scope of the judgement is attested by what follows. 31. Cf. Isa. iii. 13, 14, The noise is apparently the crash of battle which resounds to the ends of the earth. The last clause does not mean that the wicked among the heathen are to be given to the sword, for the judgement falls on the heathen as such. Judah is involved in the catastrophe, but possibly the writer may intend to suggest that righteous Jews will not be slain. For ' plead ' we should substitute ' contend ' (see ii. 9). 32. The latter part of the verse is taken from vi. 22, but 'tem- pest ' is substituted for ' nation : ' cf. xxiii. 19, xxx. 23. Duhm thinks the meaning is that at the instigation of Yahweh one people falls on another, till all are destroyed. But perhaps the words mean no more than that the storm of judgement strikes one nation after another. The instrument of judgement is a foe from the uttermost parts of the earth, a phrase which probably bears a different sense here than in vi. 22, the author's geographical hori- zon being more remote. He has no definite people in his mind, 24 JEREMIAH 25. 33-35. S forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest shall be 33 raised up from the uttermost parts of the earth. And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth : they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they 34 shall be dung upon the face of the ground. Howl, ye shepherds, and cry ; and wallow yourselves in asheSj ye principal of the flock : for the days of your slaughter are fully come, ^ and I will break you in pieces, and ye shall 35 fall like a pleasant vessel. And ^the shepherds shall ■ Or, and I will disperse you Many ancient versions read, and your dispersions. ^ Heb. flight shall perish from the shepherds, and escape from dr'c. but it was natural to suppose that the unknown races which dwelt on the earth's rim might play the part the Scythians were expected in earlier periods to play. 33. In * that day,' the apocalyptic Day of the Lord, * the slain of Yahweh' (Isa. Ixvi. 16) will lie strewn on the ground, right across the world ; none will survive to utter the lamentation, to perform the last offices. 34. The ' shepherds ' are, as often elsewhere, the rulers ; the * principal of the flock ' are their chief subjects. wallow yourselves : cf. vi. 26. and I will break you In pieces. The form in the text is anomalous, and the versions give no satisfactory sense. Probably ' to break in pieces ' is the sense intended rather than 'to scatter,' which is unsuitable to the context, while the alternative sense does suit the reference to the pleasant vessel. Since the latter, however, is due to a textual corruption (see next note), we should probably strike out the word, which is not read by the LXX, a pleasant vessel. The shattering of a costly vessel is in itself a very appropriate metaphor, but it can hardly be correct here, since it introduces an incongruous element, and this applies also to Graetz's emendation ' a vessel of clay ' (cf. xviii, xiii. 13, 14). The passage throughout employs the metaphor of a flock and its shepherds, and the LXX reads 'rams' instead of 'vessel.' Two easy emendations of the Hebrew would be possible on this basis, but it would be better to read with Duhm ' rams of slaugh- ter.' He compares ' flock of slaughter,' Zech. xi. 4, 7, all the more that he thinks this portion of Zechariah served the author as a model in other respects. 36. Based on Amos ii. 14. JEREMIAH 25. 36— 2G. i. SB 25 have no way to flee, nor the principal of the flock to escape. A voice of the cry of the shepherds, and the l^ howling of the principal of the flock ! for the Lord layeth waste their pasture. And the peaceable folds are 37 brought to silence because of the fierce anger of the Lord. He hath forsaken his covert, as the lion : for 3S their land is become an astonishment because of "- the fierceness of the oppressing szvordf and because of his fierce anger. [B] In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son 26 * fOr, according to some ancient authorities, the oppressing sword See ch. xlvi. 16. 36. Cf. Zech. xi. 3. 38. The text seems to mean either that Yahweh has been forced by the devastation of Judah to abandon His land, just as the lion is forced by the destruction of his lair, or that He has left His 'holy habitation ' to lay waste the earth, as a lion leaves his lair to attack the flock. But the thought is in either case very imperfectly expressed, and we should, with most recent commentators, strike out the particle of comparison and read 'the lion leaves his covert' or 'lions leave their covert,' i.e. the lions are forced out of their lairs by the destruction of the jungle : cf. Zech. xi. 3. the fierceness of the oppressing' sword. The Hebrew is incorrect. The margin gives the true reading, which is that of the LXX andTargum and some Hebrew MSS., is attested by xlvi. 16, 1. i6, and involves a very slight change in the Hebrew. and becanse of his fierce anger. This clause is omitted in the LXX, but is required b}- the parallelism. The pronoun has, it is true, no antecedent ; perhaps none was felt to be needed ; but the defect is readily remedied if we read ' the fierce anger of Yahweh,' as in 37, which with the abbreviated form of the Divine name would be very like the present text. xxvi. Jeremiah, at Grave Risk of his Life, Threatens THAT THE TeMPLE WILL BE DESTROYED. With this chapter we begin a series of extracts from the biography of Jeremiah, which we may with confidence assign to Baruch, and which with some interruptions extend to xlv. This is not to say that the biography has not been used for earlier sections of the book, but from this point it is the leading source. 26 JEREMIAH 26. r. B of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the Lord, The narrative in the present chapter refers, as most critics recog- nize, to the same occasion as that on which the address recorded in vii was delivered. Both contain the emphatic declaration that unless the people amend their ways Yahweh will make the Temple like Shiloh, and both represent the address as delivered to all Judah at the Temple itself. While vii reproduces the address itself, xxvi is mainly occupied with the circumstances in which it was delivered, especially its sequel. It is of great importance for the light it throws on the prophet's fidelity to his mission, which led him to face the extreme consequences, and on the attitude to the temple which characterized the official and popular religion of the time. The chronological note at the beginning is valuable, in view of the weighty character of the address. There is no occasion to doubt its accuracy, according to which we should date the event in 608 B.C. or thereabouts. Duhm thinks of Jehoiakim's coronation. At that time the crisis was over. Josiah, it is true, was dead, Jehoahaz dethroned, the suzerainty of Egypt established. Yet the State remained, the dynasty of David held the throne, the people were still suffered to dwell in their own country and their own homes. The Temple stood, they could still look at it as a fetish guaranteeing their security (vii. 4), and declare that they were delivered (vii. 10). A somewhat later date, however, would also fit these conditions. The coronation day would not be the time most appropriate for such an address, and had it been delivered then, we might have expected Baruch to mention it explicitly. xxvi. 1-6. Yahweh bids the prophet stand in the Temple court and proclaim to Judah His word, since repentance may avert the punishment He purposes to inflict. He is to tell them that unless they hearken to His word. He will make the Temple like Shiloh, and Jerusalem a curse to all nations. 7-9. When Jeremiah had delivered his message, the priests and prophets threatened him with death for proclaiming the destruction of the Temple and city. 10-15. The priests and prophets accuse Jeremiah to the princes and people as worthy of death for prophesying against Jerusalem. Jeremiah replies that Yahweh has bidden him speak all these words. He exhorts them to amend their life, in which case Yahweh will repent of the evil He has spoken. As for himself, they must act as they think well ; only if they kill him they will bring innocent blood on themselves and the city, since all he has spoken he has been commanded by Yahweh to speak. 16-19. The princes and the people decide that Jeremiah is not worthy of death, since he has spoken in Yahweh's name. Some JEREMIAH 2G. 2, 3. B 27 saying, Thus saith the Lord : Stand in the court of the 2 Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them ; keep not back a word. It may be they will hearken, and turn every 3 of the elders remind the people that Micah had foretold tlie destruction of the city and Temple. But Hezekiah, so far from putting him to death, besought Yahweh's mercy and the punish- ment was averted. 20-24, Uriah similarly prophesied against Jerusalem and Judah. Jehoiakim sought to kill him, but he escaped into Egypt. Thereupon Jehoiakim sent to Egypt to fetch him, and when he was brought back killed him, Ahikam, however, protected Jeremiah, so that he was not put to death. 1. It is characteristic of Baruch to insert dates at the beginning of his narratives, so that we are far better informed with reference to the time at which many of the events occurred than with reference to the dates at which several of the discourses were uttered, came this word. The Syriac adds ^ to Jeremiah.* The LXX agrees with the Hebrew in omitting it, and its insertion by the Syriac is easy to account for, since the passage is abrupt without it ; but this very abruptness is itself a reason for regarding the words as original, and their omission as due to accident. 2. the court of the LORD'S house: cf. xix. 14. unto all the cities of Judah. We should probably strike out * the cities of,' with the LXX ; it seems to be a reminiscence of xi, 6. In vii. 2 we have ' Hear the word of Yahweh, all Judah.' The occasion was apparently a festival when the people from the country districts and other towns of Judah came up to Jerusalem and assembled at the Temple. To the people, thus trusting, in spite of their recent disasters, in the Temple as the guarantee of Yahweh's presence and protection, the prophet is sent with his unwelcome message. keep not back a word. As the sequel showed, the message was one which the prophet could deliver only at the risk of his life. He was therefore exposed to the temptation of modifj'ing or omitting the sterner portions of it. Accordingly in this instance the warning is repeated, which he had received as a general instruction at the outset of his ministry, ' speak unto them all that I command thee' (i. 17). For the expression here (literally as A,V. * diminish not a word ') cf. Dcut. iv. 2, xii, 32, 3. turn every man from his evil way. Observe the individu- alizing form of the expression. 28 JEREMIAH 2G. 4-6. B man from his evil way ; that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of 4 their doings. And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord : If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in 5 my law, which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I send unto you, even rising up early and sending them, but ye have 6 not hearkened ; then will I make this house like Shiloh, that Z may repent me. Even now repentance and reform may avert the meditated judgement. For the principle cf. xviii. 8, and its most beautiful expression in the Book of Jonah. Ezekiel applies it to the individual (Ezek. xviii. 21-23, 27, 28, xxxiii. 11- 20). The anthropomorphic assertion of God's repentance is not uncommon in the Old Testament from Gen. vi. 6 onwards. 4-6. Duhm says that Baruch could not have written a single word of these verses. The reason seems to be that Jeremiah could not have made the deliverance of the people dependent on obedience to the Law, in view of what he says in viii. 8, 9, and Baruch also must have known that the audience, and the priests and prophets in particular, were the most zealous adherents of the Law. It may be granted that at the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign Jeremiah would probably not have regarded an adhesion to Deuteronomy as completely satisfying his religious ideal. He had, we may well believe, been disillusioned as to the value of the Reformation. Yet the religious and moral requirements of Deuteronomy as distinguished from the ritual regulations must have still seemed to him largely valid, and if we can trust, as in the present writer's judgement we confidently may, the report of the address in vii, we have there a catalogue of the sins of Judah, which obedience to the Deuteronomic Law would have brought to an end. We may then regard the words as quite genuine, even on the assumption that * my law ' refers to the Book of the Law on which the Reformation was based. But this interpretation may not be necessary. The parallel clause, ' to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets,' probably provides us with the true explanation, so that we should take the word rendered ' law ' in the earlier non-technical sense of instruction, as in Isa. i. 10. where 'the word of Yahweh' is parallel to ' the instruction of our God,' and the reference is to the prophetic utterance which follows. 5. rising* up early and seudlnef : cf. vii. 13, and elsewhere. 6. like SMloh : see vii. 12-14. JEREMIAH 26. 7, s. B 29 and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth. And the priests and the prophets and all 7 the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the Lord. And it came to pass, when 8 a curse to all the nations. The meaning is not, of course, that the ruined cit\- will prove a curse to the nations, but that it will furnish them with so telling an example of utter destruction that they will employ it in their imprecations of disaster on their enemies, invoking on them a destruction similar to that which had befallen Jerusalem. This forms a contrast to the promise, * In thee shdl all the families of the earth bless themselves ' (Gen. xii. 3 : cf. xxii. 18), which means that in their invocations of blessing upon themselves the nations will utter the wish that they may be as blessed as Abraham (cf. iv. 2). 7. Jeremiah had taken up a position in which the whole of those who had gathered for the assembly at the Temple could hear his words. This audience included, in addition to the great body of the people, the official representatives of religion, the priests and prophets, but not the princes (see lo'. 8. Jeremiah was heard without interruption to the end. This would be due not so much to the reverence in which the people held him, as to the fact that their dearest prejudices were not violated apparently till the close of the address. Denunciation of sin and threat of punishment were quite in order ; Jeremiah was following here the path already taken b}- his predecessors and him- self. To predict the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was to touch the susceptibilities of the people in the tenderest point: cf. vii. 4. That it was bitterly resented by priests and prophets goes without saying; to them it would seem to be blasphemy, the penalty for which was death : cf. the case of Stephen (Actsvi, vii). The statement that ' all the people ' joined the priests and prophets in the arrest of Jeremiah and threat of the death-penalty creates a difficulty. According to 11, the priests and prophets alone lay the charge against him, and the people are coupled with the princes as those before whom the accusation is brought ; and similarly in 12-15 Jeremiah treats the people as judges rather than accusers. In 16 they unite with the princes in giving a verdict of acquittal. If the words ' and all the people ' belong to the original text, we must suppose that they are not to be literally taken, and that while the multitude or a section of it assailed the prophet, he sub- sequently won them over to his side. This would harmonize with the well-known fickleness of the crowd, which is peculiarly sus- ceptible to suggestion, and with the fact that in 24 it is said that Ahikam protected Jeremiah so that he was not given * into the 30 JEREMIAH 26. 9-1 1. B Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people 9 laid hold on him, saying, Thou shalt surely die. Why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, saying, This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant ? And all the people were gathered unto Jeremiah in the house of the Lord. And when the princes of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king's house unto the house of the Lord ; and they sat in the entry of the new gate of 1 the Lord's house. Then spake the priests and the pro- hand of the people to put him to death.' But this was probably at a later period. It would be better to omit * and all the people ' here as a mistaken insertion from the enumeration in the preced- ing verse. 9. The gravity of Jeremiah's offence did not lie simply in the content of his message, but also in his claim that so blasphemous an utterance was prompted by Divine inspiration. The priests and the prophets infer the origin of the utterance from its charac- ter ; the princes and people accept Jeremiah's claim to have spoken in Yahweh's name seriously, and judge its character in that light. The statement at the end of the verse confirms the view that * and all the people ' should be deleted in 8. Apparently the priests and prophets seized Jeremiah at the close of his address, and then the people crowded round the prophet and his accusers. 10. the princes of Judah. These were apparently members of the royal house, together it may be with other high officials. They had perhaps been at the king's council, but they came up to the Temple on learning of the tumult. A messenger may have brought the news, or they may have heard the noise themselves, since the palace was close to the Temple, standing, as ' they came up ' indi- cates, on a somewhat lower elevation. When they arrived they sat in the gate to administer justice in the case. the new gate. The identification is uncertain. It is often identified with that mentioned in xx. 2, and the designation ' new gate' is explained on the assumption that it was * the upper gate' built by Jotham (2 Kings xv. 35). 11. When the judges had taken their seat the complainants stated their case. The words *ye have heard with your ears' is JEREMIAH 26. 12, 13. B 31 phets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy of death ; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears. Then spake 12 Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying. The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. There- 13 fore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God ; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you. applicable only to the people, since the princes were not present at the assembly. This man is worthy of death. It is not clear whether the Hebrew (cf. Deut. xix. 6) means this man has committed a capital offence, or this man deserves the death sentence. The material difference is inconsiderable : the religious authorities demand the death of the prophet on the same charge of blasphemy on which their successors judged Jesus to be worthy of death and perpetrated the execution of Stephen. But although the question whether Jeremiah's utterance constituted blasphemy was one on which an ecclesiastical court would pronounce a presumably expert decision, the final decision happily did not rest with priests and prophets but with princes and people. In the pre-exilic period the representatives of religion were not entrusted with the mischievous powers which they later acquired. 12-15. In a few noble and simple words Jeremiah makes his defence. In a sentence he reaffirms his claim to have been charged by God with the message he has just delivered. He renews his exhortation to amendment, and promises that judge- ment will be then averted. Of his own case he speaks neither with heroics nor unmanly entreaty. He recognizes the legal right of the tribunal to execute him, and confronts the prospect without theatrical defiance on the one hand or abject cowardice on the other, but with a serene expression of his willingness to accept the verdict his judges pronounce. Only he would be doing less than his duty were he so proudly to refuse all comment on his own case, that he failed to point out what a crime they would commit in slaying one, whose only fault had been his faithfulness in executing the commission his God and theirs had given him. It is a great scene which here passes before us, in which the prophet's bearing is wholly worthy of himself, and in which we do well to observe his unshaken conviction that his message had been entrusted to him by God Himself. 32 JEREMIAH 26. 14-17. B 14 But as for me, behold, I am in your hand : do with me 15 as is good and right in your eyes. Only know ye for certain that, if ye put me to death, ye shall bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent 16 me unto you to speak all these words in your ears. Then said the princes and all the people unto the priests and to the prophets : This man is not worthy of death ; for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. 1 7 Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake 16. The princes and people have a wider outlook and more freedom from narrow prejudice than the official custodians of religion. They are impressed with the calm bearing and simple dignity of the prophet, and with his firm confidence in his Divine commission. They acquit him on the ground that he has spoken to them in the name of Yahweh. Not indeed that the mere claim to have done so would have been held sufficient. But they are swayed by the impression made on them by the man himself, and by the reflection that a prophet who proclaims an unpopular message at the risk of his life gives thereby ample security for his sincerity. Reading the message through the man rather than the man through the distastefulness of the message, they recognize that God is really its author, and that His spokesman must be permitted to say what apart from such a source would have been regarded as blasphemous. 1*7. The decision to acquit the prophet is now corroborated by an appeal to precedent. The ' elders of the land ' may perhaps be an official title, standing for the heads of families throughout Judah. They had a legal status, and constituted an important element in the community and its organization. But the phrase may indicate age rather than status. If so, the meaning is that some of the old people, especially from the country districts (* the land '), related the story of Micah's drastic prediction as it had come down to them in their traditions. Micah was himself a countryman and a man of the people, unlike the aristocratic Isaiah of Jerusalem, and his words were more likely to be cherished among the countryfolk, whose attitude towards a prediction of the capital's downfall would be less bitter than the reception accorded it in the capital itself. There is no good reason for doubting the accuracy of the story told by ' the elders.' JEREMIAH 26. i8. B 33 to all the assembly of the people, saying, ^ Micaiah the * Another reading is, Mt'ca/t. See Micah i. i. " 18. Micaiah. The form Micah read by the Q^re is that familiar to us in the Book of Micah itself, but it is an abbreviated form. Even Micaiah is abbreviated from the older Micayahu. Micah was a contemporarj' of Isaiah, and a native of Moresheth-gath, which is said to have been near Eleutheropolis, and should probably be distinguished from Mareshah. His prophecy was uttered about a hundred years earlier. It is reported here and in Mic. iii. 12 with almost complete verbal agreement. It was as uncompromising as the denunciation for which Jeremiah had just been charged with a capital crime. It is only fair to recognize, however, that the situation had altered. In the interval Isaiah's doctrine of the inviolabilit}' of Zion had been vindicated by Sennacherib's overthrow and had hardened into a dogma ; while the centralization of the worship had left the Temple as the sole seat of the cultus of Yahweh. The offence caused by Jeremiah was therefore greater than that caused by Micah. For in the reign of Hezekiah Jerusalem had no ecclesiastical monopoly, and it might have been destroyed without the cult of Yahweh coming to an end. But now the Temple was the only legitimate seat of the cultus, so that its destruction seemed to carry with it far more serious consequences than formerly. The reference to Micah is one of great interest, in view of the almost complete absence of similar allusions in the prophetic literature. Jeremiah does not himself name any of the eighth- century prophets, deeply though he had been influenced by them, and especially by Hosea. Ezekiel and Jeremiah do not mention each other, though Ezekiel was much influenced by his senior contemporary and shared his pessimistic estimate of Judah's character and imminent ruin, while Jeremiah was actually in correspondence with the exiles among whom Ezekiel a few years later began to labour. Here the reference is made by the people, and its preservation is due to Baruch. The quotation here has an important bearing on the problem raised by the prophecy in Mic. iv. 1-3, which is found also in Isa. ii. 2-4. The passage in Micah follows immediately on Mic. iii. 12 which is here quoted. If this was its original situation, it follows that the passage was uttered bj' Micah in the reign of Hezekiah, assuming the chronological trustworthiness of the statement in this verse. Various explanations are given of the inclusion in both Isaiah and Micah of this prophecy. Some think it was independently derived from an older prophet, some that it was original with one of these and borrowed by the other or inserted by an editor, others regard it as a post-exilic oracle inserted in II D 34 JEREMIAH 26. 19. B Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah ; and he spake to all the people of Judah, say- ing, Thus saith the Lord of hosts : ^ Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. [9 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the Lord, and intreat the * See Micah iii. 12. both books. The commentaries on Isaiah and Micah must be consulted for a discussion of this question (the present writer inclines to the view that the oracle is post-exilic) ; here it is necessary simply to draw attention to the bearing on it of the present passage. If we could assume that Mic. iv. 1-3 was originally attached to Mic. iii. 12, we should then be able to affirm that the passage was certainly no later than Hezekiah's reign. It is, however, most unlikely that this was the case. Our present narrative shows clearly that Micah's prediction was one of unrelieved disaster, which was not fulfilled simply on account of the king's repentance and prayers. the mountain of the house : i. e. the summit on which the Temple was built. the high places of a forest. The LXX reads the singular, which should probably be adopted, especially since the singular as written at this time would be indistinguishable from the plural. The term * high place of a forest ' may simply mean ^ a wooded height,' i.e. the Temple will be destroyed and its site covered with trees. But possibly it may be used in the technical sense of 'sanctuary,' and in that case the meaning will be that in place of the splendid building which is now the exclusive sanctuary of Yahweh, thronged from all parts of Judah, there will be simply a forest sanctuary, some rude structure to which only the few dwellers in the sparsely populated district would resort. Roth- stein thinks that the LXX rendering ' grove ' presupposes a different Hebrew text, and reads ' the thicket {lisbakh) of a forest' or ' the thickets of a forest,' as in Isa. ix. 17. 19. This result of Micah's preaching is otherwise unknown to us, but there is no reason to doubt its historicity. It accords with the principle expressed in xviii. 7, 8 (see the note) that timely repentance may avert a threatened judgement. Notice the con- junction of Judah with the king in the infliction or withholding of the death penalty. We should probably continue with plurals (so LXX, Syr., Vulg.), ' did not they fear,' &c. intreat the favour. The Hebrew means literally * smooth the JEREMIAH 2G. 2c. B 35 favour of the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them ? Thus should we commit great evil against our own souls. And there 20 was also a man that prophesied in the name of the Lord, face,' i.e. mollify. This very anthropomorphic expression was probably a technical term in the sacrificial vocabularj', meaning to soothe the deity by an offering, and thus remove the frown which wrinkled his face. Presumably it was far more ancient than the Hebrew p>eople, but it is remarkable that in the prophetic litera- ture it appears very late, being found elsewhere only in Zech. vii. 2, viii. 21, 22, Mai. i. 9. Thus should we commit: i.e. if we put Jeremiah to death. The Hebrew is more vivid, ' But we are committing.' It was an evil to shed innocent blood, a graver evil when it was the blood of Yahweh's messenger. But their guilt would be aggravated, since they had the precedent of Micah before them. The penitence of king and people had received the stamp of the Divine approval, manifested in the remission of penalty. If Jeremiah is murdered they will only be sealing their own death-warrant. The narrative is not formally concluded, but we are intended to understand that Jeremiah leaves the scene unhurt, though if glances could kill he would doubtless have fallen a victim to the envenomed hatred of his bafiBed adversaries. souls : better lives. 20-23. See vol. i, p. 17. This episode is related to show how grave was the risk which Jeremiah ran. The source of the narrative is uncertain, but in all probability we owe it to Baruch. Cornill suggested in his edition of the Hebrew text that the passage should be placed after 24. It is true that it joins on awkwardly to 19 ; the reader would at first suppose that the elders of the land were still speaking, but soon sees that this is out of the question. But 24 also would connect badly with 16-19. Jeremiah is saved from imminent death by the verdict of the princes and people, endorsed by ' the elders of the land ' with their appeal to ancient precedent. The reference to Ahikam as his supporter, who stood between him and death, cannot accord- ingly refer to this scene. It follows 20-23 quite well ; the point of its insertion is that, while Uriah fell a victim to the pertinacious enmity of the king, Jeremiah escaped. We know nothing further of Uriah than we learn from this passage. Apparently he went beyond Jeremiah and attacked Jehoiakim, presumably somewhat later, since Jeremiah's utterance at this time which Uriah repeated was more drastic than anything he had said before. D 2 36 JEREMIAH 26. 21, 22. B Uriah the son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim ; and he prophesied against this city and against this land accord- 21 ing to all the words of Jeremiah : and when Jehoiakim the king, with all his mighty men, and all the princes, heard his words, the king sought to put him to death ; but when Uriah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and 2 2 went into Egypt : and Jehoiakim the king sent men into Kiriath-jearim. The site of this city is not certain ; Robinson's identification with Qaryet el-*Enab (or, as it is now more commonly called, Abu Ghosh), which is a few miles north-west of Jerusalem on the road to Jaffa, is that most commonly adopted. Some prefer Khirbet 'Erma, near Bet 'Atab. The place is chiefly famous as for twenty years the home of the ark (i Sam. vii. 2). 21. with all his migfhty men: omitted in the LXX, perhaps correctly, as the expression is not employed elsewhere in the book. he was afraid . . . Eg-ypt : cf. Exod. ii. 14, 15, i Kings xi. 40. But while Moses was safe from Pharaoh in Midian, and Jeroboam from Solomon in Egypt, Uriah could not escape from Jehoiakim, the vassal of Egypt. The king sent to his suzerain to request the extradition of the prophet. 22. Elnathan . . 1 Egypt. The LXX omits these words, and in the judgement of several scholars, including Orelli, correctly. In xxxvi. 12 he is mentioned as one of the princes, who heard Baruch read the roll of Jeremiah's prophecies. He was also (xxxvi, 25) one of the three who entreated the king not to bum the roll. It is urged that a man who took this stand would not be likely to have played the part here assigned to him. Moreover the present text, with its repetition of ' into Egypt,' is undeniably awkward. It is not easy, however, just in view of the former difficulty, to understand how any scribe should have selected Elnathan for such a mission. Probably the disputed words are authentic, in which case we might with advantage omit ' men into Egypt,' which has apparently arisen by incorrect repetition of the same words from the latter part of the verse. The LXX was presumably made from the present Hebrew text after this expan- sion by dittography had taken place ; the omission of 22** was then either accidental, the scribe writing as far as * Egypt ' in 22*, and his eye passing to the same word at the end of the verse, or deliberate and occasioned partly by the awkwardness of the text, partly by the same consideration, which has weighed with modern scholars, that Elnathan, who had pleaded for the preservation of the roll, was hardly the man to have fetched Uriah from Egypt. But we must not overrate the significance of either action. In the JEREMIAH 20. 23, 24. B 37 Egypt, namely^ Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him, into Egypt: and they fetched forth Uriah 23 out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king ; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the ^ common people. But the hand of 24 ■^ Heb. sons of the people. latter he was simply the king's agent, who must do his master's bidding ; and if Uriah had attacked the king, Elnathan may well have justified his action to himself as bringing to his merited fate a man guilty of high treason. Nor does the entreaty that the roll should not be burnt imply any definite adhesion to the prophetic party. Superstition might have prompted it just as well as enlightened religion. Even pirates dread the bad luck which the mutilation of a Bible might bring with it. If he is to be identified with the Elnathan mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 8, he was the father of Nehushta, one of Jehoiakim's wives and the mother of Jehoia- chin. As the king's father-in-law he would be well suited for a diplomatic mission to Egypt. Achbor. According to 2 Kings xxii. 12, 14 he formed part of the deputation sent by Josiah to Huldah to learn Yahweh's will with reference to the Book of the Law. The name means ' mouse ' ; it is noteworthy that animal names seem to have become prominent about this period, Shaphan (24) meaning ' rock- badger.' See Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 98, 103, 113-5. 23. Extradition was apparently a well-recognized feature of international politics. Jehoiakim's application would be all the more favoured that he had been appointed by Egypt, and any attack on him would be regarded as inimical to her interests in Judah. the graves of the common people. This is unquestionably the correct text ; the LXX reads 'of his people.' But it is intrin- sically improbable that the prophet should be buried in his family grave, and the LXX testifies against its own reading by retaining * cast.' The king's vengeance pursued his victim after he was dead. He did not indeed give him 'the burial of an ass' which was later predicted for himself Txxii. 19), but he deprived him of the burial with his fathers which was so much prized by every Hebrew (see Enc. Bib. 5138, and note on xxii. 18, 19 . Those who were too poor to possess a family grave had to be buried in the common burial-ground, since it would, at any rate in earlier times, have seemed a desecration to admit strangers into the family tomb. Where the public burial-ground was situated we do not know, but from 2 Kings xxiii. 6 we may infer that it was near 'the brook Kidron.' 24. While this was the fate of Uriah, Jeremiah was preserved, 38 JEREMIAH 26. 24—27. i. BBS Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiahj that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put him to death. 7 [BS] In the beginning of the reign of ^ Jehoiakim the * Properly, Zedekiah, as in some ancient authorities. See vv. 3, 12, 20, ch. xxviii. i. perhaps at the same time, by the powerful influence of Ahikam. Like Achbor, Ahikam had been a member of the deputation to Huldah after the discovery of the Book of the Law, if we can assume his identity with the Ahikam mentioned in 2 Kings xxii. 14. He was the father of Gedaliah, who worthily continued the family tradition. It is questionable whether Shaphan is to be identified with Shaphan the scribe, who was another member of the deputation, since we should naturally expect the name of the father to precede that of the son in the list of those who formed it (2 Kings xxii. 14). In view of the fact that the people had pro- tected Jeremiah the latter part of the verse is surprising. But the mob is proverbially fickle, and the prophet's enemies would no doubt seek to retrieve their defeat by playing on its prejudices. xxvii-xxix. Jeremiah Contradicts the Predictions of a Speedy Return from Exile. These chapters are closely connected not only by community of subject-matter in that all three are directed against the optimists who hoped to reverse the disaster of 597 b. c, but in that they unite in exhibiting certain peculiarities which suggest that at one time they circulated independently. They show a preference for the shortened termination in -yah, instead of -yahu, of names compounded with the Divine Name. The longer forms also occur, and in some cases both types appear side by side in the same verse. Nevertheless the proportion of the shorter to the longer form is characteristic, and it is noteworthy that the prophet's own name appears several times in these chapters in the shortened form, but nowhere else in the book. It is also striking that whereas in the rest of the book the designation * the prophet' is appended to Jeremiah in little more than a sixth of its total occurrences, here it is used fairly frequently, i.e. in xxviii, xxix. It ought to be said, however, that this is not so significant as it seems, since Jeremiah is here definitely represented as in conflict with the prophets, so that the addition of the designation has a special appropriateness, particularly in xxviii, where he and the prophet Hananiah, who also is constantly so described, confront JEREMIAH 27. i. BS 39 son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word unto Jeremiah each other. Even so it must be acknowledged that it is a pecuh- arity of this section. Further, whereas elsewhere in Jeremiah except xxxiv. i, xxxix. 5, which is derived from 2 Kings, the more accurate form Nebuchadrezzar is always found, in this section the later form Nebuchadnezzar is employed eight times, the more correct form only once (xxix. 21). Lastly, the LXX diverges from the Hebrew in these chapters to a quite exceptional degree. Graf, in his careful discussion, has reduced the significance of these phenomena by reference to parallels, but the combination of peculiarities is too great to be explained by the carelessness of copyists. We should have to explain why this cause did not operate on a similar scale elsewhere. Giesebrecht suggests that these chapters may have been copied out for circulation among the exiles in Babylon, and having thus an independent existence were affected by causes which did not affect the rest of the book. Duhm, while admitting not a little of the chapters to be derived from the memoirs of Baruch, yet considers that they were inserted in the book much later than the greater part of xxxii-xlv. The position of these chapters after xxvi may be due to the fact that here also Jeremiah's gloomy predictions of ruin are vehemently opposed by the prophets. xxvii, xxviii. Jeremiah Contradicts the Optimism of the Prophets in Judah. These chapters are linked together by the account they give of Jeremiah's attack on the optimistic forecast of the prophets in Judah that the Babylonian dominion would soon be ended and the Temple vessels be restored. In xxvii the prophets are referred to collectively, while in xxviii we read of Jeremiah's encounter with an individual representative of the order. Yet there are note- worthy points of difference : xxvii is written in a much more diffuse style than xxviii, though the former exists in the LXX in a much more abbreviated form ; xxvii is written in the first person, xxviii almost entirely in the third ; xxvii is introduced by a very general indication of time which contains the palpable blunder of Jehoiakim for Zedekiah, whereas an exact date stands at the head of xxviii. Moreover xxviii. i by the words ' it came to pass the same year' implies that a year has been mentioned in xxvii, but that is not true of the present text. It is probable that the two chapters in their original form constituted a single connected narrative from the pen of Baruch, in which Jeremiah was referred to in the third person. The statement in xxviii. i that the incidents recorded in xxviii belonged to the same year as those recorded in xxvii is not only obviously correct but compels us to insert the year at the beginning of xxvii. Since xxvii. i is absent 40 JEREMIAH 27. 2. BS 2 from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord to me : in the LXX and does not correspond to what xxviii. i entitles us to expect, we should eliminate it as a mere repetition of xxvi. i ; and substitute for it, with Cornill who is followed by Duhm, the greater part of xxviii. i*, reading 'And it came to pass in the fourth yearof Zedekiah, kingof Judah, in the fifth month, that this word came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh, saying.' Chap, xxvii has also experienced a good deal of expansion, which we can trace partially by the aid of the LXX. It may be added that Rothstein reconstructs the original order substantially as follows : xxviii. 1-9, xxvii. 2-4, 12'', 8-11, xxviii. 10-17, xxvii. 16-22, though it must be borne in mind that these portions have to be taken as Baruch's work only when the additions of later redactors have been removed. This rearrangement is certainly ingenious, but it involves excessive transposition, and it is doubtful whether, apart from this, it presents a more probable view as to the order of the incidents. In spite of Schmidt's verdict that the story of the bands and yokes is 'scarcely historical' {Enc. Bib. 2387), there seems to be no solid ground for doubting the general accuracy of the narrative. That in the fourth year of Zedekiah (594-593 b. c.) a movement to throw off the Babylonian yoke was on foot among the states of Palestine enumerated in xxvii. 3 is exposed to no suspicion in itself, and it is confirmed by the fact (if we can regard it as such) that Zedekiah went to Babylon in the same year (li. 59). He may have gone voluntarily to clear himself of the suspicion that he had meditated rebellion, or he may have been summoned there by Nebuchadnezzar. The coincidence can hardly be accidental. Further, Cornill raises the question whether the fact that Pharaoh Necoh died in 594 may have occasioned the movement in Palestine, since it may have been thought that his successor Psammetichus II would adopt a different policy from his father, who was bound by his agreement with Nebuchadnezzar. In any case Psammetichus was prevented by his war with Ethiopia from attacking Babylon, and by this cardinal fact of the situation Cornill explains the failure of the coalition to effect anything. Nothing could be attempted without the promise of support from Egypt, and, as that was not forthcoming, the Palestinian movement against Babylon came to nothing. We have no substantial grounds for assuming that Zedekiah was in any way committed to the coalition, though he was obviously in danger of yielding to the pressure from within and without. How far Jeremiah's influence co-operated with the conditions of the period to bring about the failure of the plot we are not in a position to say, nor whether the fulfilment of his prediction of Hananiah's death did much to persuade the leaders in Judah that he saw more clearly than they 'JEREMIAH 27. 2. BS 41 Make thee bands and " bars, and put them upon thy '^ See Lev. xxvi. 13. did what the issue of rebellion would be. It is a gratifying sign of a return to a less prejudiced attitude towards the predictive element in prophecy that scholars so free from traditional bias as Giesebrecht, Duhm, and Cornill, should affirm their full belief in the statement of xxviii. 17 that Jeremiah's prediction of Hanan- iah's death within the year was fulfilled. xxvii. i-ii. Yahweh bade me make bands and bars, and send word to the five kings by the messengers they had sent to Zede- kiah, that Yahweh the Mighty Creator had given all these lands into Nebuchadnezzar's hand, and all nations should serve him and his successors, till the time of retribution on his dynasty should come. The nation that refused to submit to him should be con- sumed. Let them not listen to the lying predictions of freedom, which can end only in exile and death. The nation that will serve the king of Babylon shall be left undisturbed in its own land. 12-15. ^ warned Zedekiah also to submit, so as to live and not die, and refuse to listen to the prophets who say in Yahweh's name that they should serve the king of Babylon. They prophesy falsely, and ruin will be the portion of those who obey their behests. 16-22. I warned the priests and people not to believe the prophets who foretold that the Temple vessels would soon be restored, but to serve the king of Babylon and save themselves and the city. I challenged them if they were really Yahweh's prophets to pray that the vessels which were still left should not be taken to Babylon. For Yahweh has said that those which Nebuchadnezzar had not taken when Jeconiah was carried into captivity should be taken to Babylon and remain there till He restored them. xxviii. i-ii. Hananiah the prophet announced to Jeremiah at the Temple, before the priests and all the people, that Yahweh had declared that He had broken the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, and that within two years He would bring the Temple vessels, with Jeconiah and all the exiles. Jeremiah replied that he wished it might be so, but that the older prophets had prophesied of disaster, and the prophet of peace could be recognized as truly Yahweh's messenger only when his word had been accomplished. Then Hananiah broke the bar from Jeremiah's neck, and said that thus Yahweh would within two years break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar from the neck of all the nations. Then Jeremiah went his way. 12-17. Then Yahweh bade Jeremiah tell Hananiah that bars of iron should replace the wooden bars he had broken. For He had put an iron yoke on the neck of the nations, and they should serve Nebuchadnezzar. Then Jeremiah told Hananiah that Yahweh 42 JEREMIAH 27. 3, 4- BS 3 neck ; and send them to the king of Edom, and to the king of Moab, and to the king of the children of Amnion, and to the king of Tyre, and to the king of Zidon, by the hand of the messengers which come to Jerusalem unto 4 Zedekiah king of Judah ; and give them a charge unto had not sent him, but he had made the people to trust in a lie, and should in consequence die that year. So Hananiah died in the seventh month. xxvii. 1. It has long been recognized that the reference to Jehoiakim is mistaken, and that the events recorded really happened in the reign of Zedekiah, as is clear from the statements of this chapter (3, 12,20) and the chronological note at the begin- ning of xxviii. But the mere substitution of Zedekiah for Jehoiakim does not yield a satisfactory text. The beginning of Zedekiah's reign, when he had just sworn fealty to Babylon, was certainly no occasion for projects of revolt ; moreover xxviii. i requires a definite date, viz. the fourth year of Zedekiah, to have been men- tioned here. Hence we cannot follow the LXX and simply strike out the verse. For a probable restoration of the original text see the Introduction to xxvii, xxviii (p. 40). 2. to me z is omitted by the LXX. We should either omit it, or read *to Jeremiah,' the last letter being an abbreviation for 'Jeremiah.' bands and bars : i.e. a yoke, the wooden bars being fastened together by thongs. Such symbolic actions were not uncommon among the prophets; a close parallel is to be found in i Kings xxii. II, where Zedekiah the courtier-prophet, who opposed Micaiah, as Hananiah opposed Jeremiah, ' made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until they be consumed.' 3. and send them. Only one yoke is mentioned in 2, and this is put on the prophet's own neck. This verse suggests to the reader that five yokes were made and sent to the five kings. But since 'them' in 3 is identical with 'them' in 2, the reference must be to the bands and bars of the yoke worn by Jeremiah, and these were obviously not sent, since Jeremiah was wearing the yoke at a later time (xxviii. 10). The text is accordingly corrupt, and we should omit * them,* with Lucian's edition of the LXX, reading simply ' and send to the king,' i.e. send a message. The message was enforced by the symbolism of the yoke which typi- fied subjection to Babylon, but no yoke was sent. The countries here named occur in the same order in xxv. 21, 22. The messengers had no doubt been sent to Jerusalem to plot rebellion against Babylon. JEREMIAH 27. 5-7. BS S 43 their masters, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel : Thus shall ye say unto your masters ; I 5 have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and by my out- stretched arm ; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the 6 hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant ; and the beasts of the field also have I given him to serve him. [S] And all the nations shall serve him, and his son, 7 and his son's son, until the time of his own land come : and then many nations and great kings shall serve them- 5. Yahvveh the God of Israel is proclaimed to these heathen monarchs as the Creator of the universe, whose right to dispose of it as He will rests upon the fact that He has made it. The LXX omits * the man . . . the earth,' probably because by an over- sight the translator passed from the first to the second mention of the earth. my outstretched arm. The expression is more generally (and more appropriately) used with reference to God's great acts of deliverance (e.g. Exod.vi.6, Deut.iv. 34)orchastisement(xxi. 5, and the refrain in Isa. ix. 8 — x. 4, v. 25-30). It is used as here with reference to creation in the probably post-exilic passage xxxii. 17. 6. my servant. See xxv. 9. the beasts of the field. This is at first sight a rather strange addition. The dominion of man is defined in Gen. i. 26-28, on which Ps. viii. 6-8 rests. It is a rule over all the lower creation in earth, air, and sea. It belongs to mankind as such, and so pre- eminently to the lord of mankind, or at least of ' all these lands.' It would be rather precarious to affirm that this clause is of Jere- mianic origin : cf. xxviii. 14, Dan. ii. 38. 7. This verse is omitted in the LXX ; it has been regarded as a later addition by Movers, Hitzig, and Kuenen, and most recent commentators. It is unfitting that in a warning to submit to Babylon such a reference to Babylon's fall should be included. The passage rests apparently on xxv. 12, 14, and the enumeration of the kings as three seems to be due to a combination of the reference to Evil-Merodach (lii. 31 = 2 Kings xxv. 27) with the narrative of Belshazzar's overthrow. It had the advantage of substituting a vaguer definition of the period than the inexact seventy years which is found in the parallel passages. serve themselves of him. See notes on xxv. 11, 14. 44 JEREMIAH 27. S-I2. S BS 8 selves of him. [BS] And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have 9 consumed them by his hand. But as for you, hearken ye not to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreams, nor to your soothsayers, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of 10 Babylon : for they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your land ; and that I should drive you out and ye 1 1 should perish. But the nation that shall bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, that ?iation will I let remain in their own land, saith the Lord ; and they shall till it, and dwell therein. 12 And I spake to Zedekiah king of Judah according to 8 continues 6, or perhaps better 6*. will not serve . . . and that : to be omitted, with the LXX. consunxed them by. The Hebrew is very questionable : we should probably read * given them into,' changing one letter. 9. Thefivekingsare warned not to trust their own optimistic fore- tellers of the future. Five classes are enumerated ;,for 'dreams' we should probably read 'dreamers' with several versions), but whether the writer intended us to discriminate sharply between them is uncertain. We may have merely a rhetorical accumula- tion of terms, as if he would say, Try all types of those who profess to foretell the future ; they will all prophesy smooth things, for the heathen have only false prophets, but do not believe them or you will be ruined. Cf. the false prophets confronted by Micaiah, I Kings xxii. 5-28. 10. to remove you. Certainly it was not the intention of these prophets to secure the exile of their nation, in which they would be involved, with all the additional odium attached to discredited advisers, but if they had deliberately contemplated such an issue they could not have given advice more calculated to reach it. and that . . . perish. This clause is absent in the LXX, and has probably been introduced from 15. 12. Z spake. The first person is surprising both here and in 16, JEREMIAH 27. 13-16. BS 45 all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, 13 by the famine, and by the pestilence^ as the Lord hath spoken concerning the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? And hearken not unto the words of the 14 prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon : for they prophesy a lie unto you. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, but they 15 prophesy falsely in my name ; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you. Also I spake to the priests and to 16 since in the preceding verses Yahweh is the speaker and Jeremiah the recipient of the message. Possibly the meaning may be that Jeremiah's message to the kings stillcontinues to the effect that he had given the same counsel to Zedekiah, the priests and the peo- ple, as he is giving to them (so Stade). But such awkwardness of expression would stamp the passage as secondary. It would be simpler to read here and in 16 'said Jeremiah,' with Giesebrecht (see note on 2), or * And thou shalt speak.' Bringr your necks. The counsel is formally addressed to the king only, but his action involves that of many more, hence the plural. After these words the LXX omits the rest of this verse, the whole of 13, and 14* (as far as ' saying'). Duhm prefers this, and carries this preference to the logical conclusion of striking out the last clause of 14 and the whole of 15. But it is more probable that the Hebrew is correct, since the bare phrase 'bring your necks ' is an otherwise unexampled expression. The Greek rendering is due to an oversight of the translator or a scribe, whose eye passed from 'serve' in 12 to ' serve ' in 14, He also omitted ' under the yoke of the king of Babj'lon,' because through this oversight the king of Babylon was mentioned in two consecu- tive clauses. 16-22. In these verses there is an astonishing divergence be- tween the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the latter containing about a quarter only of the former. Verse 17 is omitted, similarly 18'', while for 19-22 the LXX reads simply : ' For thus saith the Lord, And as for the residue of the vessels which the king of Babylon took not, when he carried away Jeconiah from Jerusalem, they shall be carried to Babylon, saith the Lord.' The main difference between the two texts is that the LXX simply predicts that the vessels still 46 JEREMIAH 27. 16. BS all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord : Hearken left in Jerusalem will be taken to Babylon, while the Hebrew adds the prediction that eventually they will be brought back again. A good many scholars prefer the LXX. And it is undeniable that stylistically it is much superior, and that we may well suspect that the hand of a diffuse supplementer has here, as so often elsewhere, expanded the original text. Verse 17 interrupts the connexion be- tween 16 and 18, which refer to the Temple vessels, with an in- appropriate reiteration of the theme of the earlier part of the chap- ter. It should probably be omitted. Verse 18^ (' that the vessels ... to Babylon ') is not indispensable, but its omission makes the sentence abrupt and ambiguous, since the content of the interces- sion might either be that the vessels should be brought back or that the vessels which remained should not be taken away. Accordingly the Hebrew is here to be preferred ; the eye of the scribe or trans- lator apparently passed from bi to ki (19). The enumeration of the vessels that were left behind would have been unnecessary for Jeremiah's contemporaries, and may have been added from 2 Kings XXV. 13 ff. The omission in the LXX of any prediction that the vessels would be brought back might be due to the fact that those specially enumerated in 19 were not restored, since the Babylon- ians had broken them up for convenience of transport (2 Kings XXV. 13). But in favour of the LXX it may be urged that this prediction of restoration is hardly likely to have been made in the same breath as the threat that the vessels would be carried away, whereas the supplementers loved such modifications ; the expres- sion ' the day that I visit them ' is very strange when applied to inanimate objects ; and the insertion of the clause may be due to the account of the restoration of the vessels given in Ezra i. 7-11. In this passage the vessels restored are simply defined as those 'which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem.' Apparently this covers both those taken away when Jehoiachin was deported to Babylon, and those taken when the city was destroyed. It seems best then to regard the prediction of restoration as a later insertion in the Hebrew text. It may be added that Giesebrecht considers the LXX text to have arisen largely through abbreviation of the Hebrew, but he rejects 17 and the prediction of restoration in 22 (' and there . . . this place '), with the latter part of 21 (' con- cerning . . . Jerusalem'), 16. the priests. A warning addressed to the ecclesiastics was in Jeremiah's time always in place, since they counted for so much in the politics of the day, supporting with all the weight of their re- ligious influence the struggle for freedom from Babylon advocated by the prophets. But it was specially appropriate that the warning not to expect the Temple vessels to be restored, but rather to anticipate JEREMIAH 27. 17-22. BS 47 not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord's house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylon : for they prophesy a lie unto you. Hearken not unto them; 17 serve the king of Babylon, and live : wherefore should this city become a desolation? But i£ they be pro- i8 phets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon. For thus saith the Lord 19 of hosts concerning the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels that are left in this city, which Nebuchad- 20 nezzar king of Babylon took not, when he carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylon, and all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem; yea, thus saith the Lord of hosts, the 21 God of Israel, concerning the vessels that are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem : They shall be carried to Babylon, and 22 there shall they be, until the day that I visit them, saith that all the vessels which remained would follow them to Babylon, should be addressed to the custodians of the Temple in whose charge they were. now shortly. The LXX omits, whether righ% it is difficult to say, but the words give the correct sense, as we see from xxviii. 3, ' within two full years/ 19. Cf. Hi. 17. See Dr. Skinner's notes on i Kings vii. 15-39, 2 Kings XXV. 13-T7. 20. nobles. The word is of Aramaic origin. It occurs in 1 Kings xxi. 8, 11 ; if it is not a gloss in this passage, as some think, its use is probably due to the origination of the narrative in the Northern Kingdom. Otherwise it is a late word, being found especially in Nehemiah. In the present passage it is perhaps a sign of late date ; if so, this clause is a latter addition. It is found also in xxxix. 6. 48 JEREMIAH 27. 22—28. i. BSB the Lord ; then will I bring them up, and restore them to this place. 28 [B] And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet, which was of Gibeon, spake unto me in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and of zxviii. 1. If the view expressed in the introduction to xxvii, xxviii is correct, the former part of this verse should be transferred to the beginning of xxvii (except of course *in the same year' and the reference to the beginning of the reign\ see pp. 39. 40. We should probably connect this chapter closely with xxvii, reading simply ' Then Hananiah . . . spake saying.' Hananiah. Nothing further is known of him than is recorded here. On the estimate we should form of him and the ' false pro- phets' in general see Robertson Smith's article ' Prophet,' Enc. Brit. 9th ed., vol. xix, p. 817, with Cheyne's contribution to the article * Prophetic Literature ' {Enc. Bib. 3875-8), which quotes the most important points in Robertson Smith's article, and A. B. Davidson's Old Testament Prophecy., pp. 285-308. There is no reason to doubt Hananiah's sincerity ; he probably believed in his own inspiration, and was fanatically convinced that his forecast would be verified. But he and his class lived on traditional religion with its blending of old and new, the semi-heathenism of ancient Israel with the prophecy of the eighth century (especially Isaiah's doctrine of the indestructibility of Jerusalem) and the ideals of the reformers ; they went on repeating formulae once valid, now obsolete; they lacked the ethical note of the higher prophecy, while they laid emphasis on a full and correct ritual ; hence they ignored the moral defects of the people, while they ardently desired that ceremonial defects should be repaired by the restoration of the Temple vessels. Gibeon: probably to be identified with el-Jib, a mile to the north of Neby Samivil, where Mizpah of Benjamin stood (seexli. 10-15), and five miles north-west of Jerusalem. It was famous in Hebrew history as the home of the Gibeonites who tricked Joshua into an alliance, and the defeat of the Canaanite confederacy formed against them in consequence (Joshua ix. 3 — x. 15) ; for the ghastly contest between the twelve warriors of Joab and the twelve warriors of Abner (2 Sam. ii. 12-17) > ^^or Joab's treacherous murder of Amasa (2 Sam. xx. 8-12) ; for the choice of Solomon (i Kings iii. 4-15). unto me : should probably be deleted, since the narrative speaks of Jeremiah in the third person. JEREMIAH 28. 2-4. B 49 all the people, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, the a God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into 3 this place all the vessels of the Lord's house, that Nebu- chadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon : and I will bring again to 4 this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, 2. X have broken the yoke. The choice of the figure was pre- sumably suggested by the presence of Jeremiah wearing his yoke, symbohc of the Babylonian suzerainty. Hananiah introduces his prediction with the prophetic formula claiming Divine origin for it. 3. We do not know how Hananiah was led to fix on two years as the period within which the restoration would be accom- plished. It is the temptation of prophets to enhance their credit by venturing on a definiteness in prediction, which the event may or may not justify. Ambiguity is safer, since it provides ways of escape, as the givers of oracles in Greece were well aware. With prophets like Hananiah and Zedekiah, the opponent of Micaiah (i Kings xxii. ii, 24), the wish was too much the father of the thought : the sincere but lower type of patriotism which dominated them, together with the religious conviction that Yahweh was on their side, blinded them to the real facts ; their enthusiasm led them to discount the odds against them. At the same time Hananiah was upheld in his belief by the sympathy of his fellow prophets and the people generally, also by the confidence felt in the neighbouring nations that revolt, at least if supported by Egypt, would be successful. He probably believed what he said, he was apparently in the prophetic ecstasy at the time, and mistook the thoughts which surged up in this self-induced state for Divine revelations. all : omitted by the LXX. It could easily fall out or be inserted, since the next two consonants are identical with it. It is omitted in 4, but is there followed by similar not identical con- sonants. It should probably be retained. Observe that the vessels of the Temple take precedence even of the king. that Nebuchadnezzar ... to Babylon : omitted by the LXX. 4. The LXX reads simply ' and Jeconiah with the captives of Judah, for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.' The additions in the Hebrew are superfluous, they need not on that account be secondary. Jeconiah. That while Zedekiah was on the throne Hananiah should have ventured to predict in so many words the restoration II L 50 Jeremiah 28. 5-7. b with all the captives of Judah, that went to Babylon, saith the Lord : for I will break the yoke of the king of Baby- 5 Ion. Then the prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah in the presence of the priests, and in the pre- sence of all the people that stood in the house of the 6 Lord, even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen : the Lord do so : the Lord perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the Lord's house, and all them of the captivity, from Babylon unto 7 this place. Nevertheless hear thou now this word that of Jehoiachin, describing him moreover, if the Hebrew text is sound, as the king of Judah, is remarkable. Naturally the exiles regarded him as still the legitimate king, and probably many of those left behind agreed with them, but Zedekiah would scarcely relish the prospect of deposition, nor, we may imagine, would the upstarts who had supplanted the earlier administrators. Jere- miah in his reply (6) makes no specific reference to Jehoiachin. 5. The characteristic insertion of Hhe prophet' before the personal name, which occurs three times in 5, 6, is omitted in each case in the LXX, and similarly in the rest of the chapter and in xxix. 6. As a patriot, Jeremiah could wish that the wound of his country might be healed. His language is not sarcastic ; for the sake of the exiles themselves, for the better administration of the State, he would be glad of their return. But he is not led astray by his preferences, and while the desire that it might be so is sincere, he is assured that it will not be so. It is to be noticed that he does not meet Hananiah's ' Thus saith Yahweh ' by a counter-oracle at this point (he does so in 13), but after an expression of sympathy with the desire itself, by an argument from history. 7. His own conviction makes no impression on his antagonists, his prophetic certainty is incommunicable. He must therefore appeal to experience, and does so in the notable utterance of 7-9, which shows how truly Jeremiah interpreted the significance of the great prophets in whose succession he knew himself to stand. They had been prophets of woe, as Jeremiah himself; only when history had confirmed the prediction of a prophet who spoke of peace, could his claim that God had sent him be admitted. So the future would decide whether Hananiah was right ; but let him and the people ponder well the significance of the precedent. The passage is very important for its testimony to the predominantly JEREMIAH 28. 8-11. B 51 I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people : The prophets that have been before me and before thee 8 of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the vs'ord 9 of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, ^ that the Lord hath truly sent him. Then 10 Hananiah the prophet took the bar from off the prophet Jeremiah's neck, and brake it. And Hananiah spake in n * fOr, whom the Lord hath truly sent pessimistic character of pre-exilic prophecy in its great represent- atives. It must receive its due weight in the consideration of the much debated question touching the extent to which prophecies of a happy future were uttered by the prophets to whom they are at present assigned, or have been inserted by later editors in their writings. That many such prophecies originated in the latter way can hardly be denied, but it is a great exaggeration of a sound principle to relegate such passages as a whole to the post-exilic period. 8. The scope of the older prophecy is to be observed ; it was not limited to Israel, but embraced many countries and great kingdoms (see vol. i, p. 78). evil. It is tempting to adopt the reading of some MSS. and of the Vulgate ' famine,' since it is awkward that the general term for disaster should be coupled with two specific types of calamity. It is not unusual for Jeremiah to speak of sword, famine, and pestilence. This combination may, however, be responsible for the reading ' famine ' here, and the use of ' war ' instead of the sword suggests that we have not that combination in this passage. The LXX omits 'and of evil, and of pestilence.' 9. The close of the sentence is rather carelessly expressed. The meaning required is that then it shall be known that Yahweh has truly sent that prophet. Till then the Divine origin of his message must remain in doubt. 10. Hananiah is not at all impressed by Jeremiah's appeal to experience. He snaps the yoke on Jeremiah's neck, affirming that thus Yahweh would break the yoke of Babylon from the neck of the nations. The act is something more than a mere symbol, it embodies the prophetic word which is endowed with a Divine energy that works out its own fulfilment (see vol. i, pp. 77, 78). 11. The LXX omits 'of Nebuchadnezzar' and ' within two full E 2 52 JEREMIAH 28. u. B the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the Lord : Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon within two full years from off the neck of all the nations. And the prophet Jeremiah went his years,' in both cases correctly ; the latter addition has been made from 2. In such a situation brevity is a sign of authenticity. Jeremiah went his way. It is surprising that he makes no reply. Cornill argues forcibly that Jeremiah could not have remained silent in response to such a challenge without denying his God and abandoning his people to a lie. Accordingly he strikes out the clause as a gloss. There is much to be said for this view. It is hard to beUeve that Jeremiah was shaken in his own conviction by Hananiah's action. His opponent may have sin- cerely believed in his own inspiration, he may have snapped the yoke on Jeremiah's neck in a prophetic ecstasy, and the ring of certainty may have been heard in his utterance 'Thus saith Yahweh.' But Jeremiah's own convictions were not such as could be disturbed by prophetic states, even though they were not consciously simulated, or prophetic formulae, sincerely though they might be repeated. His insight into God's purpose was not a thing of yesterda}', his assurance was too deeply rooted to bend before this breath of opposition. He was a candid and a humble man ; but he could not have seriously asked himself the question whether Hananiah might not after all be right. We may then rest assured that whatever he did, he had no intention of sug- gesting that he doubted his own message. But would not silence have suggested this ? It might no doubt be urged that his attitude had been too long and too well known for such an inference to be drawn ; that he had withstood the prophets too long for any sig- nificance to be attached to his leaving Hananiah in possession of the field ; that he had just given his testimony with the utmost directness. And yet we may doubt whether he could have risked the moral impression which would have been made on the assembly by his failure to meet Hananiah's action with any reaffirmation of the message with which he had been charged. To strike out the clause may seem a violent cutting of the knot, all the more that its very difficulty may be urged in favour of its authenticity. But, as Cornill points out, it may have grown out of the words ' Go and tell Hananiah ' in 13, since the command appeared to imply that he had left the presence of his antagonist. The verb ' to go,' however, is frequently used in this book to introduce a message with which the prophet is entrusted, and it seems to have become a mere formula, having lost its proper significance (cf. especially xxxix. 16). Accordingly we should not press it here to imply JEREMIAH 28. 12-17. B 53 way. Then the word of the Lord came unto Jere- 12 miah, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the bar from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, Go, and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord: 13 Thou hast broken the bars of wood ; but thou shalt make in their stead bars of iron. For thus saith the Lord of 14 hosts, the God of Israel : I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebu- chadnezzar king of Babylon ; and they shall serve him : and I have given him the beasts of the field also. Then 15 said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah ; the Lord hath not sent thee ; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore 16 thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will send thee away from off the face of the earth : this year thou shalt die, because thou hast spoken rebellion against the Lord. So Hana- 17 niah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month. that the two prophets had been parted. And 12 reads strangely if they had been. 13. If the policy of Hananiah was followed, they would be chastised with scorpions instead of with whips : cf. Amos v. 19. The yoke of Babylon would be fastened again on their neck, but a yoke far heavier and more galling, and one which no strength of theirs could break. thou Shalt make. We should probably read, with the LXX, * I will make : ' cf. 14, * I have put a yoke of iron.' It is hardly appropriate to represent Hananiah as making the iron bars, since Jeremiah had made the wooden bars at God's command. 14. the beasts of the field: see note on xxvii. 6. 16. I will send thee away. As Hitzig points out, the phrase is chosen with reference to ' Yahweh hath not sent thee ' in 15. because . . . the LOBD. This clause is omitted in the LXX. It is a quotation from Deut. xiii. 5. It is appropriate here in so far as the passage in Deuteronomy is directed against false prophets, inappropriate since the 'defection' there denounced is an incitement to idolatry. 17. The fact of Hananiah's death, told with such impressive brevity, without comment or elaboration, is to be accepted as historical; so that while his prediction that within two years 54 ' JEREMIAH 29. i. B Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah Babylon's 3'oke should be broken was discredited, Jeremiah's prediction that within that year Hananiah should die was verified in less than three months. The LXX is briefer still, * And he died in the seventh month,* The swift fulfilment may have done something to enhance the respect paid to Jeremiah's advice, and take the heart out of the fanatics who were screaming for a vigor- ous foreign policy. Cheyne says : ' This might be a case of second sight. CL St. Adamnan's account of a prophecy of St. Columba that a certain boy would die at the end of the week ' ( The Two Religions of Israel, p. 58). He had treated the narrative more sceptically in his Decline and Fall of the Kingdom of Judah, p. 77. xxix. Jeremiah Counsels the Exiles to settle down in Babylon, since there is no Hope of Speedy Release. The links which connect this chapter with the two preceding have been already indicated in the Introduction to xxvii-xxix (see pp. 38, 39). Schmidt regards the correspondence with Babylon as * scarcely historical ' {Enc. Bib. 3387) ; and Cheyne considers the central statement of the chapter that the Babylonian oppression shall last only for a time to be certainly unauthentic {Enc. Bib. 3879) ; but recent commentators have for the most part recognized a very substantial historical element in the chapter, which in its original form was probably included in Baruch's biography of Jeremiah. The detailed references to persons and events can hardly rest on imagination, and the situation to which the letter is addressed is entirely natural with a people whose theological beliefs would predispose them to anticipate that the exile would prove a very temporary episode in their history. Equally con- vinced with Jeremiah (xxiv) of their superiority to the rotten remnant left behind in Jerusalem, they could not, without a com- plete inversion of their settled convictions, have thought of their own exile as permanent while Jerusalem continued to stand. And since they could not bring themselves to believe in the destruction of Yahweh's city, the downfall of the State, and the captivity of the people, they naturally anticipated a speedy return to Pales- tine, and were encouraged by their prophets in this cherished delusion. That Jeremiah, while opposing this expectation among those who were left behind, sought also to disabuse the exiles, is only natural, especially in view of his more friendly esteem for them. The date of the letter is not clear. But we may assume that it was sent quite early in Zedekiah's reign, probably in 596 or 595 B. c, when the exiles had been only a short time in their new home. It was not, we may assume, sent in 594 B.C., since in that year Zedekiah, instead of sending messengers to Babylon, JEREMIAH 29. i. B 55 the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and to the priests, and to the paid a personal visit to that city (li. 59). Accordingly we must place the incidents of this chapter at a somewhat earlier period than those of xxvii-xxviii. On the expansion the original form has undergone see the notes. xxix. 1-9. This is the letter sent by Jeremiah, by the hand of Zedekiah's messengers, to those taken to Babylon with Jeconiah. Yahweh bids you settle down in your own homes, marry and rear families, and seek the peace of Babylon, for it is your own peace. And do not be deceived by your prophets, who lie to you in My Name. 10-14. For after seventy years I will bring you back, since I entertain thoughts of good for you. You will pray and I will hear, you will seek Me with all your heart and find Me, and I will gather you from all the nations of your dispersion. 16-19. for on those who are left behind in Jerusalem I am sending sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them like uneatable figs. They shall be an execration among all the nations of their dispersion, because they have not listened to My words. 20, 15, 21-23. And listen, you that are exiles. Because you say Yahweh has raised up prophets for us in Babylon, I will give Ahab and Zedekiah the false prophets into Nebuchadnezzar's hand, and he shall slay them by a death which shall become a proverb among you ; for they have committed adultery and spoken lies in My Name. 24-32. Shemaiah has sent to Jerusalem, remonstrating with Zephaniah the overseer of the Temple for his remissness in not punishing Jeremiah for his letter to the exiles bidding them, in view of the long captivity before them, settle down in Babylon. Zephaniah reads the letter to Jeremiah, who predicts that Shemaiah for his false prophecies shall have no man to dwell among this people, and shall not see the good which Yahweh will do to it. xxix. 1. the residite of the elders. This has occasioned much discussion. The LXX reads simply 'the elders,' and this is adopted by Giesebrecht and Rothstein. It is, however, as Duhm and Cornill urge, much easier to understand the omission than the insertion of the word rendered ' the residue of.' Several explanations have been offered. Some think that the residue is mentioned, since some might have died on the journey or since their arrival in Babylonia. But the term 'residue' suggests a depletion of their numbers greater than is at all likely from such a cause in so short a period ; moreover, the gaps made by death would have been filled up. And even had some of the elders died, it would have been quite irrelevant for the writer to take account 56 JEREMIAH 29. 2, 3. B prophets, and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon : 2 (after that Jeconiah the king, and the queen-mother, and the eunuchs, a7id the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen, and the smiths, were departed from Jeru- 3 salem ;) by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and of this in the choice of his expression. Hitzig explains that the phrase means the elders who are not also priests or prophets, but the author does not say the priests and prophets and the rest of the elders, because there would be priests and prophets who were not elders. But this explanation, though approved by Graf, can hardly be accepted. If the normal order had been felt to give an incorrect suggestion, then the sentence would have been cast in a different form rather than the order inverted in this unnatural way. Duhm thinks that there may have been an attempt at escape or opposition to regulations, which had cost some of the elders their liberty or their lives. Baruch might have given an account of this, or he might have presupposed it as well known. This is possible, but Jeremiah would probably have alluded to it in his letter ; it would have served admirably to enforce his exhor- tation. The choice seems to lie between the omission of the word, with the LXX, and the suggestion made by Duhm, which is accepted by Cornill. The elders seem to have had a good deal of authority entrusted to them by the Babylonians ; they are promin- ent in Ezekiel. Duhm omits the reference to the priests and prophets, and 15 does not favour the view that the prophets were explicitly addressed. We should probably omit, with the LXX, the relative sentence ' whom , . . Babylon,' and, if so, perhaps also the words * and to all the people.' 2. This is struck out by Cornill and others. It breaks the connexion between i and 3, and is largely taken from xxiv. i'', 2 Kings xxiv. 12-16. Giesebrecht retains the reference to the deportation of Jeconiah to Babylon, but regards * and the queen- mother . . . the smiths * as an expansion based on the passages mentioned. This is better than the elimination of the whole verse, since the note of time is not superfluous. the queen-motlier : see notes on xiii. 18, 19, xxii. 25 f. smiths: see note on xxiv, i. 3. The object of this diplomatic mission is unknown ; perhaps it was in charge of the yearly tribute. Elasah was apparently the brother of Ahikam, mentioned as Jeremiah's protector in xxvi. 24 (see notp), and of the Gemariah in whose chamber Baruch read the roll (xxxvi. 10), and who interceded with Jehoiakim not to JEREMIAH 29. 4-7. B 57 Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, (whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent unto Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,) saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God 4 of Israel, unto all the captivity, whom I have caused to be carried away captive from Jerusalem unto Babylon : Build ye houses, and dwell in them ; and plant gardens, 5 and eat the fruit of them ; take ye wives, and beget sons 6 and daughters ; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters ; and multiply ye there, and be not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused 7 burn it (xxxvi. 25). From the fact that he took Jeremiah's letter we may infer that, like his brothers, he was friendly to the prophet. Of Gemariah the son of Hilkiah (of course to be distinguished from his namesake the son of Shaphan) we know nothing further. He was not, we may take it for granted, Jeremiah's brother, but may have been the son of the chief priest of the Temple. 5. Jeremiah dissuades the exiles from regarding their stay in Babj'lonia as just a passing experience. They must make up their minds to a long period of captivity. They must look on Babylon as their home, build houses and plant gardens, renouncing the pleasing delusion that they would soon be restored to their old homes in Jerusalem. 6. This verse seems to presuppose that just as some refused to build and plant in this interim condition, so they refused to marry. The refusal would rest on different grounds ; houses and gardens involved labour and expense, which would be largely wasted if they left Babylon. Wives and children they could take back with them, but young children would add greatly to the difficulties of the journey. Cornill thinks that a considerable proportion of the exiles would be young, unmarried men, and that there would not be Jewish wives for them in at all adequate numbers. He suggests that Jeremiah may have meant that instead of remaining unmarried in the hope of speedy return home, they should marry Gentile women. that . . . daug'hters : omitted in LXX. 7. The hearts of the exiles would naturally be hot with hatred for the oppressor, and if they prayed with reference to him, it would be for his downfall. But Jeremiah bids them acquire houses and gardens, that they may forge links which will bind them to the new land, and make its interest identical with their 58 JEREMIAH 29. 8-to. B you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord 8 for it : for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel : Let not your prophets that be in the midst of you, and your diviners, deceive you, neither hearken ye to your dreams 9 which ye "-cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name : I have not sent them, 10 saith the Loun. For thus saith the Lord, After seventy * tOi", (beam own. They are to pray for its peace ; it is true the injunction is recommended by a self-regarding motive, but it was inspired by wise regard for their welfare, and altruistic appeals would have been wasted on such an audience. the city. If the text is correct, the term probably indicates no one city, such as Babylon, but the city in which you may happen to be. The exiles would not be concentrated in one place. But we should probably read 'the land.' 8, 9. Duhm regards these verses as an insertion, because no account is given of what the false prophets said, and because it is not mentioned till 15 that the exiles believed that they had prophets among them. The former reason is unimportant ; what all knew there was no need to repeat, and the context makes it plain. The latter reason, which has decided Corniil to follow Duhm, has more substance. But it is not at all decisive ; 8, 9 contain a warning against their prophets in general ; 15 introduces, in its true connexion, a threat against two prophets. ye cause to be dreamed. The causative conjugation of this verb occurs nowlicre else, and the thought itself is somewhat strange. If the text is correct, the meaning is apparently that the people consulted the prophets and set them dreaming that Uiey might be able to give them an oracle. It is possible that the con- jugation is used in the simple sense *yc dream.' It would be better, however, to secure this sense, which is given by the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, by striking out the initial letter of the verb as due to mistaken repetition of the final letter of the pronoun. It would perhaps be better still to read 'they dream' i^as Corniil); it is not the people generally who go to the prophets to have their dreams interpreted, but, as xxiii. 25-28 shows, the prophets who give lying oracles on the basis of their dreams. If so, we should also, of course, read 'their dreams.' 10. This verse ought not to be omitted ; it is most appropriate that Jeremiah's counsel should be driven home by the remindcf JEREMIAH 29. 11-14. B 59 years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that u I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you ^ hope in your latter end. And ye shall call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto la me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, ^^ and fmd me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord, and M I will ^turn again your captivity, and I will gather you ' Heb. a latter end and hope. ^ Or, return to that the Babylonian dominion will last seventy years, and only when this period is accomplished will the exile be brought to an end. On the 'seventy years' see note on xxv. 11. 11. I know. The pronoun is emphatic, similarly *I think.* Several scholars take the meaning to be, The prophets are ignorant but I know. But probably this is not the contrast intended. The point is rather that although the long delay may give the impres- sion that Yahweh's attitude to Judah is one of settled hostility, He has from the very beginning of her misfortune entertained purposes of granting her a future and a hope. i. e. a future full of hope. The people will say ' From Yahweh my waj' is hid' (Isa. xl. 27); but His wrath does not hide from Him His ultimate goal of mercy, He keeps it steadily in view all the time. 12-14. The LXX has a much shorter text. In 12 it reads * And pray unto me and I will hearken unto you.' In 14 it omits everything after the first clause, * And I will be found of you.* In the latter point it is plainly superior ; the exiles addressed were in Babylonia, not dispersed among the nations, and the verse is composed of stock phrases. It is not so clear that the omission in 12 is original ; the text, however, can hardly be correct : 'and ye shall go' yields no satisfactory sense and spoils the parallelism. Several suggestions have been made; the sense required is, 'And j'e shall call upon me. and I will hear you ;' i. e. though you are banished from My land and My sanctuary, I still hear the cry from your distant home. 14. Z will be found of yon : LXX reads ' I will appear to you :* cf. xxxi. 3. If this is part of the letter, the LXX is to be preferred, since ' find' occurs in 13. turn again your captivity. The original sense of this expres- sion is still much disputed ; since Ewald first proposed it, many 6o JEREMIAH 29. 15. B from all tne nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be 15 carried away captive. For ye have said. The Lord hath have held the view that it meant originally 'to reverse the fortunes of,' a sense which it bears in Job xHi. 10 and apparently in Ezek. xvi. 53 (*of Sodom and her daughters'). In most cases, however, the rendering in R.V. is applicable, and may well represent the original meaning. See Driver's note on Deut. xxx. 3, with the supplementary note in the Addenda. 15-20. These verses create serious difficulties. Verse 15 con- nects with nothing in the preceding context but 8, 9, nor in what follows till we reach 21. Moreover in the LXX (except in Lucian's recension) 16-20 is omitted. This in itself suggests at least that 15 should stand immediately before 21, as it does in the LXX and also in Lucian's recension where it comes after 16-20. The question as to the originaUty of 16-20 is somewhat more difficult, but the weight of evidence is strongly in favour of its exclusion from the text. The omission in the LXX might be accounted for by the passing of the scribe's eye from 'Babylon' in 15 to 'Babylon' in 20, or assuming that 15 stood before 21, from 'For' in 16 to ' For' in 15. It is also true that the connexion of 15 with 13 is not easy. It is difficult to see why a post-exilic editor should have inserted the passage, the distinction between the Jews in exile with Jehoia- chin and those in Jerusalem with Zedekiah having lost all signifi* cance with the destruction of the Jewish State. The inclusion of the verses in Lucian's recension also favours their authenticity. On the other hand, the passage has little relevance in this context; why should Jeremiah break off from his counsel to the exiles and deal with the situation in Jerusalem ? Why should he say that Yahweh will make those left in Jerusalem 'like vile figs,' which implies that xxiv was known to the readers ; and yet with a change in the application, the figure referring in xxiv to character, here to destiny? In 18, moreover, the writer forgets his assumed situa- tion before the fall of Jerusalem, and speaks of the dispersion as already accomplished ; similarly in 19, * Ye would not hear,' if the text is correct, can hardly be addressed to the first group of exiles as a reason for the dispersion which had overtaken the Jews left behind with Zedekiah. Some of these difficulties are removed by the omission of 17'* (from 'I will make ')-i9, and Giesebrecht considers that the rest of the passage ought to be regarded as an authentic part of the letter. But this excision is itself a rather arbitrary critical operation, and destroys the link of contrast between 19 and 20, 'ye would not hear . . . Hear ye therefore,' JEREMIAH 29. 16-18. BS 6i raised us up prophets in Babylon, [s] For thus saith 16 the Lord concerning the king that sitteth upon the throne of David, and concerning all the people that dwell in this city, your brethren that are not gone forth with you into captivity ; thus saith the Lord of hosts : 17 Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so bad. And I will 18 It is also questionable whether, if the verses are retained even in this modified form, the transposition of 15 to follow ao and precede 21 can be justified. It is not improbably a rearrangement due to Lucian himself. But if 15 immediately followed 13 (or 14 if that be authentic), the conclusion is inevitable that 16-20 is no part of the original text, and that Lucian's inclusion of it does not repre- sent the true LXX. It is a late insertion based on earlier passages in the book, especially xxiv. 8-10, and crowded with characteristic expressions. Why a later writer should have inserted it is not clear ; possibly it reflects a post-exilic estimate of the relative merits of the Jews in Babylon and those in the dispersion, together with * the people of the land ' in Palestine. But this is on the whole improbable, and we must content ourselves with the melancholy reflection that a reader thought the insertion of Jeremiah's unfavour- able judgement on the Jews in Jerusalem would improve and complete the prophet's letter to the exiles in Babylonia. 15. Per. Since this verse is to be connected with 21, we should probably render ' Because.' The exiles congratulated themselves that though they had been banished from Yahweh's land. His power extended even to Babylon, and there He raised up prophets to announce that He would soon break the Babylonian yoke. Ezekicl, who was quite one with Jeremiah in his judgement of the situation, did not receive his call till a few years later. Jeremiah warns his readers that they will be able to estimate the value to be attached to the message of these prophets by the fate which is soon to overtake them, and learn how premature their rejoicing had been. 16. thekingr*. i.e. Zcdekiah. 17. The former part of the verse is taken from xxiv. 10, the latter from xxiv. 8. The word rendered < vile ' is much stronger than the corresponding word in xxiv ; it is derived from the same root as the word rendered ' a horrible thing ' in v. 30. 18. The former part of the verse is largely a repetition of 17. The latter part is based on xxiv. 9 (cf. also xv. 4 with the note). The details are varied from xxiv. 9 j in particular ' I shall drive ' 62 JEREMIAH 29. 19-21. SB pursue after them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be ^ tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth, to be an execration, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven 19 them : because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the Lord, wherewith I sent unto them my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them ; but ye 20 would not hear, saith the Lord. Hear ye therefore the word of the Lord, all ye of the captivity, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 [B] Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, * fOr, a terror unto becomes ' I have driven,' and the tense ought not to be assimilated to that in xxiv. 9, the interpolator betrays himself by it. 19. Cf. vii. 25, 26, xi. 7, 8, XXV. 4. ye would not hear. Perhaps we should read * they would not hear,' but it is more likely that the interpolator has here again forgotten his assumed standpoint. 20. This verse is designed as a link to connect the interpolated verses with the oracle that follows. all ye . . . Babylon : cf. xxiv. 5. 21. This verse completes the sentence begun in 15. We know nothing of Ahab and Zedekiah beyond what we learn from these passages. The LXX omits the names of their fathers, but we may be sure that these names are not inventions of a scribe. The execution of these prophets would be a punishment for treasonable utterances, such as the proclamation of the approaching downfall of Babylon and liberation of the Jews. The reference to the mode of death may possibly have been added to bring the prediction into more explicit conformity with the event which doubtless ensued as described in 22. But it may be an original part of the letter. It is true that there is a play on the name Kolaiah in the word rendered '■ roasted ' (as there is also in the word for 'curse '). But we have no valid reason for the inference that this gave rise to the story that they were put to death in this way ; though this parti- cular word was presumably chosen for the sake of the assonance, and we are probably to regard the word as equivalent to * bum,' not necessarily to roast before a fire or bake in an oven. Jere- miah would be aware that such a punishment, almost unknown JEREMIAH 29. 22, 23. B 63 concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah,and concerning Zede- kiah the son of Maaseiah, which prophesy a lie unto you in my name : Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon ; and he shall slay them before your eyes; and of them shall be taken up 22 a curse by all the captives of Judah which are in Babylon, - saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire : because 23 among the Hebrews (Gen. xxxviii. 24, Lev. xxi. 9), was in use among the Babylonians (cf. Dan. iii). 22. Then their names would still be on men's lips, no longer as prophets, but in a gruesome formula of imprecation used by exiles to fellow exiles. Cursing in the East, however, goes to much greater lengths in expression than is common in the West, and is not to be taken too seriously, even though the Divine Name is in- voked for its fulfilment. 23. The fate of these two prophets is due to their immorality and their unjustifiable claim to speak as Yahweh's messengers (for the combination of the two in the prophets of Jerusalem see xxiii. 14). Obviously Nebuchadnezzar did not punish them with their horrible death for the second of these offences, and it is hardly probable that he did so for the former. Burning (i. e. probably burning alive, though many think the offender was stoned and then the corpse was burnt) is the penalty prescribed in the Law of Holiness for the unchastity of a priest's daughter (Lev. xxi. 9), and that pronounced on Tamar by Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 24) for the same offence. But in these cases ' the woman pays,' though in Lev. xx. 14 all the guilty parties are burnt for a particular type of incest; and while the death penalty is inflicted for adultery on both the guilty parties (Deut. xxii. 22, Lev. xx. 10), it was not by burning but by stoning (Ezek. xvi. 38, 40, xxiii. 45? 47> John viii. 5;, and, as we learn from the passages in Ezekiel, by thrusting them through with swords to dispatch them. In the Code of Hammurabi burning is the penalty for a peculiarly flagrant form of incest (§ 157), but adulterers are strangled and cast into the water (§ 129). The Jews would have no power of inflicting death, but it is unlikely that they would take the case before the Babylonian courts, or that so jjfiastly a sentence would be pronounced. The offence for which Nebuchadnezzar roasted them must have been treason or possibly blasphemy against the gods of Babylon ; but Yahwch punished them for the offences mentioned by delivering them into his hand (21). 64 JEREMIAH 29. 24. BBS they have wrought folly in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken words in my name falsely, which I commanded them not; and I am he that knoweth, and am witness, saith the Lord. 24 [BS] And ^ concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite thou * Or, tmto wrought folly in Israel. This expression is commonly (though not exclusively : of. Joshua vii. 15) applied to breaches of chastity (Gen. xxxiv. 7, Deut. xxii. 21, Judges xx. 6, 2 Sam. xiii. 12). Accordingly it seems here to have reference to the former of the two offences to be enumerated. The term * folly ' is not an adequate rendering of the Hebrew term; both * wisdom' and 'folly' had for the Hebrews a moral rather than an intellectual connotation ; and the term used here, as Driver says, * denotes a state of mind, or an action, marked by utter disregard of moral or spiritual feeling.' 24-32. We now learn of an attempt by Shemaiah, one of the exiles, to have Jeremiah punished for his letter. The section is ^ far from clear, and the LXX diverges considerably from the Hebrew. It is true that the LXX gives quite a perverted impression of the matter, since it turns the former part of Shemaiah's letter to Zephaniah (26) into an address to him by Jeremiah, and the rest (27, 28) into a remonstrance with both of them by Jeremiah for their abuse of him ; and crowns the confusion by saying, in harmony with the Hebrew text, that Zephaniah read the letter (which has not been previously mentioned) to Jeremiah ! Naturally this incoherent jumble cannot come into competition with the Hebrew text. But it would be too hasty to infer that it is without value for the restoration of the original. The present Hebrew text also is in some confusion. Jeremiah is told to deliver the following message from God to Shemaiah. The message, however, does not follow because the author goes on to assign the reason for it, namely, that Shemaiah has sent letters to Jerusalem, and then quotes his letter to Zephaniah at length, and concludes with the statement that Zephaniah read the letter to Jeremiah. Lastly we have the statement that then the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, bidding him send a message about Shemaiah, not to Shemaiah himself, but to the exiles. As com- pared with the LXX the main points are quite clear in the Hebrew, and no one could be seriously misled as to the course of events. Nor is it incredible that Baruch was himself responsible for the inconsequent form of the passage. It would be better to accept JEREMIAH 29. 25, 26. BS 65 shalt speak, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, the 25 God of Israel, saying, Because thou hast sent letters in thine own name unto all the people that are at Jerusalem, and to Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, and to all the priests, saying, The Lord hath made thee priest in 26 the stead of Jehoiada the priest, that ye should be officers a reconstruction of the text which would give us a narrative pure and simple. This involves striking out the command to Jeremiah that he should speak thus to Shemaiah. It would then be best to treat 'Concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite' as the title of the paragraph, and begin the narrative 'This man sent letters in his own name.' Or we could read 'Shemaiah the Nehelamite sent letters in his own name.' Duhm, to whom the chief credit for this reconstruction belongs, thinks that Baruch said nothing as to the outcome of the letter, and that his narrative closed with the statement that Zephaniah read it to the prophet, 30-32 being an addition, imitative in character and inappropriate in content. But while the passage may have been expanded, it probably contains a genuine kernel. The story would, in fact, have closed very abruptly with 29. 24. Shemaiah. the Nehelajnite. Nothing is known of him bej'ond what we learn from this passage. It is uncertain whether ^ * the Nehelamite ' designates him as member of a particular family, or as belonging to a particular place, which is otherwise unknown to us. 25. Shemaiah writes in his own name, not in the name of Yahweh. It is questionable whether the plural ' letters ' is correct. The Syriac reads the singular, and only one letter is otherwise mentioned. The plural is used for a single letter, 2 Kings xix. 14, XX. 12. The LXX omits the word altogether. We should omit, with the LXX, 'unto all the people that are at Jerusalem, and,' with 'and to all the priests,' since Zephaniah is addressed in the singular ; and the duty, which Shemaiah remonstrates with him for disregarding, is his own duty, not that of the priests in general. Zephaniah : see note on xxi. i. He is said in lii. 24, 2 Kings XXV. 18 to have been ' the second priest,' i. e. second to Seraiah the chief priest. He was twice sent by Zedekiah to Jeremiah to * ask for an oracle : xxi. r, xxxvii. 3. He was among those executed by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah after the capture of Jerusalem (lii. 24-27, 2 Kings xxv. 18-21). 26. in the stead of Jehoiada the priest. In themselves the words rather favour the view that Jehoiada was Zcphaniah's i immediate predecessor. If so, we know nothing further of him, II F 66 JEREMIAH 29. 27. BS in the house of the Lord, for every man that is mad, and maketh himself a prophet, that thou shouldest put him 27 in the stocks and in « shackles. Now therefore, why hast " fOr, i/ie collar It is, however, more probable that the reference is to the famous priest Jehoiada, who deposed Athaliah and set Joash on the throne. We read that he ' appointed officers over the house of Yahweh ' (2 Kings xi. 18). Their function would be to preserve order, and prevent the services from being disturbed by noisy people who took themselves to be prophets. Of course discrimi- nation had to be practised, since the conduct of a prophet whom Yahweh had truly sent might be externally indistinguishable from that of a deluded enthusiast. Pashhur, Zephaniah's predecessor, had exercised his disciplinary function in Jeremiah's case, having formed the same estimate of him as Shemaiah did now. officers. The plural is difficult : some think it refers to Jehoiada and Zephaniah ; others, including Graf, interpret ' Yahweh hath made thee priest, that officers may be in the house of Yahweh,' i. e. Zephaniah's position as priest carries with it the duty of appointing Temple officers. But we should simply substitute the singular with LXX, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate, ' that thou shouldest be an officer.* On the duties of the overseer cf. note on xx. i. It would be precarious to assume that the duty here mentioned was all that Zephaniah had to perform, and infer that the number of those who had to be dealt with was large. every man . . . propliet. Probably we are not to distinguish two classes here, those who are mad, and those who pose as prophets ; the two clauses refer to the same person, and mean anyone whose madness takes the form of making himself out to be a prophet. The early prophets had been distinguished by their eccentricities, their raving enthusiasm ; they sometimes impressed people with the idea that they were mad (2 Kings ix. 11). When Saul was under the influence of the 'evil spirit from God,' i.e. some form of mental disorder, ' he prophesied ' (R.V. margin * raved ') * in the midst of the house ' (i Sam, xviii. 10). Cf. i Sam. X. 10-13, ^^^' 20-24. The great prophets from the eighth century onwards seem to have risen largely, if not completely, above these ecstatic states and eccentric habits, but probably the lower type of prophet still exhibited the old characteristics in no slight degree. If two classes are mentioned here, we must remember that the madman is often regarded by primitive peoples as divinely in- spired. in the stocks and in shackles. For ' the stocks ' see note on XX. 2. The word rendered ' shackles ' occurs here only, and its JEREMIAH 29. 28-32. BS 67 thou not rebuked Jeremiah of Anathoth, which maketh himself a prophet to you, forasmuch as he hath sent unto 28 us in Babylon, saying, The captivity is long : build ye houses, and dwell in them ; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them ? And Zephaniah the priest read this 29 letter in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet. Then came 30 the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying. Send to all 31 them of the captivity, saying. Thus saith the Lord con- cerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite : Because that Shema- iah hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he hath caused you to trust in a lie ; therefore thus saith 32 meaning is disputed. It is now generally taken, on the analogy of an Arabic word, to be an iron band fastened round the neck, so that the rendering in the margin, * collar,' fairly represents the Hebrew. 28. As sufficient proof of Jeremiah's '■ mad ' condition, Shemaiah thinks it enough to quote his advice to the exiles to settle down in their new home, since the time was long ere the captivity should be ended. The sanity of the prophet was never more apparent than when he administered this cold douche of common sense to their fevered enthusiasm. 29. Zephaniah does not follow the example set by his predeces- sor (xx. 1-3), but communicates Shemaiah's letter to the prophet, which we may fairly take as a sign of sympathy with his stand- point. 31. It is objected to the narrative that it betrays no conscious- ness of any difficulty in sending the prophecy to Babylon. Probably the opportunities of communication were more numerous than we might anticipate. That when it reached Babylon it would circulate among the exiles may be inferred from what had happened to the previous letter. prophesied. There is no previous indication in the story that Shemaiah was one of the prophets, and there is thus a suspicious parallel with the case of Pashhur (xx. 6). But there was no occasion for an earlier reference, and there is an antecedent probability that this antagonist of Jeremiah should, like Hananiah, belong to the ranks of the prophets. 32. It is strange that Jeremiah should include as an element in Shemaiah's punishment that he should not behold the good that Yahweh would do to His people. This seems to refer to the return from exile, but since Jeremiah did not expect this for F 2 68 JEREMIAH 29. 32— 30. i. BSS the Lord, Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehela- mite, and his seed ; he shall not have a man to dwell among this people, neither shall he behold the good that I will do unto my people, saith the Lord : because he hath spoken rebellion against the Lord. [s] The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, seventy years, it would have been remarkable if Shemaiah had been alive at the time. The LXX reads ' there shall not be a man of them in the midst of you to see the good,' which is to be preferred since it gives an acceptable sense, that none of Shemaiah- s descen- dants should see the restoration accomplished. The LXX omits the last clause, see xxviii. 16. XXX, xxxi. The Glorious Future of Israel and Judah. These chapters break the series of biographical sections. Ori- ginally we may suppose that they closed the collection of Jeremiah's prophecies which, before they were united with Baruch's memoirs, consisted of i-xxv, xlvi-li, xxx-xxxi. When the fusion of the prophecies with the memoirs took place, xxx, xxxi was presum- ably placed in its present position because xxix, with its references to the restoration (xxix. 10 ff., 32), seemed to forma suitable intro- duction to it. This section has for a long time challenged the suspicious scrutiny of critics. Movers, impressed by the striking similarities between these chapters and the latter part of Isaiah, put forward the view that the chapters had been worked over by the Second Isaiah. This view was adopted by de Wette and Hitzig, but the three scholars differed widely in detail. In reply Graf admitted the similarity with Isa. xl-lxvi, but urged that this was accounted for by similarity of content, and that the striking coincidences in expression were to be explained as due to imitation of Jeremiah on the part of the Second Isaiah. He met Hitzig's accusation that the chapters were characterized by lack of connexion, with the counter-charge that this could properly be brought only against the prophecy as Hitzig had reconstructed it, and with the demon- stration that the prophecy, as we have it, is a well-connected whole. The force of Grafs plea for the authenticity, combined with the divergence between those who impugned it and the unsatisfactoriness of their reconstructions, had the effect of rehabili- tating the Jeremianic authorship in the eyes of critics, till Stade and Smend rejected it altogether. The grounds for this conclusion were not communicated by Stade in the footnote in which he JEREMIAH 30. :. S 69 saying, Thus speaketh the Lord, the God of Israel, saying, 2 stated it {Gcschichte Israels, i. 643), but Smend examined the question with some fullness in the first edition of his Alitcstamentliche Rdi- gionsgcschichtc. He argued that these chapters did not even spring out of the exile, but presupposed the return which is not men- tioned. Judah is in a miserable condition, the prophet looks forward to a speedy deliverance which is to come through the res- toration of Ephraim and its reunion with Judah. It was true that Jeremiah had predicted the restoration of Ephraim (iii), but he had combined the restoration of Ephraim with the rejection of Judah, while the author of xxx, xxxi combined the expected return of Ephraim with the already accomplished return of Judah. Further, whereas Jeremiah expected the exile to last a long while, the author of xxx, xxxi anticipated a speedy restoration. Since the pro- phecy was written in Palestine (xxxi. 8, 21), but after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (xxx. 18, xxxi. 40"^, it can have been written by Jeremiah, if he was its author, only in the few months which elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem and his compulsory journey to Egypt. But a longer time seems to have elapsed, Judah's wound is seen to be incurable, the nations have abandoned her. The study of Smend's discussion convinced the present writer, before Giesebrecht's commentary came into his hands, that the insertion of a considerable non-Jeremianic element had to be admitted, but that there was no justification for the relegation of the whole to the post-exilic period, and in particular for the rejec- tion of the prophecy of the New Covenant. Smend's arguments were submitted to a careful examination by Giesebrecht in the first edition of his commentary. He drew a distinction between the two chapters. He gave up the Jeremianic origin of xxx entirely, having been convinced by Smend's argu- ments that 18-21 constituted no exception, a point on which he had previously hesitated. But in xxxi he recognized the authen- ticity of 2-6, 15-20, 27-34, The two former, which deal with the restoration of Ephraim, he assigned to Jeremiah's earliest period. Duhm largely agreed with Giesebrecht as to these passages, accepting xxxi. 2-6, 15-22*. But he also retained xxx. 12-15 for Jeremiah. On the other hand he followed Smend in rejecting, though only after long hesitation and with much reluctance, Jeremiah's authorship of the New Covenant passage. Erbt accepted xxxi. 2-6, 15-17, 18-20. Cornill considered that the Jeremianic elements in the chapters were xxxi. 2-5, 9^ 15-22'', which belonged to the first period of the prophet's work, and xxxi. 31-34, the prophecy on the New Covenant spoken after the destruction of Jerusalem. Rothstein,on the contrary, is prepared to recognize a good part of the poetical passages in both chapters as Jeremianic. 70 JEREMIAH 30. 2. S Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in This survey will have shown that there is considerable consen- sus of opinion among recent writers that little if any Jeremianic matter is to be found in xxx, but that the prophecy of Ephraim's restoration in xxxi is largely authentic. On the other hand there is still a sharp divergence of opinion on the most important of all the problems raised in connexion with the criticism of the book, the authorship of the great oracle on the New Covenant, xxxi. 31-34. The detailed discussion can most profitably be reserved for the notes. Here a few general observations on the two chapters may be offered. In view of the unity which pervades these chapters we should regard them as a single well-planned composition, which must belong in its present form to the post-exilic period. This date is established by the situation presupposed in it, and by its relations to II Isaiah. . Had Jer. xxx, xxxi been used by the Second Isaiah, as Graf maintained, we should have expected him to draw on it throughout, but the points of contact are confined to certain portions. Accordingly we may infer that at least the sections which present close parallels with II Isaiah, and therefore the composition as a whole, is post-exilic. At the same time the probabilities that a genuine Jeremianic nucleus is present are con- siderable. The parallelism with Jer. iii is striking, and in particular the invitation to Ephraim to return. The compiler, however, felt that the prominence of Northern Israel threw Judah into the background, and this largely accounts for the additions which he made. On the prophecy of the New Covenant the reader must refer to the special discussion of the passage ; here the present writer must simply register his unshaken conviction that though in its present form we may owe it to Baruch, the prophecy itself comes from Jeremiah and from no other, and is the worthy crown of his teaching, as he has sought to show in the Introduction to this work (vol. i, pp. 43-48). The date at which xxx, xxxi was compiled is a matter for con- jecture. Dulim believes that it contains very late elements. A far more moderate position is taken by Schmidt, who says that it falls between the prophecies collected in Isa. xl-lv, and those found in Isa. Ivi-Lxvi. He thinks that it was written on the eve of Xerxes' expedition against Greece. ' The gathering of tremendous armies from all lands for a decisive combat may well have struck terror into the hearts of Judaeans' {Enc. Bib. 2391). xxx. 1-3. Yahweh bade Jeremiah write all He had spoken to him in a book, in view of the restoration of Israel and Judah. 4-1 1. Why is this consternation? Wh}' do men display such anguish ? It is the Great Da^'. a day of trouble for Jacob, which shall issue in his deliverance. His yoke shall be broken, no more shall JEREMIAH 30. 3. S 71 a book. For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that 3 he serve strangers, but Yahweh and David their king. Fear not, Jacob, the servant of Yahweh, for thou shalt be restored and rest in tliy land. I will utterly destroy the nations of thy dispersion, but thee I will only chastise. 12-17. Zion's hurt is incurable, she is forsaken by her lovers; Yahweh has inflicted her wound to punish her for her sins. All her enemies shall suffer retribution for the injuries they have done to her ; but she shall be healed, outcast though she has been called. i8-22. Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, it will be filled with thanks- giving and merriment ; its inhabitants will be multiplied, honoured, and protected. They shall be governed by a native ruler, whom I will cause to draw near to Me ; they shall be My people, and I will be their God. 23, 24. Behold the storm of Yahweh's anger is about to burst on the wicked, nor will it cease till His purpose is fulfilled. The event will make plain the meaning of the threat. xxxi. 1-6. Then I will be a God to all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people. Those who survived the sword have found favour in exile ; I will go to restore Israel. From afar Yahweh assures Israel of His undying love. I will re.-establish thee, O virgin of Israel ; thou shalt join in the merry dance, and plant vineyards on the slopes of Samaria. They will go up from Ephraim to Yahweh in Zion. 7-14. Rejoice for the salvation of Israel ; a great company from the north country and the ends of the earth is led back by Me, who am once more Israel's father and count Ephraim as My first- born. Let the nations hear of Israel's restoration. They shall rejoice in Zion and feast on Yahweh's bounty ; all their desire shall be satisfied. Mourning shall be turned into merriment, and all shall be abundantly content. 15-22. The voice of Rachel is heard lamenting for the children she has lost. Cease thy tears : thy children shall come back to thee. Ephraim repents his former waywardness, and pleads with Yahweh to restore him. I yearn over him, even when I rebuke him ; I will have mercy upon him. Return, Israel, to thy cities. Why go hither and thither? Yahweh has created a new thing : a woman will be turned into a man. 23-26. Again in Judah will Yahweh's blessing be invoked on the Temple ; its inhabitants shall be husbandmen and shepherds. He has satiated the weary. I woke to reality from my slumber, and realized that it was all a pleasant dream. 27-30. I will give Israel and Judah the seed of man and beast, and as I have cast them down, so I will build them up. No longer shall the children complain that they arc punished for their fathers' sins, but each shall suffer for his own. 72 JEREMIAH 30. 4. S I will ^'^ turn again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord : and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it. ^ And these are the words that the Lord spake concern- * Or, return to 31-34. I will make a New Covenant with Israel and Judah, not like that which I made when I brought them out of Egypt, a cove- nant which they broke ; but I will write My law in their hearts, I will be their God and they shall be My people. And none shall teach another the knowledge of Yahweh, for all shall know Me, and I will forgive and forget their sin. 35-37, If the laws which control the shining of the heavenly bodies are abolished, Israel also shall cease to be a nation before Me. If heaven can be measured and the foundations of the earth be searched out, I will cast off Israel for its sin, 38-40. Jerusalem shalt be rebuilt larger than before, and never again be destroyed, XXX. 2. all the words. If this is taken strictly it would imply a direction to Jeremiah to compile a complete collection of his prophecies, and the revelation which as yet he had not given to the world. The question would then arise in what relation this stood to the collection of prophecies made in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (xxxvi. 2). The latter was not necessarily complete ; it contained prophecies against Jerusalem (so LXX) and Judah and the nations, and these were prophecies of denunciation and judgement. But if in the present passage a complete collection is intended it would naturally include the collection already made, and the absence of any reference to that roll would be perplexing. But we should probably not press the phrase. From 3 we learn that the prophecies are to be collected in view of the return of Israel and Judah to Palestine, and from 4 that they are to be identified with what follows. We might then take 'all the words ' to mean all contained in this section. But perhaps the meaning is that the prophecies previously published were of a threatening character and gave only a one-sided representation of his teaching : * all the words ' have not yet been written ; only when the pro- mises of the blessed future have been added will the collection be complete. It need hardly be added that 1-4 will not be earlier than the date at which xxx-xxxi was compiled. 3. turn again the captivity : see note on xxix. 14. The phrase occurs rather frequently in xxx-xxxiii. 4. The form of expression may be intended to suggest a con- JEREMIAH 30. 5-7. S 73 ing Israel and concerning Judah. For thus sailh the 5 Lord : We have heard a voice of trembhng, ^ of fear, and not of peace. Ask ye now, and see whether a man 6 doth travail with child : wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness ? Alas ! for that day is 7 great, so that none is like it : it is even the time of * fOr, there is fear, and no peace trast with the collection of words spoken concerning the foreign nations. 5. thus saith the LOBD. If these words are to be retained, we should take the rest of the verse as a quotation by Yahweh of the people's words, inserting ' Ye say ' in the translation (so Driver), since it is inappropriate to represent Yahweh as saying ' We have heard.' But the words are apparently a thoughtless, and rather too characteristic, addition by some scribe. It is the people who are speaking. The Day of Yahweh has come ; men cry out in the paiiic which has overtaken them. 6. The posture and the paleness would in a woman suggest the throes of childbirth ; if men exhibit the same symptoms it is a sign of a bitter, if a different, anguish. Cf. Isa. xiii. 8, Nah. ii. 10, Joel ii. 6. The superfluous clause 'as a woman in travail' is best omitted, with the LXX. *7. that day : i. e. the Day of Yahweh. This was originally, as we may infer from Amos v. 18, an element in the popular theology of Israel, expressing the expectation of a great intervention on the part of Yahweh, when He would crush all her foes and place her in a position of unchallenged supremacy, Amos warned the people that it would be a day of disaster and judgement, not of triumph, and his transformation of the idea was accepted by his true successors, many of whom give lurid descriptions of it, the most elaborate being that of Zephaniah. The Dies Irae is its counterpart in mediaeval Christianity. In the later Hebrew pro- phec}', however, the idea of the Day as issuing in Israel's salva- tion came back, conformably to the rule that prophecy before the destruction of the State was predominantly prophecy' of judgement, after it prophecy of restoration. But salvation is reached through tribulation, which in the later Jewish theology was referred to as * the woes of the Messiah.' 1 he most familiar example is to be found in the eschatological discourse in the Gobpels (see Mark xiii. 7, 8, 17-20, 24 . so that no&e is like it. This is probably the meaning ; it 74 JEREMIAH 30. S-io. S 8 Jacob's trouble ; but he shall be saved out of it. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bands ; and strangers shall no more serve them- 9 selves of him : but they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them. 10 Therefore fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the involves a slight change in the present pointing, which gives the sense ' whence is any like it ? ' See note on x. 6. Jacob's trouble. Jacob is a favourite designation of the Israelitish people in II Isaiah, and some of the later writers. 8. The former part of the verse is largely taken from Isa. x. 27, with an addition from Jer. ii. 20. The harsh change from the third to the second person is probably due to the fact that the passage is a quotation, but whether the poet retained the second person of the quotation, or whether he conformed it to the context and wrote the third person (so LXX, except that it substitutes the plural for the singular), and our present Hebrew text originated from assimi- lation to Isa. X. 27 is uncertain. The present writer prefers the former view, since he considers it easier to believe that the LXX corrected the awkward Hebrew than that a scribe would create the incongruity under the influence of Isa. x. 27 ; all the more that the LXX itself is not quite satisfactory in that it reads the plural. The yoke is the heathen dominion. But while it is political ser\atude only, and not idolatry as well, which is intended, the combination Yahweh and David in the next verse suggests that behind the heathen empires stood the supernatural rulers, 'the host of the high ones on high' of Isa. xxiv. 21, the 'gods' of Ps. Iviii. I (see margin), Ixxxii. i, 6, the ' princes ' of the Book of Daniel. These are ultimately responsible for Israel's sufferings, since they are the supernatural powers, which really control the policy of the great empires. serve themselves of Mm : i. e. employ him as their slave ; see notes on xxv. ii, 14. 9. serve : here combines the religious with the political sense. David is the name for the ideal ruler of the Davidic line ; cf. Hos. iii. 5, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, xxxvii, 24, 25. It is perhaps hardly necessary to point out that the final clause does not mean that the long-deceased king David will be raised from the dead to reign over Israel ; the same verb is used in xxiii. 5, ' I will raise unto David a righteous shoot' (see note). 10. 11. The two verses recur with some variation in xlvi. 27, 28. The LXX inserts them there, but omits them here. It must JEREMIAH 30. 11,12. S 75 Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their cap tivity ; and Jacob shall return, and shall be quiet and at ease, and none shall make him afraid. For I am with i] thee, saith the Lord, to save thee : for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have scattered thee, but I will not make a full end of thee ; but I will correct thee with judgement, and will in no wise ^ leave thee un- punished. For thus saith the Lord, Thy hurt is incurable, and 1: * Or, hold thee guiltless be remembered, however, that the prophecies on the foreign nations precede the present chapters in the LXX, so that the omission here may be simply an example of the suppression of passages of which a translation has already been given. Scholars take the most opposite views of the original position. Cornill thinks it stood originally in xlvi (a non-Jeremianic addition) ; Giesebrccht that it is an integral part of the present prophecy ; Driver that it is a detached fragment, added in both places by a compiler ; Orelli that it is from the hand of Jeremiah, and owes its position in both places to him. The strongly marked Deutero- Isaianic colouring of 10 forbids us to regard it as Jeremiah's, but it might quite well be an original element of the present non- Jeremianic passage. 10. Jacob my servant. This designation is found elsewhere in this book only in the parallel passage xlvi. 27, 28, but it is very common in the Second Isaiah, one of whose leading thoughts it is that Israel is the Servant of Yahweh. The form in which the sentence opens is similarly characteristic of II Isaiah, so too ' fear thou not' and ' I am with thee.' from afar. Probably the dispersion is intended. and none shall make him afraid, ' The expression is used of sheep lying undisturbed upon their pastures ' (Driver). 11. We could hardly believe that Jeremiah uttered this prophecy of the annihilation of the nations. For ' I will not make a full end' cf. iv. 27, v. 10, 18. I will correct thee with judgement : sec note on x. 24. 12-17. Duhm considers that in 12-15 ^^c have a genuine poem by Jeremiah (similarly Kent). It is Jercmianic in rhythm and imagery, but this may be due to imitation, as several scholars suppose. The language depicts Judah's condition after the judge- 76 JEREMIAH 30. 13-15. S 13 thy wound grievous. There is none to plead ^thy cause, ^that thou mayest be bound up: thou hast 14 no heahng medicines. All thy lovers have forgotten thee ; they seek thee not : for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one; for the c greatness of thine iniquity, be- 15 cause thy sins were increased. Why criest thou <^Uor thy hurt ? thy pain is incurable : for the ^ greatness of thine iniquity, because thy sins were increased, I have * fOr, thy cause : for thy wound thou hast no medicines nor plaister ^ Heb.yb/' closing up^ or, pressing. <= Qr, multitude ^ f Or, for thy huti, because thy pain is incurable ? ment has been executed, but if Jeremiah's the passage is probably pre-exilic rather than composed just after the destruction of Jerusalem. It is perhaps on the whole more likely that it is the work of a later writer. 12. Cf. XV. 18, where Jeremiah uses with reference to himself language similar to that here used, as the feminine pronouns show, with reference to Zion. Her desperate state seems now to be of long standing. 13. The sudden transition from the medical to the judicial metaphor is very harsh, and the text is accordingly suspicious. The R.V. gives the sense according to the accents, but this involves a mixture of the metaphors. The R.V. marg. avoids this, but if the text is retained it would be better to render with Driver, ' There is none to plead thy cause : [there are no] medicines for the sore ; there is no plaister for thee.' It would be better still, with Duhm, to omit the first clause, which is apparently a gloss. The word rendered ' wound ' in the margin means something bound up rather than 'pressing' or ' binding up,' so that 'wound* is the correct translation. For the last clause of the verse cf. xlvi. ii. 14. thy lovers: Zion's old heathen allies ; cf. iv. 30. The latter part of the verse (' for . . . increased ') recurs in 15. It is probable that the repetition is due to accident ; the words come better in 15, and should be struck out here. 15. The rendering in the text suggests that it is useless for Zion to lament, since her pain is incurable. The margin is preferable, though ' that ' would be better than 'because.' Why should Zion complain of her hurt, that no remedy can assuage her pain or heal her wound ? The fault is all her own ; the gravity of her punishment is due recompense for the gravity of her crime, Rothstein takes 15. 16 to be an expansion. JEREMIAH 30. i6, 17. S 77 done these things unto thee. Therefore all they that if> devour thee shall be devoured ; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity ; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey. For I will restore ^health unto 17 thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord ; * See ch. viii. 22. 16, 17. The connexion with the preceding is difficult, since the sinfulness of Zion is no reason for its restoration. It is questionable whether we can substitute 'nevertheless' for 'there- fore,' and the thought, though Zion deserves all she has received I will nevertheless punish her oppressors, is not very attractive. Keeping the present text, it is best to take 'therefore' to mean * because thy case is so desperate.' The words ' It is Zion ' have by many been taken as a gloss, but it was too obvious that Zion was intended for the need of such a gloss to be felt. The LXX reads * This is your quarry,' the Hebrew word for 'quarry ' or 'spoil' being very similar to that for 'Zion.' If this is accepted we should probably correct 'your' into 'our,' the two being easily confused in Greek. Cornill, who proposes this emendation, then reverses the order of 16, 17. He thus gets rid of the difficulty caused by 'Therefore,' but instead of the equally unsuit- able 'For' is forced to read ' I ' {anoki instead of ki). He also prepares for ' they that devour thee ' (Heb. ' eat thee ') by the words of the enemy 'This is our quarry.' The reconstruction (which is accepted by Kent) gives a smooth and orderly text, but it is reached by rather drastic measures, and further involves the elimination of the words 'whom no man seeketh after,' which are unsuitable with ' This is our quarry.' It can hardly be accepted with any confidence. 16. devour. In ii. 3 the word is appropriate, because Israel has just been described as ' the first-fruits; ' its use here, without any such explanation in the context, is not so easy to understand. If Cornill's transposition of 16 and 17 be rejected, we should probably see here a reminiscence of ii. 3 : cf. x. 25. shall g-o into captivity. The LXX reads ' shall eat their own flesh.' Cornill accepts this, referring to Isa. xlix. 26, ' And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh ; ' we might compare Isa. ix. 20. It is noteworthy that in the other clauses of the verse the verbs are repeated (' devour . . . devoured,' &c.), and we should have expected this clause to follow the same pattern. 17. restore health unto thee: rather 'bring up fresh flesh upon thee:' see note on viii. 22. 78 JEREMIAH 30. 18-20, S because they have called thee an outcast, sayings It is 18 Zion, whom no man ^ seeketh after. Thus saith the Lord : Behold, I will ^^ turn again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have compassion on his dwelling places ; and the city shall be builded upon her own c heap, and the 19 palace shall <^ remain after the manner thereof. And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry : and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few ; I will also glorify them, and they shall not 30 be small. Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and * Or, carethfor ^ Or, return to ^ Or, mound Heb. tel. ^ Or, be inhabited Zion. For the LXX reading ' quarry ' see above. Modern suggestions are ' a monument,' * a desert,' ' miserable.' 18. tnrn ag'ain the captivity : see xxix. 14. the city. This may be collective, meaning the cities of Judah (and similarly ' the palaces ' ) ; if a particular city is meant it WxW. be Jerusalem. It is to be rebuilt on its tel or mound, i. e. on its old site. remain after the manner thereof. The verb means to dwell, and may be rendered as in the margin, or *be situated.' If the former, the phrase means that the palace will be inhabited as it was wont to be. If the latter, we must take the word rendered ' manner' (literally 'right') to be equivalent to ' its rightful place,' which forms a better parallel to ' her mound ' than the R.V., which would have been expressed more naturally in rather different Hebrew. 19. When Yahweh turns again the captivity of Zion, their mouth will be filled with thanksgiving and merriment (Ps. cxxvi. I, 2) ; and they will not have to mourn over a land depleted of its population (contrast Isa. xxvi. 18, rendering < been born ' for ' fallen '). They will no longer be a despised people (Isa. liii. 2, 3), but honoured among the nations. 20. The people will be as in the time of the nation's greatness and prosperity under David and Solomon. congreg-ation : a characteristic term of the Priestly Document in the Pentateuch. Its use is not probable in a pre-exilic writer, who would have regarded Israel as a State rather than just an ecclesiastical community. JEREMIAH 30. 21-23. S 79 I will punish all that oppress them. And their prince 21 shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them ; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me : for who is he that ^ hath had boldness to approach unto me? saith the Lord. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. 22 ^'Behold, the tempest of the Lord, eimi his fury, is 23 gone forth, a c sweeping tempest : it shall burst upon the * Heb. hath been surety for his heart. ^ See ch. xxiii. 19, 20. '^ Ovy gathering 21. They will be governed by a native ruler ; the term 'king' is avoided. The contrast is with the government by foreign empires, Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, possibly Greece. This ruler will stand in the most intimate relations with God, to whom indeed he will act as priest. Not, however, as earlier high-handed kings who took it on themselves to approach God. That no one would dare to do who truly understood what the approach of a sinful mortal to the holy God involved (Isa. vi. 5 : cf. Luke v. 8). He will not take the dread function on himself (cf. Heb. v. 4), but God will graciously cause him to draw nigh. It is possible that priestly privilege and duty are not claimed here for the ruler, but the language has more point, if the prince is also the priest. It would be easiest to understand this ideal if the author was writing in the time of the Maccabean priest-kings, but it is not probable that the passage is so late. 22. Cf. xxiv. 7, xxxi. 33. This verse is absent from the LXX, and is probably an insertion, on account of the transition to the second person plural, and the anticipation of xxxi. i. 23. 24. These verses occur, in a quite unsuitable context, in xxiii. 19, 20 ^see notes on that passage). Here a prediction of judgement is more in keeping with the eschatological terror of the passage, and Duhm considers them to be in their original connexion. Others regard them as an insertion, * The wicked,' according to the general use of the term, are not the heathen but ungodly Jews, and the verses mean that before the restoration (xxxi. i) can take place, a sifting blast of judgement is to go through the people, destroying the wicked, and leaving only the righteous to form the new nation. But this thought is scarcely in harmony with the general drift of these chapters, so that the verses are probably an insertion. sweeping'. The sense of the Hebrew word is uncertain ; if the text is correct, we may render 'sweeping' or * roaring.' But 8o JEREMIAH 30. 24— 31. 2. S J 24 head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have per- formed the intents of his heart : in the latter days ye shall understand it. 31 At that time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the 2 families of Israel, and they shall be my people, [j] Thus we should probably substitute the very similar word found in the parallel passage, ' whirling ' (xxiii. 19). xzxi. 1. This verse forms a link between the two chapters, and should therefore be assigned to the author who composed the two chapters, on the basis of Jeremianic material. In the bright future Yahweh will be the God of all the Hebrew tribes, not of one section alone. The disruption created by the folly of Rehoboam will be repaired. 2-6. This section is now generally regarded as containing a poem by Jeremiah on the restoration of the northern tribes. It probably belongs to his earliest period, like the similar utterance in the third chapter. 2. The verse is difficult. The R.V. text takes us back to the Exodus, when Yahweh intervened to save His people. This is strongly recommended by the reference to the wilderness, which reminds us of Jeremiah's description of the love between Yahweh and His people in the period of the wandering (ii. 2, 3, 7) which culminated in His gracious bestowal of the land of Canaan wherein she might ' rest ' (ii. 7 : cf. Exod. xxxiii. 14 ; Deut. iii. 20, xii. 9, 10 ; Joshua xxii. 4). The contrast of tenses here and in 4 ff. also favours this reference to the past. More probably, however, we should take the meaning to be that Israel in its captivity has found favour and will be restored. This is the main subject of the poem, and while it is not uncommon for the restoration to be compared with the deliverance from Egypt, we should expect the transition to be made plain. The tense is prophetic, and we should render * hath found,' i.e. will find. The < wilderness' must then be taken as a figurative expression for the land of exile, which while literally inappropriate, is chosen partly with a backward glance at the wilderness wandering, but chiefly under the influence of Hosea's words : ' Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak to her heart' (Hos. ii. 14). It must be admitted that such a use of the term without express indication that the usual sense is not intended is rather strange. Erbt deletes it, but it would be better to emend the text. Cornill suggests the word rendered ' dungeon ' in Isa. xlii. 7 (masger for midbdr), which is there used as a metaphor for captivity. JEREMIAH 31. 3, 4. J 81 saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword ^ found grace in the wilderness ; even Israel, ^ when I went to cause him to rest. The Lord appeared ^of old 3 unto me, sayings Yea, I have loved thee with an everlast- ing love : therefore ^ with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Again will I build thee, and thou shalt be built, O 4 * Or, have found . . . zv/teii I go '^ fOr, zv/ien he went to find hint rest ^ f Or, front afar '^ Or, have I continued lovingkind- ness unto thee left of the sword. This expression cannot easily be reconciled with a reference to the Exodus, but it accurately describes what happened in connexion with exile, since the captives were the survivors of a nation decimated by war or by executions. Israel: i.e., as the sequel shows, the Northern Kingdom. Duhm connects the word, which is in the Hebrew the last word of 2, with 3, changing it into ' God will regard' {yashur V/), which gives a parallelism with * Yahweh appears.' when I . . . rest. It would be better to make Israel the subject as in the margin, * when he went to find him rest.' 3. Israel is the speaker, but it would be better to read, with the LXX, <■ unto him.' of old. The marginal rendering * from afar ' should have been adopted in the text here, as in xxx. 10, li. 50, ' remember Yahweh from afar,' and * hath appeared ' should be substituted for ' appeared.' Yahweh from His distant home in Palestine (li. 50) appears to His people, languishing in exile, as their deliverer. Rothstein reads * He that hath compassion on him ' {m^rahdmo), and omits ' the Lord.' with lovingkindness . . . thee. The margin gives the same sense to the verb as in Ps. xxxvi. 10 (' continue thy loving- kindness :' cf. Ps. cix. 12, R.V. marg.). The thought is quite appropriate ; the unchanging God, in spite of all Israel's unfaithfulness and the severity with which He has treated her, still cherishes His ancient love. The rendering in the text should probably be preferred ; the influence of Hosea on this congenial spirit was deep, and we should interpret this passage in the light of Hos. xi. 4, ' I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love.' It would be better to substitute ' I draw thee ' for ' have I drawn thee.' His arms of love, which once clasped Ephraim, upheld and guided his first tottering steps (Hos. xi. 3% now reach out to draw him back from the ' far country ' to his Father's house. 4. Once again Israel will be firmly established in her own land, and renew her ancient life of peaceful toil relieved by innocent II G 82 JEREMIAH 31. 4. J virgin of Israel : again shalt thou be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that mirth and festivity. This idyllic picture deserves to be made prominent in any estimate of Jeremiah ; it is one of many indica- tions that he was no sour and morose enemy of recreation and merriment. Cornill justly emphasizes the significance of the fact that he should mention first in his description of the consequences of the restoration, not lofty spiritual blessings, but tabrets and dances. slialt thou . . . tabrets. Israel is here addressed under the figure of a maiden, who on a festal occasion decks herself with tabrets. It is the whole people which is thus to be as light-hearted and enter as fully into the merry-making as a young maiden would. No doubt the actual dancing and timbrel-playing on the part of the virgins would constitute one of the most characteristic forms of this festivity. Jeremiah, in spite of his exclusion from it, had doubtless often felt the sympathetic thrill as he watched the happy scene. The word rendered ' tabret ' is in several cases rendered ' timbrel.' It consisted of a wooden or metal ring, over which a skin was tightly stretched. It was a kind of hand-drum or tambourine, used specially by women, who held it in one hand and played on it with the fingers of the other. Miriam led the women with her timbrel, and they followed her with timbrels and dances, to celebrate the overthrow of Pharaoh's army (Exod. xv. 20, 21) ; and Jephthah was welcomed by his ill-fated daughter, his only child, 'with timbrels and with dances,' when he returned from his victory over the Ammonites (Judges xi. 34). the dances of them that make merry. These would be cele- brated especially at the harvest and vintage, and the maidens were prominent in them, as we see from the story of the marriage by capture of the daughters of Shiloh (Judges xxi. 19-21 : cf ix. 27). Dancing has become so completely secularized, to say the least, in modern life that it requires an effort of imagination to realize to what extent it has been a religious exercise. It has been so prac- tised in many ages and by many peoples. Among the Hebrews the most conspicuous example is that of David, who when the ark was brought into his city, ' danced before Yahweh with all his might ' (2 Sam. vi. 14), and met Michal's prudish censure of his indeco- rous enthusiasm with the reply, ' I will be yet more vile.' Such glowing rehgion the conventional are apt to despise, and a frigid morality has no insight to comprehend it. On the place of danc- ing in the religion of the post-exilic period the essay by Franz Delitzsch, ' Dancing and the Criticism of the Pentateuch in Rela- tion to One Another' {Iris, pp. 189-204), will be found of in- terest. JEREMIAH 31. 5. J 83 make merry. Again bhalt thou plant vineyards upon the 5 mountains of Samaria : the planters shall plant, and shall 5. This verse presupposes that the vineyards of Samaria had been destroyed. To replant them implies that the owners were confident in the security of their tenure. For while corn may be sown and reaped within a few months, several years have to pass before the vineyard (and still more the oliveyard) makes any return. No one would be willing to invest his labour and risk his money in planting vineyards, unless there was a reasonable pros- pect that no foe would be likely to ravage it. It does not necessarily mean that in war the vineyards would inevitably be destroyed by the invaders ; unless hostilities were pushed to an extreme they and the oliveyards were usually spared. But their destruction was frequently effected in warfare. (See Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, pp. 232-41,) Hence the promise thac every man should sit under his own vine and fig-tree, was tanta- mount to the assurance that the country would enjoy peace, and its inhabitants an undisturbed possession. ' The mountains of Samaria ' (Amos iii. 9) are those of the kingdom generally, not simply of the capital, which of course had its fruitful vineyards (Isa. xxviii. i). Vineyards were planted in terraces on the moun- tain slopes (cf. Isa. v. i, * my well-beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill ') for the sake of the sunny exposure, and because the soil was more favourable. In his essay 'The Bible and Wine' {Iris, pp. 171-85), Delitzsch says: 'The experiments of recent times confirm the fact, that while the sandy soil of the coast yields more, the chalky soil of the highlands yields better wine ' (p. 174). The mention of Samaria attests the Jercmianic origin of the poem ; a post-exilic writer would hardly have spoken thus of Jerusalem's hated rival. the planters . . thereof. The text is uncertain, but the R.V. probably gives the general sense. The margin justifies the rendering ' enjoy ' by its references. According to Lev. xix. 23- 25 the fruit was treated as ' uncircumcised,' and therefore not to be eaten for the first three years. In the fourth year it was ' holy for giving praise unto Yahweh.' In the fifth year it could be eaten. It was, in other words, at first taboo, unfit for God, with- held from man. The ceremonial offering to Yahweh in the fourth year removed its ' uncircumcision,' and rendered it fit for profane or common use in the fifth year ; just as the crops could not be eaten till the firstfruits had been offered. Instead of 'enjoy the LXX read ' praise.' The two verbs are almost identical in Hebrew. The problem raised by the variation is not quite simple, but since it is probable on metrical grounds that some words have fallen out, it seems best to conclude that the original text had G 2 84 JEREMIAH 31. 6. J 6 '"^ enjoy the fruit thereof. For there shall be a day, that ^ Heb. profane, or, make common. See Lev. xix. 23-25 ; Deut. XX. 6, xxviii. 30, 'and praise Yahweh' at the endof the verse, and that the Hebrew retained one of the two very similar verbs, the LXX the other. This was perhaps facihtated by the previous omission of one verb in the text from which both our texts are drawn, the word retained being diversely read. 6. This verse is closely connected with the preceding, and formally appears to be an integral part of the poem ; Duhm and Giesebrecht regard it as such, but Cornill thinks it must be a later addition, and Kent apparently inclines to adopt his opinion. Cornill cannot harmonize the view, which seems to underlie the passage, that Yahweh dwells on Zion and is only there to be sought and found, with the teaching of a prophet who places religion wholly in the heart and reins of men, and says of the Temple that, unless the people mend their ways, it will share the fate of Shiloh. And while the ancient schism between north and south would doubtless give place to a complete reunion, it is precarious to regard this as essentially ecclesiastical. These objections are not without weight ; in particular the suggestion that to find Yahweh the Ephraimites must go to Zion is not easy to reconcile with the detachment of religion from material conditions. Yet we should probably regard the verse as authentic. While religion was for the prophet a personal relation with a personal God, it is very hard to believe that he expected it to dispense with external expression ; and if it became individual it did not cease to be communal. Christianity is also in its essence a delocalized, de- materialized religion ; ' neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father,' an utterance more drastic than any from the lips of Jeremiah, more irreconcilable if taken literally with the recognition of any place of worship. It proclaims that God is Spirit, and demands a corresponding worship in spirit and truth. Yet for all its inwardness, it always seeks an outward expression; and though such expression has constantly withdrawn the vital force from the secret centre to the surface, that is the fatal exaggeration of an intrinsic quality. Similarly we may hold that while Jeremiah looked forward to a deep spiritual experience for each member of the reunited nation, which should make each independent of all his fellows for the personal knowledge of God and communion with Him, he also anticipated that this would not be buried in the individual heart, but would rather seek expression in congenial forms. Indeed, the community of experience would inevitably involve community of worship. But it may still be asked, Would Jeremiah have singled out Zion and spoken as if JEREMIAH 31. 7. JS 85 the watchmen upon the hills of Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the Lord our God. [S] For thus saith the Lord, Sing with gladness for Jacob, 7 and shout ^ for the chief of the nations : publish ye, praise * fOr, at the head there alone God and His people could meet ? Would he not rather have said that they would go to their own local sanctuary for their service of thanksgiving? In a regenerated Israel the worship at the high places might be resumed, for the old abuses would have dis- appeared. And we may well believe that Jeremiah would have favoured this renewal. But this would not have met all the need he felt. If the feud between Judah and Ephraim had been healed, the new national consciousness demanded, in a people for whom the national and the religious were so closely united, a religious expression. The long-sundered tribes must express their spiritual as well as their political unity. And this would most naturally take the form of a religious reunion at Jerusalem, the capital of the undivided kingdom. Not that God dwelt only in Zion or could be found there alone. Those who spoke as in this verse could equally well have said, Let us goto the sanctuary of our own city to Yahweh our God. And it is a fine feature in the descrip- tion that the Ephraimites should spontaneously resolve to celebrate their happy fortune in Jerusalem. watchmen. The word is often explained as a designation of those who were set on the hills to watch for the appearance of the new moon. But the word seems to be used simply in the sense ' to guard,' so that the meaning is rather the keepers of the vine- yards or orchards. This gives a good sense, but a slight correction {bots^rim for itots^rim) would give the meaning 'grape gatherers,' which would suit the connexion even better. 7-14. These verses, with the possible exception of the last clause of 9, are probably to be assigned to the post-exilic author to whom we owe the composition of xxx, xxxi as a whole. The points of contact with the Second Isaiah are striking, and the deliverance is regarded as on the eve of accomplishment. 7. Sing* . . . for Jacob. It is not clear to whom the command is addressed ; the LXX reads 'the Lord saith to Jacob' (so Cornill). This may well be correct, though the Hebrew text is satisfactory enough. for the chief of the nations. The margin is the more natural translation, but it is not free from objection, and we should probably accept with most recent scholars Duhm's emendation ' mountains' for 'nations' {hdn'nt for ^o_>'iw), 'shout on the top of the mountains ;' the phrase is an imitation of the Second Isaiah's 'let them shout 86 JEREMIAH 31. 8. S ye, and say, O Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the uttermost parts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together : a great from the top of the mountains' (Isa. xlii. ii), and was further occasioned by the mention of ' the mountains of Samaria ' and 'the hills of Ephraim' in the preceding context. O IiOBD, save thy people. We should read, with the LXX and Targum, 'The Lord has saved his people :' cf Isa. xlviii. 20. There is no longer need to implore Yahweh to deliver them, the shout of joy implies that the deliverance is achieved ; the Hebrew text has probably originated from the liturgical use of the word 'Hosanna' ('save now,' accordingto the usual interpretation, but see Cheyne's article ' Hosanna ' in the Enc. Bib.). 8. I will bring": better ' I am bringing.' The Israelites return not simply from the north, but from the uttermost parts of the earth (for the combination cf. vi. 22) ; this suggests a much wider dispersion than in Jeremiah's time, but cf Isa. xliii. 6. tlie blind . . . tog-etheri The reference to the blind comes from Isa. xlii. 16, for that to the lame we may compare Isa. xxxv. 6. The latter passage occurs in a chapter which presents other parallels to our passage, but is itself a late imitative composition largely based on Isa. xl-lv. It is rather improbable that our author was acquainted with it. The latter part is suggested by Isa. xl. 11, but the application is different. hither : i. e. to Palestine, in which the author was writing. Duhm points differently, reading the word for ' Behold ' and con- nects it with the next verse, which thus opens as the present verse (so Rothstein), 9. Thej^ come with tears (1. 4) of penitence (as in the moving passage iii. 21, 'the weeping of the supplications of the children of Israel ') and of joy. The LXX gives quite a different turn to the passage : ' They went forth with weeping, but with consolation will I bring them back,' i.e. they went into exile with sorrow, but I will bring them back with comfort. This yields an excellent sense, and may very well be correct. We have a similar contrast in Ps. cxxvi. 6, but Isa. liv. 7, 8 supplies a parallel to the sense of a more real if less formal kind. In any case it would be well to substitute 'consolations' for 'supplications.' The latter is not quite suitable to the situation, it has probably intruded into the passage under the influence of iii. 21, which, however, deals with the penitence that preceded the restoration (cf also Zech. xii. 10). The LXX is supported by the great prominence given by the JEREMIAH 31. 9. S 87 company shall they return hither. They shall come with 9 weeping, and with supplications will I lead them : I will ^ cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way wherein they shall not stumble : for I am a father to Is- rael, and Ephraim is my firstborn. " fOr, bring thent unto Second Isaiah to the comforting of Israel, of. Isa. xl. r, 2 (which strikes the keynote of Isa. xl-lv), xliii. i flF., xliv. 21-23, xlix. 13, 14 ff., li. 3, 12, Hi. 9, liv. 10. lead them : rightly connected with the preceding words. Hitzig and Graf preferred to connect with what follows, ' They shall come with weeping and with supplications: I will lead them, I will cause them to walk ;' for a similar combination cf. Ps. xliii. 3. For Mead' cf. Isa. xl. 11, xlviii. 21, xlix. 10, Iv. 12 ; Ps. xxiii. 2. rivers of waters: cf. Isa. xli. 18, xliii. 19, 20, xlviii. 21, xlix. 10. The way across the desert was, according to the Second Isaiah, to be relieved of all its peril from thirst and its discomforts, so that Yahweh might lead His people back in security and joy. The author of this passage, like the author of Isa. xxxv, writing with reference to the return from the dispersion, takes up the Second Isaiah's language, though with a less restricted application. Yah- weh brings His people to the rivers, as the shepherd his sheep, so that they are not tormented with thirst. a Btraig-ht way. A better rendering would be ' an even way.' All the roughness of the road is to be smoothed out of it, so that there is nothing against which the weary or the careless should stumble: cf. Isa. xl. 4 (marg.), xlii. 16, also xlv. 2 (with reference to Cyrus), Heb. xii. 13. The author of Isa. xxxv anticipates that a raised way will be specially constructed and reserved for the holy pilgrims to Zion, along which the unclean shall not be permitted to travel, and from which the godless (' fools shall not go to and fro on it') shall be excluded, while it will be too elevated for wild beasts to climb up to it. for Z am . . . firstborn: cf. 20, where also Ephraim is used of the northern tribes, Israel in the narrower sense of the term as contrasted with Judah. It is not uncommon for Yahweh to be represented as the Father of Israel in the wider sense, and Israel as Yahweh's son, sometimes His firstborn son (Exod. iv. 22, 'Israel is my son, my firstborn '), while in Ps. Ixxxix. 27 Yahweh says with reference to the king, ' I also will make him my firstborn.' The thought that Ephraim as contrasted with Judah possesses the right of the firstborn is rare. Wc read in i Chron. v. 1-3 that while Reuben was the firstborn he forfeited his birthright, by his 88 JEREMIAH 31. lo. S ro Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off; and say, He that scattered Israel misconduct, to the sons of Joseph. In 2 Sam. xix. 43 the LXX represents the men of Israel (i.e. the ten tribes) as saying to the men of Judah ' I am older' {literally ' firstborn ') ' than thou.' In Hos. xi. I Israel must apparently mean the people as a whole, since the reference is to the Exodus (unless Hosea believed that Judah was not in Egypt), but he continues in 3, ' Yet I taught Ephraim to go,' as if ' Israel' and 'Ephraim' could be used inter- changeably. There is much force in Cornill's plea that a post- exilic writer would hardly have spoken of Ephraim in this way, and in his inference that this clause is the work of Jeremiah. He regards it as the continuation of 5 and as effecting the transition to 15 ff. With the deletion of 6 it is easier to retain the clause. If 6 is retained for Jeremiah, this clause obviously cannot follow upon it, and it is questionable if it follows appropriately on 5 ; apart from the difficulty of interpolating it between 5 and 6. Yet if it is from Jeremiah it cannot have originally belonged to a context so saturated with Deutero-Isaianic words and ideas. We may then either take it as post-exilic like the context in which it stands, in spite of the difficulty that a Palestinian Jew should accord the pre- cedence to Ephraim, or regard it as the work of Jeremiah which is out of its original connexion. In the present writer's opinion it would stand at the close of 20 more fitly than anywhere else in the chapter. 10. The proclamation recalls Isa. xli. i, xlii. 10, xlix. i ; more- over in each of these passages ' the isles ' are mentioned, a very characteristic phrase of the Second Isaiah, used, with a somewhat indeterminate application, of the coastlands and islands of the Mediterranean, often with a suggestion of distance as here ('isles afar off'). The nations learn that it was Yahweh who had sent His people into exile. Ezekiel regards the glory of Yahweh as compromised not only by the sin of Israel, which stained His repu- tation among the heathen, but by the punishment, which after much forbearance He had inflicted on Israel, inasmuch as this exposed Him to the taunt of the heathen that He was powerless to defend His own people : cf. Isa. Hi. 5. Hence it is a theological necessity for Ezekiel that Yahweh should make plain to the nations by the restoration of Israel that He had been responsible for its captivity, and had not yielded to external necessity. So the author of this passage proclaims to the nations that it was Yahweh, who had scattered His people, who would now bring them back from the dispersion. declare. If the persons addressed in the two clauses are the same, the nations are first to hear the word, then declare it in JEREMIAH 31. 11,12. S 89 will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. For the Lord hath ransomed Jacob, and re- n deemed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he. And they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, 12 and shall flow together unto the goodness of the Lord, the far lands. Perhaps, however, the author meant nothing so definite as this, his language being rhetorical rather than exact. The present writer suspects that the text originally ran, ' give ear, ye isles afar off.' Cf. Isa. xlix. i, where the word rendered ' Listen ' is that translated * Hear ' in our passage, and a synonym (though not the same as here proposed) occurs in the parallel line. In any case 'and say' should probably be struck out. will grather . . . flock : based on Isa. xl. 11 ; cf. Jer. xxiii. 3, Ezek. xxxiv, 12 fT. 11. ransomed . . . redeemed. The former of these verbs is not used by Jeremiah with reference to the people, and once only besides (xv. 21) ; the latter is not used at all, occurring elsewhere in the book only in 1. 34 : both are favourite expressions of the Psalmists, the latter of the Second Isaiah also. strongfer than he : cf. Ps. xxxv. 10, Isa. xlix. 24, 25. 12. When the people are thus settled in Palestine they come to Zion to celebrate their deliverance : cf. Isa. li. 11 (quoted in xxxv. io\ It is not clear, however, what is meant by the words ' shall flow together unto the goodness of the Lord.' They might be a description of a feast on Yahweh's bounty, the fruits of the earth, for which the tribes stream (li. 44. Isa. ii. 2, Mic. iv. 2) to Zion, like the feast upon the tithe, which Deuteronomy had trans- ferred from the local sanctuaries to Jerusalem. This is what the parallelism suggests, but the alternative view that they stream from Zion after their thanksgiving to enjoy the bounty of Yahweh in their own home suits much better the enumeration which follows. If this is the thought, it must be owned that it is obscurely expressed. Duhm accordingly suggests that ' flow ' is a variant of 'sing,' which he transfers from the former part of the line to take its place, ' and sing concerning the goodness of the Lord.' Cornill agrees that 'flow' is unsuitable, but he retains the present text, taking the word to mean here ' to beam.' It occurs in Ps. xxxiv. 5, ' They looked unto him, and were lightened,' and in Isa. Ix. 5. where the A.V. rendered ' flow together ' as here, but the R.V. has corrected it to ' be lightened.' This rendering would not be so suitable here ; ' shall be radiant over ' would bnng out the sense. groodziess : i. e. bounty ; the word has a material, not a spiritual reference. 90 JEREMIAH 31. 13-15. SJ to the corn, and to the wine, and to the oil, and to the young of the flock and of the herd : and their soul shall be as a watered garden ; and they shall not sorrow any 13 more at all. Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together : for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make 14 them rejoice from their sorrow. And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the Lord. 15 [j] Thus saith the Lord : A voice is heard in Ramah, wine : i.e. ' must " or ' new wine,' see Driver's additional note on Joel i. 10 {Joel and Amos, pp. 79 fif.). The corn, wine, and oil are meHtioned together in Hos. ii. 8, 22, and ' the increase of thy kine and the young of thy flock' are added in Deut. vii. 13, similarly Deut. xii. 17. their soul . . . garden: of. Isa. Iviii. 11 ; 'watered' should rather be ' saturated.' The metaphor is far more expressive in the East, where drought is so common. For them the parched wilderness will rejoice and blossom as the rose ; their life will be one of inward tranquillity and refreshment, of outward prosperity and peace ; there will be no retrenchment of whatever is needed to bring the best fruit out of them, all their desire will be fulfilled. [The reference to this clause in vol. i, p. 55, is due to an oversight and should be deleted ; the passage is probably not Jeremiah's.] and they ... at all : cf. Isa. li. 11. The word rendered 'sorrow' means 'to languish' or 'pine.' Cf. Deut. xxviii. 65. 13. The first clause of the verse draws upon 4, the second has a parallel in Zech. viii. 4, 5. together: i.e. shall rejoice together, but we should probably read, with the LXX, ' shall be glad ' instead of ' together ; ' the difference is merel}' one of pointing. In any case it is simply the virgin who is represented as dancing ; it need hardly be said that the type of dancing familiar to modern readers is not intended. 14. The soul or appetite of the priests is satiated (literally ' saturated,' Isa. xliii. 24, Ps. xxxvi. 9) with fatness (Isa. Iv. 2, ' let your soul delight itself in fatness '). When Yahweh's bounty had satisfied the people with abundance of com and wine and oil, of flocks and herds, then their thank-offerings would be proportion- ately abundant, and the priest's portion would be very rich. 15-22. Here we meet once more with a genuine poem by Jere- miah, in which the qualities of his genius as the poet of the heart are displaj'ed in full measure. Its subject is the return of JEREMIAH 31. 15. J 91 lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her Ephraim ; like the earlier poenas in this section, it seems to belong to the prophet's first period, Delitzsch considers it to be the prophecy mentioned in xl. i as given to Jeremiah after Nebuzara- dan ' had let him go from Ramah,' but not actually recorded. His view is endorsed by Orelli. But the basis is altogether too slender, nothing can safely be built on the incongruity of xl. i with the sequel ; and the reference to Ramah was probably not occasioned by Jeremiah's presence there after the capture of Jerusalem. If we could regard xxx-xxxi as a prophecy uttered by Jeremiah after the fall of Jerusalem, the occasion suggested by Delitzsch would be better worth consideration. But at this time the prophet's thoughts and emotions would be centred on the tragedy which was in progress rather than on the long-continued exile of the northern tribes. 15. Cf. iii. 21. Rachel is here represented as weeping for the children she has lost, the northern tribes who have gone into exile. It is no mere poetical figure as a modem reader would naturally regard it, but the tribal ancestress is stirred from her rest in the grave to wail for the sons of whom she has been bereaved. The shrill lamentation is heard beyond the limits of her tomb ; and like her husband, when he believed that Joseph their son was dead (Gen. xxxvii. 35), she refused to be comforted (cf. Ps. Ixxvii. 2). Probably some natural phenomenon had been interpreted, in harmony with popular ideas, of which Jeremiah makes such effective use, as the bitter weeping of Rachel for the fate of her children. The passage does not indeed mention Rachel's grave, and we might think of her as raising her keen on the heights of Ramah as she surveyed the desolated home of her descendants. But the other view is more probable. The grave of Rachel is in Gen. XXXV. 16-20. xlviii. 7, placed between Bethel and Ephrath, a little distance from the latter place. Ephrath is identified in these passages with Beth-lehem. This identification underlies the application of our passage to Herod's massacre of the children in Beth-lehem, in Matt. ii. 17, 18. But it can hardly be correct. The site of Rachel's grave is fixed by i Sam. x. 2 as ' in the border of Benjamin.' The border intended is that between Benjamin and Ephraim, near Bethel (i Sam. x. 3\ not that between Ben- jamin and Judah. Bethel was ten miles, Ramah five miles, north of Jerusalem ; and these indications forbid an identifica- tion of the clan-mother's sepulchre with the traditional site, which is four miles south of Jerusalem and one mile north of Bethlehem. Nor would it be a natural situation, since Rachel had no connexion with Judah. It has been held by some eminent scholars, including Noldeke and Dillmann. that there were two traditions touching the site. It is, however, more probable that 92 JEREMIAH 31. 16-18. J children ; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, 16 because they are not. Thus saith the Lord : Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears : for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord ; and they 17 shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy latter end, saith the Lord ; and thy chil- 18 dren shall come again to their own border. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus^ Thou hast chas tised me, and I was chastised, as a calf unaccustomed to the yoke : turn thou me, and I shall be turned ; for thou the words 'that is Beth-lehem' in Gen. xxxv. 15, xlviii. 7 are a gloss, occasioned by the fact that elsewhere Ephrath is identified with Beth-lehem. In that case the Ephrath mentioned in these passages is a place otherwise unknown. 16. To the bitter weeping of Rachel for the loss of her children, Yahweh replies in words of gracious comfort, as to the bitter weeping of her children on account of their sins, in iii. 21, 22. The mother is assured that her work will be rewarded. She has toiled for her children, borne them in sorrow and reared them with untiring labour; but her pains have been vainly spent, for all she has lavished she has had no return. A century ago the death-wail had proclaimed the blighting of all her hopes, and still the sound of her lamentation is to be heard in Ramah. And now Yahweh bids her cease from her sorrow ; there will be a reward for her labour, the children of whom she thought herself irretrievably bereaved will come back once more, to brighten the eyes so long dimmed by tears. 17. This is regarded by several scholars as a variant of 16'', but opinion is divided on the question which is the original. The fact that the LXX gives a much shorter text in 17 may be variously interpreted, and it would be precarious to infer on this ground that 17 is a later addition. It is by no means certain that we have variants before us, but if so, it would be better to sacrifice 17 than the more distinctive and powerful I6^ 18. While the mother weeps for her bereavement, the children bemoan themselves for their sin. Ephraim confesses that his chastisement had been deserved. He had acted like a calf which had not been broken in, undisciplined and self-willed. He has found it hard to kick against the goad, and punishment has taught him the wisdom and blessedness of obedience. turn ... be turned. This rendering suggests that ' turn ' is used in its spiritual sense. It would be better to substitute * I will JEREMIAH 31. 19. J 93 art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, 19 turn ' for * I shall be turned,' since to the modern reader the latter rendering implies that the verb is passive, whereas in older English it was used in a neuter sense (see Driver, p. 366). The meaning is then that if Yahweh will take the initiative in turning the heart of Ephraim towards Him, Ephraim will on his part accept the Divine leading and turn to his God with all his heart. In itself this gives an admirable sense, for in all conversion there is the Divine initia- tive met by the human response. But we seem to have passed beyond this stage here ; Ephraim has already experienced the Divine attraction and responded to it. Accordingly it is better to translate ' bring me back, and I will return,' i.e. bring me back to my own land (cf. iv. i). 19. Surely . . . repented: a difficult clause. If the sense of 18 is correctly given in R.V., the obvious meaning of this clause is that Ephraim's repentance followed his return to God. It is no doubt true that as the religious life deepens, repentance for the sinful past also grows deeper, since with widening and purer vision the sense of the guilt and heinousness of sin increases. But it would be inappropriate to import such a consideration here. The repen- tance is the first sorrow for sin which precedes the return to God. Obviously the meaning cannot be either that Ephraim repents after his restoration to Palestine. Accordingly the text can only be rendered, as several scholars take it, 'after I turned [from thee] I repented.' This implies a double sense of the word ' turn ' in the same context. For this viii. 4, iii. 12, 14, 22 are quoted. In each of these cases, however, the sense could hardly be misunderstood, whereas here ' after I turned ' takes up * I will turn ' in the pre- ceding verse, and irresistibly suggests the same sense. Accord- ingly the text is suspicious. The LXX reads ' after my captivity,' which involves little change in the Hebrew. The sense is more satisfactory than the expression ; Duhm accepts the reading, but regards it as a marginal gloss, and changes * instructed ' into 'chastised,' reading 'Surely I repented after I was chastised, I smote upon my thigh.' This gives a smoother text, but the reason for the insertion of such a gloss is far from clear. Giese- brecht prefers the Hebrew to the LXX and retains ' instructed,' but agrees with Duhm in striking out the words in question as a gloss. Cornill retains the words with a slight correction, and connects with the closing words of i8, but he expunges ' after that I was instructed,' which he regards as philologically dubious. He renders- ' For thou art Yahweh my God, and to thee do I turn. I repent and smite,' &c. He thus gets rid of what he feels to be the main objection, the repetition of 'for' (disguised in R.V. by the rendering of the second by ' Surely ') which gives two reasons for ' I will turn.' 94 JEREMIAH 31. 20. J I repented; and after that I wa? instructed, I smote upon my thigh : I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, .0 because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephra- im my dear son ? is he a pleasant child ? for as often as I speak against him, I do earnestly remember him still : therefore my bowels * are troubled for him ; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord. '^ Heb. sound smote upon my thigh. This gesture was a sign of the uttermost grief, as we learn from Ezek. xxi. 12. Our equivalent, as Cornill says, would be *I smote upon my breast.' the reproach of my youth. According to usage this should mean that Ephraim's youth was an occasion of reproach. But in this context it must mean the reproach for the sins of his youth, Duhm reads simply ' I did bear reproach,' i.e. of exile ; he thinks that 'of my youth ' is the corruption of a gloss meaning * on account of my guilt.' Cornill deletes the whole clause. 20. In this beautiful soliloquy of Yahweh, the prophet does not shrink from the boldest anthropomorphism. Whenever the name of Ephraim passes His lips the tender memory revives in His heart. True, it is with horror and with threatening that He must speak of his conduct, yet the mention of his name even in anger revives all the ancient love. Moved to amazement by the paradox of His conflicting emotions, He asks Himself the reason. Is it because Ephraim is His darling child that, in spite of all his in- gratitude and disobedience, the old affection surges up irrepressibiy at every mention of his name ? speak against him : better ' speak of him.' The rendering in the text is adopted by several scholars, but although the speaking was normally of this character, the translation * against ' unduly narrows the thought. It is not simply the formal denunciation that is intended ; the most casual utterance of the name brings all the happy memories back. Giesebrecht reads ' am angry with him,' but the present text gives a wholly satisfying sense. earnestly remember. The meaning is not that whenever the name of Ephraim is uttered, Yahweh remembers him for good, and resolves on his restoration, but that the old happiness of their relations forces itself on His attention. therefore . . . upon him. Since Yahweh has not been able to dislodge the love for Ephraim from His heart, or consign the ancient relationship to oblivion, the affection which yearns over His prodigal son must be satisfied by his restoration to His favour. JEREMIAH 31. 21, 22. J 95 Set thee up waymarks, make thee guide-posts : set 2 1 thine heart toward the high way, even the way by which thou wentest : turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities. How long wilt thou go hither and 22 thither, O thou backsliding daughter ? for the Lord hath 21. Set thee . . . gfuide-posts. The injunction is strange. As Ciieyne says : ' Surely the setting up of guide-posts belongs not to the travellers, but to friendly persons who prepare the way for them' (Cfitica Biblica, p. 70). The word rendered 'guide-posts' occurs here only, if the reading is correct, since elsewhere the same form means 'bitterness' (as in 15, 'weeping of bitterness '), and that is unsuitable here. The sense required by the parallelism is 'sign-posts,' and we may either assign this meaning to it, or, following the LXX, which seems to give a transliteration rather than a translation, read thnmonm. This word means ' palm- trees,' but since a cognate word is used in x. 5 in the sense ' pillar ' (so R.V. marg., see note), a similar sense is assumed here. The erection of waymarks is often interpreted as designed to save stragglers, who may have strayed from the main body, from getting lost. Duhm thinks Israel is bidden set up the waymarks in spirit ; remembering the path by which she had come into exile, she should in thought erect the sign-posts to guide her return. But this, though favoured by the following clause, is rather artificial, and the more usual interpretation is precarious. For 'waymarks* Rothstein (in Kittel's Biblia Hehraica) prefers 'watchmen' {isdphtm\ and is very dubious about the suggested emendation of the parallel term, though he accepts it in Kautzsch's translation. It is perhaps best to acquiesce in the usual view as to the general drift of the passage without placing any undue confidence in the correctness of the text. set thine heart . . . wentest. Let Israel turn her thoughts again to the road, by which she had travelled the bitter road to exile ; now she may think on it with delight, for it is the way which will lead her home. these thy cities. The writer is obviously in Palestine. 22. To the exhortation in the preceding verse, the prophet adds what is at once remonstrance and appeal. How long will Israel hesitate to believe and act upon the gracious promise ? She flutters hither and thither in her indecision, let her strike out a clear undistracted course ! In such a passage the epithet 'back- sliding ' strikes a jarring note. The LXX reads ' dishonoured ; ' the best correction is Cornill's ' despoiled ' {Jiashshedudah) which involves the change of two consonants. for the LOBD ... a man. This passage is very difficult and 96 JEREMIAH 31. 22. J created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall encom- pass a man. has occasioned much discussion. It must describe something wholly out of the ordinary course, something unprecedented in nature or human experience (cf. Isa. xliii. 19, Num. xvi. 30). If the expression is borrowed from a popular proverb, as is commonly supposed, the point will be that Yahweh will bring the proverbially impossible to pass. Many think the meaning is ' A woman shall protect a man,' and this is itself variously explained : Israel shall protect Yahweh, i. e. His Temple in which He dwells ; or the Messiah is protected by his mother ; or less obviously unlikely, the land will be so peaceful that the woman will no longer need protection from the man, but will be able to accord it to him, but in such happy conditions what protection does the man need? Others take the clause to mean that the woman will cling about the man ; Israel will no longer hold Yahweh at a distance, but seek Him and cleave to Him. The new thing is that the woman woos the man, inverting the normal relationship. But this does not well harmonize with the fact that it is Yahweh who takes the initiative and creates a new thing. Nor does this any more than the previous rendering justify the description with which the clause is introduced. Such an unparalleled event as this demands seems to be expressed by Ewald's translation, *A woman shall be turned into a man.' This is somewhat precarious as a rendering of the present text, but Duhm by a trifling emendation has removed this objection. He takes it, however, as a witty gloss by a reader, who on account of the language is to be assigned to the post-exilic period. The point of the annotation is, he thinks, that Israel, which had been spoken of earlier in the passage as a male, is now represented as a female. But, as Cornill points out, this would be more than a trivial witticism ; introduced with the statement that Yahweh was creating a new thing, it would be a piece of blasphemy. Besides, such changes of representation are too common in Hebrew poetry for such a gloss to have any point. If this translation is right, the point must be that Israel, the weak, timid, irresolute woman (of course it is an Oriental who is writing), will be turned into a strong brave man. If the Hebrew text is retained in its present or in Duhm's sHghtly emended form, this seems to be the best interpretation. Only it may be questioned whether it is really satisfactory. For while the fulfilment of the promise, taken in its literal sense, would be unprecedented indeed, this would not be so in the metaphorical sense here intended. Accordingly a question arises as to the correctness of the text. The LXX reads * men shall go about in safety,' but so tame a promise is not so JEREMIAH 31. 27, 24. S 97 [S] Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Yet 23 again shall they use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall ^ bring again their cap- tivity : The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, O mountain of holiness. And Judah and all the cities 34 * Or, return to good as the Hebrew, nor is the emendation of the Hebrew based upon it by Schmidt {Enc, Bib. 2384) acceptable. Something of a more portentous character would be expected. In the parallel passage which speaks of Yahweh as doing a new thing (Isa. xliii. 19), it is the transformation of nature involved in making 'a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.' The most satisfying sense, as Cheyne has seen {Critica Biblica, pp. 70, 71), would be yielded by a text which similarly assured the captives that Yahweh would miraculously remove the physical obstacles to their return. His emendation, however, ' the Negeb shall change as (into) the Arabah ' (cf. Zech. xiv. 10), while closer to the traditional text than many of his conjectures, is nevertheless a good deal removed from it, and depends on his North Arabian theory. The present writer has no suggestion to make which he can regard as satisfactory, and must content himself with pointing out the difficulties which attach to other solutions. 23-26. To the prediction ofEphraim's restoration a prediction of Judah's similar restoration is appended. Probably this is not the work of Jeremiah, but belongs to the author of xxx, xxxi. It apparently presupposes the downfall of the Southern Kingdom ; the reference to Jerusalem as the ' mountain of holiness ' is not what we expect from Jeremiah, though the prophet does not describe it thus himself, but simply says that others will so designate it ; and the points of contact with 12-14 suggest that the same view should be taken of both passages. 23. Yet again: implying that at the time this was written such speech could not be used, since the land was a desolation and the Temple a ruin. bringf ag-ain their captivity : see note on xxix. 14. habitation of justice: the land of Judah or the capital is an abode in which righteousness dwells. ' Habitation ' is literally 'homestead.' mountain of holiness. The holy mountain may be cither the mountain land of Judah, or Jerusalem, or simply the Temple hill. The last is perhaps the most probable. For the whole verse cf. Zech. viii. 3. 24. The inhabitants of Judah will be able to practise the agricultural and pastoral life without any fear of the spoiler. II H 98 JEREMIAH 31. 25-27. S thereof shall dwell therein together ; the husbandmen, 25 and they that go about with flocks. For I have satiated the weary soul, and every sorrowful soul have I replen- 26 ished. Upon this I awaked, and beheld ; and my sleep 27 was sweet unto me. Behold, the days come, saith the 25. In this lovely verse the promises of 12 and 14 are recalled. The weary soul is refreshed, the pining (see note on 12) soul replenished. 26. This is a difficult verse. The views, which have found favour with many commentators, that either God or the people is represented as speaking seem to be universally abandoned. The author of the verse is referring to himself. Often the verse has been explained that when the prophet awoke from the sleep in which the foregoing revelation had been communicated to him, his dream seemed sweet to him as he looked back upon it. Such a statement could not well have come from Jeremiah, who did not recognize that God revealed Himself in dreams. But the words * and beheld' are not easy to harmonize with this interpretation. The ' sleep ' or prophetic ecstasy is the condition to which vision in the fuller sense belongs, but here the prophet speaks as if with his awakening true vision returned. We can hardly escape the conclusion then that the writer is contrasting the dream with the stern realities of actual life. He means that when he returns to the hard facts, when the glow dies down and, as we put it, reason resumes its sway, the gorgeous fancies of the night pale in the cold light of day. Plainly it is not the prophet himselfwho utters this confession of disillusion. It is one of his readers, who, not necessarily in a mocking mood as Duhm believes, but rather with the deep yearning that would fain hope against hope, confesses how attractive the prospect is, but how unlikely of realization. Cornill thinks that the verse stood originally after 22, and that ' the isolated couplet ' 25 should be struck out. Our verse would then refer to the prophecy of Ephraim's return in 1-22. He is inclined to think that its present position is due not to its original connexion with 23 ff., which would have been too slight for such a conclusion, but to the interpretation of these verses as standing in close connexion with 22 and the words of blessing on Jerusalem in 23 as spoken by the returned Ephraimites. A reader who was familiar with the hatred of Jew and Samaritan in the later period might well regard such anticipations of friendly relations as altogether too good to be true. 27-30. This passage raises critical difficulties. It falls into two parts (a) 27, 28, fb) 29, 30. The former may conceivably come from Jeremiah, though its connexion with 24 does not favour JEREMIAH 31. 28. S 99 Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched 28 this, and it is written rather from the standpoint of the author of XXX, xxxi, dwelling on the union of Israel and Judah. The latter it is not easy to connect with Jeremiah. It is true that the proverb quoted was current among the people at this time, since the use of it is attacked by Ezekiel (xviii. 2, 3\ But Ezekiel repudiates it as intrinsically false, and devotes a lengthy refutation to it ; the writer of our passage seems to regard it as justifiable under the present conditions, but as inapplicable and uncalled for in the bright future to which he looks forward. Such a judgement we cannot easily reconcile with what we know of Jeremiah, a man who would have seen as clearly and felt as strongly as Ezekiel the essential injustice of a moral government which could be justly described in such a proverb. 27. Behold, the days come, saith the LOBD. This formula, which we have met with previously in this section (xxx. 3), occurs with unusual frequency in this context (27, 31, 38). In three of these passages it introduces what is probably a non-Jeremianic oracle. But we ought not to permit this to prejudice us against the Jeremianic origin of the prophecy of the New Covenant. I will sow . . . beast. The land of Palestine is at present thinly peopled. But Yahweh will break up His fallow ground and plant it with seed of man and beast, so that both may abound. The metaphor recalls Ezek. xxxvi. 9-1 1, Hos. ii. 23, though the point in the latter passage is different. Long after the return from captivity the complaint was made of the sparse population of the country, as we learn from the very striking passage Isa. xxvi. 16-19, which probably belongs to the latter part of the fourth century b. c. In that passage the --peopling of the depleted land is anticipated through a resurrection of pious Israelites. On those bodies buried in the earth the life-giving dew of God will descend, and they will come forth from the ground as the buried seed awakens to life and comes forth under the same quickening influence. Thus the old promises of innumerable posterity made to the patriarchs and repeated in Hos. i. 10, Ezek. xxxvi. 9-1 1 will be fulfilled. the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The LXX reads simply * Israel and Judah.' The point of the passage is that Israel and Judah, whose future blessedness has been separately described in the previous part of the prophecy, are now united : cf. iii. iS, 1. 4; Isa. xi. ir-14 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 15-24 ; Hos. i. 11. 28. This verse is obviously intended to recall the terms of H 2 100 JEREMIAH 31. 29. S over them to pluck up and to break down, and to over- throw and to destroy, and to afflict ; so will I watch over 29 them to build and to plant, saith the Lord. In those Jeremiah's commission (i. 10) and his vision of the almond tree (i. II, 12). 29. The popular proverb here quoted was current in the dark days of Judah's tragedy, as we learn from Ezek. xviii. 2, and the sentiment to which it gives such pungent expression is found in Lam. V. 7. It represents an antagonism to the ancient doctrine of solidarity, which had long been unchallenged in theory and carried out in practice. This doctrine had affirmed the mutual responsibility of the members of the group which formed its social unit. The individual had but little independent significance. If a man killed one who belonged to another clan, the individual aspect of the case was unimportant in comparison with the collective. The vital fact was that one clan had shed the blood of another clan, and the vengeance was directed not so much at the actual offender as at his clan as a whole. If a man broke the law or violated some taboo, then it was considered quite just that his family should suffer with him in expiation of his transgression. Achan's sons and daughters, and even his possessions, were stoned and burned along with the culprit himself (Joshua vii. 24, 25). The whole city of Nob was smitten with the edge of the sword, 'men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses,' because Ahimelech the priest had helped David (i Sam. xxii. 16-19). Saul's own children and grandchildren were hanged up before Yahweh to remove a famine caused by Saul's slaughter of the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua's oath (2 Sam. xxi. 1-9). With the develop- ment of the social and political organization and the break-up of the older clan system, the cru6l injustice of such treatment was more and more recognized. A noteworthy advance was made when Amaziah slew the conspirators who had slain his father, but spared their children (2 Kings xiv. 5, 6). The Deuteronomic Code explicitly enjoined that the fathers should not be put to death for the children or the children for the fathers, but every man for his own sin (Deut. xxiv. 16). And if conscience revolted in the sphere of the relations between man and man, it was natural that it should do so in that of the relations between man and God. It had seemed to an earlier age quite unexceptionable that God should visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation. And still with bitter indignation it was urged that sc in fact He acted. The very form in which the protest was ex- pressed, reveals how deep the people felt the injustice to be. Their ancestors had sinned, no doubt, but what had their trans- gression been ? It was as if a man had eaten sour grapes. In thi.- JEREMIAH 31. 30, 31. SJ loi days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are. set on edge. But 30 every one shall die for his own iniquity : every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge, [j] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 31 course of nature the effect of this would not simply be confined to the man himself, but it would be of the most transient character, and would leave no permanent mark behind it. Such had been the intrinsic quality of the fathers' sin as their children judged it. But in the moral government of God how unnatural liad His treat- ment of the transgression been ! The penalty had been transferred from ancestors to descendants, from the guilty to the innocent. And it was a penalty for a transgression of so trivial a character, which had properly no serious consequences and did no perma'n- ent moral damage. Thus they criticized God for undue interference with the chain of cause and effect ; He had diverted the punishment from the guilty to the innocent, and He had treated the offence as far more grave than it was in reality. This criticism Ezekiel f.et himself to meet. He does not attempt to vindicate the truth of the traditional view, he affirms in the most uncompromising form the doctrine of individual responsibility. ' The soul that sinneth, it shall die,' it and no other. While he fully agrees that merit and guilt, reward and punishment, should not be transfer- able, he repudiates the charge that the ways of Yahweh had been unequal. The proverb was false in point of fact ; his own genera- tion was not suffering from the entail of ancestral guilt, but reaping the harvest of its own transgression ; moreover it rusted on an '*'"*^ "ate of sin which was altogether too light-hearted. The extreme Y'« '»'>^^'^^,'in which Ezekiel stated his position needed modification: there was a real problem, which in his zeal for God's honour he refused to see. It is noteworthy that the present passage differs from Ezekiel's discussion, in that it seems to recognize that the proverb has had and still has its justification, but that in the happy future retribution will follow the lines of strict justice. set on edge : literally blunted, 30. his own iniquity. In this period there may still be sin of such a character as to merit death. 31-34. We now reach the great prophecy of the New Coven- ant. Its Jeremianic origin was questioned by Movers, who attributed it to the Second Isaiah. As already mentioned (p. 68), Stade was the ■Irst to reject the authenticity ofxxx, xxxi, including this prophecy, but without assigning reasons ; while Smend, who did assign leasons for the rejection of the whole, did not go into the question of this passage at any length, and so far as he did I02 JEREMIAH 31. 31. J make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with so was answered by Giesebrecht in the first edition of his com- mentary. In his article 'Covenant' in the Encyclopaedia Bihlica^ Schmidt relegated the whole section to the period of the Graeco- Persian War, but neither in this article nor in those on 'Jeremiah ' did he give any adequate proof of this position, but contented himself with a reference to Smend's discussion. A very search- ing investigation was devoted to the question by Duhm. He was driven from the acceptance of the authenticity only with great reluctance. Not unnaturally the surrender of it involved a much lower estimate of its value. The same phrases bear different meanings on different lips. What a later scribe, zealous for the Law, intended by this oracle seemed to him something far inferior to what Jeremiah would have meant by it ; the criticism thus controls to some extent the exegesis, and the result is to belittle the passage. Instead of the splendid climax of Jeremiah's teach- ing, epoch-making as scarcely any other pre-Christian conception, we had the dwarfed ideal of a post-exilic legalist, devoid alike of originality and historical significance. It is among the chief • merits of Cornill's commentary that it contains a brilliant refuta- tion of Duhm's arguments, which it is to be hoped may prove a final vindication of the authenticity. No student of Jeremiah to whom it is accessible should fail to read this masterly argument. An article by Prof. W. J. Moulton in the Expositor for April, 1906, should also be mentioned. Marti firmly maintains the Jeremianic origin in the last edition (1907) of his History of the Religion of Israel. Prof. Cheyne has now definitely assigned the passage to a supplementer {The Tivo Religions of Israel, pp. 60, 61). Duhm says that if genuine the passage would be very impc-un b' since it would express the antithesis between the prophet? ,,,J Deuteronomic conception of religion. But this passage ^<,^ not, he proceeds, contain such a contrast ; it promises a new * coven- ant ' but not a new ' law,' only an inward conformity of the people with the Law ; and it puts the stress on the good results which this will have for the people, but betrays no need for a higher kind of religion. If one is not dazzled by the expressions ' new covenant,' 'write on the heart,' the passage says no more about the individual than what Deuteronomy already regarded as possible (xxx. II ff.) and desirable (vi. 6-8), that each should be familiar with the Law and loyally obey it. A still greater objection is the bad, cumbersome, slipshod style, the prominence of such phraseology as is dear to the supplementers, the complete abse.nce of original figures of speech, which are to be found even in the sr.ortest poems of Jeremiah. The other criticisms made by Duhm are best dis- cussed as they arise in the detailed interpretation of the passage, JEREMIAH 31. 32. J 103 the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that 3^ but it is desirable to examine at this point those which have just been mentioned. The present writer has argued (vol. i, pp. 12-14) that the oppo- sition to Deuteronomy felt by Jeremiah was by no means so fundamental as several scholars, including both Duhmand Cornill, have asserted. But leaving this question aside, the Old Covenant was for Jeremiah that made by God with Israel at Sinai. And this, as Cornill has shown, had for its content and basis the Decalogue. This is clear from the description given in Jer. vii. The same is true of the present passage, where there is a clear^ contrast between the law written with God's finger on the tables} of stone and the law written by God in the heart. DeuteronomyJ" accordingly does not come into consideration at all ; and the need for a new law to supersede the Decalogue would not have been felt by Jeremiah. The New Covenant is new not in the sense that") J' it introduces a new moral and religious code, but that it confers ' a new and inward power of fulfilling the code already given. The Law ceases to be a standard external to the individual, it has jbecome an integral part of his personality. The second objection is not without force. But the oracle may have been touched by supplementers, as so much of Jeremiah's prophecies, and the form in which it was first written down may have been due to Baruch. Even so not the substance alone, which is the vital matter, but also the form is largely Jeremianic. The vagueness, of which Duhm complains, disappears when the passage is taken out of its isola- tion and set in its context in Jeremiah's teaching as a whole. The charge that it is lacking in original poetic images is not weighty, unless we unjustifiably restrict Jeremiah's authentic utterances to the compass assigned them by Duhm ; and for daring originality the thoughts of the passage are not surpassed even by any utterance of Jeremiah himself. We may pass then from these general considerations to the detailed study of the passage, feeling that so far nothing has been urged against its authenticity that need shake our confidence in it. The thought of the passage has been expounded and its signific- ance set forth in the Introduction to this commentary (vol. i, pp. 43-48), and the writer would be glad if the student would read the notes which follow in connexion with that more general discussion (see also his notes on Heb. viii. 8-13). 31. a new covenant. On the Hebrew idea of * covenant' the Bible Dictionaries and histories of the religion of Israel may be consulted. The term means generally a compact or agreement made between twc parties, though in some cases it is simply imposed by one on the other, or may I>e a promise to which con- ditions are not aUached. In antiquity the religion of a people I04 JEREMIAH 31. 32. J I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by was something that had grown with its growth, it had come down from immemorial antiquity. The relation between a clan and its deity was a natural and inevitable relation. The religion of Israel constituted an exception to this, in that it was a coven- ant religion. In other words, the relation between Yahweh and Israel was neither inevitable nor compulsory. Yahweh, free to choose any nation, chose Israel to be His people, and Israel took Yahweh to be its God, promising obedience to His commands. This covenant was ratified at Sinai. But Israel's inveterate dis- obedience had released Yahweh from His obligation. Hence the old Sinaitic covenant was annulled by the dissolution of Israel's national existence. But while the Old Covenant was thus abolished, the ties which bound Yahweh to His people could not be so readily snapped. Hence a New Covenant will replace the old, but a covenant which will provide against the failure that had overtaken its predecessor, and infallibly ensure its own permanent validity. The expression ' to make a covenant ' is properly ' to cut a covenant,' perhaps derived from the custom mentioned in xxxiv. 18 (see note). with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. In view of 33, where ' the house of Israel ' alone is mentioned, it :z probable that we should regard 'and . . . Judah' as an insertion. Jeremiah meant by 'Israel' the whole people including Judah. The author of these chapters, taking ' Israel ' to mean the northern' tribes, adds the reference to Judah, in conformity with his desire to emphasize the restoration not of these only but also of Judah. The omission of the words also restores the Qina rhythm. It is with the nation, not with the individual, that the New Covenant is made. 32. The prophet proceeds to define the New Covenant, first negatively in this verse, and then positively in 33, 34. It is not to be like the covenant made at the Exodus, the Sinaitic covenant. In what respect it was different has been already explained (p. 103). The verse is cumbrously expressed, but it would impoverish the passage to strike it out. The contrast with the Old Covenant needed to be brought out and its failure explicitly mentioned, in order to justify the making of a New Covenant. Cornill lightens the style and restores a regular Qina measure by omitting ' to bring them out of the land of Egypt ' and ' saith the Lord.' Giesebrecht omits the latter, but in the former case stnkesout simply ' the land of,' though he inserts ' aforetime ' after ' I maJe.' This, while less satisfactory in form, is better in substance. Cornill thinks that the definite mention of the Exodus was unncr-ssary, since it was quite clear what was intended. But there was a possibiUty of misunderstanding, which is precluded by this c'aur.e. JEREMIAH 31. 33. J - 105 the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; ^ which my covenant they brake, aUhough I was ^an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant 33 " Or, forasjiiuch as they brake my covenant ^' Or, lord over ihein , Zj . in the day. Naturally Jeremiah does not mean the day on which the Hebrews left Egypt, any more than in vii. 22 (see note), but at that p&riod. took them by the hand. The metaphor is of a child guided by his father in his faltering steps; it is a beautiful picture of Yahweh'&%entlenessand loving care : cf. Hos. xi. 1-4, which may have been in the prophet's mind, Isa. xl. 11, xli. 13, xlii. 6, li. 18. Z was an husband. The first person is emphatic, as is the third person in the preceding clause. The verb is found also in iii. 14, where it certainly means ' I am a baal,' that is, both lord and husband (see the note). This does not yield a good sense here, and some have wished to give the word the meaning ' to loathe,' ' to reject.' This is philologically dubious, but the sense is that required, and a very slight alteration in the Hebrew {gaialli for ba'alii) proposed by Giesebrecht gives it. Probably the LXX, which is quoted in Heb. viii. 9 (see the notes on that passage", read this verb, so also the Syriac. We should accordingly sub- stitute here ' and I abhorred them.* Duhm accepts this emendation and draws the inference that Jeremiah cannot have written the passage. The rejection must refer to the exile, but a writer who snf"^,'; s of this as a rejection of the 'fathers' must himself have '.ved long aftervvards. But this is to overlook the fact that the * fathers ' are in the first instance the generation that came out of Egypt, whom Jeremiah would rightly so describe, since they belonged to the distant past. If we are to press his language, we should be more justified in referring the pronouns which follow (' they,' ' them ') to the Hebrews of the Exodus than to the Jews •~f the Captivity. But obviously Jeremiah is not speaking with such strictness ; he looks at the nation as having a continuous life, and while the < fathers' refers at first to the Hebrews in the wilderness, the prophet passes in the next clauses to the thought of the people throughout its history of rebellion which finally drove Yahweh to the last extremity. The rejection is not to be identified with the exile, it is its antecedent. Besides, the exile of the northern tribes was vcr3' present to Jeremiah's mind, and that had taken place a ^;ood deal more than a century earlier. Wc are accordingly not justified in drawing the inference that the passage must have been written long after Jeremiah's time. 33. Now follows the positive description of the New Covenant. io6 JEREMIAH 31. 33. J that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my law in their inward parts, Yahweh will put His law in the inward parts and write it on the heart. Duhm raises the objection, Why did not God do this at the first ? Is He not to blame for the failure of the Old Covenant ? Cornill points out that such an objection banishes the idea of history, on which elsewhere Duhm himself lays such stress, and we might as well ask why God did not send Jesus at the Creation instead of in the fullness of time. A second objection is that we receive no explanation of the writing of the law on the heart. |The writer does not speak of a new or a better law, or any trans- dformation of man's nature. He simply says Y^.weh will faccomplish it. But such an objection is valid only if the present passage is taken by itself and treated as the author's complete message. If Jeremiah was its author, then it stands in a very rich context, which amply supplies the explanation of what is here left unexplained. He had elsewhere spoken of the circumcision of the heart (iv. 4), he had communicated the Divine promise * I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord,' and announced their return to Him with their whole heart (xxiv. 7). On this point what is said in the Introduction should be read (vol, i, pp. 43, 44). The 'new birth,' the 'new heart,' as the Gospel proclaims them, are really implied in this great saying. It is not the author's ideal that the nation should become a people of legalists and ritualists, familiar with all the regulations of the ceremonial law and instinctively obeying them. It is rather that in the regenerate personality there should reside the eternal principles of religion and morality as the spring of all action. Th '. Jeremianic origin of the passage is attested by the Second Isaiah'ii reference (Isa. li. 7) to ' the people in whose heart is my law,' which seems to depend on this verse. 1 will put . . . write it. * Instead of an external 'aw engraven on tables of stone, there will be the law written on tables that are hearts of flesh. An external code must al vays' bo rigid ancj inelastic ; frequently it affords no guidance to conduct. and its control acts as an irritant to the natural man. The law written on the heart implies an inner principle which can deal with each case of conscience sympathetically as it arises, and can ensure the fulfilment of its behests, because it has brought the j^'iwinner life into perfect harmony with itself. The heart, and thus '* the whole life, has v^ith the engraving of the law upon it, itself become new. The heart embraces not only the emotional and ethical but also the intellectual life. And thus, by being trans- formed from a foreign ruler into a native and inward impulse, the law gains the power of self-fulfilment.' (Quoted from the editor's 4 JEREMIAH 31. 34. J 107 and in their heart will I write it ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people : and they shall 34 teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews in The Century Bible, pp. 171, 172). and I will be their God, and they shall he my people. Such had indeed been the relationship which the Old Covenant had been designed to establish (Exod. xix. 5, 6, 2 Sam. vii. 24) ; but God's purpose had been ultimately thwarted by Israel's disobedience. This had created a serious problem for earlier prophets, who solved in various ways the intolerable contradiction involved in the relationship of a holy God to a sinful people : Jeremiah solves it by this doctrine of the New Covenant. The people, not the individual, remains with him as with his predecessors the religious unit. ' But the advance he makes is that Israel's side of the covenant is perfectly fulfilled, because religion has become a matter for the individual. While it was regarded exclusively as national, it was impossible for it to be other than superficial and external. By carrying it into the heart, it became personal, and because each individual was righteous, the aggregate of individuals that formed the nation must be righteous too. Thus we may say that individualism guaranteed the reality of national religion. But by this transformation in the idea of religion the national limitations were really transcended, and since the moral and spiritual are the universal, with Jeremiah's doctrine of the New Covenant universalism was born. The State could perish, and sacrifice be brought to an end, but religion had been detached from these accidents, and could therefore survive them.' {Hebrews in The Century Bible, p. 172.) 34. As things are, the knowledge of Yahvveh is derived from external sources, so that one man communicates it to another, and he in turn to a third. But in the blessed time to come, this knowledge will be the property of each, an inward possession, implanted by God Himself, who gives to all, from the least to the greatest, a heart to know Him (xxiv. 7). And this knowledge iS not just the knowledge of the law, even in the highest sense, still | lcs3 docs the prophet mean that each is to become an expert in I all the minute regulations of t he cercmoniaL iaw. Such would,' indeed, be an ideal unworthy of Jeremiah. But happily we know from himself what the phrase * to know me,' so often on his lips (ii. 8, iv. 22, ix. 3, 6, 24, xxii. 16, xxiv. 7), really meant for him. In xxii. i6 he speaks of Josiah as evincing his knowledge of io8 JEREMIAH 31. 35. JS greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. 35 [s] Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light Yahweh in that ' he judged the cause of the poor and needy ; ' and still more definitely in ix. 24 he describes the knowledge of God, which is man's true glory, to be the insight into His character : ' let him that glorieth glory in this, that he under- standeth, and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth : for in these things I delight.' Such an insight into the character of Yahweh, it is the Divine purpose to implant in every man. And a character and conduct on the part of each, corresponding to Yahweh's own character and conduct, will be the inevitable out- come of this gracious dealing with them. We have an echo of this verse in Isa. liv. 13, * And ail thy children shall be taught of the Lord.' I will forg-ive ... no more. Naturally, ideal relations could not be restored while the sin of Israel remained unpardoned and ever present to the Divine consciousness. The disturbing element must be removed, an amnesty in the fullest sense of the term must be proclaimed. Clemency will forgive, but, a strange paradox, Omniscience will forget ! 35-37. This section is regarded by several, though not, as is sometimes said, by all critics as a later addition. Movers and Hitzig attributed it to the Second Isaiah ; this view was rejected by Graf, who, however, thought that 35, 36 seemed like a supplementary insertion, 37 like a marginal gloss. Giesebrecht, Kuenen, Stade, Cornill, Kent, and Gillies treat it as late ; Duhm, it need hardly be said, regards it as non-Jeremianic, but he also assigns it to another author than 31-34. It is, nevertheless, attributed to Jeremiah by Orelli, Konig, Bulmerincq, Rothstein, Koberle, and apparently Driver. In the LXX 37 is placed before 35, but it would be too hasty to judge the \vhole passage on this ground ; at most it points to a cer- tain probability that 37 was originally a marginal gloss, which has been taken into the text, now at this point now at that. Verse 37 is also, alike in style and content, scarcely on Jeremiah's level ; the measuring of heaven and searching out of its foundations has no inner connexion, as Giesebrecht points out, with the rejection of Israel. The strenuous nationalism in the whole passage is scarcely favourable to its authenticity. It is true that Jeremiah was a fervent patriot, but he did not put patriotism in the first place, and the very strong, one might almost say exaggerated, expression here given to the thought is not what we expect from him. Further the points of contact with the Second Isaiah are very striking. Giesebrecht quotes as, parallels to the form and, content of 35 the JEREMIAH 31. 3''. S 109 by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a h'ght by night, which f^stirreth up the sea, that the waves thereof roar ; the Lord of hosts is his name : If these ordinances depart from before me,saith the Lord, 36 ■^ Or, stillctli the sea, -ivhen ifc. See Isa. li. 15. following : Isa. xl. 12, 26, xlii. 5, xliv. 24 flf., xlv. 7, 18. The present writer cannot attach the same weight to these as several critics do, since he does not agree that prophetic passages which speak of Yahvveh's work in creation or the rule of nature are necessarily later (see notes on v. 20-22). For the words * If these ordinances depart from before me' Giesebrecht compares Isa. liv. 9, 10, though this is not a very close parallel. The words 'which stirreth up the sea, that the waves thereof roar ; the Lord of hosts is his name ' are found in precisely the same form in Isa. li. 15. The unmetrical style is also urged against the passage. It must of course be remembered that the verses are prejudiced by their position. It is difficult to believe that Jeremiah can have uttered them as the climax to the prophecy of the New Covenant. If it were necessary to hold that they were written for their pres- ent position, it would be better to assign them to the compiler of XXX, xxxi. But if they are an independent fragment the case is not so clear. The fact that these chapters contain a great deal of secondary matter, the probably later origin of 37 which is closely connected with 35, 36, the nationalist character of the passage, and to some extent the points of contact with II Isaiah, incline the editor to regard 35, 36, as well as 37, as non-Jeremianic, but he cannot pretend to consider the arguments for this position as in any way conclusive. 35. the ordinances of the moon and of the stars. We should probably read, with the LXX, simply ' the moon and the stars.' The mention of * the ordinances ' with reference to moon and stars and not also to the sun is strange. stirreth up the sea. The verb is used in this sense here and in Isa. li. 15, and also according to the majority of commentators in Job xxvi. 12, though it is not improbable that in the latter passage we should adopt the margin ' stilleth * (see the editor's note). the IiOBD of hosts is his name. A similar formula occurs in all three of the * creation passages ' in Amos (iv. 13, v. 8, ix. 6), which are regarded by many scholars as later insertions. 36. these ordinances: i.e. the Divine decrees wliicli the heav- enly bodies obe}'^, which not one of them dare disobey (Isa. xl. 26). Just as soon should those laws fail which hold the universe to- gether as ar. ordered system, as Israel's national existence be finally destroyed. no JEREMIAH 31. 37-40. S then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a na- 37 tion before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord : If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord. 38 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel 39 unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go out straight onward unto the hill Gareb, and 40 shall turn about unto Goah. And the whole valley of 3*7. The point in the comparison is the impossibility of the events happening. As little as man can measure the expanse of heaven or work down to the bases on which the world's fabric rests, so little can God cast Israel away on account of its sin. This is hardly in the manner of such a prophet as Amos, who definitely contemplated the final rejection of Israel for its sin. 38-40. This is anti-climax indeed. It is hardly likely that a prophet such as Jeremiah would have concerned himself with the future boundaries of Jerusalem in this minute way. In the post-exilic period the people were much preoccupied with ques- tions such as this and the restoration of the fortifications. The closest parallel is to be found in Zech. xiv, which may even have suggested our passage. The extent of the city is not the only point of interest to the author ; he emphasizes also its dedication to Yahweh, both at the beginning and the end of the oracle. 38. tlie tower of Hananel. This is similarly mentioned in Zech. xiv. 10. Its position is defined by Neh. iii. i, xii. 39 as at the north-east corner of the city, while the gate of the comer, which is also mentioned in Zech. xiv. 10, seems from 2 Kings xiv. 13, 2 Chron. xxvi. 9, to have been at the north-west corner. This verse accordingly indicates the limits of the north wall of the city from east to west. 39. the hill Gareb and Goah are mentioned nowhere else. Presumably we start from the north-west corner and turn south (Giesebrecht reads 'southward ' instead of * straight onward,' per- haps rightly) or south-west as far as the hill Gareb ; from which the line makes a turn, perhaps due south till Goah is reached. For Goah Cheyne suggests Gibeah ' hill,' identifying it with Olivet. 40. The regeneration of Jerusalem is to go so ^r that even the unclean districts on the south, the valley of Hinnom defiled with human sacrifice (' the dead bodies '), are to be taken into the city and yet not to compromise its sanctity. Rather they will be JEREMIAH 31. 40—32. i. S iii the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto tlie brook Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate to- ward the east, shall be holy unto the Lord ; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. [S] The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord 32 redeemed from their uncleanness by the mighty hoh'ness resident within it, so that the whole city will be holy to Yahweh. the ashes: properly ' fat,' i.e. the ashes which resulted from the burning of the fat of the victims. the fields unto the brook Kidron. The Hebrew presents us with two alternative readings, one of which is adopted in R.V., while the other gives us a word which, if it is not a mere blunder, is not found elsewhere, and the meaning of which is un- certain ; perhaps, as Graf supposed, places where rubbish was deposited. Cheyne follows Klostermann in reading * furnaces.' The valley of Kidron is on the east of Jerusalem. the horse gate : according to Neh. iii. 27, 28, was near the Temple on the south-east of Jerusalem. xxxii. The Redemption of a Piece of Family Property BY Jeremiah, and its Significance. The incident here recorded is obviously historical, and its meaning lies on the surface. At a time when the outlook was very dark, and landed property seemed the most hopeless form of investment, Jeremiah exercised his right of redemption, and bought with all due legal formalities a field from his cousin Hanamel. By this action he expressed his conviction that, in spite of the impending destruc- tion of the State and captivity of the people, the time would come when property would be bought, no longer as a venture of faith, but as one of the ordinary transactions of life in which security of tenure could be taken for granted. The reasons which prompted Hanamel's offer to his cousin are unknown, but probably the scarcity and the consequent high prices had reduced him to the necessity of selling his land. That he should have gone to Jere- miah is remarkable, in view of the bitter persecution the prophet had had to endure from his kinsmen at Anathoth. We gather further from the incident that Jeremiah was apparently possessed of a competence. While the incident itself is clearly historical, the chapter raises difficult critical problems. The historical introduction explaining Jeremiah's circumstances at the time is regarded by most recent critics as secondary. In the prayer of Jeremiah Stade rejected 112 JEREMIAH 32. i. S in the tenth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, which was 17-23, and found considerable support in this view. Duhm carried through the criticism to the extent of rejecting the whole of 16-44, ^"*^ h^^ results have been accepted by Cornill and Kent. Schmidt had independently reached the same result. Giesebrecht takes 1-5, 17-23, 28-42 as later insertions, while GilHes and Rothstein pass a similar judgement. The detailed discussion is best reserved for the notes ; here the editor may simply say that he regards 1-5, 17-23, 28-35 ^s later additions ; and 36-44 as Jeremianic in basis, but in its present form later than the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, and perhaps worked over by the editor. xxxii. 1-5. In the tenth year of Zedekiah Jeremiah received a revelation when he was imprisoned in the court of the guard. For the king had imprisoned liim because he had said that Yah- weh would give Jerusalem to the king of Babylon, and Zedekiah should be captured and taken to Babylon, and be there till Yahweh visited him, so that the war with the Chaldeans was doomed to failure. 6-15. Yahweh told me that Hanamel my cousin would come and ask me to buy his field in Anathoth, which I had the right to purchase. So when he came and asked me to do this, I knew that it was Yahweh who had told me. I bought the field for seventeen shekels, with all the due legal formalities, and gave the deed of purchase to Baruch, charging him to put them in an earthen vessel that they might be long preserved. For Yahweh proclaims that property shall once again be bought in the land. 16-27. When I had delivered the deed to Baruch I prayed thus : O Yahweh, Creator of the world, for whom nothing is too hard, merciful to thousands and repaying the children for the sins of their fathers, wise and mighty, observant of all men's ways that they may receive the due reward of their deeds, who didst win for Thyself a name in Egypt, and didst bring Israel thence with great wonders to this plentiful land, wherein Thy people have utterly disobeyed Thee, the siege mounts are here for the capture of the city, and by sword, famine, and pestilence it will be delivered into the hand of the Chaldeans ; yet Thou hast said, Buy the field, although the city is given up to the Chaldeans. Then Yah- weh answered, * I am Yahweh, is anything too wonderful for me?' 28-35. Therefore thus saith Yahweh : I will deliver this city to the Chaldeans, who shall capture and burn it, polluted as it is with idolatry. The people have done evil from their youth, the city has provoked Me from the day it was built, so that I will remove it out of My sight for the sins which have angered Me. They have turned from Me in disobedience to My urgent instruction, JEREMIAH 32. 2. G n^ the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar. Now at that 2 defiling My house with their idols, and ofTering their children to Molcch, though I had never enjoined anything so horrible upon them. 36-44. Yet to this city, now captured by Babylon, I will bring back its people from their dispersion, and cause them to dwell safely in it. They shall be My people, I will be their God. 1 will give them a heart to fear Me, will make an everlasting covenant with them, and plant them in the land. As I have brought evil on them, so I will bring all the good I have promised. Fields shall again be bought in all parts of the land with all the due for- malities of the law. xxxii. 1-5. This introduction, narrating the circumstances in which the transactions here recorded took place, is apparently editorial. The suggestion which it conveys to the reader is that Jeremiah's imprisonment was due to Zedekiah's resentment at the prediction of his capture and exile to Babylon, whereas it was due rather to the hostility of the princes and those responsible for the conduct of the military defence. The king was as friendly to Jeremiah as he dared to be, and used his prerogative to protect him as far as possible. But the passage is quite trustworthy in its indication of the period at which the event happened. The prophet's arrest took place in the interval between the first and second part of the siege, when the Babylonian army had left Jerusalem on account of the relief expedition sent by Egypt. He used the opportunity to start for Anathoth to attend to his property there, but was arrested on the pretext that he was deserting to the Chaldeans. After many days spent in the prison, he was removed, on his own petition to the king, to the court of the guard, and remained there till the city was taken (xxxvii. 11-21, xxxviii. 28). It was while he was in this condition of honourable confinement, in which his friends were permitted to visit him, that Hanamel came to request him to buy his field. We do not know definitely whether the siege had been resumed, but since ' many days ' had elapsed between Jeremiah's arrest and his removal to the court of the guard, the probabilities are that the city had been again in- vested. This view is also favoured by the statement in 2, ' at that time the king of Babylon's army besieged Jerusalem.' In that case Hanamel would already be in Jerusalem, and had not come in from Anathoth in order to sell his land. (The contrary view taken by Cornill in his commentary, p. 359, is withdrawn, in favour of the view here taken, on p. xxxvii.) 1. the tenth year of Zedekiah. The siege of Jerusalem began in the ninth year of his reign (see xxxix. i). 2. Jeremiah the prophet. We have here the same designation II I ii4 JEREMIAH 32. 3-6. SJ time the king of Babylon's army besieged Jerusalem : and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the guard, 3 which was in the king of Judah's house. For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up, saying. Wherefore dost thou prophesy, and say, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, 4 and he shall take it ; and Zedekiah king of Judah shall not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him mouth to mouth, and his eyes 5 shall behold his eyes ] and he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the Lord : though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye shall not prosper ? 6 [J] And Jeremiah said. The word of the Lord came which is so characteristic a feature in the Hebrew text of the section xxvii-xxix. It is omitted in the LXX. the court of the gnard. This was attached to the king's palace : cf. Neh. iii. 25. A portion of the court was apparently set apart for those whom for any reason it was expedient to keep under observation and restraint, but whom it was undesirable to herd with the inmates of the common prison. The term does not mean the court where the guard was stationed, but the court where prisoners were guarded (see Driver, p. 367). 3-5 are a parenthesis, explaining the grounds on which Zedekiah had imprisoned the prophet. 3. For: so Driver. It is more generally translated 'Where.' 5. The latter part of this verse (' until . . . prosper ') is absent from the LXX, and is presumably a later addition. The words ' until I visit him' suggest that a change was to take place in Zedekiah's fortunes, and therefore bears a favourable sense ; never- theless they are ambiguous, and, as such, unlikely to have been uttered by Jeremiah. We have no indication elsewhere that Zedekiah's condition was ameliorated. The author of this addition may have been acquainted with some story of the kind, but it is more probable that he confused Zedekiah with Jehoiachin, to whom such a change of fortune actually came (Hi. 31-34'). 6. The present text makes the impression that Jeremiah related the incident which follows to Zedekiah in response to his question JEREMIAH 32. 7, 8. J 115 unto me, saying, Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum 7 thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my Held that is in Anathoth : for the right of redemption is thine to buy it. So Hanamel mine uncle's son came to 8 me in the court of the guard according to the word of the Lord, and said unto me. Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin : for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine ; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the word of (3-5\ which is obviously impossible. The LXX reads * And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying,' and this is accepted by several scholars. It v^ould also be possible to surmount the diffi- culty by omitting the words ' Jeremiah said.' V. thine uncle. Usually it is thought, probably correctly, that Shallum, not Hanamel, was Jeremiah's uncle, and this is supported by 9 and the Hebrew text of 8, which definitely speak of Hanamel as ' my uncle's son.' On the other hand, he is called ' my uncle ' in 12, but we should probably read 'my uncle's son,' with LXX, Syriac, and a few Hebrew MSS. the right of redemption. The word for * redemption ' is connected with the word go' el. The go el was the next-of-kin, on whom various duties were imposed by this relationship (see Lev. XXV. 25 ff.). The duties had corresponding rights ; the go' el could choose whether he would exercise them or not, but till he declined no other could undertake them. Thus Boaz could not undertake this office for Ruth until the next-of-kin had declined it (Ruth iii. 9-13, iv. 1-12). Jeremiah had the right of pre- emption because he was actually the next-of-kin, as is indicated by the fact that he had 'the right of inheritance.' The regulations were made to secure that property was kept in the family. We must not press the term ' redemption ' to mean that Hanamel's field had been already sold, and that he desired Jeremiah to buy it back. As the following verse shows, Hanamel was still the owner, but apparently was in need of money, as would be very intelligible in the situation. It is to be observed that at this time individual priests possessed landed property, and were able to dis- pose of it freely : contrast Lev. xxv. 34. 8. which is . . . Benjamin. These words should be omitted, with the LXX ; obviously Jeremiah did not need to be told where Anathotli was situated. The words are a gloss introduced from i. i. Then I knew . . . the LORD. This is a very striking and instructive statement. In 6 he says, ' The word of the Lord canic I 2 ii6 JEREMIAH 32. 9. J 9 the Lord. And I bought the field that was in Anathoth unto me.' Yet in the present verse we see that he did not know it to be the word of Yahweh till Hanamel actually came. Prob- ably the prophet had a strong impression beforehand that Hanamel would come on this errand. It is by no means impossible that his own projected journey 'into the land of Benjamin, to receive his portion there, in the midst of the people' (xxxvii. 12), may have been connected with some such wish on the part of Hanamel to dispose of his property. Whether this was so or not, he was probably aware of his cousin's financial position and presence in the city, so that the presentiment that he would come to him had its origin in the actual conditions. But such a presentiment the prophet would not have dignified with the name ' the word of Yahweh ; ' only when it was fulfilled did he know that God had inspired it. Its Divine meaning, however, was not in the visit it- self or in the premonition he had received, but in the conviction of Israel's happy restoration it gave him the opportunity of ex- pressing in so vivid and impressive a manner. Just as he learnt a lesson while he watched the potter moulding the clay, so a simi- larly trivial and commonplace sale of land is seen to be charged with a deep significance. His act is a symbol and a prophecy, it is God's pledge that the old stable condition of things will be restored when there will be a settled state of society in which houses and land would be freely bought and sold. Thus he recognized that behind his cousin's action, and all unknown to him, the Divine impulse had been at work ; and also in the preparation he had himself received for his cousin's request. 9. Recognizing God's hand in it all, Jeremiah without any demur buys the field and pays the price. The sum of seventeen shekels may appear small. We may reasonably assume, however, that Jeremiah paid the full price, not the 'prairie value,' which at such a time was all it might have been expected to fetch. Only by paying this could he have taught the lesson he was guided to convey, that property would regain its stability, and be bought for what it was intrinsically worth in normal conditions. The thresh- ing floor and oxen of Araunah were sold for fifty shekels (2 Sam. xxiv. 24), the potter's field for thirty (Matt, xxvii. 3-10). Taking the value of the silver shekel at 25. gd., seventeen shekels would be equivalent to £2 6s. gd. of our money, but the purchasing power would of course be very much greater. Commentators often quote as a parallel the purchase by a Roman, at full price in public auction, of the ground on which Hannibal's army was en- camped (Livy xxvi. 11). that was in Anathoth: should be omitted, as by LXX. The clause in the Hebrew text follows ' mine uncle's son,' the JEREMIAH 32. lo, n. J 117 of Hanamel mine uncle's son, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. And I subscribed the deed, and sealed it, and called witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances. So I took the deed of the E.V. has transposed it to improve the sense. We should follow the LXX also in omitting ' the money, even.' 10. The description which follows has given rise to a good deal of discussion, which it is unnecessary to record here since the true explanation seems to have been furnished by the discovery of deeds in Babylonia and Assyria of the same type as that here des- cribed. In his Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters, Dr. Johns has given an account of the method commonly pursued in executing deeds : * As to external form, most of those which may be called "deeds" consist of small pillow-shaped, or rectangular, cakes of clay. In many cases these were enclosed in an envelope, also of clay, powdered clay being inserted to prevent the envelope adhering. Both the inner and outer parts were generally baked hard ; but there are many examples where the clay was only dried in the sun. The envelope was inscribed with a duplicate of the text. Often the envelope is more liberally sealed than the inner tablet. This sealing, done with a cylinder-seal running on an axle, was repeated so often as to render its design difficult to make out, and to add greatly to the difficulty of reading the text' (pp. 10, 11). See also Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ana'ent East, vol. ii, p. 281 : 'The clay tablet was wrapped in another layer, and upon the outer cover of clay the contents were inscribed together with the names of the witnesses, and the seal was rolled upon it also.' We have here then the same mode apparently followed, the deed ' which was open ' was the outer case containing a copy of the deed itself which was sealed up within it. The Hebrew text may have been glossed, but legal language is proverbially redundant, and it gives a more faithful representation than the LXX, which has been preferred by several who were not aware of the facts mentioned above. The object of repeating on the envelope the terms of the deed was that the latter might be preserved from any interference, so that if at any time a dispute arose, if the writing on the envelope was in any degree obliterated or there was a suspicion that it had been tampered with, the case might be broken and the deed itself con- sulted. Even to the present day, Dr. Johns tells us, ' When the envelope has been preserved unbroken, the interior is usually perfect, except where the envelope may have adhered to it' (loc. cit., p. 11). 11. The LXX reads simply, 'And I took the deed of the pur- ii8 JEREMIAH 32. 12-14. J purchase, both that which was sealed, ^according to the law 12 and custom, and that which was open : and I delivered the deed of the purchase unto Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the presence of Hanamel mine uncle's souy and in the presence of the witnesses that sub- scribed the deed of the purchase, before all the Jews that 13 sat in the court of the guard. And I charged Baruch 14 before them, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God * fOr, containing the ienns and conditions chase which was sealed,' the rest of the verse being omitted. Several modern scholars accept this text, and get rid of the double deed. It is true that in the next verse we read of ' the deed of the purchase,' as if there were only one. But, in the light of what has been already said, it will be seen to be quite natural that the same deed might be spoken of in the singular or in the plural, according as it was contemplated as a whole or in its separate parts. There is no thought of two separable documents, but of two combined together. At the same time it is not unlikely that the clause following ' that which was sealed ' should be omitted. The margin is preferable to the text, though 'containing' is not expressed in the Hebrew ; but the suggestion that the deed itself, which was sealed up, contained anything which was not on the envelope contradicts the legal custom already described, according to which the envelope was inscribed with an exact and complete copy of the deed itself. The words may have originated out of a mistaken repetition of the preceding words, or they may be a gloss. If the latter, they are presumably technical terms. Literally they mean ' the command and the statutes.' The former term is taken by Driver as the injunction ' bidding the seller cede possession of the property ;' others translate 'the offer,' explaining this to mean the description of the field. The latter term probably means the conditions of purchase. 12. Barach : here for the first time mentioned in the book, which we so largely owe to his pious care. He had for long acted as the prophet's amanuensis. mine uncle's son. The Hebrew simply reads ' my uncle,' but the word for 'son of has been accidentally omitted ; it is read by the LXX, Syriac, and about ten Hebrew MSS. (see note on 7). in the presence . . . the guard. The care taken that all the legal formalities should be observed is to be noticed, as well as the full-sounding legal phraseology in which it is recorded. 14. The Hebrew is clumsy and redundant, but this may be due JEREMIAH 32. 15-17. JS 119 of Israel : Take these deeds, this deed of the purchase, both that which is sealed, and this deed which is open, and put them in an earthen vessel ; that they may con- tinue many days. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the 15 God of Israel : Houses and fields and vineyards shall yet again be bought in this land. Now after I had delivered the deed of the purchase 16 unto Baruch the son of Neriah, I prayed unto the Lord, saying, [S] Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the 17 to the adoption of legal phraseology. Even the LXX recognizes here the open deed in addition to that which was sealed up, and thus attests the fact which it has previously obliterated. an earthen vessel. The Babylonian and Assyrian deeds were frequently 'stored in pots of unbaked clay. The pots, as a rule, have crumbled away, but they kept out the earth around ' (Johns, loc. cit., p. 12). Here Baruch stores the deed ' for many days,' since it will be a long time before the sign receives its fulfil- ment. In times of disturbance it was customary to bury things for safe custody ; the earthen vessel served this purpose very well. 16-25. This prayer of Jeremiah is in the main a later insertion, as Stade was the first to point out, and as many (including even Findlay) have since recognized. Stade regarded 24, 25 as summarizing Jeremiah's actual prayer, 17-23 being added at a later time. These verses are largely a mosaic of phrases we meet with elsewhere in the book and in Deuteronom}', and they closely resemble the prayer in Neh. ix. 5-38. The long introduc- tion 17-23 is out of proportion to the pra3'er itself in 24, 25. Moreover the confession of Yahweh's omnipotence in 17 is strange in view of the question which is put to the prophet in 27 as an answer to his prayer. Accordingly we should probably treat 17-23 as late. But it by no means follows that we should accept Duhm's view that 24, 25 should be judged similarly. These verses are quite suitable to the situation, and Jeremiah may well have uttered them, in spite of the height his faith had just reached. 17. The invocation begins with the confession of Yahweh's might as displayed in creation (17% then passes to His mercy and retribution and names His great name (18), then affirms His all- seeing scrutiny of human conduct, that each may receive his deserts (19). From these universal relations of Yahweh,we pass to His special relation to Israel, beginning with the wonders wrought in Egypt at the Exodus (20, 21) and the entrance of Israel on the possession of Canaan (22), and then confessing the I20 JEREMIAH 32. 18-20. S heaven and the earth by thy great power and by thy stretched out arm ; there is nothing too ^ hard for thee : 18 which shewest mercy unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them : the great, the mighty God, the Lord of 19 hosts is his name : great in counsel, and mighty in work : whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men ; to give every one according to his ways, and 20 according to the fruit of his doings : which didst set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, b both in Israel and among other men ; and madest * Or, wonderful ^ Or, and disobedience which has brought this calamity upon the people (23). We have thus a beautiful and well-ordered description of Yahweh's attributes and work as the later theology described it. thy stretclied out arm : see note on xxvii. 5. In 21 it is used in its more usual connexion with a great act of Divine deliverance. hard. The word is used of what lies outside the usual course of nature or events ; often it bears the meaning '■ wonderful,' but * hard ' is preferable here. The LXX gives an inferior text ' hidden from thee.' 18. unto thousands. The reference is clearly to the Decalogue (Exod. XX. 6, Deut. v. 10), the text of which has become so familiar that the author quotes it in this abbreviated, allusive form in the confidence that the reader will supply the rest. The passage means that God shows mercy to thousands who belong to those who love Him. Thus while the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation, the principle of solidarity works on a far vaster scale in the bestowment of reward for love of God and observance of His commandments. into the hosom. The folds on the bosom of the Oriental robe served as a pocket; it was large enough for infants (,Num. xi. 12) or lambs (Isa. xl. ir) to be carried in it. For the phrase 'to re- compense into the bosom ' cf. Isa. Ixv, 6, Ps. Ixxix. 12. 19. For the end of the verse see note on xvii, 10. 20. Cf. Deut. vi. 22, Neh. ix. 10. even unto this day. This is difficult, since obviously the 'signs and wonders' in Egypt ceased at the Exodus. Perhaps the simplest expedient is to read ' and unto this day.' The ex- pression is in any case somewhat loose. Cornill thinks it means JEREMIAH 32. 21-25. SJ 121 thee a name, as at this day; and didst bring forth thy 21 people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs, and with wonders, and with a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with great terror; and gavest them this 22 land, which thou didst swear to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey ; and they 23 came in, and possessed it ; but they obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law ; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do : therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them : [j] behold 24 the mounts, they are come unto the city to take it ; and the city is given into the hand of the Chaldeans that fight against it, because of the sword, and of the famine, and of the pestilence : and what thou hast spoken is come to pass ; and, behold, thou seest it. And thou 25 hast said unto me, O Lord God, Buy thee the field for ' which are celebrated unto this day,' but suggests that 'in the land of Egypt ' may be a gloss. 21. Cf. Deut. iv. 34, xxvi. 8. The * terror' is the dread struck into Egypt and the surrounding nations by the judgements of God on Egypt and the wonders He wrought for His people at the Exodus : cf. Exod. XV. 14-16; Deut. ii. 25; Joshua ii. 9-11, v. i. 22. Cf. xi. 5. The theme of this verse and the following is to be found in a very expanded form in Neh. ix. 22-35. 23. Cf. xi. 8. 24. the mounts: cf. vi. 6, xxxiii. 4 ; 2 Sam. xx. 15; 2 Kings xix. 32 ; Isa. xxxvii. 33 ; Ezek. iv. 2, xvii. 17, xxvi. 8. These were earthen embankments from which the storming parties made their assaults. This verse (if Jeremiah's) favours the view that when the purchase of the field took place the siege had been resumed. is given: a perfect of certainty ; the meaning is not that the Babylonians had already captured the city, but that they would undoubtedly do so, aided as they were by the famine and plague which were decimating the defenders. 25. It would be too prosaic to object that God had not said this ; Jeremiah had understood Him to mean this by the request his cousin had made. The LXX after ' money ' has an addition. It reads : ' So I wrote the deed, and sealed it, and called witnesses.' This may be the original text. 122 JEREMIAH 32. afS. J money, and call witnesses ; whereas the city is given into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, say- 26-44. We have now the answer of Yahweh to Jeremiah's prayer. That it is, as a whole, a later composition lies almost on the surface. It is largely irrelevant to the situation. "We have an announcement of Yahweh's intention to destroy Jerusalem on account of the sins of the people from its earliest days (28-35). But this had for long been the theme of Jeremiah's preaching, and had the section occurred in one of his own addresses to the people it would, so far as its general contents go, and its expression, have seemed quite suitable. But that in answer to his question as to the purchase of the land Yahweh should be represented as com- municating to Jeremiah what for many years the prophet had been saying, and express it in the same language as he had been using, is not easily reconcilable with the authenticity of these verses. They are a late insertion put together, presumably by the editor, out of Jeremianic phrases. These objections do not lie to the same extent against 36-44. They are relevant to the question which the prophet has laid before God, and are less conventional in style. At the same time there are features which are difficult to harmonize with the actual situation of Jeremiah. In 36, accord- ing to the Hebrew text, the people ('ye say') and not Jeremiah merely, speak of the city as given into the hand of the king of Babylon, though this does not seem to have been their belief at the time. But the LXX ' thou sayest ' should probably be accepted, and the verse is then free from objection. Verse 43 seems to pre- suppose that the exile had already taken place, and 37 looks for a return from a wide dispersion. It is difficult, accordingly, to regard the whole passage as dating from the tenth year of Zede- kiah. But if the prayer in 24, 25 was uttered by Jeremiah in the circumstances recorded, it is natural to conclude that the answer belongs to the same time. An answer to the question he lays before Yahweh is given in 43, 44, and there is no substantial reason for dis- puting the authenticity of the latter verse, though, as we have seen,43 apparently reflects a later situation. But with this we should take 26, 27, which form a necessary introduction. Even so 44 is rather abrupt. The present writer is therefore inclined to think that, while 28-35 is wholly editorial, the rest of the section is substantially Jeremianic, but committed to writing in its present form after the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the captives had taken place. Even the reference to the dispersion is not neces- sarily impossible on Jeremiah's lips : cf. xxiii. 3, 7, 8, xxiv. 9. 26. unto Jeremiah : read, with the LXX, unto n^e. JEREMIAH 32. 27-31. JS 123 ing, Behold, I am tlie Lord, the God of all flesh : is 27 there any thing too hard for me? [Sj Therefore thus saith the Lord : Behold, I will 28 give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it : and the Chaldeans, that fight against this 29 city, shall come and set this city on fire, and burn it, with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger. For the children 30 of Israel and the children of Judah have only done that which was evil in my sight from their youth : for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the w^ork of their hands, saith the Lord. For this city 31 27. This verse has been anticipated by 17 (see notes), but it is quite suitable to the situation, and we should rather infer that 17 is secondary than pass this judgement on both alike. 28. The introductory formula, ' Therefore thus saith the Lord,' would be in place in an address by the prophet ; it is quite un- suitable in an answer given by Yahweh Himself to the prophet. The opening sentence is an expansion of 3: the LXX simply reproduces that verse. 29. Cf. xix. 13, xxi. 10. 30. The reference to the sin of Israel alongside of the sin of Judah, while not strictly relevant to the threat of judgement on the latter, may pass, since the writer is looking back on the whole history of the people. But the verdict, while it does not abso- lutely contradict ii. 2, inasmuch as the early days in Canaan might be regarded as still belonging to the nation's youth, agrees better with Ezekiel's estimate than Jeremiah's : cf. Ezek. xx. 5- 26. The second half of the verse is absent from the LXX, and the reference to ' the children of Israel' favours the omission. If it is used in the same restricted sense as in the former part of the verse, the omission of Judah is unaccountable, since the writer is concerned especially with it. If, however, it includes the southern as well as the northern tribes, it is difficult to think that the writer would use the designation in such different senses in consecutive clauses. 31. The passage reads as if the author thought that the Israelites built Jerusalem. It is hardly credible that he did so ; the exprcs- 124 JEREMIAH 32. 32-36. SJ hath been to me a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day ; 32 that I should remove it from before my face : because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of 33 Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face : and though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened 34 to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it. 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech ; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my ^ mind, that they should do this abomination ; to cause Judah to sin. 36 [J] And now therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of * Heb. heart. sion is loose. Probably he is under the influence of Ezekiel's description of the heathen origin of Jerusalem (Ezek. xvi. 3-6). According to this prophet, it well maintained a character har- monious with this origin after the Israelites gained possession of it. It is interesting to see how the writer passes to and fro from city (28, 29, 31) to people (30, 32, 33). 32, 33. For32^ cf. xi. 17 ; for 32**, 33* cf. ii. 26, 27 ; for 33^ cf. vii. 13, 25, XXV. 3, 4. 34, 35. These verses are largely identical with vii. 30'', 31 (see the notes). We have in that passage * the high places of Topheth,' and * to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire.' Further, it concludes with < neither came it into my mind.* On Molech see the note on vii. 31 (vol. i, p. 155). Our passage agrees with xix. 5 in speaking of ' the high places of Baal ' (see vol. i, p. 237). 36. The opening words can hardly be in their original form, since Yahweh would not speak of Himself in this way (see note on 28). * Therefore ' is also inappropriate in this connexion, but it JEREMIAH 32. 37-40. J 125 Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the fcimine, and by the pestilence : Behold, I will gather them 37 out of all the countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath ; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely : and they shall be my people, and 38 I will be their God : and I will give them one heart and 39 one way, that they may fear me for ever ; for the good of them, and of their children after them : and I will make 40 an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away ^ from them, to do them good ; and I will put my * Heh./rom afier them. is unobjectionable when 28-35 have been removed. It is a little curious that this verse should begin to speak of the city, and that in 37 we should pass abruptly to the people in the dispersion. ye say : see the note on 26-44 (p. 122). The LXX ' thou sayest' harmonizes with 24; the Hebrew seems to have been assimilated to xxxiii. 10. 37. Giesebrecht suggests that originally 42 stood before 37-41. For 37* cf. xxiii. 3, and for the last clause cf. xxiii. 6. 38. Cf. xxxi. 33. 39. The LXX reads * another way and another heart;' the difference between ' one ' and * another ' in Hebrew is infinite- simal, and it is impossible to say with certainty which is the original. We may compare Ezek. xi. 19, 'And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you ; ' the parallel passage Ezek. xxxvi. 26, however, reads *A new heart also will I give 3'ou, and a. new spirit will I put within you.' It is on the whole probable that we should retain the Hebrew here. All hearts would be of one accord to adopt the same way of life, and that the way along which God called them to walk. For the rest of the verse cf. Deut. iv. 10, vi. 24. 40. and I will . . . with them: cf. Isa. Iv. 3 ; Ezek. xvi. 60, xxxvii. 26. The term 'new covenant' is not actually used, but the same thing is meant ; and the latter part of the verse expresses the same thought as xxxi. 33^ in another form. The fear of God is implanted by God Himself in the heart, that they may not go astray from Him. I will not turn away from them. As the margin says, the 126 JEREMIAH 32. 41-44. J fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. 41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land ''^assuredly with my whole heart and 42 with my whole soul. For thus saith the Lord : Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised 43 them. And fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say, It is desolate, without man or beast ; it is given into 44 the hand of the Chaldeans. Men shall buy fields for * Heb. in truth. Hebrew means ' from after them.' Giesebrecht finds this surprising, since elsewhere the people is represented as following Yahweh, not Yahweh as following the people. Accordingly he suggests ' I will not cease from having compassion upon them.' Cornill justifies the present text by a reference to Deut. xxiii. 14 (Heb. 15), where we read 'that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from after thee.' And, as he points out further, Giesebrecht's emenda- tion eliminates the antithetic parallelism with ♦ they shall not de- part from me ' at the close of the verse. to do tliem good. If these words belong to the true text, it would be better to omit the comma before them, and connect closely with the preceding clause, the sense being that Yahweh will not cease from following them to do them good. But they are absent from the LXX and are best omitted, especially as we have not only had a similar clause in 39, but have practically the same words in 41, from which the insertion in our verse has prob- ably been made. 41. The former part of the verse is perhaps modelled on Deut. xxviii. 63 : cf xxx. 9 ; Isa. Ixii. 5, Ixv. 19 ; Zeph. iii. 17. I will plant them : cf. xxiv. 6, xxxi. 27, 28. with my whole heart and with my whole soul. The only case in which this expression is used with reference to God. 42. This repeats in another form the thought of xxxi. 28. 43. This verse seems to presuppose that the exile had been already accomplished, so that the land lies desolate. At the same time, according to the Hebrew text, the verse was written in Palestine ('this land'), so that its Jeremianic origin is very dubious ; it would be easier to accept it if, with the LXX, we read * the land.' For ' ye say ' the LXX, as in 36, reads ' thou sayest,' but the grounds for accepting it here are less cogent than in 36. 44. For the districts enumerated in this verse see note on xvii. 26, where there is a similar enumeration but in a somewhat different JEREMIAH 32. 44— 33. I. JR 127 money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, and call witnesses, in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hill country, and in the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the South : for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord. [R] Moreover the word of the Lord came unto Jere- 33 order. Here 'the land of Benjamin' stands first, since the field Jeremiah had bought was situated in it. The fullness of detail is noticeable also in the mention of the legal formalities accompany- ing a sale. xxxiii. Renewed Promises of Restoration and Blessedness. This section is closely connected with xxxii, and, like it, raises serious critical problems. The chapter falls into two main divis- ions : (a) 1-13, (b) 14-26. The latter is omitted in the LXX, and its Jeremianic authorship is surrendered by most recent scholars. The evidence of the LXX is here very weighty. We can see no sound reason why the translator should have omitted the passage if it had been in his Hebrew text ; it is therefore likely that it is a very late addition. The omission has been explained as due to its numerous repetitions of passages found elsewhere, and the non- fulfilment of the prophecies with reference to David and his family and the Levites. But the translator does not make a practice of striking out repetitions (see vol. i, p. 68), and if he had omitted promises which in his time had not been fulfilled, his handling of the book would have been drastic indeed. The fact that promises had not been fulfilled did not mean that their fulfilment would never come. The Jews of the post-exilic period turned with peculiar interest to the glowing prophecies of future happiness which stood in such inviting contrast to their unhappy state ; their temptation was not to eliminate but to add such passages. The repetitions which the passage contains are not favourable to its authenticitj', nor yet the prominence given to the Levitical priests, which has no parallel in Jeremiah's own writing. The former part of the chapter (1-13) has been very generally accepted as Jeremiah's, apart from 2, 3. Duhm regards 1-13 as late, and is followed by Cornill, so that these scholars recognize nothing as Jeremiah's in xxxii, xxxiii beyond xxxii. 6-15. Schmidt independently assumes much the same position. This position we have not been able to adopt with reference to xxxii, and the case with xxxiii. 1-13 is similar. We should probably recognize a Jeremianic basis which has been worked over by the editor. 128 JEREMIAH 33. 2. RS miah the second time, while he was yet shut up in the court 2 of the guard, saying, [s] Thus saith the Lord that doeth Even in its present form, however, it is earlier than 14-26, v^hich from its absence in the LXX we must infer to be one of the latest elements in the book. xxxiii. I. This is the second revelation which came to Jeremiah in the court of the guard. 2, 3. Yahweh, the accomplisher of His purpose, says : Call and I will answer, and disclose unknown secrets. 4-9. The houses are being broken down to form defences against the assaults of the Chaldeans, but the slain of Yahweh will be many. Yet Yahweh will heal His people, restore Israel and Judah, cleanse them from all their guilt, and make Jerusalem so glorious that the nations will fear. 10-13. Once more the land now desolate shall ring with rejoicing, and life will be resumed in all its fullness as of yore. All over the country there shall be the homesteads of shepherds, guarding their flocks. 14-18. In the days to come Yahweh will raise up a righteous shoot to David, who shall reign as a righteous King over Judah and Israel, and his name shall be ' Yahweh is our righteousness.* For David shall never fail of a successor on the throne of Israel, nor the Levitical priests of one to offer sacrifice. 19-22. If Yahweh's covenant with day and night should be broken, then it may be broken with David and with the Levitical priests. As the stars cannot be numbered nor the sand measured, so shall the seed of David and the Levites be multiplied. 23-26. In answer to the complaint that Yahweh has cast off His people, He affirms that only when day and night cease, or the ordinances of heaven and earth, will He cast away the seed of Jacob, or the house of David. xxxiii. 1. See note on xxxii. 2. 2, 3. On account of their Deutero-Isaianic phraseology, Movers and Hitzig assigned these verses to the Second Isaiah. Graf rejected this, as he rejected the similar treatment of xxx, xxxi, but he admits that ' they make the impression that they are an insertion by a later hand.' This judgement has been accepted by a large number of scholars. Their elimination of it was of course bound up with the probably correct view that 1-13 was as a whole the work of Jeremiah. Naturally if the whole section is late, as Duhm thinks, there is no necessity to regard 2, 3 as an insertion. The reference to what follows as things previously unknown does not suit the contents of 4-13, since they do not contain anything beyond what may be found in xxxi, xxxii. thaX doeth it. If the text is right, there may be an allusion JEREMIAH 33. 3H- SJ 129 it, tlie Lord that formeth it to establish it; the Lord is his name : Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and will 3 shew thee great things, and -'^ difficult, which thou knowest not. [j] For thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, con- 4 * Heb. fenced hi. to Isa. xxli. II (this passage seems to have been in the author's mind : cf. 4, 5 with Isa. xxii. 10), where we have (in the Hebrew) the same indefinite mode of reference, ' that had done it,' ' that fashioned it,' i. e. His purpose. But the text here is otherwise not free from objection ; and the LXX reading, ' who made the earth and formed it to establish it,' is to be preferred : cf. Isa. xlv. 18. The word 'to form' is frequently used in II Isaiah in parallelism with ' make ; ' for ' Yahweh is his name ' cf. * Yahweh of hosts is his name,' Isa. xlvii. 4, xlviii. 2, li. 15, liv. 5, but also Jer. xxxi. 35, xxxii. 18, and the creation passages in the Book of Amos (iv. 13, v. 8, ix. 6) which many scholars consider to be late. In Jer. x. 1-16, a passage which also has marked affinities with II Isaiah, we find the same turn of phrase in a context which emphasizes the thought of Yahweh as the Creator, ' for he is the former of all things ; and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance: the Lord of hosts is his name ' (x. 16). The third verse is closely parallel to Isa. xlviii. 6'' : * I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, which thou hast not known.' It is not unlikely that, as several scholars following Ewald believe, we should, with some Hebrew MSS., read ' hidden ' for ' difficult ' here, the two words difiering only by a single consonant (i. e. n^tsiiroth for b^tstiroth^. The word rendered ' difficult ' means ' inaccessible,' but it is used elsewhere of cities. 4, 5. The historical situation here reflected is the time of the siege as indicated in i, so that the verses may well be Jeremiah's. But the passage is very difficult in its present form, and unques- tionably corrupt. Graf, in spite of his loyalty to the Hebrew text, closes his long enumeration and discussion of the various sugges- tions made with the words *One must renounce a restoration and satisfactory explanation of the plainly corrupt passage' (p. 418). The reference to the houses is itself strange, since we do not hear that they were destroyed because on their roofs idolatrous sacrifice had been ofi'ered (xix. 13, xxxii. 29;, which would have formed a good contrast with the restoration of the cit}', but simply of their destruction to furnish materials for the defence (cf. Isa, xxii. 10% for which the kings' houses would not have been expected to be employed. But, apart from this, the present text is impossible, as indeed is clear from the R.V. 'They come' II K I30 JEREMIAH 33. 4. J cerning the nouses of this city, and concerning the houses obviously cannot refer to the houses, yet that is the grammatical sense. Even if we strain the words to mean the inhabitants, we not only do unjustifiable violence to the language, but we do not gain a good sense. The writer should have said ' They go out,' and there is no point in the mention of the houses. If this sense had been intended, it should have been expressed in a much simpler way, such as ' the houses of this city . . . against the swords. And their inhabitants go out to fight,' &c. The easiest expedient is to omit the particle rendered ' with,' and translate ' The Chaldeans are coming to fight.' This gets rid of the difficulty caused by the apparent reference in ' They come ' to the houses, and ' come ' is the appropriate verb for the attack of the besieging party. It is still surprising in view of the fact that the introduc- tion suggests an oracle specially devoted to ' the houses,' that there is no reference to them specifically in the sequel, though the bringing of new flesh on the city (6) is a figurative way of saying that her breaches are made good. Such breaches, however, are in the main those caused by the enemy when the city had been captured, not those made by the defenders. The other attempts to restore the passage to its original form do not seem any more satisfactory. Duhm omits all after ' broken down ' to ' Chaldeans,' and points the next word differently and gets the sense 'which are broken down and filled with the dead bodies,' &c. He supposes that the author of this insertion took objection to the statement that the houses were broken down while the city was still uncaptured and added these words as an explanation. The insertion itself is emended by him ' for the mounts and bulwarks, when they began to fight with the Chaldeans.' This very clever restoration is open to criticism in detail, but it is too violent to inspire confi- dence, and the mounds are not represented elsewhere as used for defence but only for attack. Cornill suggested a radical reconstruction in the Sacred Books of the Old Testament^ and has virtually repeated it in his commentary : 'which are broken down, against which the Chaldeans come with mounds and swords to fight and to fill with the dead bodies,' &c. This gives a fairly satisfactory sense, but it is secured at the cost of rearranging and to some extent rewriting the passage. But, like Duhm's sugges- tion, it does not remove the difficulty previously mentioned, that the houses receive a prominence when the subject-matter of the oracle is announced which is not justified by the sequel. The present writer is accordingly driven to the view that the difficulty has been created not by insertion but by accidental omission ; he suspects that several words have fallen out after ' broken down ' or possibly after * sword,' and that the attempt to restore sense to the passage thus mutilated has possibly led to further corruption. JEREMIAH 33. 5-0. J 131 of the kings of Jiidah, which are broken down to make a defence against the mounts, and against the sword : They ? come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city. Behold, I will bring it ^ health and 6 cure, and I will cure them ; and I will reveal unto them abundance of peace and truth. And I will cause the cap- 7 tivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. And I will cleanse them 8 from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me ; and I wdll pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned against me, and whereby they have trans- gressed against me. And this city shall be to me for 9 ^ Or, healing Presumably the oracle dates from a time when the siege had been renewed and houses were pulled down to strengthen the defence ; and affirmed that though this had happened, and the Chaldeans were coming to heap high the dead bodies of the victims of Yahweh's wrath, yet He would bring back fresh flesh to heal the wound of Zion. 6. health: rather fresh flesh: see note on viii. 22. cure them : several read ' cure her,' which may be attested by the LXX, though the clause is in a different place and may be an insertion in its text. abnndance. If the text is correct we must suppose that the word, which does not occur elsewhere in this sense, is an Aramaism. But the versions do not confirm the reading, and the text is probably corrupt. Rothstein suggests 'abodes' (/a// m^'-onoih for Idhem 'aihereth). but Duhm's suggestion * treasures' {'■dthidoth as in Isa. X. 13) is nearer the Hebrew and suits ' reveal ' admirably, since 'treasure ' is usually something which is hidden. peace and truth : i. e. peace and stability ; but perhaps we should read, as in xiv. 13, 'peace of truth,' i.e. assured peace. 7. as at the first : i. e. before the disruption of the kingdom ; the reigns of David and Solomon are probably in the writer's mind : cf. Isa. i. 26. 8. Cf. xxxi. 34, Isa. iv. 4, but especially Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 9. Cf. xiii. II. The emotion aroused in the nations by the ex- altation of Zion is apparently one of dread, just as the wonders of K 2 132 JEREMIAH 33. 10-12. JS a name of jo)^ for a praise and for a glory, before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them, and shall fear and tremble for all the good and 10 for all the peace that I procure unto it. [S]Thus saith the Lord : Yet again there shall be heard in this place, whereof ye say, It is waste, without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man and without inhabitant and J I without beast, the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say. Give thanks to the Lord of hosts, for the Lord is good, for his mercy endiireth for ever : and of them that bring sacrifices of thanksgiving into the house of the Lord. For I wmII cause the captivity of the 12 land to return as at the first, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts : Yet again shall there be in this place, the Exodus period struck terror into Eg3'pt and the peoples of Canaan : see on xxxii. 20, 21. It is possible that pleasure rather than dread is intended (cf. Isa. Ix. 5), but improbable. 10, 11 presuppose that the Fall of Jerusalem has taken place, and that the land has been laid waste. The opening clauses of II* contain the reversal of what we read in vii. 34, xvi. 9, xxv. 10. The liturgical formula, ' Give thanks ... for ever,' is frequent in the later Psalms. This in itself would not necessarily stamp our passage as late ; it is, indeed, quite possible that the formula may have been ancient, but if so we should have expected to find it in the earlier psalms. The reference to the thanksgiving offer- ing is almost identical with a similar reference in xvii. 26, which is a late passage (see pp. 225, 226). And the repetition of 7 in the last clause, though in a briefer form, is strange. 12, 13. The same situation as in 10, 11. The verses remind us of xxxi. 2-6, and are partly identical with xvii. 26, xxxii. 43, 44 (see the notes). The writer, as he looks on the wasted countrj', sees it in imagination once more dotted with the shepherds" homesteads, and the flocks reclining at noon (Song of Songs i. 7) or passing along as their keepers count them to see that none is missing. The idyllic picture would have been congenial to Jere- miah's tastes and ideals : it is questionable,, however, whether we really owe it to him. JEREMIAH 33. 13-1S. S 133 which is waste, without man and without beast, and in all the cities thereof, an habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. In the cities of the hill country, in the '3 cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the South, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks again pass under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the Lord. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will per- 14 form that good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and concerning the house of Judah. In 15 those days, and at that time, will I cause a ^ Branch of right- eousness to grow up unto David ; and he shall execute judgement and righteousness in the land. In those days 16 shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely : and this is t/te name whereby she shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness. For thus saith the Lord: 17 '^ David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel ; neither shall the priests the Levites i S want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to " See ch. xxiii. 5. ^ Heb. There shall not be cut off from David. 14-16. This passage is largely repeated from xxiii. 5, 6. on which see vol. i, pp. 260-2, with a touch introduced from xxix. 10. Very remarkable, however, is it that the name ' Yahweh is our righteousness,' which Jeremiah assigned to the Messiah, is here transferred to the city. 17, The prediction of the permanence of the Davidic dynasty has reference to the future ; at the time when the passage was written the monarchy had fallen. 18. the priests the Levites: i. e. the Levitical priests. This is the phrase used by Deuteronomy and in other literature earlier than the Reformation under Nehemiah. It is probable that this passage was written after the distinction between priebts and Levites had been established by the acceptance of tlic Priestly Legislation. If so, the writer avails himself of the archaic mode of expression, which indicated that all the members of the tribe of Levi were entitled to act as priests. This verse is written from a standpoint very different from Jeremiah's. to offer . . . continiially. The burnt-offering was wholly 134 JEREMIAH 33. 19-24. S 19 burn i^ oblations, and to do sacrifice continually. And 20 the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord : If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there should not be 21 day and night in their season ; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne ; and with the Levites the 22 priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured ; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites 23 that minister unto me. And the word of the Lord came 24 to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people ^ f Or, meal offerings made over to God ; the oblation was the vegetable offering ; the sacrifice was used for a feast, of which the offerer and his friends partook, though a portion of course was given to God : see note on vii. 21 (vol. i, p. 151). 20-26. The passage is closel3' parallel to xxxi. 35, 36, and probably an imitation of it. The Hebrew for ' my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night ' is suspicious ; if it is correct, as in view of the late origin of the passage it may be, the mean- ing is apparently the covenant which Yahweh has made with day and night. Possibly we should read 'the covenant' for 'my covenant,' which would restore a regular construction ; Duhm thinks the point is that day and night make a covenant with each other, to observe their own season, but this is questionable. 21. For this covenant with David see 2 Sam. vii. 16, i Kings ii. 4. 22. Cf. Gen. xv. 5, and for a closer parallel xxii, 17. The com- parison is expressed in loose terms, but the meaning is clear. It is remarkable that a prophecy originally spoken of the whole people should here be applied to the roj^al and priestly families. 24. This verse is difficult. The ' two families ' are probably not the house of David and the house of Levi, though the preced- ing verses have spoken of these, but in accordance with 26 (as in Ezek. xxxv. 10), Israel and Judah. 'This people' according to usage should refer to Israel (i.e. the whole people including both ' families '), but if we read * before them ' at the end of the verse, it would follow that a heathen people is intended. It is therefore probable that, with some versions, we should read ' before me.' A JEREMIAH 33. 25— 34. 1. SB 135 have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord did choose, he hath cast them off? thus do they despise my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the Lord : If my covenant of day and night 25 stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth ; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, 26 and of David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob : for I will ''» cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them. [B] The word which came unto Jeremiah from the S4 * Or, return to their captivity still better sense is given by Duhm's emendation, '■ he hath cast them off, and despiseth his people, that it should be no more a nation before him.' 25. Cf. 20. A verb would be expected in the first clause to correspond to 'have appointed.' Duhm has made the very attractive suggestion that we should make a very slight alteration in the word rendered 'my covenant' {bard'' tin iov b^rit lit), reading ' If I have not created day and night.' Cornill and Rothstein accept it. If it is original it was naturally assimilated to 20 by some scribe. 26. Duhm and Cornill strike out ' of Jacob, and ; ' the omission is favoured by the sequel which speaks of ' his seed ; ' but is not necessary. xxxiv. 1-7. Jeremiah Warns Zedekiah of the Disaster WHICH awaits Continued Resistance to Babylon. ^ We now resume the biographical portion of the work, which was of course partially resumed in xxxii. The incident recorded in this section took place probably before the interruption of the siege by the relief army from Egypt, in which the second incident recorded in this chapter falls (21, 22). We may infer from 2 that Jeremiah had not yet lost his liberty. The narrative is quite trust- worthy, though possibly mutilated to some extent (see note on 4). xxxiv. 1-3. When Nebuchadnezzar and his hosts were fighting against Jerusalem and its cities, Jeremiah was sent to warn Zede- kiah that Jerusalem would be taken and burnt by the king of Babylon, and he himself would be confronted with the victor and taken to Babylon. 136 JEREMIAH 34. 2, 3. B Lord, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth that were under his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof, saying : 2 Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Go, and speak to Zedekiah king of Judah, and tell him, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I wuU give this city into the hand of the 3 king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire : and thou 4-7. Yet he should not die by the sword but in peace, with the customary ro3'al burnings and lamentations. So Jeremiah declared this message to Zedekiah, when Babylon was warring against Jerusalem, Lachish, and Azekah, the only cities that remained un- captured. zxxiv. 1. Since in 7 we have a fairly precise indication of the time, it is likely that this verse is largely editorial ; had Baruch written it he would have inserted here the information he gives in 7. This conclusion is confirmed by the somewhat bombastic style, though the LXX gives us an abbreviated form. 2. Duhm thinks the first part of the verse is editorial, and that Baruch would simply have said ' Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, Thus saith,' &c. His reason is that Jeremiah would not be one of those who had access to the royal presence at any time. It is hardly likely, however, that a prophet of Jeremiah's standing would have found any difficulty in approaching the king, if he went to deliver the word of Yahweh to him. For the latter part of the verse cf. xxi. 10, xxxvii. 8-10, xxxviii. 23. 3. Cf. xxxii. 4, 5, Duhm infers from Baruch's silence as to the blinding of Zedekiah and the execution of his sons that they are unhistorical. He thinks that the king succeeded in establishing his personal innocence at his interview with Nebuchadnezzar, and since Jehoiachin was not used very badly, Zedekiah may have escaped anything worse than imprisonment for life. But we should rather argue, If Jehoiachin, who was personally innocent of his father's rebellion, was taken into captivity' and languished in prison through the whole of Nebuchadnezzar's long reign, how should we expect Zedekiah to be treated by a suzerain to whom he owed his throne, when he violated his solemn oath of allegiance, the breach of which he had previously meditated ? We may make allow- ances for the king's difficult position, but we cannot acquit him of serious blame. Ezekiel condemned his action in the strongest terms i Ezek. xvii. 1-21). And his testimony to the blinding of Zedekiah should settle the question : ' and I will bring him to JEREMIAH 31. 4-6. B 137 shall not escape out of his hand, but shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand ; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah 4 king of Judah : thus saith the Lord concerning thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword ; thou shalt die in 5 peace ; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they "■ make a burn- ing for thee ; and they shall lament thee, saying, Ah lord ! for I have spoken the word, saith the Lord. Then 6 * See 2 Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19. Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans ; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there ' (xii. 13). 4, 5. These verses raise a serious problem. The most obvious interpretation is that although Zedekiah will have to go to Babylon, he will not be executed but die in peace, and all the wonted honours paid to Jewish kings at their death will be paid to him. But as Hitzig, with the full approval of Graf and some of the best among recent expositors, forcibly argued, such a mitigation by Jeremiah of the consequences of rebellion would be in direct opposition to his invariable attitude and the impression he desired to make. It was also hardly in harmony with the event, for the almost idyllic description of peaceful death and honourable burial would not have prepared the king for the bereavement he suffered and the blinding he had personally to endure. But since Jeremiah' could not have said to the king, ' You will have to go into captiv- ity, but matters will not be so bad after all,' we must regard this as a conditional promise. If the king surrenders unconditionally he shall retain his throne till his death, and then be honoured as his predecessors had been. Of course the text in its present form docs not say this, but we should rather attribute this to the loss of a few words, than to the unskilful style of the narrator. The beginning of 4 suggests in fact that a contrast to the course the king was pursuing should follow. with the burning's . . . for thee. The reference is to the burn- ing of sweet spices at the funeral of a king, not to the cremation of the corpse, for this was buried, not burned (see 2 Chron. xvi. 14, xxi. 19 . It would be better to read, with LXX, Syr., Vulg., ' as at the burnings.' Ah lord I Sec note on xxii. 18. 138 JEREMIAH 34. 7, 8. B Jeremiah the prophet spake all these words unto Zedekiah 7 king of Judah in Jerusalem, when the king of Babylon's army fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and against Azekah ; for these alone remained of the cities of Judah as fenced cities. 8 The word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, 7. The LXX omits ' all ' and ' that were left ; ' it would give a better sentence if we omitted the whole clause, reading simply 'against Jerusalem, against Lachish,' &c. Presumably a scribe added after * Jerusalem ' the familiar ' all the cities of Judah ; ' then a later scribe, observing how incongruous this was, since only two were involved, corrected the text into its present form. Lachish is to be identified with Tell el-Hesy, which is about thirty-five miles south-west of Jerusalem. It was a strongly fortified place, which was occupied by Sennacherib as his base during his campaign in 701 B. c. Azekah has not yet been identified ; according to Joshua ^v- 35) I Sam. xvii. i, it was in the Shephelah, not far from Socoh : it seems to have been a fortress in the south-west of Judah, about fifteen miles from Jerusalem. xxxiv. 8-22. Condemnation of the Re-enslavement of Hebrew Slaves in Violation of Oath. The general situation is fairly clear, but the passage presents some difficulties. During the earlier part of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, Zedekiah induced his people to liberate their Hebrew slaves. When, however, the siege was raised on account of the relief expedition from Egypt, they forced back into bondage the slaves whom they set free. Their cynical perfidy was aggra- vated by a blasphemous perjury. For the edict of emancipation was not merely a civil proclamation, it was an oath sworn with all the solemnities of religion, and thus placed under the protection of Yahweh. The human wrong would in any case have excited the prophet's burning indignation ; but their shameless violation of the sanctities of religion, this flouting of their God to His face, involved them in a still deeper condemnation. The narrative, however, as it stands is very incomplete. No indication is given as to the motive of their conduct. Duhm supposes that the eman- cipation rested simply on political grounds, and had nothing to do with the Law or religion. During the siege the slaves were of no use to the inhabitants, since they would normally be engaged in the fields outside the walls, and now that the city was invested they were a burden on the food-supply. By their action they had fewer useless mouths to feed, and perhaps enlisted some more free JEREMIAH 34. 8. B 139 after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with men for the defence of the cit}'. When the siege was raised the work in the fields could be resumed, so that the slaves again became of service. The impression made by the narrative, how- ever, is not that emancipation was purely prudential and selfish, but that in itself it was a boon to the slaves, which on Duhm's interpretation it could hardly have been. It is much more probable that it was intended as such, not of course out of disinterested motives, but because by such a costly surrender the masters hoped to win the help of Yahweh against Babylon. When the siege was raised, they thought, with characteristic optimism, that the danger was over, and there was no need to leave their former slaves in enjoyment of their liberty now that the granting of it had secured what they wanted. The denunciation of their conduct in 13 ff. creates a difficulty, in that it connects the release of the slaves with the law that Hebrew slaves were to be released in the seventh year (Exod. xxi. 2, Deut. XV. 12\ But this law seems to be irrelevant to the action here recorded. For the law provided for release at the end of six years dating from the beginning of the individual's servitude, so that there was no fixed point of time when all the slaves would be released, but the occasion for release might fall at any time. But the act of which we read in this chapter was a simultaneous emancipation of all the Hebrew slaves, quite irrespective of the term of service. Now it is quite probable that the law had for a considerable time been disregarded, and that many had been in servitude for longer than six years. But it is also probable that the term fixed by the law had in many cases not expired. It is therefore a plausible inference that the reference to the law is due to an editor. It is possible, however, that the emancipation was undertaken in obedience to the neglected law ; and that to make their action even more effective, and perhaps atone for their earlier disregard, they decided to emancipate all their slaves with- out waiting till the legal term had expired. A death-bed repentance, with the usual sequel on recovery ! xxxiv. 8-1 1. Zedekiah made a covenant with the people of Jeru- salem to release their Hebrew slaves. The princes and people agreed and released them, but afterwards re-enslaved them. 12-16. Jeremiah reminds them that their fathers had disobeyed the law bidding them release their Hebrew slaves in the seventh year ; they had themselves, however, made a covenant in the Temple before Yahweh to let the slaves go free, and then brought them back into bondage. 17-22. Since then they have disobeyed His command to set their brethren free, Yahweh will set them free to fall a prey to sword, plague, and famine, and make them a consternation to all I40 JEREMIAH 34. 9, 10. B all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim 9 liberty unto them ; that every man should let his man- servant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free ; that none should serve him- 10 self of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother: and all the nations. And those who made the covenant, by cutting the calf in twain and passing between the pieces, shall be given up to their enemies ; and their carcasses shall be food for bird and beast. And Zedekiah and his princes will be given to the Babylonian army. For though it has left Jerusalem Yahweh will bring it back, and it will capture and burn the city. xxxiv. 8. The verse gives the date of the oracle inexactly, for it was after the breach of faith had been committed that Jeremiah's denunciation was uttered. to proclaim liberty unto them. ' Unto them ' should prob- ably be omitted, as by LXX. The reference should be to the people, but apparently the sense is not that the proclamation of release should be communicated to the people, but that freedom should be announced to the slaves. The word rendered ' liberty ' is unusual, and is not found in the earliest legislation or in Deuter- onomy, though in Lev. xxv. 10 it is employed with reference to the year of Jubilee: see also Ezek. xlvi. 17, Isa. Ixi. i. 9. The number of Hebrew slaves is explained by the conditions of the time. The old peasant proprietors had been largely exter- minated in the wars ; the heavy tribute and taxation had ruined the poorer people ; wealth had accumulated in comparatively few hands, and had been employed in luxury and other barren ex- penditure ; so that the poor, seeing no alternative but starvation, had been forced to sell their children and then themselves into slavery. In the earher period the relation between masters and slaves seems to have been friendly and humane ; but in the capi- talist era which had supervened, class distinctions would be aggravated and the old personal ties would to a large extent have given place to the point of view we associate with slavery. that none . . . his brother. The clause is very clumsy in the Hebrew. The LXX gives ' so that no one of Judah should any more be a slave.' 10, 11. Here also the LXX has a briefer text: nnexion with the political situation. JEREMIAH 36. 10-12. B 155 the cities of Judah unto Jerusalem, proclaimed a fast be- fore the Lord. Then read Baruch in the book the words '^ of Jeremiah in the house of the Lord, in the chamber of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe, in the upper court, at the entry of the new gate of the Lord's house, in the ears of all the people. And when Micaiah the son of ' i Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, had heard out of the book all the words of the Lord, he went down into the king's 13 house, into the scribe's chamber : and, lo, all the princes sat there, even Elishama the scribe, and Delaiah the son of Shemaiah, and Elnathan the son of Achbor, and 10. The precision with which the locality is defined is evidence that the account proceeds from an eye-witness, no doubt Baruch. Gemariah was one of the sons of Shaphan, who held the very important post of secretary under Josiah, and read to him the Book of the Law which Hilkiah had discovered. If this Shaphan is to be identified with the Shaphan mentioned in xxvi. 24, Gema- riah was the brother of Ahikam, Jeremiah's powerful protector, and uncle of Gedaliah. He was, we may assume, friendly to Jeremiah, since his chamber was placed at Baruch's disposal. the upper court: probably to be identified with ' the inner court' mentioned in i Kings vi, 36, vii, 12. For ' the new gate ' see note on xxvi, lo. 11. Micaiah had apparently been left in charge of Gemariah's chamber, while the owner was at the council of princes, if we are to identify the Gemariah in 10 with the Gemariah in 12. Possibly his father had instructed him to report to the council if anything should be said or done that called for official notice. 12. he went down: the palace being lower than the Temple ; contrast xxvi. lo. Elishama the scribe. If the designation ' the scribe ' in ro is to be attached to Gemariah, who would thus have succeeded his father Shaphan in the office, we should either have to suppose that he had been superseded by Elishama, or that there were two secretaries. More probably ' the scribe ' in 10 is the designation of Shaphan, so that Gemariah, while a member of the council of princes, did not hold the post of secretary. The secretary's chamber was attached to the palace rather than the Temple, as is natural with a State official. Elnathan the son of Achbor was sent by Jehoiakim to pro- cure Uriah's extradition from I' gypt. (Thenotron xxvi. 22 should be consulted, ' 156 JEREMIAH 36. 13-15. B Gemariah the son of Shaphan, and Zedekiah the son of 13 Hananiah, and all the princes. Then Micaiah declared unto them all the words that he had heard, when Baruch 14 read the book in the ears of the people. Therefore all the princes sent Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi, unto Baruch, saying, Take in thine hand the roll wherein thou hast read in the ears of the people, and come. So Baruch the son of Neriah ^5 took the roll in his hand, and came unto them. And they Gemariah the son of Shaphan; probably (though some question this) to be identified with the Gemariah of 10. all the princes : i. e. all the other princes. It is curious that the same phrase should be used twice in the same sentence with a different application. 14. Jehudi . . . Cnshi. It is very surprising that a subordi- nate oflficial should have his ancestry mentioned back for three generations. It is rare for even the grandfather to be mentioned, though it might be done, as in the case of Micaiah (11), where the grandfather was a person of distinction, or perhaps to avoid con- fusion where several bore the same name. It is noteworthy in this case that the first and last are not individual but national names, 'Jew" and 'Cushite.' Hitzig infers that Cushi was an Ethiopian who had been naturalized as a Jew ; his son and grandson bore names compounded with Yahweh, expressing their adhesion to His service ; but only in the next generation was full Jewish citizenship possible, and this is expressed in the name Jehudi. This view is accepted by several scholars. On the other hand, the name Cushi is found in the genealogy of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. i. i), though he can hardly have been a foreigner since he was the grandson of Hezekiah, probably the king of that name (this accounts for his genealogy going back to the great-grandfather). Duhm supposes that names of this kind are to be explained by circum- stances. Cushi might be given to a son born during a journey to Ethiopia, or born of an Ethiopian mother; Jehudi to a son born after the father's return, to distinguish him from sons born abroad, or to distinguish the son of a Jewish mother from half-brothers born of a foreign mother. Cornill and Rothstein prefer to read 'Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, and Shelemiah the son of Cushi.' The alteration to our present text is thought to have been occasioned by the reflection that one messengeralone was wanted, and that in 21 Jehudi alone was sent. There is no evidence, however, to support this change of text, and the sending of two messengers is improbable. JEREMIAH 36. iC-iy. B 157 said unto him, Sit down now, and read it in our ears. So Baruch read it in their ears. Now it came to pass, when 16 they had heard all the words, they turned in fear one toward another, and said unto Baruch, We will surely tell the king of all these words. And they asked Baruch, I'j saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth ? Then Baruch answered them. He pro- 18 nounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book. Then said the 19 princes unto Baruch, Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah ; 15. Sit down. The courteous treatment accorded to Baruch is noteworthy. Some follow the LXX in pointing the word differ- ently, rendering ' Read it again in our ears.' But this is to be rejected. 16. The princes are terrified at the contents of the roll, and feel that they must let the king know. Omit ' unto Baruch,' with the LXX ; the words express the result of their deliberations among themselves. 17. at his mouth. These words should probably be omitted, with the LXX ; they anticipate Baruch's answer. 18. Baruch's answer is intended to assure the princes that the whole roll was word for word Jeremiah's composition; he had simply performed the mechanical task of taking down the oracles as the prophet dictated them. It is remarkable that Jeremiah's name is not mentioned here, though in a formal statement of this kind it would be expected. We should read, with the LXX and Syriac, 'Jeremiah pronounced.' with ink. The LXX omits the words, which occur here only, probably incorrectly. The detail would seem to Baruch worth mentioning. Giesebrecht reads ' with my hand ; ' Duhm's scoff that the princes would know that he had not written it with his foot is hypercritical, for Baruch might quite well have said ' I wrote them with my own hand,' to bring out that he alone had executed the mechanical part of the task (cf. Gal. vi. 11). But there is no need to alter the text. 19. The princes know the king too well, they had the fate of Uriah before them, to be in any doubt as to the reception he would accord to the prophet and his secretary. So they give Baruch timely warning that he and Jeremiah should go into hiding. It is a little remarkable that the king did not issue the order for their arrest as soon as the princes made their report, before he had the roll read to him. 158 JEREMIAH 36. 20-23. B 20 and let no man know where ye be. And they went in to the king into the court ; but they had laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe ; and they told all the 21 words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll : and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, a"nd in the ears of all the princes which stood 22 beside the king. Now the king sat in the winter house in the ninth month ; and there was a fire in the brasier 23 burning before him. And it came to pass, when Jehudi had read three or four ^ leaves, that the king cut it with * fOr, columns 20. the court: i. e. the inner court. But this would be open, whereas according to 22 the king was in the winter house. Rothstein and Giesebrecht independently suggested 'into the cabinet,' which involves very slight change. This is accepted by Duhm and Cornill (see also Driver's note). they had laid up the roll : probably hoping that the king might not ask for it, being content with the oral report they were going to make to him. 22. The fact that he was in the winter house is mentioned to account for the fire in the brasier, which plays so important a part in the story. The LXX rightly omits ' in the ninth month ; ' it is a gloss introduced from 9, to explain why the king was in the winter house sitting before the fire. The sense of the last clause is correctly given in the R.V., but, as the italics suggest, the Hebrew is unsatisfactory. It is, in fact, ungrammatical ; the alteration of one letter {^eth into ''esh, 'fire') gives the requisite sense. The brasier was placed in the middle of the room. 23. The R.V. does not bring out the meaning. It suggests that Jehudi read three or four leaves, and then, without hearing more, the king cut the whole roll to pieces and burned it. But 24 implies that the king heard the whole roll read. Driver's rendering brings out the sense, ' as often as Jehudi read three or four columns, he cut them.' Had he burnt the whole roll at once the knife would have been less necessary, since the roll could have been tossed on the fire as it was, unless indeed it was too large to burn readily in that wa3% As every three or four columns were read, he cut them off and burnt them and let the reading proceed. At the end of the process the whole roll was burned ; tlie king found -nothing to save from the fire. . JEREMIAH 36. 24-27. B 159 the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was in the brasier, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was in the brasier. And they were not afraid, nor rent their 24 garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words. Moreover Elnathan and Delaiah 25 and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll : but he would not hear them. And the king commanded Jerahmeel ^ the king's son, and 26 Seraiah the son of Azriel, and Shelemiah the son of Abdeel, to take Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet : but the Lord hid them. Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after 27 "■ Or, the son of Hammelech leaves. The margin columns is better. The word literally means ' doors.' A similar usage is found in Arabic and Rabbinical Hebrew. the penknife: literally ' a scribe's knife.' 24. There is perhaps an intentional contrast with the conduct of Josiah when he heard the Law Book read (2 Kings xxii. 11). 25. On the attitude of Elnathan see note on xxvi. 22. The LXX inverts (with a difference in the names) the true sense of the verse. 26. the kingf's son : probably not the son of Jehoiakim, who was himself barely thirty at the time, but a prince of the blood. but the I.ORS hid them; The LXX reads simply * but they were hidden.' The Hebrew is finer ; Baruch recognizes in these words that it was due to God's watchful care that their retreat was not discovered. 27-31. Duhm strikes out these verses as due to the redactor. Certainly, apart from the style, there are difficulties. The words of Jehoialiim in 29 were not really uttered by him to Jeremiah, since king and prophet did not meet. The prediction that he should have no successor on the throne was not absolutely true, since his son Jchoiachin did succeed him. But as he reigned only three months, and was then deposed and taken to Babylon, Jeremiah might well have expressed himself in this way ; and the fact that it was not literally fulfilled tells against the view that it is an editorial insertion from xxii. 30. The quotation from the roll is not exact, but it agrees sufficiently with the tenor of Jeremiah's predictions. Erbt more moderately assigns 29-31 to an editor, Rothstcin simply 29''- 30^* ('Thou hast burned. . . king ofjudah'). i6o JEREMIAH 3G. 28—37. i. BE, that the king had burned the roll, and the words which 28 Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the 29 king of Judah hath burned. And concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah thou shalt say, Thus saith the Lord : Thou hast burned this roll, saying. Why hast thou written therein, saying. The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from 30 thence man and beast ? Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah : He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David : and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the 31 night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity ; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced 32 against them, but they hearkened not. Then took Jere- miah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah ; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire : and there were added besides unto them many like words. 37 [R] And Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned as king, 30. On the closing threat see note on xxii. 1 8, 19 (vol. i ,pp. 255-6 . 32. On the second edition of the roll see vol i, pp. 61, 62. xxxvii. i-io. Jeremiah Warns Zedekiah that the Chaldeans ^ WILL Return and Burn Jerusalem. This section gives us an account of a deputation sent by Zede- kiah to Jeremiah in the interval of relief from the siege occasioned by the coming of the Egyptian army, and the reply the prophet sent to the king. The relation of this narrative to that in xxi has been discussed in the Introduction to that chapter, to which the reader should refer (vol. i. p. 246). Here it need simply be said that the nar- JEREMIAH 37. 2, 3. RB 161 instead of ^ Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebu- chadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah. But neither he, nor his servants, nor the people 2 of the land, did hearken unto the words of the Lord, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah. [b] And Zedekiah the king sent Jehucal the son of 3 * See ch. xxii. 24. ratives probably refer to different incidents, xxi to an earlier, xxxvii. i-io to a later stage in the conflict. The present story is quite trustworthy and comes to us from the hand of Baruch, but i, 2 are presumably editorial, and 3-10 may have been touched by the editor's hand. xxxvii. I, 2. Zedekiah was appointed by Nebuchadrezzar king in place of Coniah, but neither he nor his people gave heed to the message of Jeremiah. 3-10. Zedekiah sent to Jeremiah to entreat his prayers. Jere- miah had not yet been imprisoned, and the news that an Egyptian army was coming had caused the Chaldeans to raise the siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah sends the answer to the king that the Egyptian army will return to Egypt, while the Chaldeans shall return and burn Jerusalem. Let them not deceive themselves with the delusion that they will abandon the siege. Nay, though the whole army contained none but wounded men, they would rise up and burn the city. xxxvii. 1, 2. It is surprising to find this mention of Zedekiah's accession at this point in the book, as if he had not been mentioned before. The editor wishes to warn the reader that in the follow- ing narratives he is not, as in xxxv, xxxvi, concerned with the reign of Jehoiakim. This may perhaps account for the reading in ^ the LXX, ' instead of Jehoiakim,' the meaning being not neces- sarily that Zedekiah was his immediate successor, but in the narrative that now follows the king is not Jehoiakim but Zedekiah. If the Hebrew text is original, a scribe may have struck out ' Coniah and ' on account of the statement a few verses earlier (xxxvi. 30) that Jehoiakim should have * none to sit upon the throne.' The statement in 2 is not an appropriate introduction to the king's request for prayer in 3. 3. The request is like that made by Hezekiah to Isaiah (Isa. xxxvii. 2-5). There is this difference : Hezekiah sent when matters seemed most desperate ; Zedekiah when the raising of the siege had brought a reprieve. The reply of Jeremiah seems irrelevant to the request. It is rather an answer to such a question as. What is the issue to be ? Will the Chaldeans abandon their enterprise ? II M i62 JEREMIAH 37. 4-9. BRB Shelemiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, to the prophet Jeremiah, saying, Pray now unto 4 the Lord our God for us. [R] Now Jeremiah came in and went out among the people : for they had not put 5 him into prison. [B] And Pharaoh's army was come forth out of Egypt : and when the Chaldeans that be- sieged Jerusalem heard tidings of them, they brake up 6 from Jerusalem. Then came the word of the Lord 7 unto the prophet Jeremiah, saying. Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel : Thus shall ye say to the king of Judah, that sent you unto me to inquire of me ; Behold, Pharaoh's army, which is come forth to help you, shall S return to Egypt into their own land. And the Chaldeans hall come again, and fight against this city ; and they 9 shall take it, and burn it with fire. Thus saith the Possibly the prayer is understood to be an entreaty for direction rather than for deliverance, as 7 suggests ; possibly the terras of the passage have been influenced by the account in Isa. xxxvii. 2-5. Jehucal appears a little later as one of Jeremiah's enemies (xxxviii. 1-6). On Zephaniah see notes on xxi. 2, xxix. 25. Erbt supposes that Jehucal has intruded into the text from xxxviii, r, and that Pashhur has been transferred from xxxvii. i to xxxviii. I. Thus we should have the same deputation as in xxi. r. But if there were really two deputations, there is no reason why the members of it should have been the same. Jehucal's attitude in xxxviii. I is no warrant for removing his name here. 4. This verse may be editorial ; in Baruch's memoirs the incidents would presumably be narrated in chronological order, so that it would be quite clear that the imprisonment had not yet occurred, whereas according to the present arrangement it is nar- rated in xxxii, xxxiii. 5. This comes at an inappropriate point : strictly it should have preceded 3. But the statement itself probably comes from Baruch. The Pharaoh mentioned is Pharaoh Hophra (590-571 b.c); see note on xliv. 30. 7. We do not know why the Egyptian relief army retreated to Egypt. Perhaps it was intimidated at the approach of the Chal- deans, and yielded the ground without a struggle ; perhaps, as Ezek. XXX. 21 suggests, it had suffered defeat. 9, 10. These verses are no mere addition made because the JEREMIAH 37. io,ii. B 163 Lord : Deceive not ^ yourselves, saying, The Chaldeans shall surely depart from us : for they shall not depart. For though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chal- 10 deans that light against you, and there remained but b wounded men among them, yet should they rise up every man in his tent, and burn this city with fire. And it came to pass that when the army of the Chal- n * Heb. your souls. '' Heb, thrust through. redactor cannot bring himself to stop. They are expressed in so striking a way, and so apt to the self-deceiving optimism of the Jews, that we may be well assured that Jeremiah spoke them. So certain is the return of the Chaldeans and the destruction of the city, that if the Jews had smitten the whole army of the enemy, and only some desperately wounded (see margin) soldiers were left, they would rise up and burn the city. We should probably connect 'every man in his tent' with 'wounded men,' strike out 'among them,' and read with the LXX 'yet should these rise up.' The point of ' every man in his tent' is perhaps that out of several inmates of a tent, only one survivor was left. All that had hap- pened so far was a mere strategic retreat, and already the hopes of the Jews were rising high ; but ' things are what they are, and their consequences will be what they will be ; why then should we deceive ourselves ? ' So settled in God's counsel is the city's fate, that even the most crushing defeat of its enemy could not save it from destruction at their hands. xxxvii. 11-21. Jeremiah is Arrested and Imprisoned. Zedekiah Consults him and Ameliorates his Lot. On this incident see vol. i, p. 25. The account is no doubt derived from Baruch's memoirs. xxxvii. 11-15. When the Chaldeans had raised the siege of Jeru- salem for fear of the relief army from Egypt, Jeremiah was going into the land of Benjamin, but was arrested by Irijah as a deserter to the enemy, in spite of his denial. The princes beat him and put him in prison. 16-21. After many days' confinement Zedekiah had him brought to the palace, and inquired if there was any message from Yahweh. Jeremiah told him that he should be delivered into Nebuchadrezzar's hands. He then remonstrated with him on account of his imprisonment, and pointed to the falsification of the predictions that the enemy would not come against Judah. He added a request that he should not be sent back to the prison to M 2 i64 JEREMIAH 37. 12-14. B deans was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh's 12 army, then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to receive his portion ^ there, 13 in the midst of the people. And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hana- niah ; and he laid hold on Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 14 Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans. Then said Jeremiah, It is false ; I fall not away to the Chaldeans ; but he hearkened not to him : so Irijah laid hold on Jeremiah, ^ Heb./rom thence. die there. So the king had him removed to the court of the guard, and supplied with bread. xxxvii. 11. The interruption of the siege made it possible for Jeremiah to undertake his journey. 12. The precise object of his journey is uncertain, since the meaning of the Hebrew is not clear, perhaps through textual cor- ruption, perhaps through its use of technical language which does not occur elsewhere. The R.V. gives what is probably the sense. The journey may be connected with an earlier stage of the same business as is recorded in xxxii, or he may have wished to get more money than he had, though at a later time he still had some, as we learn from xxxii. 9. 13. As he was in 'the gate of Benjamin,' on the north side of the city which led into Benjamite territory, he was arrested by the officer on duty, Irijah, a grandson of Hananiah, who is probably not to be identified with Jeremiah's antagonist (xxviii), since the latter was presumably a younger man. Nor are we to identify the Shelemiah here mentioned with the father of Jehucal (3). The charge of desertion was the more plausible that similar desertions seem to have been numerous (xxxviii. 19 : cf. 4, Hi. 15) ; Jeremiah's advice to desert had perhaps already been given to the people (xxi. 9) ; and he had not concealed his conviction that the city must fall. This conviction was apparently shared by a good number, and there were probably many who strongly objected to the rebellion against Babylon. Those who were more outspoken, if they could not make good their escape, may have been thrust into prison. 14. Jeremiah indignantly denies the charge. On his attitude, and its consistency with the advice given to others to desert, see vol. i, pp 24, 25 JEREMIAH 37. 15-18. B 165 and brought him to the princes. And the princes were '5 wroth with Jeremiah, and smote him, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the scribe ; for they had made that the prison. When Jeremiah was come 16 into the ^ dungeon house, and into the cells, and Jeremiah had remained there many days ; then Zedekiah the king 17 sent, and fetched him : and the king asked him secretly in his house, and said, Is there any word from the Lord ? And Jeremiah said. There is. He said also. Thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon. Moreover Jeremiah said unto king Zedekiah, Wherein 18 ^ Or, house of the pit 15. Irijah's arrest of the prophet may have been simply in obedience to his instructions. The decision as to his fate rested with the princes. These princes, it must be remembered, were not those of Jehoiakim's reign, who had been favourable to Jere- miah, since these had for the most part been taken to Babylon, but upstarts who had no experience of government, hot-headed and short-sighted patriots, so inferior in character to their predeces- sors that Jeremiah contrasted them with the latter as evil figs with good figs. They no doubt disliked him for his pro-Babylonian attitude ; but they had been further embittered against him by his unsparing denunciation of the treatment they had accorded to their Hebrew slaves. the house of Jonathan the scrihe. Why this was used is not clear. Perhaps the other prisons were full, and a high official might be specially entrusted with such political prisoners as it was desired to keep under the strictest observation. As we gather from 16, Jeremiah was consigned to an underground dungeon, where he would have died in due course (20), had the princes had their way. 16. When. Read, with the LXX, ' And Jeremiah came,' and place a full stop at the end of the sentence. cells : or * vaults.' many days. When he was removed the siege seems to have been resumed. 17. Zedekiah believed in the real inspiration of Jeremiah, and would have followed his counsel had he dared. But he was in terror of the princes, so he could consult the prophet only in secret (cf. xxxviii, 5, 24-27). 18-20. A simple and dignified remonstrance follows on his unjust i66 JEREMIAH 37. 19—88. i. B have I sinned against thee, or against thy servants, or against this people, that ye have put me in prison ? 19 Where now are your prophets which prophesied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon shall not come against 20 you, nor against this land ? And now hear, I pray thee, O my lord the king : let my supplication, I pray thee, ^ be accepted before thee ; that thou cause me not to return to the house of Jonathan the scribe, lest I die 21 there. Then Zedekiah the king commanded, and they committed Jeremiah into the court of the guard, and they gave him daily a loaf of bread out of the bakers' street, until all the bread in the city was spent. Thus Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard. 38 And Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the ^ Heb./rt//. imprisonment ; then he points the moral of the failure of the false prophets; and finally he proffers his petition that the king will not send him back to the dungeon, where death will be inevitable. 21. Jeremiah was innocent, and the king recognized this, yet he did not venture to set him free. But he so far braved the resent- ment of the princes as to bring him from the dungeon to the palace and confine him in the court of the guard (see note on xxxii. 2). He also took care for his maintenance, providing him a cake of bread daily. The round cake here indicated was only small, but bread was getting scarcer and scarcer, and it sufficed to keep him alive. Ijakers' street. In the East those who practise the same trade or business often live in the same street. xxxviii. 1-13. Jeremiah is put into a Dungeon by the Princes, but Rescued by Ebed-melech. Schmidt pronounces this * manifestly a late legend ' {Enc. Bib. 2388), but critics generally, including Duhm, treat it as a trust- worthy narrative from the pen of Baruch, even if to some extent edited. xxxviii. 1-6. Four of the princes heard Jeremiah's words to the people, threatening death to those who stayed in the city, but promising life to those who surrendered, and predicting the capture of the city. They asked the king that he might be put to death, since he weakened the hands of the defenders of the city. JEREMIAH 38. 2-4. B 167 son of Pashhur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashhur the son of Malchiah, heard the words that Jeremiah spake unto all the people, saying, Thus saith the 2 Lord, He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence : but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey, and he shall live. Thus saith the Lord, 3 This city shall surely be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it. Then the 4 princes said unto the king, Let this man, we pray thee, be The king replied that he was in their hands, since the king had no power against them. So they put Jeremiah into a dungeon, and his feet sank in the mire. 7-13. Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a palace eunuch, heard of this, and told the king what had been done and that Jeremiah was in danger of speedy death. The king commanded him to get some men to draw him out of the dungeon. So he took rags and let them down to Jeremiah, and he put them under his armholes to cover the ropes. Then they drew him out of the dungeon and he remained in the court of the guard. xxxvi ii. 1. Of the first two of the princes nothing furtherisknown, except that Gedaliah, who is of course to be distinguished from the governor (xl, xli), might be the son of the Pashhur who beat Jere- miah and put him in the stocks (xx. 1-3). Jucal is the same as Jehucal of xxxvii. 3, and Pashhur accompanied Zephaniah on the first deputation sent by Zedekiah to the prophet (xxi. i). heard . . . people. Although Jeremiah was in confinement, he was not prevented from receiving visitors, as we see from the visit of Hanamel (xxxii) ; and to these, but especially to the soldiers who were on duty, he would have an opportunity of giving his view of the situation ; perhaps more in reply to questions than as a propagandist. 2. This advice is that given also in almost the same words in xxi. 9 (see the note). Some, including even K6berle, hold that at this stage of the conflict Jeremiah would not have given such advice, though earlier he might have done so, and suppose that the passage has been inserted here from xxi. 9. 4. From their point of view, as men responsible for the defence of the city, they were not unjustified in demanding Jeremiah's death, for his unfaltering predictions of utter disaster were calcu- lated to unnerve and discourage the defenders. i68 JEREMIAH 38. 5-7. B put to death ; forasmuch as he vveakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them : for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the 5 hurt. And Zedekiah the king said, Behold, he is in your hand : for the king is not he that can do any thing 6 against you. Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the ^ dungeon of Malchiah ^ the king's son, that was in the court of the guard : and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but 7 mire : and Jeremiah sank in the mire. Now when Ebed- melech the Ethiopian, an eunuch, which was in the king's ^ Or, pit ^ Or, the son of Hammelech 5. Zedekiah apparently yields, but not fully : he leaves the prophet in their hands, but without permission to inflict the death penalty. He may have expected them to confine him again in the house of Jonathan. The LXX reports the king's reply as closing with * hand ; ' the rest is a remark of the narrator, ' for the king was not able to do any thing against them.' This is perhaps correct. 6. The princes did not kill Jeremiah outright, perhaps they shrank with superstitious dread from such a deed ; but they hit on a plan which they trusted might achieve their purpose as well. In the court of the guard there was a cistern belonging to one of the royal house (see on xxxvi. 26). It was usual for a house to have an underground cistern in which water was stored. In this cistern, as it happened, there was no water, but a deep miry sedi- ment ; and the prophet was lowered into this by cords, from which we may be sure no rags protected him, and his feet sank in the mire. It is clear from the sequel that the deed was done in the king's absence from the palace (7) and without his knowledge (9, 10). 7. It is very striking that the only one who intervenes to save Jeremiah from the terrible death the princes designed for him was an Ethiopian eunuch. Some think that the women of the harem, of whom he may have been in charge, had observed the proceed- ing, and informed Ebed-melech. But it is questionable whether the women's apartments would look on the court of the guard. Whether this was so or not, no sooner did he learn of it than he hastened to tell the king, who was in the gate of Benjamin (see xxxvii. 13), feeling it to be a matter of life and death. JEREMIAH 38. 8-10. B 169 house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon ; the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin ; Ebed- 8 melech went forth out of the king's house, and spake to the king, saying, My lord the king, these men have done 9 evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon ; and ^ he is like to die in the place where he is because of the famine : for there is no more bread in the city. Then the king com- 10 ^ Heb, he is dead. 9. The LXX gives a different text in the former part of the verse : ' Thou hast acted wrongly in what thou hast done to slay this man.' This is accepted by Rothstein (in Kittel), but the Hebrew is much better ; Zedekiah had not intended the prophet's death, and his answer to the princes was merely meant as a permission to silence him. It would have been tactless on Ebed-melech's part to accuse the king at a time when he was going to ask for his assistance. and he is like ... in the city. This is a very difficult pas- sage. The Hebrew text reads ' and he has died ; ' it is better to omit a letter and read ' he will die,' than to impose an appropriate sense on the present text ; or we might read ' to die ' (so appar- ently LXX, but perhaps translating the present text). The last clause of the verse, if literally taken, gives no suitable meaning. If there was no bread in the city there was no point in the action of the princes, since famine would do their work for them ; and for Ebed-melech to rescue him would only have been to doom him to a more lingering death. If there was no more food, he could be supplied with food as little in the court of the guard as in the cistern. But the words are obviously intended to give a reason why he should be rescued at once ; so that wc must rather inter- pret them as an exaggerated statement of the actual conditions. The point will then be that bread has become so scarce that in the pit in which he is confined Jeremiah will miss even his scanty ration (xxxvii. 21), which itself barely sufficed to keep body and soul together, and will die of hunger. Possibly the food in the city had been commandeered for distribution, so that the prophet's friends would have had no opportunity of helping him. in the place where he is : better ' on the spot ' : cf. 2 Sam. ii. 23, where it is said of Asahel that he ' died on the spot.' 10. thirty men. The Hebrew is irregular and the number too large, even if so many could be spared from the ranks of the sorely thinned defenders (cf. 4, 'the men of war that remain'). We should read ' three men ; ' these, with Ebed-melech, would be I70 JEREMIAH 38. 11-14. B manded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying, Take from hence thirty men with thee, and take up Jeremiah the pro- 1 1 phet out of the dungeon, before he die. So Ebed-melech took the men with him, and went into the house of the king under the treasury, and took thence old cast clouts and old rotten rags, and let them down by cords into the 12 dungeon to Jeremiah. And Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said unto Jeremiah, Put now these old cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords. And 13 Jeremiah did so. So they drew up Jeremiah with the cords, and took him up out of the dungeon : and Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard. 14 Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took Jeremiah the ample for the purpose. The king's language shows that he re- cognized the urgency of immediate action. 11. Ebed-melech*s thoughtfulness to spare the prophet all needless pain is shown in his provision of rags to save him from being cut by the rope, and then by his letting the rags down to him with ropes that he might not have to grope for them in the mire. The rags he procured from a lumber-room under the treasury. 12. The LXX reads simply 'And he said, Put these under the cords, and Jeremiah did so.* Duhm prefers this, thinking that Jeremiah would sit on the rope and not be tormented by being pulled up with the cords under his armholes. But faint with hunger and ill usage, it was much better for him to be drawn up as the Hebrew text describes, than risk a fall from the rope as he was being raised ; besides, had he sat on the rope, the provision of rags would have been a cruel refinement of kindness when time was so precious. The delay was worth while to protect the armpits. 13. The princes seem not to have interfered further with the prophet. Probably the end was already very near, and the king granted his petition not to be taken back to the house of Jona- than (26). xxxviii. I4-28^ Jeremiah's Final Appeal to the King TO Surrender. This narrative is taken from Baruch's memoirs, and is unques- tionably trustworthy. Its information is too precise to come from any but a first-hand source. Probably the interview took place on the same day on which he was rescued by Ebed-melech. The JEREMIAH 38. 14. B 171 prophet unto him into the third entry that is in the account which the king told him to give must have been plausible, or it would not have satisfied the suspicious princes. Had some delay intervened between the rescue and the interview, the dread that he might be sent back to his former prison would have been less natural ; it was, however, the most natural thing in the world to anticipate that the princes, thwarted in their first attempt on Jeremiah, would avail themselves of the king's permission already accorded them (5) to send him back to the house of Jona- than, where he would no longer be able to weaken the defence. The narrative is told without any mention of Jeremiah's petition, so that the inference is suggested that the king simply invented the pretext of the petition in order to conceal the real purpose of the interview. But when we have regard to Baruch's mode of telling his story, this inference is by no means necessary. It is more than probable that Jeremiah would use the opportunity to address the king, as he had done before, on this matter of such personal moment to himself, and that the request was actually granted. Accordingly the prophet probably told no actual lie, but saved the king by concealing part, and the more important part, of the truth. xxxviii. 14-18. Zedekiah inquired of Jeremiah if he could reveal anything to him, and swore that he would not kill him or surrender him to his foes. Jeremiah then said that, if he would surrender, his life and the city would be spared ; if not, it would be burned and he would not escape. 19-23. Zedekiah replied that he feared the Chaldeans would hand him over to the Jewish deserters. Jeremiah replied that they would not do so, and besought him to obey, so it would be well with him. But if he refuse, then the women of the palace shall sing the dirge over him when they are captured. His friends have led him astray, and abandon him now that his feet have sunk in the mire. His wives and children and he himself will be cap- tured, and the city will be burned. 24-28*. The king enjoined secrecy on the prophet, assuring him that he should not die. He also told him that if the princes asked what he and the king had said, he was to reply that he had petitioned not to be sent back to Jonathan's house, to die there. So when the princes asked him, he replied as the king commanded, and thus the purport of the interview remained unknown. So he stayed in the court of the guard. zzxvlii. 14. the third entry. This was no doubt well known to Baruch. but it is not mentioned elsewhere, nor do we ever read of a first or second entry. Giesebrecht with a slight emend- 172 JEREMIAH 38. 15-18. B house of the Lord : and the king said unto Jeremiah, ^5 I will ask thee a thing; hide nothing from me. Then Jeremiah said unto Zedekiah, If I declare it unto thee, wilt thou not surely put me to death ? and if I give thee 16 counsel, thou wilt not hearken unto me. So Zedekiah the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the Lord liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men 17 that seek thy life. Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel : If thou wilt go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned 18 with fire ; and thou shalt live, and thine house : but if ation {m^bo' hashshaltshim for rAdbo' hashsh^lisht) gets the sense