Jeremiah 27–29

Footnotes

1. 1 The names of Jeremiah and of Nebuchadnezzar are spelled differently in the Hebrew of chapter 27–29. That and other literary features show that these three chapters are all closely related. The events of these three chapters all take place within the space of one year (cf. 28:1; 29:17).
2. 2 The reading here is based on a few Hebrew and the and Arabic versions. The majority of Hebrew and most of the versions read “At the beginning of the reign of Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim king of Judah” as in 26:1. The does not have this whole verse. It has long been recognized that the text of 27:1 is textually corrupt. The date formula in the majority of Hebrew at 27:1 is contradictory both with the context of the passage which deals with an event in the reign of Zedekiah (see vv. 3, 13 and v. 20 which presupposes that Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, has been taken captive [i.e., after the death of Jehoiakim!]) and the date formula in 28:1 which refers to an event “in that same year” and then qualifies it with “Early in the reign of Zedekiah.” Hence it is preferable to read “Zedekiah” here in place of “Jehoiakim” and explain the error in the Hebrew manuscripts as an erroneous copying of 26:1. If the text of 28:1 is correct, the date here would be sometime in the fourth year of Zedekiah which would be 594/3 b.c. Zedekiah had been placed on the throne as a puppet king by Nebuchadnezzar after he deposed Zedekiah’s nephew, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and sent him, his family, some of the temple treasures, and some of the Judean leaders away to Babylon (2 Kgs 23:8–17). The author does not state directly why the envoys from the nations mentioned in v. 3 were in Jerusalem, but the implication is that they were there trying to interest Zedekiah in rebelling. Modern scholars have used the data here and in 28:1 and in the Babylonian Chronicles (it contains a record of major events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) to suggest a plausible background for such a meeting. Nebuchadnezzar had to put down an uprising in the east and quell a rebellion in Babylon itself in the two years prior to this meeting. Some “prophets” in the nation of Israel and in these other nations (see vv. 9–10) saw in these events hopes for not having to pay tribute to (i.e., submit to the yoke of) Nebuchadnezzar and were counseling rebellion. Jeremiah saw this as foolhardy and counseled otherwise. Again, there is a conflict between “prophets” which is what this whole section (Jer 27–29) is all about.
3. 3 There is some disjunction in the narrative of this chapter. The introduction in v. 1 presents this as a third person narrative. But the rest of the passage reports the narrative in first person. Thus the text reads here “Thus the Lord said to me …” In vv. 12, 16 the narrative picks up in first person report and never indicates that Jeremiah carried out the command in vv. 2–4 that introduces the message which he repeats in summary form himself to Zedekiah. The report is thus an “unedited” first person report. This may create some confusion for some readers, but it is best to leave it in first person here because of the continuation in vv. 12, 16.
4. 4 The yoke is a common biblical symbol of political servitude (see, e.g., Deut 28:48; 1 Kgs 12:4, 9, 10). From the context of 1 Kgs 12 it is clear that it applied to taxation and the provision of conscript labor. In international political contexts it involved the payment of heavy tribute which was often conscripted from the citizens (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 15:19–20; 23:34–35) and the furnishing of military contingents for the sovereign’s armies (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 24:2). Jeremiah’s message here combines both a symbolic action (the wearing of a yoke) and words of explanation as in Jer 19:1–13. (See Isa 20:1–6 for an example outside of Jeremiah.) The casting off of the yoke has been used earlier in Jer 2:20, 5:5 to refer to Israel’s failure to remain spiritually “subject” or faithful to God.
5. 5 For location see ; ; ; ; .
6. 6 The nations of Edom, Moab, and Ammon were east of Judah. They were sometimes allies and sometimes enemies. The nations of Tyre and Sidon were on the sea coast north and west of Judah. They are best known for their maritime trade during the reign of Solomon. They were more commonly allies of Israel and Judah than enemies. For the location of Sidon see ; ; .
7. 7 Heb “send by means of them” [i.e., the straps and crossbars made into a yoke] to … through.” The text is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style. Many English versions ignore the suffix on the end of “send” and find some support for this on the basis of its absence in the Lucianic Greek text. However, it is probably functioning metonymically here for the message which they see symbolized before them and is now explained clearly to them.
8. 8 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
9. 9 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the significance of this title.
10. 10 Heb “Give them a charge to their masters saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel, “Thus you shall say unto your masters …” ’ ” The sentence is broken up in conformity with contemporary English style.
11. 11 Heb “by my great power and my outstretched arm.” Again “arm” is symbolical for “strength.” Compare the similar expression in 21:5.
12. 12 See Dan 4:17 for a similar statement.
13. 13 Heb “have given … into the hand of.”
14. 14 See the study note on for the significance of the application of this term to Nebuchadnezzar.
15. 15 Heb “I have given … to him to serve him.” The verb “give” in this syntactical situation is functioning like the Hiphil stem, i.e., as a causative. See Dan 1:9 for parallel usage. For the usage of “serve” meaning “be subject to” compare 2 Sam 22:44 and 713 עָבַד 3. This statement is rhetorical, emphasizing the totality of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. Neither here nor in Dan 2:38 is it to be understood literally.
16. 16 This is a figure that emphasizes that they will serve for a long time but not for an unlimited duration. The kingdom of Babylon lasted a relatively short time by ancient standards. It lasted from 605 b.c. when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish until the fall of Babylon in 538 b.c. There were only four rulers. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Evil Merodach (cf. 52:31), and two other rulers who were not descended from him.
17. 17 Heb “until the time of his land, even his, comes.” The independent pronoun is placed here for emphasis on the possessive pronoun. The word “time” is used by substitution for the things that are done in it (compare in the NT John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20 “his hour had not yet come”). See Jer 25:12–14, 16.
18. 18 Heb “him.” This is a good example of the figure of substitution where the person is put for his descendants or the nation or subject he rules. (See Gen 28:13–14 for another good example and Acts 22:7 in the NT.)
19. 19 Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. for the figure.
20. 20 Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
21. 21 Heb “The nation and/or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck in the yoke of the king of Babylon, by sword, starvation, and disease I will punish [or more literally, “visit upon”] that nation, oracle of the Lord.” The long complex Hebrew sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the figures interpreted for the sake of clarity. The particle אֵת, the sign of the accusative, before “which will not put …” is a little unusual here. For its use to introduce a new topic (here a second relative clause) see 85 אֵת 3.α.
22. 22 Heb “with/by the sword.”
23. 23 The verb translated “destroy” (תָּמַם, tamam) is usually intransitive in the stem of the verb used here. It is found in a transitive sense elsewhere only in Ps 64:7. 1070 תָּמַם 7 emends both texts. In this case they recommend תִּתִּי (titi): “until I give them into his hand.” That reading is suggested by the texts of the and Targumic translations (see fn c). The Greek translation supports reading the verb “destroy” but treats it as though it were intransitive “until they are destroyed by his hand” (reading תֻּמָּם [tummam]). The here is accepted as the more difficult reading and support is seen in the transitive use of the verb in Ps 64:7. Heb “I will punish that nation until I have destroyed them [i.e., its people] by his hand.” “Hand” here refers to agency. Hence, “I will use him.”
24. 24 Various means of divination are alluded to in the OT. For example, Ezek 21:26–27 alludes to throwing down arrows to see which way they fall and consulting the shape of the liver of slaughtered animals. Gen 44:5 alludes to reading the future through pouring liquid in a cup. The means alluded to in this verse were all classified as pagan and prohibited as illegitimate in Deut 18:10–14. The Lord had promised that he would speak to them through prophets like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18). But even prophets could lie. Hence, the Lord told them that the test of a true prophet was whether what he said came true or not (Deut 18:20–22). An example of false prophesying and the vindication of the true as opposed to the false will be given in the chapter that follows this.
25. 25 An example of this is seen in 1 Sam 28.
26. 26 The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligatory imperfect. See §31.4g for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of positive obligation.
27. 27 The words “Don’t listen to them” have been repeated from v. 9a to pick up the causal connection between v. 9a and v. 10 that is formally introduced by a causal particle in v. 10 in the original text.
28. 28 Heb “they are prophesying a lie.”
29. 29 Heb “lies will result in your being taken far …” (לְמַעַן [léma’an] + infinitive). This is a rather clear case of the particle לְמַעַן introducing result (contra 775 מַעַן note 1. There is no irony in this statement; it is a bold prediction).
30. 30 The words “out of your country” are not in the text but are implicit in the meaning of the verb. The words “in exile” are also not in the text but are implicit in the context. These words have been supplied in the translation for clarity.
31. 31 Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. for the figure.
32. 32 The words “Things will go better for” are not in the text. They are supplied contextually as a means of breaking up the awkward syntax of the original which reads “The nation which brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and subjects itself to him, I will leave it …”
33. 33 Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
34. 34 Heb “I spoke to Zedekiah … according to all these words, saying.”
35. 35 The verbs in this verse are all plural. They are addressed to Zedekiah and his royal advisers (compare 22:2).
36. 36 Heb “put their necks in the yoke of.” See the study note on v. for the figure.
37. 37 Heb “with/by the sword.”
38. 38 Heb “Why should you and your people die …?” The rhetorical question expects the answer made explicit in the translation, “There is no reason!”
39. 39 Heb “… disease according to what the Lord spoke concerning the nation that …”
40. 40 The verb in this context is best taken as a negative obligatory imperfect. See §31.4g for discussion and examples. See Exod 4:15 as an example of positive obligation.
41. 41 Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
42. 42 The verbs are again plural referring to the king and his royal advisers.
43. 43 Heb “… drive you out and you will perish, you and the prophets who are prophesying lies.” For the fulfillment of this prophecy see Jer 39:5–7; 52:7–11; 2 Kgs 25:4–7.
44. 44 Heb “don’t listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.…” The sentence has been broken up for the sake of English style and one level of embedded quotes has been eliminated to ease complexity.
45. 45 This refers to the valuable articles of the temple treasury which were carried off by Nebuchadnezzar four years earlier when he carried off Jeconiah, his family, some of his nobles, and some of the cream of Judean society (2 Kgs 24:10–16, especially v. 13 and see also vv. 19–20 in the verses following).
46. 46 The imperative with vav (ו) here and in v. 12 after another imperative are a good example of the use of the imperative to introduce a consequence. (See §110.f and see Gen 42:18. This is a common verb in this idiom.)
47. 47 According to E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech, ) both this question and the one in v. 13 are examples of rhetorical questions of prohibition / “don’t let this city be made a pile of rubble.”
48. 48 The words “I also told them” are not in the text, but it is obvious from the fact that the Lord is spoken about in the third person in vv. 18, 19, 21 that he is not the speaker. This is part of Jeremiah’s own speech to the priests and the people (v. 16). These words are supplied in the translation for clarity.
49. 49 Heb “the word of the Lord is with them.”
50. 50 Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For the significance of this title see the study note on .
51. 51 Heb “… speaking to them, let them entreat the Lord … so that the valuable articles … will not go to Babylon.” The long original sentence has been broken up for the sake of English style.
52. 52 Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For the significance of this title see the note at .
53. 53 The words “two bronze” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. The two bronze pillars are the two free-standing pillars at the entrance of the temple (Jakin and Boaz) described in 1 Kgs 7:15–22.
54. 54 The words “the large bronze basin called” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. “The Sea” refers to the large basin that was mounted on twelve bronze bulls. It stood in front of the temple and contained water for the priests to bathe themselves (2 Chr 4:6; cf. Exod 30:17–21). It is described in 1 Kgs 7:23–26.
55. 55 The words “movable bronze” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to help identify the referent. See the study note for further reference. The bronze stands are the movable bronze stands described in 1 Kgs 7:27–37. They were the stands for the bronze basins described in 1 Kgs 7:38–39. According to 2 Chr 4:6 the latter were used to wash the burnt offerings. The priests would have been very concerned especially about the big bronze basin and the movable stands and their basins because they involved their ritual purification apart from which they would have had no sanctity. These articles (or furnishings in this case) were broken up and the bronze carried away to Babylon along with all the other bronze, silver, and gold furnishings when the temple and the city were destroyed in 587 b.c. (see 2 Kgs 25:13–15; Jer 52:17–19).
56. 56 27:19–20 are all one long sentence in Hebrew. It has been broken up for the sake of English style. Some of the sentences still violate contemporary English style (e.g., v. 20) but breaking them down any further would lose the focus. For further discussion see the study note on v. .
57. 57 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For the significance of this title see the note at .
58. 58 Some of the flavor of the repetitive nature of Hebrew narrative is apparent in vv. 19–21. In the Hebrew original vv. 19–20 are all one long sentence with complex coordination and subordinations. I.e., all the objects in v. 19 are all objects of the one verb “has spoken about” and the description in v. 20 is one long relative or descriptive clause. The introductory “For the Lord … has already spoken” is repeated in v. 21 from v. 19 and reference is made to the same articles once again, only in the terms that were used in v. 18b. By this means, attention is focused for these people (here the priests and the people) on articles which were of personal concern for them and the climax or the punch line is delayed to the end. The point being made is that the false prophets are mistaken; not only will the articles taken to Babylon not be returned “very soon” but the Lord had said that the ones that remained would be taken there as well. They ought rather pray that the Lord will change his mind and not carry them off as well.
59. 59 This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish [someone].” It is also used in the opposite of sense of taking note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by the actions that follow, bringing them back and restoring them.
60. 60 Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
61. 1 The original text is unusually full here and deemed by many scholars to be corrupt: Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month Hananiah … said to …” Many scholars see a contradiction between “in the fourth year” and “in the beginning of the reign.” These scholars point to the fact that the Greek version does not have “in that year” and “in the beginning of the reign of”; it merely reads “in the fourth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month.” These scholars generally also regard the heading at 27:1 to be unoriginal and interpret the heading in the here as a faulty harmonization of the original (that in the Greek version) with the erroneous one in the Hebrew of 27:1. However, it is just as possible that the Greek version in both places is an attempt to harmonize the data of 27:1 and 28:1. I.e., it left out both the heading at 27:1, and “in that year” and “at the beginning of the reign of” in the heading here because it thought the data was contradictory. However, it is just as likely that there is really no contradiction here. I.e., the term “beginning of the reign” can include the fourth year. E. H. Merrill has argued that the term here refers not to the accession year (see the translator’s note on ) but to the early years in general (“The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” 19 [1989]: 105–6, and cf. note 18 for bibliography on Akkadian parallels). Hence the phrase has been translated both here and in 27:1 “early in the reign of …” For other attempts at harmonization see the discussion in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52 (), , n. 1a. The dating here is very full and precise. “In that same year” ties the events here in with the messages that Jeremiah delivered to the envoys, the king and his court, and the priests and people while wearing the yoke symbolizing servitude to Nebuchadnezzar. The text wants to show that the events here transpired shortly after those in Jer 27 and that Jeremiah is still wearing the yoke. The supplying of the precise month is important because the end of the chapter will show that Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding Hananiah was fulfilled two months later. Hence Jeremiah is the true prophet and Hananiah and the others (27:16) are false. The supplying of the year is perhaps significant because the author states in 51:59 that Zedekiah went to Babylon that same year, probably to pledge his loyalty. The suggestion lies ready to hand that the events of this chapter and the preceding one lead to his dismissal of the false prophet Hananiah’s advice and the acceptance of Jeremiah’s.
62. 2 Heb “to me.” The rest of the chapter is all in third person narrative (see vv. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15). Hence, many explain the first person here as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation “to Jeremiah” (אֶל יִרְמִיָּה [’el yirmiyyah] = אֵלַי, [’elay]). It is just as likely that there is a similar kind of disjunction here that was found in 27:1–2 only in the opposite direction. There what started out as a third person report was really a first person report. Here what starts out as a first person report is really a third person report. The text betrays both the hands of the narrator, probably Baruch, and the reportee, Jeremiah, who dictated a synopsis of his messages and his stories to Baruch to write down (Jer 36:4, 32).
63. 3 Heb “And it happened in that year in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, Hananiah son of Azzur the prophet who was from Gibeon said to me in …” The sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style and the flavor given in modern equivalent terms.
64. 4 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
65. 5 See the study note on for this figure. Hananiah is given the same title “the prophet” as Jeremiah throughout the chapter and claims to speak with the same authority (compare v. 2a with 27:21a). He even speaks like the true prophet; the verb form “I will break” is in the “prophetic perfect” emphasizing certitude. His message here is a contradiction of Jeremiah’s message recorded in the preceding chapter (compare especially v. 3 with 27:16, 19–22 and v. 4 with 22:24–28). The people and the priests are thus confronted with a choice of whom to believe. Who is the “true” prophet and who is the “false” one? Only fulfillment of their prophecies will prove which is which (see Deut 18:21–22).
66. 6 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.” Notice again that the “false” prophet uses the same formula and claims the same source for his message as the true prophet has (cf. 27:22).
67. 7 Heb “Listen to this word/message which I am about to speak in your ears and the ears of all these people.”
68. 8 The word “invariably” is not in the text but is implicit in the context and in the tense of the Hebrew verb. It is supplied in the translation for clarity and to help bring out the contrast in the next verse.
69. 9 Many Hebrew read “starvation/famine” which is the second member of a common triad “sword, famine, and plague” in Jeremiah. This triad occurs thirteen times in the book and undoubtedly influenced a later scribe to read “starvation [= famine]” here. For this triad see the note on . The words “disaster and plagues” are missing in the .
70. 10 The verbs in this verse are to be interpreted as iterative imperfects in past time rather than as futures because of the explicit contrast that is drawn in the two verses by the emphatic syntactical construction of the two verses. Both verses begin with a casus pendens construction to throw the two verses into contrast: Heb “The prophets who were before me and you from ancient times, they prophesied … The prophet who prophesied peace, when the word of that prophet came true, that prophet was known that the Lord truly sent him.”
71. 11 Heb “I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from upon the necks of all the nations.”
72. 12 Heb “Then the prophet Jeremiah went his way.”
73. 13 Heb “Hananiah, ‘Thus says the Lord.…” The translation uses an indirect quotation here used to eliminate one level of embedded quotation.
74. 14 The Greek version reads “I have made/put” rather than “you have made/put.” This is the easier reading and is therefore rejected.
75. 15 Heb “the yoke bars of wood you have broken, but you have made in its stead yoke bars of iron.” This whole incident (and the preceding one in Jer 28) is symbolic. Jeremiah’s wearing of the yoke was symbolic of the Lord’s message to submit to Babylonian authority. Hananiah’s breaking of the yoke was a prediction that that authority would not last beyond two years. By breaking the yoke he was encouraging rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar’s (and hence the Lord’s) authority (cf. 27:9, 14). However, rebelling would only result in further, harsher, more irresistible measures by Nebuchadnezzar to control such rebellion.
76. 16 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See the study notes on and for this title.
77. 17 Heb “An iron yoke I have put on the necks of all these nations.”
78. 18 The emphasis is on the absoluteness of Nebuchadnezzar’s control. The statement is once again rhetorical and not to be taken literally. See the study note on .
79. 19 Or “You are giving these people false assurances.”
80. 20 There is a play on words here in Hebrew between “did not send you” and “will … remove you.” The two verbs are from the same root word in Hebrew. The first is the simple active and the second is the intensive.
81. 21 In giving people false assurances of restoration when the Lord had already told them to submit to Babylon, Hananiah was really counseling rebellion against the Lord. What Hananiah had done was contrary to the law of Deut 13:6 and was punishable by death.
82. 22 Comparison with Jer 28:1 shows that this whole incident took place in the space of two months. Hananiah had prophesied that the captivity would be over before two years had past. However, before two months were past, Hananiah himself died in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of his death. His death was a validation of Jeremiah as a true prophet. The subsequent events of 588 b.c. would validate Jeremiah’s prophesies and invalidate those of Hananiah.
83. 1 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 4 See 2 Kgs 24:14–16 and compare the study note on .
87. 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).
88. 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.
89. 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).
90. 8 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
91. 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).
92. 10 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
93. 11 Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” See study notes on and for the explanation of this title.
94. 12 See the study notes on for this term.
95. 13 Heb “prophesying lies to you in my name.” For the significance of “in my name” see the study notes on and .
96. 14 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
97. 15 See the study note on for the reckoning of the seventy years.
98. 16 See the translator’s note on for this term.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 19 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
102. 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.…”
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. 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.”
108. 26 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
109. 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.
110. 28 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
111. 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.