Jeremiah 29–31

Footnotes

1. 1 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
2. 2 Jer 29:1–3 are all one long sentence in Hebrew containing a parenthetical insertion. The text reads “These are the words of the letter which the prophet Jeremiah sent to the elders … people whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon after King Jeconiah … had gone from Jerusalem by the hand of Elasah … whom Zedekiah sent … saying, ‘Thus says the Lord …’ ” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of contemporary English style and clarity.
3. 3 This term is often mistakenly understood to refer to a “eunuch.” It is clear, however, in Gen 39:1 that “eunuchs” could be married. On the other hand it is clear from Isa 59:3–5 that some who bore this title could not have children. In this period, it is possible that the persons who bore this title were high officials like the rab saris who was a high official in the Babylonian court (cf. Jer 39:3, 13; 52:25). For further references see סָרִיס 1.c.
4. 4 See 2 Kgs 24:14–16 and compare the study note on .
5. 5 Elasah son of Shaphan may have been the brother of Ahikam, who supported Jeremiah when the priests and the prophets in Jerusalem sought to kill Jeremiah for preaching that the temple and the city would be destroyed (cf. 26:24).
6. 6 This individual is not the same as the Gemariah mentioned in 36:10, 11, 12, 25 who was one of the officials who sought to have the first scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecies preserved. He may, however, have been a son or grandson of the High Priest who discovered the book of the law during the reign of Josiah (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 22:8, 10) which was so instrumental in Josiah’s reforms.
7. 7 It is unclear whether this incident preceded or followed those in the preceding chapter. It is known from 51:59 that Zedekiah himself had made a trip to Babylon in the same year mentioned in 28:1 and that Jeremiah had used that occasion to address a prophecy of disaster to Babylon. It is not impossible that Jeremiah sent two such disparate messages at the same time (see Jer 25:8–11, 12–14, 17–18, 26).
8. 8 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
9. 9 Heb “I sent.” This sentence exhibits a rapid switch in person, here from the third person to the first. Such switches are common to Hebrew poetry and prophecy (cf. §144.p). Contemporary English, however, does not exhibit such rapid switches and it creates confusion for the careful reader. Such switches have regularly been avoided in the translation. Elsewhere Nebuchadnezzar is seen as the one who carried them into exile (cf. 27:20; 29:1). Here and in v. 14 the Lord is seen as the one who sends them into exile. The Lord is the ultimate cause and Nebuchadnezzar is his agent or servant (cf. 25:9; 27:6 and notes).
10. 10 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
11. 11 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
12. 12 See the study notes on for this term.
13. 13 Heb “prophesying lies to you in my name.” For the significance of “in my name” see the study notes on and .
14. 14 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
15. 15 See the study note on for the reckoning of the seventy years.
16. 16 See the translator’s note on for this term.
17. 17 Verse 10 is all one long sentence in the Hebrew original: “According to the fullness of Babylon seventy years I will take thought of you and I will establish my gracious word to you by bringing you back to this place.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style.
18. 18 Heb “this place.” The text has probably been influenced by the parallel passage in 27:22. The term appears fifteen times in Jeremiah and is invariably a reference to Jerusalem or Judah. See Jer 27:22 for this promise.
19. 19 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
20. 20 Heb “I know the plans that I am planning for you, oracle of the Lord, plans of well-being and not for harm to give to you.…”
21. 21 Or “the future you hope for”; Heb “a future and a hope.” This is a good example of hendiadys where two formally coordinated nouns (adjectives, verbs) convey a single idea where one of the terms functions as a qualifier of the other. For this figure see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, . This example is discussed on p. 661.
22. 22 Heb “come and pray to me.” This is an example of verbal hendiadys where two verb formally joined by “and” convey a main concept with the second verb functioning as an adverbial qualifier.
23. 23 Or “You will call out to me and come to me in prayer and I will hear your prayers.” The verbs are vav consecutive perfects and can be taken either as unconditional futures or as contingent futures. See §112.kk and 494 §159.g and compare the usage in Gen 44:22 for the use of the vav consecutive perfects in contingent futures. The conditional clause in the middle of 29:13 and the deuteronomic theology reflected in both Deut 30:1–5 and 1 Kgs 8:46–48 suggest that the verbs are continent futures here. For the same demand for wholehearted seeking in these contexts which presuppose exile see especially Deut 30:2, 1 Kgs 8:48.
24. 24 Or “If you wholeheartedly seek me”; Heb “You will seek me and find [me] because you will seek me with all your heart.” The translation attempts to reflect the theological nuances of “seeking” and “finding” and the psychological significance of “heart” which refers more to intellectual and volitional concerns in the OT than to emotional ones.
25. 25 Heb “I will let myself be found by you.” For this nuance of the verb see 594 מָצָא Niph.1.f and compare the usage in Isa 65:1; 2 Chr 15:2. The Greek version already noted that nuance when it translated the phrase “I will manifest myself to you.”
26. 26 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
27. 27 Heb “restore your fortune.” Alternately, “I will bring you back from exile.” This idiom occurs twenty-six times in the OT and in several cases it is clearly not referring to return from exile but restoration of fortunes (e.g., Job 42:10; Hos 6:11–7:1; Jer 33:11). It is often followed as here by “regather” or “bring back” (e.g., Jer 30:3; Ezek 29:14) so it is often misunderstood as “bringing back the exiles.” The versions (, Vulg., , Pesh.) often translate the idiom as “to go away into captivity,” deriving the noun from שְׁבִי (shévi, “captivity”). However, the use of this expression in Old Aramaic documents of Sefire parallels the biblical idiom: “the gods restored the fortunes of the house of my father again” (J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [], , ). The idiom means “to turn someone’s fortune, bring about change” or “to reestablish as it was” ( 3.c). In Ezek 16:53 it is paralleled by the expression “to restore the situation which prevailed earlier.” This amounts to restitutio in integrum, which is applicable to the circumstances surrounding the return of the exiles.
28. 28 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
29. 29 The words “of good news” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
30. 30 Heb “But thus says the Lord about.” The words “just listen to what” are supplied in the translation to help show the connection with the preceding. Jeremiah answers their claims that the Lord has raised up prophets to encourage them that their stay will be short by referring to the Lord’s promise that the Lord’s plans are not for restoration but for further destruction.
31. 31 The words “of Jerusalem” are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to identify the referent and avoid the possible confusion that “this city” refers to Babylon.
32. 32 Heb “Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on for explanation of this title.
33. 33 Heb “the sword.”
34. 34 The meaning of this word is somewhat uncertain. It occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. 1045 שֹׁעָר relates it to the noun “horrible thing” (translated “something shocking”) in Jer 5:30; 23:14 and defines it as “horrid, disgusting.” שֹׁעָר relates it to the same noun and define it as “rotten; corrupt.” That nuance is accepted here. Compare Jer 24:8–10 in its context for the figure here.
35. 35 Heb “with the sword.”
36. 36 See the translator’s note on for an explanation of this idiom.
37. 37 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
38. 38 The word “exiles” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation to clarify the referent of “you.”
39. 39 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
40. 40 Heb “pay attention to the word of the Lord.” However, the Lord is speaking in the words just previous to this and in the words which follow (“whom I have sent”). This is another example of the shift from third person referent to first person which is common in Hebrew poetry and prophecy but is not common in English style. The person has been adjusted in the translation to avoid confusion.
41. 41 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
42. 42 Heb “prophesying lies in my name.” For an explanation of this idiom see the study notes on and .
43. 43 Being roasted to death in the fire appears to have been a common method of execution in Babylon. See Dan 3:6, 19–21. The famous law code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi also mandated this method of execution for various crimes a thousand years earlier. There is a satirical play on words involving their fate, “roasted them to death” (קָלָם, qalam), and the fact that that fate would become a common topic of curse (קְלָלָה, qélalah) pronounced on others in Babylon.
44. 44 It is commonly assumed that this word is explained by the two verbal actions that follow. The word (נְבָלָה, névalah) is rather commonly used of sins of unchastity (cf., e.g., Gen 34:7; Judg 19:23; 2 Sam 13:12) which would fit the reference to adultery. However, the word is singular and not likely to cover both actions that follow. The word is also used of the greedy act of Achan (Josh 7:15) which threatened Israel with destruction and the churlish behavior of Nabal (1 Sam 25:25) which threatened him and his household with destruction. The word is also used of foolish talk in Isa 9:17 (9:16 ) and Isa 32:6. It is possible that this refers to a separate act, one that would have brought the death penalty from Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., the preaching of rebellion in conformity with the message of the false prophets in Jerusalem and other nations (cf. 27:9, 13). Hence it is possible that the translation should read: “This will happen because of their vile conduct. They have propagated rebellion. They have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives. They have spoken words that I did not command them to speak. They have spoken lies while claiming my authority.”
45. 45 Heb “prophesying lies in my name.” For an explanation of this idiom see the study notes on and .
46. 46 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
47. 47 The words “The Lord told Jeremiah” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation here to indicate the shift in topic and the shift in addressee (the imperative “tell” is second singular). The introduction supplied in the translation here matches that in v. 30 where the words are in the text.
48. 48 It is unclear whether this is a family name or a place name. The word occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.
49. 49 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
50. 50 Heb “Tell Shemaiah the Nehelamite, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies the God of Israel.…” The indirect quotation is used in the translation to avoid the complexity of embedding a quotation within a quotation.
51. 51 Jer 29:24–32 are concerned with Jeremiah’s interaction with a false prophet named Shemaiah. The narrative in this section is not in strict chronological order and is somewhat elliptical. It begins with a report of a message that Jeremiah appears to have delivered directly to Shemaiah and refers to a letter that Shemaiah sent to the priest Zephaniah encouraging him to reprimand Jeremiah for what Shemaiah considered treasonous words in his letter to the exiles (vv. 24–28; compare v. 28 with v. 5). However, Jeremiah is in Jerusalem and Shemaiah is in Babylon. The address must then be part of a second letter Jeremiah sent to Babylon. Following this the narrative refers to Zephaniah reading Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah and Jeremiah sending a further letter to the captives in Babylon (vv. 29–32). This is probably not a third letter but part of the same letter in which Jeremiah reprimands Shemaiah for sending his letter to Zephaniah (vv. 25–28; the same letter referred to in v. 29). The order of events thus is: Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives counseling them to settle down in Babylon (vv. 1–23). Shemaiah sent a letter to Zephaniah asking him to reprimand Jeremiah (vv. 26–28). After Zephaniah read that letter to Jeremiah (v. 29), Jeremiah wrote a further letter to Babylon reprimanding him (vv. 25–28, 31) and pronouncing judgment on him (v. 32). The elliptical nature of the narrative is reflected in the fact that vv. 25–27 are part of a long causal sentence which sets forth an accusation but has no corresponding main clause or announcement of judgment. This kind of construction involves a rhetorical figure (called aposiopesis) where what is begun is not finished for various rhetorical reasons. Here the sentence that is broken off is part of an announcement of judgment which is not picked up until v. 32 after a further (though related) accusation (v. 31b).
52. 52 Heb “In your [own] name.” See the study note on for the significance of this idiom.
53. 53 Heb “letters.” Though §124.b, n. 1 denies it, this is probably a case of the plural of extension. For a similar usage see Isa 37:14 where the plural “letters” is referred to later as an “it.” Even if there were other “letters,” the focus is on the letter to Zephaniah.
54. 54 According to Jer 52:24 and 2 Kgs 25:18 Zephaniah son of Maaseiah was second in command to the high priest. He was the high ranking priest who was sent along with a civic official to inquire of the Lord’s will from Jeremiah by Zedekiah on two separate occasions (Jer 21:1; 37:3).
55. 55 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
56. 56 The words “In your letter you said to Zephaniah” are not in the text: Heb “you sent a letter to …, saying.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style and these words have been supplied in the translation to make the transition to the address to Zephaniah in vv. 26–28.
57. 57 Heb “in place of Jehoiada the priest.” The word “the priest” is unnecessary to the English sentence.
58. 58 Heb “The Lord has appointed you priest in place of the priest Jehoiada to be overseer in the house of the Lord for/over.” The translation is based on a reading presupposed by several of the versions. The Hebrew text reads “The Lord has … to be overseers [in] the house of the Lord for/over.” The reading here follows that of the Greek, , and Latin versions in reading פָּקִיד בְּבֵית (paqid bévet) in place of פְּקִדִים בֵּית (péqidim bet). There has been a confusion of the ם (mem) and בּ (bet) and a transposition of the י (yod) and ד (dalet).
59. 59 The Hebrew term translated lunatic applies to anyone who exhibits irrational behavior. It was used for example of David who drooled and scratched on the city gate to convince Achish not to arrest him as a politically dangerous threat (1 Sam 21:14). It was often used contemptuously of the prophets by those who wanted to play down the significance of their words (2 Kgs 9:11; Hos 9:7 and here).
60. 60 The verb here is a good example of what §26.2f calls the estimative-declarative reflexive where a person presents himself in a certain light. For examples of this usage see 2 Sam 13:5; Prov 13:7.
61. 61 See the translator’s note on for this word which only occurs here and in 20:2–3.
62. 62 This word only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible. All the lexicons are agreed as seeing it referring to a collar placed around the neck. The basis for this definition are the cognate languages (see, e.g., צִינֹק for the most complete discussion).
63. 63 Heb “So why have you not reprimanded Jeremiah …?” The rhetorical question functions as an emphatic assertion made explicit in the translation.
64. 64 Heb “For he has sent to us in Babylon, saying.…” The quote, however, is part of the earlier letter.
65. 65 See v. 5.
66. 66 Heb “in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.”
67. 67 Or “is giving you false assurances.”
68. 68 Heb “Therefore.”
69. 69 Compare the same charge against Hananiah in Jer 28:16 and see the note there. In this case, the false prophesy of Shemaiah is not given but it likely had the same tenor since he wants Jeremiah reprimanded for saying that the exile will be long and the people are to settle down in Babylon.
70. 1 Compare the headings at 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1 and the translator’s note at those places.
71. 2 Heb “Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, saying.…” For significance of the title “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel” see the note at .
72. 3 Heb “Write all the words which I speak to you in a scroll.” The verb “which I speak” is the instantaneous use of the perfect tense (cf. §106.i or §30.5.1d). The words that the Lord is about to speak follow in chs. 30–31. Reference is made here to the so-called “Book of Consolation” which is the most extended treatment of the theme of hope or deliverance in the book. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet both of judgment (of tearing down and destroying) and of deliverance (of replanting and rebuilding; see Jer 1:10). Jeremiah lamented that he had to predominantly pronounce judgment but he has periodically woven in prophecies of hope after judgment in 3:14–18; 16:14–15; 23:3–8; 24:4–7; 29:10–14, 32. The oracles of hope contained in these chapters are undated but reference is made in them to the restoration of both Israel which had gone into exile in Assyria in 722 b.c. and Judah which began to be exiled in 605 and 597 b.c. Jeremiah had already written as early as the reign of Zedekiah about the exiles who were the good figs who were to experience the “good” of restoration (24:4–7; 29:10–14) and had spoken of the further exile of those who remained in Judah. So it is possible that these oracles fit in roughly the same time frame as chapters 27–29.
73. 4 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
74. 5 Heb “restore the fortune.” For the translation and meaning of this idiom see the note at .
75. 6 Heb “fathers.”
76. 7 As the nations of Israel and Judah were united in their sin and suffered the same fate—that of exile and dispersion—cf. Jer 3:8; 5:11; 11:10, 17) so they will ultimately be regathered from the nations and rejoined under one king, a descendant of David, and regain possession of their ancestral lands. The prophets of both the eighth and seventh century looked forward to this ideal (see, e.g., Hos 1:11 (2:2 ); Isa 11:11–13; Jer 23:5–6; 30:3; 33:7; Ezek 37:15–22). This has already been anticipated in Jer 3:18.
77. 8 Heb “And these are the words/things that the Lord speaks concerning Israel and Judah.”
78. 9 The particle כִּי (ki) is functioning here as loosely causal or epexegetical of the preceding introduction. For this usage cf. 473–74 כִּי 3.c. This nuance borders on that of the intensive use of כִּי. See the discussion in 472 כִּי note and כִּי 1.e.
79. 10 Heb “We have heard the sound of panic and of fear, and there is no peace.” It is generally agreed that the person of the verb presupposes that this is an unintroduced quote of the people.
80. 11 Heb “Ask and see/consider.”
81. 12 Heb “with their hands on their loins.” The word rendered “loins” refers to the area between the ribs and the thighs.
82. 13 Heb “Alas [or Woe] for that day will be great.” For the use of the particle “Alas” to signal a time of terrible trouble, even to sound the death knell for someone, see the translator’s note on . The reference to a terrible time of trouble (Heb “that day”) is a common shorthand reference in the prophets to “the Day of the Lord.” The “Day of the Lord” refers to a time when God intervenes in judgment against the wicked. The time referent can be either near or far, referring to something as near as the Assyrian threat in the time of Ahaz (Isa 7:18, 20, 21, 23) or as distant as the eschatological battle of God against Gog when he attacks Israel (Ezek 38:14, 18). The judgment can be against Israel’s enemies and result in Israel’s deliverance (Jer 50:30–34). At other times as here the Day of the Lord involves judgment on Israel itself. Here reference is to the judgment that the northern kingdom, Israel, has already experienced (cf., e.g., Jer 3:8) and which the southern kingdom, Judah, is in the process of experiencing and which Jeremiah has lamented over several times and even described in hyperbolic and apocalyptic terms in Jer 4:19–31.
83. 14 Heb “It is a time of trouble for Jacob but he will be saved out of it.” Jacob here is figurative for the people descended from him. Moreover the figure moves from Jacob = descendants of Jacob to only a part of those descendants. Not all of his descendants who have experienced and are now experiencing trouble will be saved. Only a remnant (i.e., the good figs, cf., e.g., Jer 23:3; 31:7) will see the good things that the Lord has in store for them (Jer 24:5–6). The bad figs will suffer destruction through war, starvation, and disease (cf., e.g., Jer 24:8–10 among many other references).
84. 15 Heb “And it shall happen in that day.” The time for them to be rescued (Heb “that day”) is the day of deliverance from the trouble alluded to at the end of the preceding verse, not the day of trouble mentioned at the beginning. Israel (even the good figs) will still need to go through the period of trouble (cf. vv. 10–11).
85. 16 Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” See the study note on for explanation of the title for God.
86. 17 Heb “I will break his yoke from upon your neck.” For the explanation of the figure see the study note on . The shift from third person at the end of v. 7 to second person in v. 8c, d and back to third person in v. 8e is typical of Hebrew poetry in the book of Psalms and in the prophetic books (cf., §114.p and compare usage in Deut 32:15; Isa 5:8 listed there). The present translation, like several other modern ones, has typically leveled them to the same person to avoid confusion for modern readers who are not accustomed to this poetic tradition. In the immediate context the reference to the yoke of their servitude to foreign domination (Heb “his yoke”) should be understood as a reference to the yoke of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar which has been referred to often in Jer 27–28 (see, e.g., 27:8, 12; 28:2, 4, 11). The end of that servitude has already been referred to in 25:11–14; 29:11–14. Like many other passages in the OT it has been given a later eschatological reinterpretation in the light of subsequent bondages and lack of complete fulfillment, i.e., of restoration to the land and restoration of the Davidic monarchy.
87. 18 Heb “I will tear off their bands.” The “bands” are the leather straps which held the yoke bars in place (cf. 27:2). The metaphor of the “yoke on the neck” is continued. The translation reflects the sense of the metaphor but not the specific referent.
88. 19 The word “subject” in this verse and “subjugate” are from the same root word in Hebrew. A deliberate contrast is drawn between the two powers that they will serve.
89. 20 Heb “and to David their king whom I will raise up for them.” The Davidic ruler which I will raise up as king over them refers to a descendant of David who would be raised up over a regathered and reunited Israel and Judah. He is called “David” in Hos 3:5, Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25 and referred to as a shoot or sprig of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10 and a “righteous branch” springing from David (the Davidic line). He is called “David” because he is from the Davidic line and because David is the type of the ideal king whom the prophets looked forward to. See further the study notes on for this ideal king and for his relation to the NT fulfillment in the person of Jesus the Christ.
90. 21 Heb “So do not be afraid, my servant Jacob, oracle of the Lord.” Here and elsewhere in the verse the terms Jacob and Israel are poetic for the people of Israel descended from the patriarch Jacob. The terms have been supplied throughout with plural referents for greater clarity.
91. 22 Heb “For I will rescue you from far away, your descendants from the land of their captivity.”
92. 23 Compare the ideals of the Mosaic covenant in Lev 26:6, the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7:10–11, and the new covenant in Ezek 34:25–31.
93. 24 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
94. 25 The translation “entirely unpunished” is intended to reflect the emphatic construction of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb.
95. 26 The particle כִּי (ki) here is parallel to the one in v. 5 that introduces the first oracle. See the discussion in the translator’s note there.
96. 27 The pronouns in vv. 10–17 are second feminine singular referring to a personified entity. That entity is identified in v. 17 as Zion, which here stands for the people of Zion.
97. 28 The wounds to the body politic are those of the incursions from the enemy from the north referred to in Jer 4:6; 6:1 over which Jeremiah and even God himself have lamented (Jer 8:21; 10:19; 14:17). The enemy from the north has been identified as Babylon and has been identified as the agent of God’s punishment of his disobedient people (Jer 1:15; 4:6; 25:9).
98. 29 The translation of these first two lines follows the redivision of the lines suggested in and rather than that of the Masoretes who read, “There is no one who pleads your cause with reference to [your] wound.” This verse exhibits a mixed metaphor of an advocate pleading someone’s case (cf., Jer 5:28; 22:18) and of a physician applying medicine to wounds and sores resulting from them (see, e.g., Jer 8:18 for the latter metaphor). Zion’s sins are beyond defense and the wounds inflicted upon her beyond healing. However, God, himself, in his own time will forgive her sins (Jer 31:34; 33:8) and heal her wounds (Jer 30:17).
99. 30 Heb “forgotten you.”
100. 31 Heb “attacked you like … with the chastening of a cruel one because of the greatness of your iniquity [and because] your sins are many.” The sentence has been broken down to conform to contemporary English style and better poetic scansion.
101. 32 For the translation of this particle, which is normally translated “therefore” and often introduces an announcement of judgment, compare the usage at Jer 16:14 and the translator’s note there. Here as there it introduces a contrast, a rather unexpected announcement of salvation. For a similar use see also Hos 2:14 (2:16 ). Recognition of this usage makes the proposed emendation of of לָכֵן כָּל (lakhen kol) to וְכָל (vékhol) unnecessary.
102. 33 With the exception of the second line there is a definite attempt at wordplay in each line to underline the principle of lex talionis on a national and political level. This principle has already been appealed to in the case of the end of Babylonian sovereignty in 25:14; 27:7.
103. 34 Again the particle כִּי (ki) appears to be intensive rather than causal. Compare the translator’s note on v. . It is possible that it has an adversative sense as an implicit contrast with v. 13 which expresses these concepts in the negative (cf. 474 כִּי 3.e for this use in statements which are contextually closer to one another).
104. 35 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
105. 36 Heb “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and will have compassion on his habitations.” For the meaning of the idiom “restore the fortunes of” see the translator’s note on . The “tents of Jacob” refers to their homes or houses (see 14 אֹהֶל 2 and compare usage in Judg 19:9; Mal 2:12). The word “ruined” has been supplied in the translation to show more clearly the idea of restoration of their houses on their former sites in conformity to the concepts in the latter half of the verse.
106. 37 Heb “on its tel.” A tel is a site where successive layers of occupation are built upon one another after the destruction or decay of the former city. The original site was not abandoned because it had been chosen for strategic purposes, such as proximity to water or ease of defense. Many modern archaeological sites have the designation “Tel” as a component of their name because of this practice.
107. 38 Heb “according to its custom [or plan].” Cf. 1049 מִשְׁפָּט 6.d and compare usage in 1 Sam 27:11.
108. 39 Heb “Out of them will come thanksgiving and a sound of those who are playful.”
109. 40 Compare Jer 29:6.
110. 41 Heb “his children will be as in former times and his congregation/community will be established before me.” “His children” refers to “Jacob” who has been referred to in v. 18 in the phrase “I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob.” “His children” are thus the restored exiles. Some commentaries see the reference here to the restoration of numbers in accordance with the previous verse. However, the last line of this verse and the reference to the ruler in the following verse suggests rather restoration of the religious and political institutions to their former state. For the use of the word translated “community” (עֵדָה, ’edah) to refer to a political congregation as well as its normal use to refer to a religious one see 1 Kgs 12:20. For the idea of “in my favor” (i.e., under the eye and regard of) for the Hebrew phrase used here (לְפָנַי, léfanay) see 817 פָּנֶה II.4.a(b).
111. 42 The statement their ruler will come from their own number accords with the regulation in Deut 17:15. They would not be ruled by a foreign leader but by one of their own people. In v. 9 he is specifically said to come from the Davidic line. See the study note there.
112. 43 Ordinarily this prerogative was confined to the priests and the Levites and even then under strict regulations (cf., e.g., Num 8:19; 16:10; Lev 16:10; 21:17; 22:3). Uzziah king of Judah violated this and suffered leprosy for having done so (2 Chr 26:16–20). It is clear, however, that both David and Solomon on occasion exercised priestly functions in the presence of the ark or the altar which it was normally lawful for only the priests to approach (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 6:13–14; 1 Kgs 8:22, 54–55). Here reference is probably not to the normal prerogatives of offering sacrifice or burning incense but access to God’s special presence at special times for the purpose of consultation.
113. 44 Heb “For who is he who would pledge his heart to draw near to me.” The question is a rhetorical one expecting the answer “no one” and is a way of expressing an emphatic negative (see 566 מִי f[c]). The concept of “pledging” something refers to putting up security in guarantee of payment. Here the word is used figuratively of “putting up one’s heart [i.e., his very being (cf. 524 לֵב 7 and Ps 22:26)]” for the privilege of access to God. The rhetorical question denies that any one would do that if he were not bidden by God to do so.
114. 45 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
115. 46 This was their highest privilege (cf. Exod 6:7, Lev 26:12; Jer 24:7) but also their greatest responsibility (cf. Jer 7:3; 11:4). It is a formula referring to a covenant relationship in which God pledges to protect, provide, and be present with his people and they in turn promise to be loyal and obedient to him (see Deut 26:17–18; 29:10–13).