INTRODUCTION
1. General
Jeremiah is the most autobiographical of all the prophets. He has been credited with the survival of his people after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., a veritable savior of the Jews. Nonetheless, this man of God is one of the most misunderstood of the great OT leaders.
The book of Jeremiah is longer than Isaiah or Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets combined are about a third shorter. It is the longest book in the Bible if 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles are reckoned as separate books. The book sheds valuable light on the subject of the decline and fall of the Judean kingdom and influenced theological thinking in subsequent ages.
2. The Person of Jeremiah
a. His background
Jeremiah’s name, not uncommon in Israel, is of disputed meaning. His name may well reflect his parents’ hopes for him and the nation, in which case the meaning “the LORD exalts” is preferable to “the LORD hurls” or “the LORD establishes.” Jeremiah’s relation to so many political events makes it strange that his name appears nowhere in Kings or Chronicles. He was born in 646 B.C. in the Levitical town of Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin; he died, probably in Egypt, not long after 586.
In his day Jeremiah was unquestionably the greatest spiritual personality in Israel. His was not a happy life; his expressions of sorrow are classic. Only he among the prophets showed his personal feelings as he proclaimed God’s message. By birth, Jeremiah was a priest; by grace, a prophet; by the trials of life, a bulwark for God’s truth; by daily spiritual experience, one of the greatest exponents of prophetic faith in his unique relation to God; by temperament, gentle and timid, yet constantly contending against the forces of sin; and by natural desire, a seeker after the love of a companion, his family, friends, and, above all, his people—which were all denied him.
Jeremiah’s life—private and public—is openly displayed in his book: his brave actions, his tenderheartedness toward his coreligionists, and his deep emotional and spiritual struggles before God. His disappointments and sufferings were undeniably as poignant as those of any other Jewish prophet. His life may be characterized as being one long martyrdom.
Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah was of a priestly family, but nothing indicates that he ever exercised a priestly ministry. Possibly his father was the Hilkiah who found the “Book of the Law” in the temple (2Ki 22:8). Jeremiah’s father was probably a descendant of Abiathar, the sole survivor of the priests of Nob (1Sa 22:20). After ministering under David, Abiathar was exiled by Solomon to Anathoth, where he had property (1Ki 2:26). That he was from Anathoth further accounts for the fact that in Josiah’s day Jeremiah was not as well known as Huldah the prophetess (2Ki 22:14–20). That Jeremiah was a man of means may be inferred from his purchase of a field in 32:6–15.
Jeremiah was called to the prophetic office in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign (1:2; i.e., 626 B.C.); he was about twenty years old at the time and served in that office for more than forty years. The Lord did not permit him to marry (16:2). Though his public ministry was long and checkered, there is no indication that he ever had any disciples; and his closest companion was his faithful secretary and scribe, Baruch the son of Neriah.
Jeremiah preached in Jerusalem until the fall of the kingdom of Judah in 586 (cf. 7:2; 22:1; 27:1–2; 32:1). After that, he labored for some time among the survivors in Judah and later among the Jews who had fled to Egypt (chs. 40–44). His call included both Israel and the other nations of his time (1:10). The call was both simple and direct (1:4–5), but the prophet’s reaction differed markedly from Isaiah’s (Isa 6) and Ezekiel’s (Eze 1).
b. His public ministry
Jeremiah’s ministry was carried on in a politically, socially, morally, and spiritually chaotic era. The glorious days of reformation under Hezekiah in the eighth century were eclipsed by the long, ungodly reign of Manasseh, who along with his fealty to the Assyrian monarchs maintained a syncretistic worship for his people. Jeremiah did not hide his hatred for the apostasy and social injustices of Manasseh. In this spiritual decline priests and prophets alike were implicated.
When Jeremiah began to preach, the godly Josiah had begun his reforms to wipe out idolatry from his kingdom. The content of the prophet’s preaching confirms his full support of Josiah’s reforms and calls for a truly repentant return to the Lord. Tragically, the people of Judah had already become so ungodly that they were no longer responsive to calls to return to God. But in grace the Lord continued to plead with Judah through Jeremiah. From the beginning of his ministry, Jeremiah never deviated from the position that Judah and Jerusalem were to be destroyed by a nation from the north and the people carried into captivity (4:5–9; 6:22–26). The threatening invasion of the northern enemy gave urgency to his warnings.
With Jehoiakim’s rule (608 B.C.), Jeremiah again began a public ministry. In the famous temple address (chs. 7; 26), he indicated that only faithfulness to God could guarantee the nation’s security; otherwise the temple would be destroyed. He aroused bitter opposition to himself and his message from all segments of the nation, including his own family. Sad and despairing because of the rejection of his message, he yet loved, prayed for, and agonized over his people. No greater and truer Jewish patriot ever preached the truth to them. Even when the Lord forbade him to pray for them, he continued to intercede. At times he felt that God himself had forsaken him. He even cursed the day of his birth.
Jehoiakim was so enraged with Jeremiah’s denunciatory messages that he cut the scroll of his prophecy to pieces and burned it. So Jeremiah became a fugitive from the king’s wrath. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (according to Hebrew reckoning [25:1], or in the third year according to Babylonian computation [Da 1:1]), Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon first invaded Judah. He had defeated Pharaoh Neco of Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.), an event of unsurpassed importance because it settled the question of world supremacy in that day. After Egypt’s defeat, Jeremiah counseled that it was futile and contrary to God’s will to resist Nebuchadnezzar. One can imagine the unpopular nature of this message. Thereafter Jeremiah’s life was one of uninterrupted misunderstanding and persecution.
Under Zedekiah’s rule, Jeremiah fared no better, though this king was not so violently opposed to him as Jehoiakim had been. But Zedekiah was weak and vacillating, constantly fearing his powerful nobles. Jeremiah had some ministry to the king, but it bore little if any fruit. When the kingdom of Judea fell to Nebuchadnezzar in the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign, the Babylonian king appointed Gedaliah as governor of Judah (40:1–6). Soon after his appointment the governor was assassinated by a descendant of the Davidic house (41:1–2), Ishmael son of Nethaniah. The remnant in Mizpah, against Jeremiah’s protests, fled to Egypt from the wrath of Babylon (vv.16–18), and Jeremiah and Baruch were compelled to accompany them (42:1–43:7). At the end of his ministry, Jeremiah was at Tahpanhes in Egypt, where he both predicted Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt (43:8–13) and denounced the idolatry of the Jews there (ch. 44). Beyond this nothing is known of Jeremiah’s life.
Jeremiah encountered more opposition from more enemies than any other OT prophet. Much of it stemmed from the fact that he continually preached one theme: unconditional surrender. Had not the Lord protected him, he would have been martyred.
Nothing certain is known of the time, place, or manner of Jeremiah’s death. According to 44:29–30, Jeremiah was still alive around 570 B.C. (Pharaoh Hophra [Apries] reigned 588–569). By an unusual providence the prophet who fought his entire life against Egypt was forced to end his days there as a captive. A late, unattested tradition claims that the men of Tahpanhes stoned Jeremiah to death. There is a rabbinical account of his deportation with Baruch to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the conquest of Egypt and of his death there, but this is unconfirmed.
Singularly, this great man of God, so little heeded by his own people, has been accorded great respect after death. Alexandrian Jews especially have held him in profound regard (cf. 2Mc 2:1–8; 15:12–16; see also Mt 16:14). That later Jews saw in him their intercessor partially explains this.
3. Date and Authorship
Scholars have extensively discussed the origin of this book and have held differing opinions about it. Broadly speaking, they are divided into two groups: (1) those who think Jeremiah wrote very little of it, assigning the major part of it to other writers; (2) those who assign the entire book to Jeremiah (ch. 52 is treated separately) through the secretarial aid of Baruch (i.e., he was to Jeremiah what Luke was to Paul). The first group favors a division of the book into three sources: (1) messages dictated by Jeremiah; (2) a biography of Jeremiah, probably by Baruch; and (3) various contributions from redactors and later authors. The second school, which this commentary accepts, holds that the prophet dictated his messages to Baruch, his secretary (36:17–18; 45:1).
The passages in Jeremiah on the enemy from the north fit what is known of the Babylonians. Internal evidence indicates that the first written material of the book was done in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (605 B.C.; cf. 36:1–2). In addition, passages like 29:1; 30:2; and 51:60 compel the conclusion that prophecies, apart from those contained in Baruch’s scroll, were immediately recorded. The scroll burned by Jehoiakim was replaced with additions (36:32). Apparently through the first score of years of his ministry, Jeremiah had kept notes of his messages, which were put into writing at God’s command (36:2). The burned scroll was replaced and the material gradually added to a replacement scroll. It seems reasonable that Jeremiah edited his work during the Captivity. The entire book was probably gathered together shortly after his death. The conclusion appears inescapable that Baruch’s rewritten scroll was the basis for Jeremiah’s written prophecies. The book bears marks of having been gathered together by one person at one time.
4. Historical Setting
a. Prophetic background
Just as the eighth century B.C. saw a galaxy of prophets in Israel, so did the end of the seventh and the first half of the sixth centuries. The contemporary prophets were Zephaniah (Zep 1:1), Obadiah (Ob 11–14), the prophetess Huldah (2Ki 22:11; 2Ch 34:22)—all in Judah—and Ezekiel (Eze 1:1–3) and Daniel (Da 1:1) in Babylon. Especially close is the relationship between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Probably Nahum and Habakkuk were also contemporaries of Jeremiah. Three of the four major prophets were related to captivities: (1) Daniel in Jehoiakim’s time (Da 1:1), (2) Ezekiel in Jehoiachin’s time (Eze 1:1–3), and (3) Jeremiah in Zedekiah’s time (1:1–3).
b. Historical background
Events. To understand Jeremiah’s prophecy requires close scrutiny of his times because of (1) the critical events in the political world of his day—events in which Judah was directly affected—and (2) the number of kings in Judah who reigned during his career and with whom he had close contact. Jeremiah was a national and international figure. A general chronological table helps visualize the historical background of his book.
639–609 B.C.—the reign of Josiah
609 B.C. (3 months)—the reign of Jehoahaz
609–597 B.C.—the reign of Jehoiakim
597 B.C. (3 months)—the reign of Jehoiachin
597–586 B.C.—the reign of Zedekiah
586 B.C.—the fall of Jerusalem
586(?) B.C.—the assassination of Gedaliah
The times of Jeremiah are among the most important in OT history. Because of their significance, they are the best-documented times in all Israel’s history. The book of Jeremiah is so filled with historical, biographical, and autobiographical material that his life can be synchronized with dates and known events to a degree unparalleled in the writings of other prophets. Events of significance during this period are as follows:
669–c. 630 B.C.—the dissolution of the Assyrian Empire after the death of Ashurbanipal
626 B.C.—the call of Jeremiah
612 B.C.—the fall of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire
609 B.C.—the death of Josiah at Megiddo
605 B.C.—the battle between Egypt and Babylonia at Carchemish, with Babylonia emerging victorious
605 B.C.—the first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel exiled to Babylon)
597 B.C.—the second siege of Jerusalem (Ezekiel exiled to Babylon)
588–586 B.C.—the final siege of Jerusalem, beginning the Babylonian captivity
Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar and conqueror of Assyria, came from Chaldea, a province in the southern part of Babylonia, and reigned from 625 to 605 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar (more properly Nebuchadrezzar), the most famous of the Babylonian monarchs, ruled from 605 to 562 B.C.
Geographically and politically Judah was in a vulnerable position between the power politics of Egypt and Assyria. In the eighth century B.C., Isaiah had warned against trusting Egypt (Isa 30:1–7) and had keenly evaluated the threat of Assyria (Isa 37). By God’s protection the kingdom of Judah had escaped Sennacherib’s forces. But from the godly reign of Hezekiah, the nation declined to the lowest spiritual depths under the godless rule of Manasseh (2Ki 21:9–15; 24:3–4). If Jeremiah was called in his early twenties, he lived in the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. Under Manasseh’s long, apostate reign of fifty-five years, the reforms of his godly father, Hezekiah, were forgotten. Judah was then under Assyrian power; so to please his overlords, Manasseh introduced syncretistic elements into the temple worship at Jerusalem. The northern kingdom (Israel) was already exiled (722 B.C.), and the remnant residing there had embraced mixed elements in their faith (2Ki 17:28). During the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian power conquered Egypt; but the latter regained strength under Psammetik I (664–609 B.C.), so that Judah found herself balancing off one great power against the other.
Rulers. (a) Josiah. Josiah came to the throne when he was eight years old. Politically, Assyria was under strong opposition from Babylon, fighting to survive. This gave Judah more freedom to throw off Assyrian elements in her worship. In 633 B.C., Josiah sought the Lord (2Ch 34:3); his reforms began in 629 B.C. (2Ch 24:36); in 623–622 B.C., the Book of the Law was found in the temple (2Ki 22:3–8; 2Ch 34:8–15); and Jerusalem was made the only authorized center for worship. The reforms are detailed in 2Ki 22–23; though widespread and well inaugurated, they did not last, as is evident from Jeremiah’s ceaseless condemnation of the nation’s sins.
In 609 B.C., Pharaoh Neco of Egypt joined Assyria to strengthen them. Josiah, though he had been warned by Neco, interfered and lost his life at the Battle of Megiddo (2Ki 23:29; 2Ch 35:20–24). But Babylon, stronger than Egypt, dominated the world scene under Nabopolassar of Chaldea, ruler of Babylonia by 625 B.C. and the destroyer of Nineveh in 612 B.C. His son, Nebuchadnezzar II, succeeded him and reigned for forty-three years, having defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish on the Euphrates River in 605 B.C. (46:2; 2Ch 35:20). Thereafter Babylon was master of the world. For years Jeremiah steadily counseled against Judah’s involvement in world politics. When the people refused his counsel, he repeatedly entreated them to surrender to the superior forces of Babylon, who at that time were an instrument for carrying out God’s will.
(b) Jehoahaz. Distraught over the calamitous death of godly Josiah, the people took matters into their own hands and set Jehoahaz (Shallum [22:11]), son of Josiah, on the throne. In three months of rule he manifested an anti-Egypt and pro-Babylon policy, for which he was summarily deposed by Pharaoh Neco (2Ki 23:31–33), who took him to Egypt and imposed tribute on the country. In his place Neco set on the throne Eliakim, oldest son of Josiah and half-brother of Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:34, 36), changing his name to Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:30–35; 2Ch 36:1–4).
(c) Jehoiakim. The reign of this king was the time of Jeremiah’s greatest trial and opposition. Politically, king and prophet were diametrically opposed, the king favoring Egypt and Jeremiah counseling submission to Babylon. Spiritually, the two were even farther apart. Jehoiakim has been characterized as the worst and most ungodly of all Judah’s kings. He has been labeled a bloodthirsty tyrant, an inveterate enemy of the truth. He cared nothing for the worship of the God of Israel, exacted exorbitant taxes, used forced labor without pay, and had no regard for the word or prophet of God (22:13–14; ch. 36).
In Jehoiakim’s eleven-year reign, the Battle of Carchemish took place (cf. 46:2). It was an event of permanent significance, for it marked the transfer of power over the Middle East from Egypt to Babylon. This defeat was the final blow to Egypt’s aspirations and guaranteed the Chaldeans the supremacy of the West. It was the turning point of the period and had important consequences for Israel’s future. The Babylonians made Jehoiakim their vassal and exiled a number of Jewish nobles (2Ki 24:1), among them Daniel (Da 1:1). Some scholars consider this first taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar the beginning of the seventy years of Judah’s exile in Babylon (25:11); with it the dissolution of the Davidic kingdom had begun.
Jehoiakim sponsored idolatry and had no concern for the widespread social injustice in his realm (22:13–19; 2Ki 23:37). Of all the kings under whom Jeremiah prophesied, Jehoiakim was the most inveterate foe of the message and messenger of God (cf. 26:20–23; 36:20–26). In 598–597 B.C., he revolted against Babylon but was unsuccessful, thus adding to Judah’s problems (2Ki 24:1–5). In Jehoiakim’s time, Jeremiah was persecuted, plotted against, maligned, and imprisoned. The king destroyed his written prophecies, but the prophet did not swerve from his divine commission (cf. 11:18–23; 12:6; 15:15–18; 18:18; 20:2; 26:10–11, 24; 36:23). Jehoiakim died violently in Jerusalem in 598–597 B.C., in the eleventh year of his rule, as Jeremiah had predicted (22:18–19). The Chronicler records Jehoiakim’s deportation to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (2Ch 36:6–7; see also Da 1:1).
(d) Jehoiachin. Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin (also called Jeconiah and Coniah [see NIV notes on 22:24; 24:1]), who reigned only three months (cf. 2Ki 24:8). But this teenage king ruled long enough to reveal himself as a wicked monarch, whom Jeremiah strenuously denounced (22:24–30). Jehoiachin’s father’s rebellion against Babylon forced Nebuchadnezzar to besiege Jerusalem in 597 B.C., when Jehoiachin capitulated (2Ki 24:12). He was exiled to Babylon with many of Judah’s upper class (among them the prophet Ezekiel [Eze 1:2]), and the temple was plundered (2Ki 24:10–16). Jehoiachin was a prisoner in Babylon for thirty-seven years (52:31–34). He was released by Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:27–30). Strangely, the Jews long held a hope of his restoration to the Davidic throne; and Ezekiel refers to him, not to Zedekiah his successor, as king.
(e) Zedekiah. Among the many accomplishments of the great Nebuchadnezzar were king-making and name-changing. After the exile of Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar set on the Judean throne Mattaniah, a son of Josiah, full brother of Eliakim and uncle of Jehoiachin, and changed his name to Zedekiah (2Ki 23:34; 24:17; 2Ch 36:10; Jer 1:3), a fact confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicle. The situation in Judah at the outset of Zedekiah’s reign was that a series of sieges and deportations with changes in rulers had depleted the small kingdom of some of its best minds. Zedekiah, weak, vacillating, deficient in personality, found it beyond him to exert effective governing leadership. A puppet of Babylon, to whose king he had sworn fealty in the name of the God of Israel, he was checkmated in every decision by the pro-Egyptian policy of his officials.
Zedekiah’s relationship with Jeremiah was closer than any previous Judean king, with the probable exception of the godly Josiah. But he was powerless to protect Jeremiah from the vicious designs of the nobles and to follow the God-given counsel that Jeremiah ceaselessly reiterated about submitting to Nebuchadnezzar. In the fourth year of his reign, Zedekiah plotted rebellion against Babylon with a confederacy of the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon (27:3–11). This was their object in sending representatives to Jerusalem. The plot was denounced by Jeremiah and ultimately came to nothing. Perhaps Zedekiah’s visit to Babylon that same year was intended to assure Nebuchadnezzar of his loyalty (51:59).
The end, however, was not far off. In the ninth year of his reign (588 B.C.), Zedekiah conspired with Pharaoh Hophra against Nebuchadnezzar. Babylon responded with an invasion of Judah, which ended when the city fell in the summer of 586 B.C. (2Ki 24:20–25:7; 2Ch 36:17; Jer 38:28–39:10). Throughout the siege, Jeremiah urged Zedekiah to surrender (21:1–10; 34:1–5, 17–22; 37:3–10, 16–17; 38:14–23). At one point the approach of the Egyptian army compelled the withdrawal of Babylon’s forces, but the siege was resumed (37:1–10). Meanwhile, because of the cowardly attitude of Zedekiah, Jeremiah was mistreated by his enemies in Judah (37:11–21; ch. 38). The destruction of Jerusalem at this time, annually observed in mourning among Jews the world over on the ninth of the month Ab, was the greatest judgment of God on Israel in the OT. Zedekiah, captured as he tried to escape, his sons slain before him, and his eyes blinded, was carried to Babylon with a company of his subjects.
Chronological Order of Chapters in Jeremiah
Note: The following chart gives a proposed chronological order for the material in the book of Jeremiah. For those sections that have no dates cited in the text of Jeremiah, the dates suggested are tentative, though supported by evangelical scholarship (such passages are listed in italics). Jeremiah 52 is a historical supplement, virtually identical to 2 Kings 24:18–25:21 and probably not from the pen of Jeremiah. All dates are B.C.
| Under King Josiah (640–609) | |
| 626 | 1:1–19 |
| 625–622 | 2:1–6:30 |
| 621–620 | 11:1–12:17 |
| Under King Jehoahaz (three months in 609) | |
| Nothing (but cf. 22:10–12) | |
| Under King Jehoiakim (609–598) | |
| 609 | 7:1–10:25; 26:1–24 |
| 608–606 | 18:1–20:18 |
| 606 | 35:1–19 |
| 605 | 13:1–17; 13:20–17:27; |
| 25:1–38; 36:1–32 | |
| 604 | 45:1–46:12; 47:1–49:39 |
| 599 | 22:1–23:40 |
| Under King Jehoiachin (three months in 597) | |
| 597 | 13:18–19 |
| Under King Zedekiah (597–586) | |
| 597 | 24:1–10 |
| 594–593 | 27:1–29:32; 50:1–51:64 |
| 588 | 21:1–14 |
| 587 | 30:1–33:26 |
| 587–586 | 34:1–22; 37:1–38:28 |
| 586 | 39:1–18 |
| Under Gedaliah the Governor (586–585) | |
| 585 | 40:1–41:3 |
| After Gedaliah’s Assassination (585–580) | |
| 585 | 41:4–43:13 |
| 580 | 44:1–30 |
After the destruction of the city and temple, the king of Babylon appointed Gedaliah governor of Judah. After a brief period (which, in the absence of evidence, could be three months or a few years), Gedaliah was murdered by a scion of the Davidic house, possibly at the instigation of pro-Egyptian sympathizers. Fearing reprisal from Babylon, the survivors of this tragedy fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch by force with them. So was completed a cycle begun with deliverance from Pharaoh by Moses centuries before. Strange, too, that Jeremiah, who counseled throughout his ministry against confidence in Egypt, should end his earthly days there against his will. Thus an important era in the theocracy in Israel was ended. The destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh had closed the age of the Judges. The destruction of Solomon’s temple marked the end of the period of the monarchy in Israel. The fall of the second temple by Titus (A.D. 70) was the catastrophic close of Israel’s occupation of her land until modern times.
5. Theological Emphases
The dominant elements of Jeremiah’s message are of paramount significance for his day and ours. What sustained him throughout a lifetime of grief and opposition was that he had an undying confidence in God and his promises (18:7; 29:14; 32:1–15). The two foci of his life and ministry were God—his goodness, his claims on humankind, his requirements of repentance and faith—and his wayward people—their welfare, both physically and spiritually.
Jeremiah enjoyed a high concept of God as Lord of all creation (27:5). The gods of the nation are nonentities (10:11 [the only verse in the book in Aramaic], 14; 14:22). God knows the malady of the human heart (17:9–10); yet he loves his people deeply (31:1–3), longing to bless those who trust him (17:7). Idolatrous worship and heartless, impenitent service are alike an abomination to him (19:4–6; 14:12). No greater insult can be offered God than to represent him under the form of dead idols. Idolatry was the special sin Jeremiah tirelessly preached against. Three kinds of falsehood stirred him: (1) false security that refused all calls for repentance, (2) false prophets who lulled the people into dangerous complacency, and (3) the false worship of idols. Worship was tendered to Baal, Molech, and the Queen of Heaven (Ishtar). Images of these deities were even placed in the temple (32:34; cf. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 44:18–19).
Immorality always accompanies idolatry. In Jeremiah’s time moral corruption was widespread and social injustices abounded (5:1–9; 7:1–11; 23:10–14). Priests and prophets were as culpable as the rest of Judah (6:13–15). Yet the nation carried out its religious rites. But God was not to be placated with these merely external services. Jeremiah preached that judgment was inescapable. God had already used drought, famine, and foreign invaders (14:1–6; 4:11–22); he would yet bring the culminating visitation through Nebuchadnezzar (25:9). But God’s love and faithfulness to his covenants would not permit the judgment to be fatal or final. There was a future hope. Jeremiah foretold the return from captivity in Babylon (25:11; 29:10) as well as the doom of Babylon itself (chs. 50–51). He did not hesitate to give Israel’s hope tangible manifestation (32:1–15).
Jeremiah also had a ministry to the nations (1:5, 10). He saw Nebuchadnezzar as God’s agent in the events of that day (27:6). He warned the other nations against resisting Nebuchadnezzar (27:1–11). In God’s name he demanded righteousness of all nations (chs. 46–51). He voiced God’s concern for the welfare of all peoples (29:1–14, esp. v.7).
Probably the outstanding emphasis in Jeremiah’s ministry was the priority of the spiritual over everything else. He saw how secondary the temporal features of Judah’s faith were. He saw his coreligionists trusting (1) an outward acceptance of the covenant of the Lord (11:1–5), (2) circumcision (9:25–26), (3) the temple (7:1–15), (4) the sacrificial system (6:20; 7:21–23), (5) outward possession of the law of Moses (8:8), (6) false prophecy (23:9–40), (7) prayer (11:14; 15:1), (8) the throne (22:1–9), and (9) the ark (3:16). Jeremiah preached more about repentance than any other prophet. His overarching concern at all times was the condition of the individual heart. His exposition of the new covenant is outstanding in Scripture (31:31–34). The NT shows us how deeply this truth entered into the work of our Lord.
As for Jeremiah’s predictions of the distant future, Israel will return in penitence to the Lord (32:37–40). The Messiah will rule over her in justice and righteousness (23:5–8). The remnant of the nations will enjoy blessing at that time (3:17; 16:19).
As for messianic prophecy, Jeremiah does not describe messianic times in detail. The person of the Messiah is not so prominent in his book. But Jeremiah does give some significant messianic passages: (1) the proclamation of a revelation of God that will outshine the ark of the covenant (3:14–17); (2) the disclosure of a new covenant (31:31–34); (3) the realization of the Mosaic ideal (Ex 19:6) with the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (33:14–26).
The lasting value of Jeremiah’s book lies not only in the allusions (between forty and fifty of them) in the NT (over half are in Revelation) but also in its being a wonderful handbook for learning the art of having fellowship with God. Here is personal faith at its highest in the OT, a veritable gateway to understanding the deeper meaning of the priesthood and the monarchy under the Davidic dynasty (23:1–8; 33:14–18). Indeed, the abundance of bright promises for the nation in chs. 30–33 has led commentators to designate this portion “The Book of Consolation.” The most famous passage in Jeremiah’s prophecy deals with the new covenant (31:31–34). He does not speak of personal resurrection but of the restoration of Israel.
Because Jeremiah is so unlike any other OT prophet, and because his writings are so inextricably bound up with his life and thought, the student of his prophecy must consider in depth the inner life and characteristics of this man of God, some elements of which have already been lightly touched on. Besides the features of his natural abilities, his emotions, his motivation, and his personal relationship to the Lord, there are the so-called Confessions of Jeremiah, his dialogues with the Lord, his imprecations on his enemies, and especially his prayer life. No OT prophet has disclosed more of his heart and spiritual yearnings than he. Though he was gentle and timid (but never effeminate, as some have charged), because of the call and commission of God he adamantly held to his duty. He could not be swayed. No one in Judah was more patriotic; yet he never allowed himself to gloss over Judah’s sin. His was a lonely and isolated life; though he longed for human fellowship and love, all his life he was denied a family and close friends. In spite of his deep love for his people, he was divinely compelled to proclaim almost monotonously their suffering and national doom. His fellowship with God was particularly deep and intimate. At times this was so frank that many modern students of his book feel he borders on the blasphemous, or at least on the irreverent.
We often forget that Jeremiah was a man of exceptional courage, unwaveringly determined to proclaim God’s truth though the entire nation opposed him. Such a stance he maintained at great mental and physical cost. Imagine his agony of heart and mind when he saw his people undeviatingly headed for catastrophe, felt himself powerless to avert it, and was all the while experiencing the relentless opposition of those for whose benefit he was prophesying. These trials and temptations molded him into one of the greatest spiritual giants of all time. Because of his timidity, he was prone to discouragement and despair. The Lord gave him no signs or miracles to confirm the validity of his predictions. At one period of his life, Jeremiah had decided to resign his commission (20:8–9), but the divine compulsion would not let him do it. God had promised to make him an iron pillar and a bronze wall and did not default on his word.
It was apparently natural for Jeremiah to carry on extended dialogues with the Lord. These dialogues are valuable principally because they show how Jeremiah (and other prophets under similar conditions) kept separate his personal consciousness and the message of God (cf. 12:1–6; 14:7–15:21).
Some expositors have expressed their horror at Jeremiah’s calls for revenge on his enemies; for them this is the chief blot on his life. But these imprecations are explicable on the same basis as those in the Psalms and should be understood as involving no feeling of personal vindictiveness. Jeremiah knew he was God’s messenger; therefore, those who attacked him were arraying themselves against God. Jeremiah’s intense fidelity to his God and his longing for the triumph of divine righteousness show that his curses were not so much personal as uttered for the vindication of the glory of the Lord. The OT saints, moreover, had no clear revelation of future retribution.
Nothing is more revealing of a man of God than his prayer life. Jeremiah lived, worked, and wept in an atmosphere of prayer and openness before the Lord. He was so committed to prayer for his wayward people that God had to proscribe such activity by him (7:16; 11:14; 14:11). And he included himself in his prayers: 11:18–20; 12:1–4; 15:10, 15–18; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–11, 14–18—passages known as the Confessions of Jeremiah. In them are the most unreserved statements of any prophet in Israel. Other prophets narrate their experiences, but the OT has few parallels to these self-disclosures. In them Jeremiah stands in all his human frailty, his love for his people, and his utter devotion to the will and call of God.
Jeremiah had faith in the Lord and in his ultimate purpose for Israel and the nations. In spite of impending disaster on Judah, he found solid ground for confidence. Through all his denunciations he saw God’s final aim to bless his people, whether the remnant in the land or the exiles in Babylon (29:1–14; 32:1–15). His prophecies of Israel’s restoration are among the most glowing in the Bible (3:14–18; 30:18–22; 31:1–14; 33:10–13).
Jeremiah manifested a complete frankness with God, concealing from him no emotional reaction or fear. He even questioned the Lord’s dealings with him and others (12:1; 15:10–18; 20:7). Moreover, he was able to love everyone (17:7–8). He enjoyed the devotion of Baruch (36:32), the friendship of the high priest Zephaniah (29:24–32), merciful deliverance at the hands of Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian (38:7–13), and the respect of King Zedekiah (38:14–28).
Jeremiah had an intense and unrelenting hatred of sin, rebuking it in scathing words. He scrutinized the political, social, moral, and spiritual life of the people. Prophets, priests, kings, nobles—even relatives—could expect no favoritism from him (cf. 5:1–5; 13:1–14; 23:1–4; 22:13–19).
Jeremiah displayed faith in the indestructibility of Judah, though in his day the nation was headed for judgment. Babylon was irresistible because of the purpose of God, but this never meant extinction of the nation (30:11, 18–22; 31:35–37; 33:19–26). Though considered a traitor by his contemporaries, he had more faith in the nation’s future existence than his accusers did (chs. 32 and 37; see also 25:11; 29:7–14).
EXPOSITION
I. Prophecies From the Reign of Josiah (1:1–20:18)
A. The Call and Commission of Jeremiah (1:1–19)
1. The title (1:1–3)
1–2 These verses serve as the title for the entire book. They name the man through whom God gave the prophecies and refer to his home, the period of his main labors, and the chief national event of his times. The more usual formula for the title of a prophecy is “the word of the LORD.” Here the term “words” (GK 1821) has a connotation broad enough to include both the prophecies and the events of Jeremiah’s life. Jeremiah was a priest by birth but a prophet by calling. The “territory of Benjamin” bordered Judah on the south and Ephraim on the north. The date indicated is not that of Jeremiah’s birth but of his call to service, namely, 626 B.C. (cf. 25:3). The call of God came five years before the important reforms of Josiah (2Ki 22–23).
3 The end of Jeremiah’s ministry omits the events after the fall of Jerusalem because most of his ministry had already been completed. The reason why Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are omitted is probably that their reigns lasted so short a time (three months each). Here, then, in Jeremiah’s ministry was a service for God of more than two decades and possibly half a century. The Exile to Babylon occurred in the fifth month of 586 B.C. (2Ki 25:4–10).
2. The call of Jeremiah (1:4–10)
4 This verse is the heart of the prophetic experience. Jeremiah’s call came not in a vision but by hearing the divine word. Unless the verse denotes inspiration by God, words are meaningless.
5 For Jeremiah to know that his commission was by divine decree, the Lord explained his motivation in accomplishing his purpose through him. Observe the four actions of God toward his prophet. That God “knew” (GK 3359) Jeremiah means not mere cognition but a sense of relationship (Am 3:2) and approval (Ps 1:6). God’s claim on his life was prior to all other relationships (cf. Ps 139:13–16; Isa 49:1–5; Gal 1:15). Jeremiah’s consecration was his being set apart for a definite spiritual purpose. He was appointed a prophet for a worldwide ministry.
6 Jeremiah, struck with terror over the magnitude of the task, pled his youth and inexperience (cf. Ex 4:10). The Hebrew word for “child” (GK 5853) does not connote a precise definition of age, but we may infer from the length of his ministry that Jeremiah must have been about twenty at the time of his call. Realizing that ability in public speaking was essential to the prophetic office, he stated his lack of eloquence. But what God required for Jeremiah’s ministry, which was to be so sad and denunciatory, was a tender heart able to sympathize with the condemned. Little could the young man know how difficult and heartbreaking his task would be.
7–8 God never makes a mistake in choosing his servants. He empowers all he calls and provides the encouragement and help they need. Moreover, God’s promise of his presence would dispel Jeremiah’s fear, another source of his hesitation. He would be mercilessly opposed and persecuted, but the Lord would preserve him from the attacks of his enemies and give him the moral courage he would so greatly need.
9 As tangible evidence that he had empowered Jeremiah, in a spiritual experience God touched Jeremiah’s mouth. Thus he was inspired to speak God’s truth. From then on Jeremiah’s words would be truly God’s, and he would actually become a mouthpiece for God (cf. Isa 6:7).
10 The purposes of God in Jeremiah’s ministry are twofold: destructive and constructive. God’s word is accompanied with power so that the prophet will accomplish these objectives (Isa 55:10–11). For Jeremiah’s ministry, the emphasis is undoubtedly on its destructive element. God’s appointment brings with it his commitment of authority to carry out his goals for his prophet.
3. The vision of the almond rod (1:11–12)
11–12 Two visions were granted Jeremiah, evidently to authenticate his call. The first vision was that of an almond tree, which blossoms in January when other trees are still dormant. It is a harbinger of spring, as though it watches over the beginning of the season. So the Lord was watching to bring judgment on Israel’s sins. What former prophets had said would come was about to happen. God was prepared to act because of world conditions. The “branch” (GK 5234) symbolizes judgment here, which would soon overtake Israel (cf. Mic 6:9). God keeps his word promptly and works toward an early fulfillment.
4. The vision of the boiling caldron (1:13–19)
13–14 The word “again” shows that the visions are closely related. The first deals with the time of the judgment; the second, with the direction and nature of the coming disaster. A “boiling pot” can only signify calamity. The pot was “tilting away from the north,” i.e., facing toward the south, where its contents would be poured out. It would strike from Babylon. Though Babylon is located east of Judah, her armies—and all invading armies from Asia—would invade Palestine from the north because of the impassable Arabian desert. The disaster would engulf the entire land of Judah. The invasion would issue in victory for the enemy.
15–16 The “northern kingdoms” mentioned suit a Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar. The setting up of the thrones at the gates of Jerusalem, the place of public business, implies complete subjugation (cf. 39:3). Thus from the outset, Jeremiah is a preacher of judgment. As Isaiah speaks of the salvation of the Lord, Ezekiel of the glory of the Lord, and Daniel of the kingdom of the Lord, so Jeremiah incessantly proclaims the judgment of the Lord. The cause of Judah’s punishment is stated in three clauses, which describe her idolatry. In a sense Jeremiah’s entire book is an elaboration of what 1:16 says about this sin.
17–19 In the remainder of ch. 1, Jeremiah is given strong encouragement for his hard task, because his message would be neither welcome nor popular with his people. To fulfill his duties nothing less than utter commitment to God and to his strength would suffice. With God, Jeremiah would be invincible. In his darkest hours these words sustained him mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. He is commanded to prepare vigorously for action. He would need to rely on a triple defense against his fourfold enemy: kings, officials, priests, and people. The secret of spiritual victory is that Jeremiah is assured success on the condition of faith in God. He ultimately prevailed over all his enemies; and his prophecies were verified, attesting him to be a true prophet of the Lord.
B. Warnings of Judgment on Judah’s Sins (2:1–6:30)
Chapters 2–6 form a connected message, coming probably from Josiah’s reign, in the early years of Jeremiah’s ministry (3:6). They show how little it was in Jeremiah’s mind to excuse Judah’s sin. The major themes in these five chapters are (1) God’s indignation against moral and social sin, (2) his love for his people and land, (3) the certainty of doom on the unrepentant nation, and (4) salvation for the believing.
1. God’s controversy with Judah (2:1–37)
No sooner had Jeremiah been appointed to the prophetic office than the Lord’s message of condemnation began to sound out in Judah. The foci in this chapter are (1) the sacred love of God for his people and (2) their love of idols.
a. Israel’s ingratitude (2:1–8)
1–2 To show the nation how far it had departed from the Lord, Jeremiah recalls their deliverance from Egypt. Like a devoted bridegroom, the Lord says that he still remembers their love as his true bride (cf. Hos 1–3). Proof that Jeremiah is speaking of Israel’s love for God is shown by her following him in the desert at the time of their marriage, the period of her faithfulness and devotion to the Lord. Warmth, love, and purity marked her first relationship with the Lord. Apart from the golden–calf incident (Ex 32:1–29), Israel’s failures in the desert came from lack of faith rather than outright apostasy.
3 The earliest bond between God and Israel was not only a fragrant remembrance to him but also a sad contrast to her present apostasy. In those early favored days, Israel was set apart as sacred to God, his very firstfruits, because she was the first nation to worship the true God (cf. Ex 19:5–6; Am 6:1). No nation was to trouble Israel because she was dedicated to the Lord. To disobey this prohibition was to incur the wrath of God as in the unauthorized eating of firstfruits (cf. Lev 22:10, 16).
4–5 Because of the covenant relationship, Israel was still under divine protection (cf. Ge 12:1–3). But the strange question in v.5 is intended to awaken the people’s consciences. The change in their relationship to God was not his fault but theirs. They had broken the marriage covenant by their infidelity in going after impure lovers. A play on words reveals how worshipers become like the objects they worship. The word “worthless” (GK 2038 & 2039) correctly conveys the idea that the Lord regards idols as without substance or reality (cf. 1Ki 16:13; 1Co 8:4). Jeremiah levels as scathing denunciations against idols as any prophet; idolatry was Israel’s chief and besetting sin (see comment on 1:16).
6–7 Israel’s attention is directed to the multiplicity of benefits the nation enjoyed at God’s hand; yet the people were unmindful of his presence in their midst. They had forgotten their experiences in the desert and the dangers the Lord had graciously brought them through. They were brought to a “fertile land” (lit., “a land of Carmel”), one well cultivated and productive. But the people defiled God’s land by their idolatry and immoral practices. Although God gave Israel the land, he had never relinquished his own ultimate ownership of it. In the truest sense, the land was a stewardship to Israel from the Lord.
8 The leaders of the nation, who possibly could have stemmed the tide, are included in the prophet’s indictment. They were misleading the people. Jeremiah singles out several groups of leaders. The “priests” were wholly indifferent to God and to his will. Because they dealt with the law, the priests and Levites had well-prescribed regulations for the life of the nation. But in Jeremiah’s time they acted as if they did not know the Lord at all. The civil authorities were no better. The “leaders” (Heb., “shepherds”; GK 8286)—i.e., temporal rulers, kings—were adept in violating the law of God. The “prophets” were probably the most culpable. Their high duty was to proclaim the will of God and bring the sinful people back to the Lord.
The priests and prophets were a particular grief to Jeremiah because he was a priest by birth and a prophet by calling. It was his lifelong trial to incur the persistent enmity of both groups. The false prophets, instead of speaking by God’s empowerment, spoke for Baal. The reference to Baal here and elsewhere in the prophecy is to idols in general. Properly speaking, Baal (meaning “lord” or “master”), whose personal name was Hadad, was the chief male object of Canaanite (Phoenician) worship. As a nature god, he was the master of storm and fertility; his worship was cruel, degenerate, and unconcerned for human life. Idolatry is always worthless, devoid of any objective reality.
b. Israel’s idolatry (2:9–19)
9–12 “Bring charges” (GK 8189) is a legal term for a plaintiff’s (in this instance, God) introducing his case in court. The subject of the controversy is Judah’s unparalleled idolatry. The people and their children are both included in the indictment. The heart of the contention is clearly stated. God’s people have forsaken their living and true God, whereas even nations with false gods stay loyal to their worthless deities. So Judah is exhorted to investigate from Kittim to Kedar to verify the indictment.
Kittim, the Phoenician town Kition in Cyprus, gave its name to the whole island; then, by extension, the name was used for the islands and coasts of the west (see Ge 10:4; NIV note on Eze 27:6). Kedar was the name of an Arab desert tribe, which came to represent people of the eastern desert (Ge 25:13). Thus the nation is urged to observe conditions everywhere.
Mark the horror and amazement of the prophet at the enormity of Judah’s apostasy! The people have acted more faithlessly than the pagans. God has not changed, but Judah has—and for what? The Lord himself was her glory. So incredible has this apostasy been that nature is called on to react to it. The heavens themselves are summoned as a witness in the Lord’s litigation against his people. Because inanimate nature so consistently obeys God’s commands, it is pictured as astounded at Judah’s actions.
13 Like a lawyer, Jeremiah summarizes his charges: Judah’s sin was compounded by rejection of truth and reception of error. The pagan nations had committed the one sin of idolatry, often exchanging one superstition for another. But Judah had exceeded them in disobedience in renouncing her own real God to serve nobodies. Jeremiah’s figures are singularly vivid and apt. His nation’s God is called the “spring of living water,” the source of life, a metaphor often used in Scripture of God, salvation, and Christ (cf. Isa 12:3; 55:1; Jn 4:10–14; 7:37–39). Water was a rare luxury in Palestine, and water from perennial sources was cherished. On the other hand, cisterns could only store rain water. At best, they often yielded stagnant water; at worst, they cracked and allowed the water to seep out. Dead gods cannot impart life.
14 Sin inevitably brings its own punishment. By two forceful questions the Lord points out the consequences of disobedience. A slave or homeborn servant was the master’s permanent property (Ex 21:1–6). Since that is so, why, then, has Israel become “plunder” to her enemies, as though her Lord could not protect her? Freed from Egyptian bondage, Israel has enslaved herself by her sins, this time to Assyria and Egypt.
15 To specify how Israel became plunder, Jeremiah reminds the people of the depredations of Assyria and Egypt. The lion, a symbol of Babylon, was also a figure of Assyria; so the reference here could well be to the Assyrian conquest of the Ten Tribes in 722–721 B.C. (2Ki 15:19–20, 29; 17:4–26) and to Assyria’s hostility to Judah also (Isa 10:24–32). But Egypt would not stop at exploiting Judah as well; for as Egypt was no help to the northern kingdom against the Assyrians, so it would be no help in Jeremiah’s day against the threat of Chaldean power (37:7).
16 The Egyptian cities were Judah’s allies on whom she depended, Memphis was the ancient capital of Lower Egypt; Tahpanhes was a fortified city on the northeast border of Egypt, southwest of Pelusium. They “shaved” the crown or scalp of the nation’s head; this is probably a reference to Josiah’s death at the hands of the Egyptians under Neco (2Ki 23:29). Thus both Assyria and Egypt were detrimental to Judah because they led not only to political slavery but religious disobedience as well.
17–19 With great courage Jeremiah states the cause of the impending judgment. The responsibility for it rests solely on the nation. The people would have to live with the fruit of their evil ways. God’s leading was forsaken, so doom would come. Remonstrating with them further, Jeremiah asked whether they had learned nothing from the useless and dangerous game of power politics. Courting Egypt or Assyria was never in Judah’s best interests. “Shihor” (meaning “Black River”) is the Nile, so called because of its muddy appearance from the black deposit of soil after the annual inundations (cf. Isa 23:3). “The River” is the Euphrates, standing for the nations of Mesopotamia—here the Assyrians.
In Jeremiah’s day there were two chief political parties, a pro-Egyptian one and a pro-Assyrian one. Of what help would godless nations be to Judah? Ultimately, her doom would be sealed, not by the presence or absence of treaties with allies, but by her defection from the Lord. The final cause of her calamity would be the hand of God, not the nations he used to punish her. Her great lack was the reverential fear of the Lord.
c. Israel’s immorality (2:20–28)
20 Along with Israel’s idolatry went unbridled immorality of long standing. “Broke off” indicates that long ago they had thrown off all restraint. In a powerful metaphor, Jeremiah pictures idolatry as adultery. Canaanite worship chose high hills and luxuriant trees to carry out its licentious rites. Judah rebelled against God’s service and became a spiritual harlot. Although Jeremiah is speaking primarily of spiritual uncleanness, it must not be forgotten that sexual immorality of the lowest order was always a part of this so-called worship (cf. Hos 4:10–14).
21 Jeremiah changes to the figure of viniculture. God had planted Israel a choice vine, of completely reliable stock (cf. Isa 5:1–7; Eze 17:1–10; Hos 10:1; see also Jn 15:1–8). It was literally a “Sorek Vine,” bearing a high-quality red grape. Though planted correctly, the result was corrupt, rotten branches alien to the genuine stock.
22–25 Judah’s sins were so deeply ingrained that they were ineradicable. “Soda” is natron, a mineral alkali; “soap” is a vegetable alkali. Outer cleanliness could not hide the people’s inner defilement. No amount of outward reform could please God. In spite of their record, the people defended themselves by brazenly denying wrongdoing. How could they claim innocence when they were carrying on their vile worship of Baal in the Valley of Hinnom with their child sacrifices? Shamelessly, like a young she-camel impelled by uncontrolled instinct to find satisfaction, so Judah went to extremes of idolatry, chasing after ever-new objects of worship. Modesty and self-control were gone. As a wild donkey in heat sniffs at the wind to find a male, so the people sought out idols; the idols did not need to woo them. Jeremiah pleads with them not to run their feet bare nor their throats dry in their lust for strange gods. But they reply that they are determined to do so in spite of God’s warnings.
26–8 These verses underscore the senselessness of idolatry. The nation is warned that the people are doomed to shame in their idolatry, like a thief caught in the act. The condemnation rests on the same leaders as in v.8. Jeremiah quotes words of idolatrous adoration. What a disgrace that they should give idols the glory that is God’s as Creator! The references in v.27 could be to the ritual use of standing stones and wooden pillars or to primitive rites of worship of trees and stones. Having turned completely from the Lord, the people have descended to these depths. But in the hour of their trouble, they find out the worthlessness of their idols and appeal to God for deliverance. In time of trial, people somehow feel that they have a claim on God’s help. The bitter irony of v.28 is meant to lead the people to realize the senselessness of trusting nonentities. Their false gods were as numerous as their towns (cf. 11:13).
d. Israel’s irrationality (2:29–37)
29–31 In spite of all she has done, Judah thinks she has a case against God. She found fault with him because she could not manipulate him to her pleasure. She murmured at his judgments and chastisement, though the fault was hers. God’s visitations were unavailing. Those who sought to lead her back to godliness were slain, as in Manasseh’s reign and also in Jehoiakim’s (2Ki 21:16; Jer 26:20–23). In seeking to turn Judah from her irrational ways, Jeremiah thunders, “You of this generation.” Do the people think God is like a wilderness to them, unable to sustain and nourish their needs? A land of thick darkness with all kinds of imagined dangers? What has moved them to rebel against him, to wander at will? With this as their intention, all moral control and decency are lost.
32–33 The rhetorical question in v.32 focuses attention on the fact that although God is Judah’s great adornment, she had forgotten him, though no bride would forget her wedding attire. The number of different Hebrew words in the OT (cf. Isa 3:18–22) used for ornaments shows they were in common use. Judah was without gratitude for God’s gifts to her. So abandoned was she that she could even teach wicked women new methods of seduction. She used all kinds of artifices to make herself desirable to her lovers and cared nothing for God’s love.
34–37 Social sins, such as the oppression of the poor, inevitably follow spiritual decline. The historic reference could be to Manasseh’s reign, but not exclusively so (cf. Am 2:6–8; 4:1; 5:10–12). The victims were “the innocent poor.” In spite of all these wicked actions, the nation considered itself innocent—the height of irrationality. Judah’s argumentative self-justification will do nothing to avert the visitation of God. It is always easy to justify oneself, no matter how sinful one’s life has become.
Jeremiah returns to Judah’s determination to make allies to bolster her position in the political world. In the long run, both Egypt and Assyria will disappoint her; no alliance will work out to the nation’s benefit. The omnipotent God will overrule all her overtures to her shame, disappointment, and grief.
2. A call to repentance (3:1–25)
The prophecies through ch. 6 are in all probability a condensation of those Jeremiah gave during Josiah’s reign. The theme (ch. 2) of the faithless wife of the faithful God is continued in ch. 3, which contains repeated invitations for Judah to repent of her ways.
a. Judah, the faithless wife (3:1–5)
1 The chapter has an unusual beginning because the first word in the Hebrew text is “and saying.” Probably the words “The word of the LORD came to me” were inadvertently omitted by an early copyist. The Lord is questioning the nation on the basis of the law of Moses. The law forbade the remarriage of a man with his divorced wife, even if her second husband had died or divorced her (Dt 24:1–4). The purpose of the law was to curb the husband’s arbitrary use of his right to divorce his wife. But with the Lord’s people, the case was different on more than one count. They had not been divorced at all but had played the harlot. Furthermore, they had sought out not one lover (god) but many. It is perhaps too much to say that the Lord did not recognize the claim of both Egypt and Assyria on Israel as their wife; but since Israel had left God for pagan lovers, God would abide by the law of divorce, relinquishing his right to receive her back.
The verb “return” (GK 8740) in the last line of v.1 may allow for more than one rendering. If it is taken as an imperative, then the Lord is calling the nation to penitence in spite of the gravity of her sins. If the clause is interpreted as a question, then the sense is “Would you now return to me [in spite of all you have done]?” (so NIV). The second view emphasizes the legal prohibition of the restoration of the union. Judah, unfaithful in the marriage relationship, had no right to return to the Lord. Her pollution because of idolatry would make a reconciliation all but impossible. The broken bond was irreparable.
It is hard to see, however, how the Lord would be declaring a reconciliation impossible when, throughout the remainder of the chapter, he is pleading for that very thing in urging Judah to repent. Even the question form of the last clause can be understood to impress Judah that it would be no light thing, considering her many offenses, for God to reclaim her. God is not indignantly rejecting the possibility of her return. We must never forget that God, as he wills, exercises grace beyond the law. Ruth was a Moabite woman and was excluded from Israel (cf. Dt 23:3); how then does she become the ancestress of David and of the Lord Jesus? God operated by grace beyond the law. So God was ready to forgive Judah in spite of all her past failures. Legal claims to the contrary, God calls Judah to the solution to her predicament—namely, repentance.
2 But God’s people must see that their return to the Lord does not permit continuance in sin. Their abandonment to idolatry was notorious. They had waited for lovers by the way as marauding Bedouin bandits of the desert waited for passersby to plunder. Their desire for idolatry was insatiable. Again, immoral practices were an integral part of the pagan fertility cult. Since God could not tolerate such disobedience, he chastised his people. As Moses had warned, sin would cause the withdrawal of God’s prosperity of the land.
3 The rains are vital in a dry land. The early rains fell about October/November and the latter rain (for the maturing of the crops) fell in March/April (cf. Dt 11:10–17). But because of the nation’s impudence, the discipline was ineffective. Natural providences that were meant to bring the nation to repentance were without success.
4–5 Instead of truly turning to the Lord, the people felt that a mere avowal of allegiance to him would suffice. The nation claimed that from then on—i.e., in the days of Josiah’s reform—the Lord would be their sole guide and companion. The term “father” (GK 3) was sometimes used by a young wife of her husband. The Hebrew word denotes a husband and companion (“friend”). But the reformation was more apparent than genuine. The people’s crying to God was empty lip service because they continued in their wickedness. Moreover, they were building on false hopes that God’s anger would not last; so they persisted in wickedness to the limit of their power, evidently convinced that God’s wrath would subside regardless of what they did.
b. Judah worse than Israel (3:6–10)
6 To show the gravity of Judah’s spiritual condition, Jeremiah compares it with that of exiled Israel, the northern kingdom. The captivity of that nation should have been a warning to Judah, but the example had been lost on her. In spite of her sins, Judah considered herself favored beyond the possibility of judgment on her. How vividly this shows that Josiah’s reformation was superficial and short-lived! Jeremiah uses strong language, calling the northern kingdom “faithless Israel.” She had become apostasy personified. Thus Judah had learned nothing from the tragic fate of Israel, whose apostasies had led her into exile.
7–10 Furthermore, it was not as though the Lord had not shown patience with the northern kingdom, for he had waited for her to repent. But she did not. And Judah, called in v.10 “unfaithful,” witnessed these dealings and their consequences but remained unmoved. The Lord used the metaphor of divorce to describe the captivity for Israel (cf. Dt 24:1–3). If anything, Judah tried to outdo her sister, Israel. Idolatry and immorality seemed trivial to her; she gave herself to idols of stone and wood, with all their base fertility rites. In Canaanite religion the main emphasis was on fertility and sex. Worship was entered into to ensure the fertility of the land, the animals, and the people. Sacred prostitution was practiced widely. Among the sacred objects were stone altars and the sacred tree or grove.
The Hebrew word underlying NIV’s “mattered so little” can mean either “light” or “sound.” In view of the context, the latter seems preferable, i.e., that Judah’s immorality only sounded before God but went unnoticed by Judah herself. To make matters worse, Judah pretended repentance under the reforms of Josiah (cf. 2Ki 23; 2Ch 34–35). Such falsity could not hoodwink God. Apostasy Israel and Treachery Judah were spiritual sisters, and the latter was worse than the former.
c. The call to return (3:11–14a)
11 In this section and the next, Jeremiah proclaims to the northern kingdom of Israel both a call to repent and a promise of restoration. First he gives a summary statement that, in view of what has been said, has only one logical conclusion: Apostate Israel was more righteous than treacherous Judah (cf. Eze 23:11). The northern kingdom did not have the example of judgment before her as Judah did; therefore Israel was less guilty. Also, only one of Israel’s kings (Jehoahaz) is said to have sought the Lord, and that only when in distress because of the Syrian invasion (2Ki 13:1–5). Furthermore, Judah had greater privileges with a divinely appointed king and a revealed priestly service, together with the example of the kingdom of Israel.
12–13 The Lord calls Israel to return, for there was still hope for her. This call is directed toward the north, toward Assyria, where the Ten Tribes had been for about a century. Not all of the northern kingdom had been carried away; a remnant was left that mingled with the expatriated Assyrians to form the Samaritans. God promises not to retain his anger toward them, for though less guilty than Judah, they had no claim on restoration. It was all of grace. Such a call to return was meant to provoke Judah to jealousy. Mark well that Israel, contrary to many erroneous views, had not assimilated into the surrounding nations (cf. Jas 1:1).
Judah must recognize that the prerequisite for pardon and blessing was acknowledgment of her sins. There must be no palliation of them but a confession that she had scattered her favors among foreign gods, all the while heedless of God’s voice.
14a Again the Lord summons Israel to return. The context is one of tenderness and regard for the intimate relationship between the Lord and his people. The ground of the plea is still the indissoluble marriage bond entered into at Sinai with the nation. Actually, a double figure is employed: Israel is both son and wife. Restatement of the marriage bond indicates acceptance with God.
d. Future blessing (3:14b–18)
14b The Lord promises that even if those who return to him are few, he will bring them back to Zion. The paucity of their numbers will not hinder the Lord’s purpose for them. The word “clan” is not to be understood in the restricted sense of a “family” but of a people or tribe. No matter how small, a remnant will return; God’s message of pardon is ultimately on the basis of individual response to him.
15 Once back in the land, the nation will need godly rulers; and this the Lord promises them. These “shepherds” (GK 8286; cf. “leaders” in 2:8; 23:4) will govern with knowledge, i.e., in the fear of the Lord. In contrast to the corrupt leaders of Jeremiah’s day, they will conform to the mind and will of God.
16 In the time of their restoration to the land, the Lord’s people will increase greatly (cf. 23:3). The phrase “in those days” (vv.16, 18) clearly refers to messianic times (cf. 30:24; 21:27, 29, 31, 33, 38). In that era of blessing, no one will even mention the ark of the covenant of the Lord. The worship of God will need no visible aids, for God will dwell among his people. The ark was the center of the religious life of God’s people and the place where the high priest offered the blood of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. The old economy is to be dissolved. The old covenant, of which the ark was a central feature, is to give way to another—a preview of 31:31–34.
17 In the same vein, Jeremiah predicts that Jerusalem will be known as “The throne of the LORD.” The ark of the tabernacle and temple represented God’s throne on earth (Ex 25:22; 1Sa 4:4). Neither Israel nor the nations will then be misled into idolatry. Israel purged of idolatry will be a witness and blessing to all the nations (Ps 67).
18 United to God in holiness of life, Jeremiah predicts that the two long-divided parts of the nations will finally be reunited to dwell in the land promised to the patriarchs (cf. Eze 37). In summary, the elements of the promise are godly leaders, absence of outward elements of worship, the dwelling of God’s presence with them, a godly life, a successful witness to the nations, and a unified nation.
e. Israel’s disobedience (3:19–20)
19–20 From this point to the end of the chapter, there is an extended dialogue between God and Israel. God’s love and favor met with Israel’s ingratitude and disobedience. His intention was to give them a place as if they were sons. As a daughter, Israel was to receive an inheritance like that of sons, an event that was contrary to Hebrew practice (cf. Nu 27:1–8). Their legacy was the land of Palestine. But they had to match their words with their deeds. They would enter into the promise only when they practiced what they professed. But again they disappointed all expectations and committed treachery. What a contrast between God’s hopes for them and what happened! From the rosy prospects of the future, Israel must be called back to the present.
f. Exhortation to repentance (3:21–25)
21 The prophet turns to the nation’s avowal of repentance. Where they had so flagrantly carried on their idolatries, the people now lamented for their transgressions. Since their sin was public and prominent, so would their cries of penitence be (cf. 31:15).
22–23 In response to their genuine repentance, the Lord promised to heal the wounds his people had acquired in their apostasy (cf. 30:17; 33:6; Hos 14:4). Their answer showed the depth and reality of their penitence; they accepted the Lord’s offer of pardon. Once more the way to ruin and the way of deliverance are stated. Idolatry with its wild and clamorous excesses is the way of death (cf. 1Ki 18:21–29), but the way of salvation and life is in the Lord (Ps 3:8; Jnh 2:9).
24–25 At last the people were convinced that idolatry has been their undoing. The “shameful” thing is Baal, the god of shame (cf. 11:13). How costly their idolatry was in terms of property and even more in terms of the sacrifices of their sons and daughters! And the malady was of long standing. So at the end of the chapter, we see the nation totally cast down by her sin and willing to endure the grief it had caused, lying prostrate on the ground.
3. The invasion from the north (4:1–31)
The preceding chapter closed on a note of confession on the part of the people. But vv.1–4 here show that the reform under Josiah was only superficial. More, much more, was needed.
a. The call to genuine repentance (4:1–4)
1–2 The people’s cry of anguish (3:24–25) is answered by the Lord with an assurance of blessing when they do return to him. There is a vast difference between perfunctory repentance and heartfelt restoration to God. If Judah would truly repent, it must be to God alone. Furthermore, they must rid themselves of their detestable things, their idols. Evidently they had not yet done this. Moreover, if the people would remain steadfast (on their oath in the name of the Lord) in the essential qualities of truth, justice, and righteousness, then their example would profoundly affect the nations. Judah’s conversion would herald blessing for the nations. To swear by God’s name involves recognition of him as Lord. When the nations are being blessed, the Abrahamic blessing is being realized (cf. Ge 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14).
3–4 Jeremiah uses two figures to show the nation’s need of spiritual renewal: one from agriculture and the other from physiology. He exhorts the people of Judah to break up their neglected and untilled hearts. No farmer will sow seed on unplowed ground. So the plow of repentance and obedience was needed to remove the outer layer of weeds and thorns that had resulted from idolatry.
Again, Jeremiah calls for repentance—this time under the figure of circumcision. The hard encrustation on their hearts must be cut away. Outward ritual must be replaced by inward reality. The only alternative to obedience was the wrath of God. Jeremiah everywhere underscores the necessity for the new heart (cf. ch. 31).
b. The enemy on the way (4:5–18)
5–6 The remainder of this chapter concerns vivid portrayals of the invasion of the land, the siege of Jerusalem, the devastation of the land, and the decimation of the population. So certain is the judgment that Jeremiah sees the imminent invasion as already present. From v.5 on, the prophet is explicit in his warnings to the nation of calamity coming from the north. Since the siege is imminent, the people are warned to take refuge. The trumpet signals the danger. The fortified cities served as refuge for the fleeing rural population. The signal to point the way to Zion was well advised because the city was so strongly fortified. The “disaster from the north” tallies with what is known of the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar.
7–9 Jeremiah compares the invaders to a “lion,” a “scorching wind” or sirocco (v.11), and watchers or besiegers (v.16). The lion represented the Assyrians and Babylonians (here the latter; see comment on 2:15). So great was the Babylonian military prowess that the other nations feared it. For Judah Babylon’s power would mean disaster to the land, its cities, and its citizenry (cf. 43:5–7).
The prophet encourages the people to lament, for there is no possibility of escaping the visitation. Unrepentant, the nation could only expect doom. Until their sins received their merited punishment, the blow could not be deflected from them. In the hour of distress, the very ones who should encourage the nation—king, princes, priests, and prophets—would be devoid of courage. The reference to their “losing heart” is not to a failure in understanding but rather to failure in stamina and valor.
10 At first reading, it appears that Jeremiah is blaming God for deceiving the nation. In the light of Jas 1:13, such action is impossible. The difficulty is not resolved by attributing the deception to the prophet’s attempt to mislead the people by speaking God’s message to them, for at no time had Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would have peace. His message was always the opposite. The solution lies in the way the Jews spoke of evil in a world ruled by a righteous and holy God. God is said to do what he permits. Scripture often omits second causes and relates everything to God as the First Cause (cf. Ex 9:12; 1Ki 22:21–23; Eph 1:11; 2Th 2:11). The false prophets had spoken deceptively to the people; they had misled the people into false hopes; and God had permitted it all. Instead of peace, destruction faced Judah.
11–18 In a sense v.10 is parenthetical, for the prophet continues his portrayal of the invading army. With the approach of the enemy, the news will be carried by messengers in the way shown here. The foe is likened to the “scorching wind” from the desert that withers vegetation and brings discomfort to humankind. For winnowing and cleansing, a much less vehement wind is needed. Its purpose is not to sift but to judge; it does not separate good from bad but takes everything away. All would happen at God’s command. Vivid metaphors—“clouds,” “whirlwind,” “eagles”—depict the Babylonian army with its chariots and war horses. No wonder the people cried out that they were ruined.
Even at that late hour there was still opportunity for repentance. Prophecies of judgment are conditional; obedience to God reverses the threat of judgment. But there must be inner cleansing, even of the thought life, if disaster was to be averted. The Lord’s patience was wearied with Judah’s continued unfaithfulness; so he asked how long their minds would be centered on wickedness. The need for repentance was urgent. The foe was near; there was little time left to return to God. Dan was the northern boundary of the land; Mount Ephraim was the northern border of Judah, not far from Jerusalem. The invaders were making rapid progress.
So unprecedented was the fate that would overtake God’s people that the nations are called on to witness the judgment soon to fall on Judah. Resistance had not availed against the invaders; so they are finally seen besieging the capital, Jerusalem. As watchmen guard their fields from predatory animals, so Jerusalem would be surrounded to cut off any who would escape. All has come on her because of her own wickedness and rebellion. The calamity is bitter to bear because the people now realize that they have brought it on themselves. Their wounds are serious, reaching to the heart.
c. The agony of Jeremiah (4:19–22)
19–22 These verses express Jeremiah’s personal involvement with the calamity of his people. The scene is so real to him that he cries out in physical pain. His profound emotion affects him physically. His personal anguish over the impending destruction is inescapable. So wholesale is the destruction that Jeremiah cannot suppress his deep sympathy with those he must denounce in obedience to the Lord’s commission. Though he was accused of treason later, how can anyone reasonably deny the patriotism and love of Jeremiah for his people? Fellowship with God and obedience to his service always sharpen the sensibilities of his servants. Thus the prophet agonizes in soul and can scarcely endure the scene of judgment on his people. He longs to know the end of the travail; so the Lord answers that the trial will continue as long as they persist in disobeying him. Their trouble is that they have no fellowship with the Lord in doing his will. Their moral values are completely reversed: they major in evil and minor in good.
d. The cosmic catastrophe (4:23–26)
23–26 This beautiful vignette has been acclaimed one of the most forceful passages in all prophetic literature. For vividness, simplicity, directness, breadth of reference, and gravity of subject matter, the verses are unique in Scripture. From a contemplation of Israel’s calamity, the prophet is led by the Spirit who inspired him to witness cosmic catastrophe. Chaos engulfs the physical world. It is the story of Ge 1 in reverse. It may describe the coming Day of the Lord. All nature is in upheaval, and no area of life is left untouched. The apocalyptic overtone is unmistakable.
e. The desolation of the land (4:27–31)
27 Again, Jeremiah must impress his hearers with the actuality of the coming doom. The thrust of the passage is that the die is cast, and nothing can reverse the decree. Jeremiah puts in prophetic discourse what he saw in spirit. A ray of hope is held out: though the calamity will be real enough, the Lord will not allow it to accomplish the complete dissolution of the nation. There will be no reenactment of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction (cf. Lev 26:44; Isa 6:13; Am 9:8; Mic 5:6–7). God is committed to preserving a remnant of his people.
28–31 Because God purposes grace toward the nation, none of the people should presume that judgment would not fall. The decision was irrevocable; the fulfillment came in 586 B.C. For this destruction of the land, the very heavens and earth would mourn. The Babylonians took over the military strategy of the Assyrians, becoming adept bowmen. Before such an adversary the only course would be to escape to the rocky hills; the whole city of Jerusalem would be deserted. The desperate condition of Israel is finally pictured under the figure of a harlot who even in her desperate hour still tries to allure the enemy by her wiles. Her “lovers” (lit., “paramours”) are unimpressed and despise her. Jeremiah depicts her final agonies under the figure of a miscarriage of a first child with the mother in her final gasps for breath. Though undeserving, the nation will not find Jeremiah deaf to her agonizing cries. The courtesan will be murdered by her lovers, but the prophet enters completely into her plight.
4. Judah’s total corruption (5:1–31)
This chapter reveals Jerusalem under moral investigation. A superficial reading of the earlier chapters of the prophecy might lead one to conclude that the nation has been charged with all it has been guilty of. But the depths of her sin against the Lord must be reviewed at length. The nation must come to a much fuller realization of her ingrained sin. The desperately low spiritual state of the nation must be brought under the searchlight of God’s scrutiny. Moreover, her sin must be judged in view of her continued refusal to heed the Lord’s gracious calls to repent and so avert disaster. What a telling portrayal of unrelieved apostasy!
a. The bill of particulars (5:1–9)
1–3 Investigation, full and impartial, must always precede indictment on a legal bill of particulars. The object of the search was to find one righteous person. For such a person who practiced justice and made truth (faithfulness) the goal of his life, the Lord promised to pardon Jerusalem. There may be an allusion here to Abraham’s intercession for Sodom (Ge 18:23 33). Although Jeremiah’s statement was justified, obviously some godly people like Josiah, Baruch, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah himself were living in Jerusalem. But the words certainly applied to the mass of the populace. In short, corruption was so widespread that exceptions were not significant (cf. Ps 14). The reference to those who said, “As surely as the LORD lives,” does not mitigate the severity of Jeremiah’s statement. Their oath was a spurious profession of piety. They used the most binding and the right form of oath, but their conduct showed it to be perjury. Even God’s severe chastisements made no difference in their lives.
4–5 Jeremiah thought of extenuating circumstances for the plight of his people. The population was generally poor; their poverty kept them from opportunities of learning the way of the Lord. In his disappointment, the prophet had thought that the situation might be different among the nation’s leaders. But a higher station in life did not mean greater piety. The great had thrown off all restraint, placing themselves above the law. The great and learned were no more open than the poor and ignorant. All classes were alike implicated. Judgment must follow.
6 Jeremiah uses three predators—“a lion,” “a wolf,” and “a leopard”—to portray the imminent judgment. Probably the beasts symbolize the Babylonians. The lion represents strength, the wolf ravenousness, and the leopard swiftness—all traits of Babylonians.
7–9 God reasons with his people to convince them of the justice of his judgments. His bounty to the people evoked not gratitude but a greater desire for idolatry. Material blessings only made them feel secure in their sins. Idolatry is always accompanied by immorality. Apostasy and adultery are a horrendous pair. Publicly and unashamedly the people thronged to the prostitutes’ house, i.e., the idol temple; but their actions were not confined to apostasy but included physical immorality. Orgiastic rites accompanied the idolatry of Jeremiah’s times. Notice how largely this chapter is concerned with the social sins of the people. In v.9 the Lord asks the nation whether he is not punishing them justly.
b. Denial of the Lord’s activity (5:10–13)
10 The result of such ungodliness must be the outpouring of the divine wrath. Thus the Lord gives the people over to the attacks of their foes. The call is from God to Israel’s enemies (cf. v.15). The Lord is prepared to have his vineyard destroyed. The branches are to be stripped off because they are fruitless and no longer belong to the Lord. But because God has not forgotten that he promised Abraham an eternal nation, he will not allow the complete destruction of his people. The stripping away of the branches is a full pruning, not a complete desolation. Only the branches are involved, not the root or stock. God always intended a remnant of his people to survive.
11–12 In presenting the reason for the punishment he has just announced, Jeremiah includes both parts of the nation—Israel and Judah. Although the destruction would not be absolute, it was amply warranted. Treacherously, the people tried to minimize the Lord’s warnings. First, they brazenly lied about him. They scornfully said, “He will do nothing!” God, they thought, would not bring calamity on them. The Lord was not, they assumed, responsible for either their blessing or their trials; so they claimed to have nothing to fear. When told that disaster was impending, their response was that God would do no such thing (cf. Zep 1:12). So they denied God’s intervention and even his interest in their ways. They were practical atheists.
13 In the second place, the people rejected the validity of God’s word given through his prophets. They claimed that the Spirit in the prophets of the Lord was only wind. There is a play here on the Hebrew word ruah, which can mean “wind” or “spirit” (GK 8120). The prophets believed they had the Spirit of the Lord; the people claimed the prophets had only wind. Thus the people denied the inspiration of the message of God through Jeremiah. To label a prophet of God “wind” is the ultimate in irreverence. And the people had the effrontery to say that the judgment the prophets threatened would descend on the prophets themselves.
c. The judgment described (5:14–19)
14 Because the people denied the validity of the Lord’s word to his prophets, the Lord determined to make that word a fire in Jeremiah’s mouth to consume them. What they considered to be nothing more than wind, God would energize like fire. Though spoken by Jeremiah, they were still God’s words. To make this pronouncement, the solemn, august name of God is used (“the LORD God Almighty”). God is the self-existent One, Commander of all the armies of heaven and earth. Here is expressed God’s power over all created intelligences in the universe, a reference to the armies of Israel (Ex 7:4), the heavenly hosts (Ps 103:21), and the stars (Isa 40:26). God’s word is never to be trifled with.
15–16 Jeremiah addresses the whole nation as he begins to describe the invading enemy. The description of the foe is both accurate and detailed; they were distant, ancient, enduring, unintelligible in speech, and deadly in war. The description points to the Babylonians. Distance would be no obstacle to the invaders because of their persevering and determined nature. The invaders would be an enduring, hardy people, used to war. The foe would be an ancient nation, for the national entity (to which the Chaldeans were later joined) was founded by Nimrod (cf. Ge 10:10; 11:31). Jeremiah emphasizes that the enemy would speak a language Israel did not understand. Thus the invaders would be the more fearful and unfeeling because they would not respond to cries for mercy. Finally, they would be invincible because their quivers would be filled with death-dealing arrows, always bringing more destruction. Every arrow could be depended on to slay someone.
17–18 Having so explicitly described the invaders’ power, Jeremiah paints a vivid picture of the devastation they would wreak on the land. He adds a final blow to loss of harvest, children, flocks, herds, vines, and trees—the impoverishment and demolition of the fortified cities. Yet, in accord with v.10, the destruction would not be total. God’s punishments are not vindictive but are meant to be restorative of the sinner. God must, and does, preserve a remnant according to his pledged word.
19 There is a direct relation between the nation’s sin and its punishment—recompense in kind (Dt 28:47–48). The Exile is foretold. Because the people worshiped foreign gods in the Lord’s land, they would have to serve foreign overlords in a foreign land. It was useless for them to inquire, as if they were blameless, why judgment had descended on them. The root of their difficulties was their slip into idolatry.
d. Israel’s willful ignorance and rebellion (5:20–31)
20–21 This double exhortation is addressed to hearers concerned for their nation. Such a call to “announce” and “proclaim” the word of God occurs nowhere else in the book. They are to proclaim that moral blindness and deafness have kept the people from realizing their perilous state. The words Jeremiah uses refer to the people who had become like the idols they worshiped. The language is purposely blunt to awaken them to their dangerous condition.
22 God is to be adored and served because he controls the raging sea, the mightiest force in creation. Moreover, he does so by the most unlikely of restraining forces, the sand. Though small, sand can and does set a bound to the violence of the sea. If God can restrain the sea, surely he can restrain the invader. Israel is senseless to rebel against him.
23–25 Although the sea remains within its appointed limits, Israel has revolted against the Lord. The people have overstepped God’s moral limits. Furthermore, they are blind to their dependence on God’s providence. They do not see the hand of the Lord even in the balance of rain for harvest and his withholding it in times of his displeasure. The “regular weeks of harvest” are the seven weeks between the Feast of Passover and the Feast of Weeks (Lev 23:15–16). As Creator, God has control over the rain as he does over the sea. The withholding of seasonal rains was attributable to their sinfulness.
26–29 Three classes of people are arraigned before the divine justice: the rich oppressors of the poor, the lying prophets, and the timeserving priests (v.31). The wicked rich have acquired their wealth by deceit and heartless oppression of the poor and helpless. As a fowler snares birds by devices, so the people accumulate wealth by deceit. The trap was probably a clapnet as represented on Egyptian monuments. In those days fowlers would place several tame birds in a cage; when the wild birds saw them, they lighted on the cage, falling into the snare. The heartless aristocracy had wealth enough, but they were not satisfied. Prosperity did not bring piety. In fact, they excused their wicked deeds on the flimsiest grounds. They could not have troubled themselves less over whether the cause of the orphan was maintained. Jeremiah asked whether for sins like theirs, the people could possibly believe God would overlook inevitable judgment.
30–31 Jeremiah, viewing the moral wreckage, exclaims over the astonishing and horrible things transpiring in the land. Those who should have been the chief moral backbone of the nation had treacherously denied the Lord’s commitment to them. Foremost among the guilty were the false prophets, whose rosy predictions led the nation to its final doom in 586 B.C. Next to them were the spineless priests, who ruled “by their own authority.” So the chapter closes with the tragic statement that those entrusted with the spiritual welfare of the nation were unworthy of their positions. Worse yet, the people were so unaware of the issues that they acquiesced in all that their leaders did. The people had lost all sense of moral values and did not realize they were being duped. They cherished their false security. But the final question is, In the time of retribution, when the calamity would strike, then what would they do?
5. The siege and fall of Jerusalem foretold (6:1–30)
The striking feature of this chapter is its rapidity of movement, leading to the gathering storm of invasion soon to engulf the capital and the land. It has been called a chapter of alarms; it begins on a note of impending doom and concludes with the utter rejection of the people.
a. The approach of the invaders (6:1–5)
1–3 The doom is so near that Jeremiah sees the invasion as already in progress. The attack comes from the north. Jeremiah calls the people to flee for safety. The city is no longer safe; it is soon to undergo a siege. The way to safety is only by flight. The people could never plead that they had not been fully warned. Benjamin is mentioned because geographically Jerusalem belonged to that territory. It was settled by Judeans and Benjamites (cf. 1Ch 9:3), separated by the Valley of Hinnom. Moreover, Jeremiah was a Benjamite and had strong ties with his own tribesmen.
Two means of warning were the trumpet call and the fire signal. Tekoa, twelve miles south of Jerusalem, was the home of the prophet Amos (cf. 2Sa 14:2; Am 1:1). Tekoa was the last town in Judah on the edge of the desert. The “signal” or “beacon” was to show the way. Such fire signals were used in military communication. Beth Hakkerem (lit., “house of the vineyard”) is mentioned only here and at Ne 3:14. The people are to flee south because invasion threatens from the north. The disaster is personified: it “looms” or looks down on its prey.
Destruction is to fall on Zion, pictured as a beautiful and delicate woman. By a sudden change of figure, the invaders are portrayed as shepherds and their armies as flocks. They denude the land, everyone “tending [i.e., devastating] his own portion” (lit., “what has been assigned him”). This is not a picture of a horde of nomads trying to starve the city.
4–5 Jeremiah next presents a consultation of the enemies of Judah. Their speech reveals haste, impatience, and thirst for destruction. The army will brook no delay in taking the city. The call to prepare for battle included offering sacrifices and performing religious ceremonies because Israel had a religious view of war and considered it a sacred service undertaken in the Lord’s name (cf. 1Sa 25:28). Though the enemy here is the Babylonian army, the Babylonians too had a religious concept of war. So eager is the enemy to destroy Jerusalem that they decide to make a surprise attack at noon, when soldiers would normally be resting. But the light is fading; so they must make a night attack. They will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of Jerusalem’s fortresses.
b. The siege of Jerusalem (6:6–8)
6–8 The Lord appears to be leading the assault against Jerusalem by using the enemy as his agent of judgment. The early preparations for the siege include felling trees for bulwarks and building siege works. Mounds of earth were also heaped up to make them level with the walls to facilitate entry into the city. Again, the Lord reminds the people that the cause of judgment lay in Judah. Jerusalem, blessed of God for some four centuries, is now characterized as oppressive. As a well keeps its water cool and fresh, so Judah seems incapable of anything but sin. The cry of the oppressed is regularly heard in Jerusalem. All her troubles come from her persistence in sin. The Lord sees the people’s spiritual sickness as unchanged. But in his infinite grace he warns them before it is too late. While there is still a ray of hope, he warns the people of the doom awaiting their continued defiance in their sin. Reluctant to part from his people, the Lord must issue another call to repent.
c. The fall of the city (6:9–15)
9 Once more Israel is viewed in the figure of a vineyard (cf. 5:10). A thorough gleaning, a complete devastation, awaits them. The Lord authorizes the enemy even to search out the remnant to take them captive—the enemy will not be satisfied with one invasion but will repeat it. The northern tribes may be implied by the main gathering of grapes. Judah, left as a remnant, is now also to be gleaned. The enemy leader is exhorted to pass over the branches repeatedly, lest any grapes be overlooked.
10 Responding to the nation’s unbelief, Jeremiah identifies himself with the Lord in speaking of the people’s obtuseness to his word. In fact, they regard it with contempt. To warn them further is useless; their ears are “closed.” They resolutely refuse to listen to God. Here is the first hint of the lack of response of the nation to Jeremiah’s message.
11 Regardless of success or failure, Jeremiah’s duty was to preach the Lord’s message. Whether the people listened or not, he was divinely compelled to voice the Lord’s indignation. Full of the divine wrath, he was commanded to pour it out on everybody—children, young men, married couples, the elderly—all were involved in the city’s doom. Even the children and the aged were to be shown no mercy. The wrath was evoked by the sins now set forth: greed (v.13), deceitful prophecy (vv.13–14), loathsome deeds and shamelessness (v.15), obduracy (vv.16–17), rejection of the law (vv.18–19), and worthless sacrifices (v.20).
12–13 With the conquest of Jerusalem, houses, fields, and wives also would be violently given away to others. This is exactly what Moses had warned about. (Verses 12–15 are repeated in 8:10–12.) The entire gamut of society coveted gain. Because of their greed the people would lose everything. The blame lay largely with the priests and prophets who held out false hopes to the people regardless of the way they lived. Those whose integrity should have been exemplary practiced deceit.
14–15 Another sin was false optimism, listening to baseless promises of peace when there was no ground for it. The priests and prophets, physicians of no value (“they dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious”), misled the people. Only superficially did they heal the wound (lit., “the breach”) between God and Judah. Their stock in trade was constant babbling that all was well (cf. Mic 3:5), making nothing of the people’s heinous sin.
Lulled into complacency, the people lost all sense of shame for their abominable deeds. Insensitive to wrong, they were so hardened in sin that their hearts were no longer open to the message of truth. As for those who misled them, they were to share the fate of the nation they duped.
d. The cause for judgment (6:16–21)
16–17 The people’s judgment was for their straying from the ways of the patriarchs into the ways of idolatry. Jeremiah pictures travelers who have lost their way; when they arrive at crossroads, the moment calls for clear decision. To go one way can mean death; to go another, life. “The ancient paths” and “the good way” are the same; they are the way of repentance, reconciliation, fear, and love of God. They were the ways of the Mosaic tradition. The result of walking in the way of obedience was peace and rest of soul (cf. Mt 11:28–29). But the people refused to walk in the ancient paths. The Lord even sent prophets as watchmen to warn them of impending danger (cf. Eze 3:17; 33:7). The nation obeyed neither the admonition nor the message of the prophets. God always gives ample warning of coming judgment. The people’s disobedience was threefold: (1) they were unfaithful to the covenant bond with God; (2) they were unheeding of the warnings of the true prophets; and (3) they rejected the law (v.19).
18–20 God calls on the nations and all the earth to see how fully his people deserve their punishment. The Gentiles are being alerted to what is to happen to Judah. They will witness the righteous consequences of Judah’s wicked deeds—her public humiliation. When sin is not forsaken, sacrifices are useless. This does not mean that Jeremiah was against sacrifices; he was only against unethical sacrifices. Incense came from Sheba, southwest of Arabia. Cane or calamus probably came from India and was used in making the holy anointing oil (Ex 30:23). These ingredients of worship were costly because they were brought from a great distance. But they were of no value when they were part of heartless, godless offerings. In themselves, sacrifices were never efficacious; all the prophets who speak of them as used in heartless worship deny them validity. Jeremiah’s statement is all the more remarkable since he was a priest by birth.
21 The last verse of this section has been erroneously understood as saying that God placed stumbling blocks in the nation’s way to bring about her eternal doom. But this is not at all the meaning. The “obstacles” refer to the Babylonians, who were the instruments to bring about Judah’s physical destruction; they were not agents to effect her moral fall. The stress is on the general operation of God’s moral law. In contrast to the rest promised in v.16, which they rejected, the people will meet with destruction that will engulf them all—from father to son and neighbor to friend. All will suffer the consequences of their wicked acts.
e. The terror of the enemy forces (6:22–30)
22–23 The direction “the north,” from which the enemy will come, is again given. They will come from the remote parts of the then-known earth. The prophet describes their weaponry, cruelty, vigor, speed, and readiness for war against Zion. In their cruelty the Babylonians remind us of the Assyrians (Jnh 3:8). To burn prisoners in a furnace, impale them, and flay them alive were common occurrences in Babylonian wars. Their shouts in battle were like the roaring sea. The war horses seem to have been new to the nation, which was used to the war chariots of the Egyptians rather than to cavalry.
24–26 Jeremiah goes on to describe Judah’s response to the news of the invading Babylonians. As one of the people, he expresses his emotions and theirs at the report that the enemy is actually attacking. There is no power in the people to resist; they are limp. Because “there is terror on every side,” the people are warned not to go in undefended places, for to do so would mean death. Their trials are likened to the pain of childbirth and the death of an only son, leaving no one to carry on the family name. Among Jews death is always viewed as a calamity; and when an only son dies, it means the end of “immortality” for the parents, and the blow is unbearable. The destroyer will come suddenly on Judah; though they had been repeatedly warned, the people will find themselves unprepared because of their faith in false hopes.
27–30 The last verses of this chapter focus on the nation’s incorrigibility. So that no one may think God has not given the people every chance, he is willing to have them tested for any merit or worth that may be in them. Therefore he informs Jeremiah that he is to act as a tester and assayer of the moral worth of Judah. Jeremiah evaluates them as the rebellious of the rebellious, i.e., “hardened rebels.” They are entirely of inferior metal—bronze and iron, not silver and gold. And though the refining process is thoroughly carried out, there is no valuable residue to reward the labors of the refiner. In antiquity lead was put with silver in a crucible; when heated, the lead, acting as a flux, oxidized and carried off the alloy. But here the ore is so impure that the alloys are not removed. The labors of Jeremiah are in vain. As refuse silver, they are rejected by the Lord. There is a play on words: rejected silver, they are rejected of the Lord. So judgment is inevitable.
C. Jeremiah’s Temple Address (7:1–10:25)
1. No refuge in the temple (7:1–34)
Chapters 7–10, known as the temple address(es), were not necessarily delivered on a single occasion. Jeremiah’s address, which he delivered standing at the gate of the temple, has been called one of the majestic scenes of history. One crucial event in his ministry, it undoubtedly initiated the unrelenting opposition he experienced during the remainder of his life. According to 26:1, Jeremiah delivered it early in Jehoiakim’s reign (c. 609–605 B.C.); and ch. 26 records the consequences of the address. The time was not long after the death of Josiah.
The entire discourse runs counter to Josiah’s attempt to centralize worship at the temple in Jerusalem and appears to blast hopes inculcated by the earlier prophets, Isaiah among them. Josiah’s reform promised a restoration of God’s blessing, not the calamity of the temple and the dissolution of the commonwealth. In Isaiah’s day the repentance of godly Hezekiah and the people issued in God’s removal of the Assyrian threat in one night (Isa 37:36). But the spiritual decline of the nation proved irreversible in Jeremiah’s time. The temple-gate address is an eloquent attack on the people’s confidence in the temple as ensuring Jerusalem’s inviolability from all enemies. The emphasis on ethical issues is paramount.
a. Misplaced confidence (7:1–7)
1 Jeremiah spoke at a critical time. The nation was shocked by Josiah’s death, the removal of Jehoahaz, and the imposition of Jehoiakim as king by Pharaoh Neco. With Jehoiakim a religious reversal took place in the nation. Canaanite rites reappeared in Judah. The temple address was Jeremiah’s first public sermon and the source of all his later opposition in the nation. Through it he made lasting enemies and may have been excluded from the temple because of it (36:5). It was a thoroughgoing denunciation of the worship of the day. The deliverance of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. in Hezekiah’s reign had become almost legendary and led to the idea that Jerusalem was inviolable because of the sanctuary (cf. 2Ki 18:13–19:37). Jeremiah spoke during a lull in hostile political activity. Doubtless, many were ready to attribute the respite to the glory of the temple.
2–3 The immediate occasion of Jeremiah’s address may have been one of the three pilgrimage festivals (Dt 16:16). The “gate” was the one that connected the outer and inner courts. The place suggested is the Eastern Gate. Jeremiah’s position guaranteed him a wide hearing. It was doubly significant that Jeremiah’s attack on the superstitious attitude toward the temple was uttered at that very place. Verse 3 states the theme of the sermon: Repent, if you expect to remain in your native land.
4 With great courage Jeremiah warned the people against believing the deceptive words of false prophets ascribing talismanic power to the temple. The threefold repetition of the false prophets’ words expresses emphasis to the superlative degree. In effect they were saying, “These buildings are assuredly the temple of the Lord!” And they were saying this at a time when the temple was made central by Josiah’s reforms in 621 B.C. The people were using these words like a magical incantation. The words were true, but what the people inferred from them was entirely erroneous. The temple had become a kind of fetish and object of faith. The basis for this was (1) the promise of an eternal dynasty to David (cf. 2Sa 7:11–14) and (2) the choice of Zion as God’s earthly abode (cf Ps 132:13–16). Therefore no harm could come to the temple. The false prophets continually assured the people of the personal intervention of God in case of any danger to the temple and Zion. But Jeremiah thundered that the temple without godliness was a delusion.
5–7 Jeremiah had called for the people to repent; now he turns to the prescription for their remaining in the land. Profession and conduct must be in accord or all their efforts will be unavailing. The way of blessing must give spiritual and moral principles the first place in life. Four things are stressed: (1) justice; (2) concern for the alien, fatherless, and widow; (3) avoidance of judicial murders; and (4) abandonment of idolatry. Idolatry, the root of their problems and their first national sin at Mount Sinai, comes last for emphasis. Nothing less than spiritual renewal would ensure continuance in the land God had given their fathers in perpetuity. As always, acceptance with God depends on true piety.
b. Indifference to godly living (7:8–11)
8–10 In their woeful spiritual state, the people were trusting in deceptive words that veneered their sins. They were guilty of violating five of the Ten Commandments; the Decalogue was still valid and binding on them all. All these violations were going on at the same time they were expressing confidence in the temple. Jeremiah’s description may even be understood as expressing great indignation at the evil practices that their attendance at the temple was meant to atone for. The people felt that going to the temple granted them release from guilt, as though they had an indulgence to go on sinning. Ignoring God’s ethical demands, they rested in ceremonial rites.
11 Ultimately the people were treating the temple, the house of God, as robbers do their dens. It was a temporary refuge till they sallied forth on another foray. Limestone caves in Palestine were used as robbers’ dens; so Jeremiah’s metaphor was clear to his hearers. Here was nothing less than corruption of the best and the holiest. The Lord, having seen the situation, would deal with it accordingly.
c. The example of Shiloh (7:12–15)
12 Shiloh was on the main highway between Jerusalem and Shechem. The Mosaic tabernacle was set up there after the conquest of Canaan (cf. Jos 18:1; 72:12; Jdg 21:19; 1Sa 1:9, 24). It was the abode of the ark and tabernacle during the era of the judges. At Shiloh, Israel went into idolatry (1Sa 4:1–11); so the ark was captured by the Philistines at the Battle of Ebenezer. Jeremiah’s references to its destruction have been confirmed by excavations of the site, which revealed a city destroyed by the Philistines about 1050 B.C. Shiloh was to the judges what Jerusalem was to the kings. Jeremiah was a descendant of the Eli family; so the tragedy had personal implications for him. The sanctuary at Shiloh proved the falsity of the claim that the Lord was unalterably committed to an earthly temple and its preservation regardless of the moral state of the people.
13–15 Because they had committed the sins mentioned in v.9, the Lord had earnestly and continuously entreated the people through his prophets, but without response. By a strong anthropomorphism, Jeremiah portrays the Lord as “rising up early and speaking” (lit. Heb.). Again Jeremiah makes it plain that the people trusted the temple of God instead of the God of the temple. God is never dependent on any particular place of worship. For Jeremiah’s hearers, this was unheard-of heresy. The outcome of Judah’s ways would soon be exile. This was the message that inflamed Jeremiah’s hearers and earned him their lasting hatred and opposition almost to the point of martyrdom.
d. Worship of the Queen of Heaven (7:16–20)
16–18 Now the Lord explicitly forbids the prophet to intercede for his people. They were so obdurately sinful that praying for them was futile. What was particularly abominable to the Lord was the worship of the Queen of Heaven by the entire populace. This goddess was probably the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility. It appears she was worshiped mainly by women (cf. ch. 44, esp. vv.15–19). A female deity is foreign to OT theology; so the implication is that this cult was of non-Hebraic origin. Such worship was probably initiated by Manasseh (2Ki 21:1–9) and reintroduced into Judah by Jehoiakim. This obscene idolatry was practiced not only privately but also by whole families—including the children. The “cakes” have been described as round and flat, resembling the moon. Also, the people offered libations to other gods.
19–20 If they thought they were spiting God, the people were grossly insensate. They would bear both spite and shame as consequences of their sins. Moreover, sin affects all realms of nature. Devastation would fall on humans, beasts, trees, and produce of the soil.
e. Obedience better than sacrifice (7:21–26)
21 Having been prohibited from interceding for the nation, Jeremiah had revealed the punishment awaiting Judah’s idolatry. Undoubtedly he spoke the words of this verse ironically and contemptuously. The purpose is to show how totally erroneous was Judah’s concept of sacrifices. Because they have missed the true meaning of the Lord’s worship, they might as well eat the sacrifices intended only for the Lord, for he cares for none of them. In other words, they could multiply their offerings as much as they liked because all of them were worthless.
22 The verse appears to invalidate the whole sacrificial system. The Hebrew text uses a rhetorical negation to point up antithesis between v.22 and v.23. Moreover, the negative in Hebrew often supplies the lack of the comparative. In short, the Hebrew idiom permits denial of one thing in order to emphasize another (cf. Lk 14:26). Sacrifices were always meant to be of secondary importance to obedience and godliness. Neither Jeremiah nor any other prophet decried sacrifices as such. They meant that moral law is always paramount to the ritual law. Significantly, when Lev 6–8 is read in the synagogue, this passage in Jeremiah is read as the concluding portion, called the Haphtorah.
23–26 Actually, God had not spoken at Sinai of sacrifices but only of obedience, and this even before the law was given (Ex 19:3–6). Jeremiah’s words show that he had in mind the giving of the Ten Commandments. Among these there were no directions for sacrifices; they dealt solely with spiritual and moral matters. In Judah the whole sacrificial system was invalidated on the ground that it was not carried out in true faith. Obedience always was and would be the dominant consideration. And this very element was the one so conspicuously absent in the nation. Indeed, in spite of Jeremiah’s consistent warnings, Judah did worse than her fathers.
f. Reception of Jeremiah’s message (7:27–28)
27–28 Just as the Lord had said at Jeremiah’s call (ch. 1) that he would experience opposition, so now he informs Jeremiah that the nation would not listen to him. He would have no greater success in his ministry than did his predecessors. The nation was preeminent in this respect: the people continually disobeyed the voice of the Lord, their very own God. That faith must be joined with works was lost to them; so the time of Jeremiah was a sad epilogue to Judah’s history.
g. Lament over Judah’s desolation (7:29–34)
29 The prophet’s attention now turns to the Valley of Hinnom, the center of the cult of infant sacrifice, introduced by Ahaz and Manasseh (2Ki 16:3; 21:6), abolished by Josiah (2Ki 23:10), but later revived under Jehoiakim. The command to cut off the “hair” is feminine in Hebrew, showing that the city (cf. 6:23) is meant. The charge stems from the fact that the Nazirite’s hair was the mark of his separation to God (Nu 6:5). When he was ceremonially defiled, he had to shave his head. So Jerusalem because of her corruption must do likewise. Her mourning is because the Lord has cast her off. Because of her sin, the chief mark of her beauty must be cast away as polluted and no longer consecrated to the Lord.
When Israel encountered bereavement, defeat in war, or awareness of God’s displeasure, the people would lament, lying on the ground, pouring dust on their heads, tearing their clothes, beating their breasts, and cutting off their hair. Now they were to lament on the “barren heights,” for the place of their idolatries was to be the place of their mourning. Their lament would be heard at a distance, for that generation was the one on which God’s wrath would be poured out.
30–32 The people had brazenly introduced their idols in the temple, as though to defy God to his face. Furthermore, they had set up high places (altars) in Topheth, near the eastern end of the southern part of the Valley of Hinnom.
The Hinnom Valley was a place of idolatrous sacrifices as well as the area for the debris and rubbish of the city. The rabbis saw it as a symbol of the place of future punishment, calling it Gehenna (see comment on Mk 9:43–48). Here the idolatrous nation burned their children to appease the fire god, Molech. This passage reveals that the children were not merely made to pass through an ordeal by fire; they were actually burned up. God disclaims any connection with this hideous practice (Lev 18:21; 20:2–5). Now their pagan sanctuary was to become their cemetery. Since they so flagrantly disobeyed God, they themselves would be slaughtered where their children were slaughtered. The slaughter of the coming doom of the city would be so great that Topheth would have to be used for burial, thus changing the name of the place to The Valley of the Slaughter.
33–34 So complete would the desolation of the land be that no one would be there to drive the birds of prey from the carcasses. The highest indignity for the dead was to leave a body unburied (Dt 28:26; Isa 18:6). The chapter closes on the tragic note that all joy—even that of marriage—would be removed from Judah.
2. Remonstrance with Israel (8:1–22)
a. Desecration of the graves (8:1–3)
1–3 Even the remains of the long dead would be desecrated. The invaders would not be satisfied until the bones of the leaders as well as of the people of Jerusalem were exhumed. This would be the ultimate insult, signifying that the people of Judah were incapable of guarding the remains of their ancestors from desecration. This practice of violating the dead was not unknown in ancient warfare (cf. Am 2:1). The dead, especially kings and prominent leaders, were buried with treasures, so the graves may have been vandalized also for plunder.
Jeremiah elaborates on the fate of the dead. Their bones would be scattered in the open air under the sun to hasten their disintegration and would be exposed like refuse. All the stages of Judah’s worship of idols are detailed in five verbs (“loved,” “served,” “followed,” “consulted,” “worshiped”) to reveal the people’s great zeal in doing so. The heavenly bodies that the people worshiped would be helpless to hinder the desecration heaped on their dead followers. The statement exposes the worthlessness of astrology.
In spite of the violation heaped on their dead compatriots, the survivors would prefer death to life because of the many trials they were yet to suffer at the hands of their captors. The banished are the whole nation of Israel (cf. 3:14), and the places where they have been driven are the countries outside Palestine (cf. Lev 26:36–39; Dt 28:65–67).
b. Obduracy of Israel in idolatry (8:4–7)
4–5 In a series of questions throughout this eighth chapter, God remonstrates with his people. First, he shows how contrary to nature is their apostasy. If a man falls down, he instinctively tries to rise as soon as possible. If he turns from the right way, he returns to it at the earliest opportunity. But Judah is different from others; her misconduct is unique. Having fallen into idolatry and having strayed from the path of obedience, she manifests no desire to either rise or return. It is too late to repent. The nation is incorrigible in her apostasy. Judah shows no desire to correct her ways but holds tenaciously to her deceitful idolatry.
6–7 God waited for the people to amend their ways; he listened in vain for some word of repentance and confession of guilt. They acted mindlessly. As a war horse rushes into battle, they impetuously followed their own way regardless of consequences. The figure stresses their determination to continue sinning. Even subhuman creatures know how to follow their instincts better than Judah follows the way of the Lord. Migratory birds recognize and follow the seasons of their migration instinctively. The stork, dove, swift, and thrush regularly return to Palestine every spring. They know more about God’s appointed way for them than Judah knows about God’s appointed way for her.
c. Penalty for Judah’s falsity (8:8–13)
8–9 In spite of her willful ignorance of the law of God, the nation boasts of her wisdom. The chief offenders were the priests and false prophets. Apparently they thought that having the law meant they had all the wisdom they needed. Denying God’s word by their deeds, they still boasted of its presence with them. To make matters worse, the “scribes” so manipulated the law of God as to falsify its message. They interpreted so as to assure the people that they could sin with impunity. In v.8 there is an appeal to reason, as there is an appeal to conscience in v.12. As a result of the people’s delusion about their wisdom, they would not heed the word of the Lord. The answer to the question in v.9 is that there is no wisdom when God’s word is rejected (cf. Pr 1:7).
10–12 Since God is a God of righteousness and holiness, he must visit on Judah the punishment he has warned them of. These three verses repeat what has already been stated in 6:12–15. God ordered Jeremiah to repeat the truth to impress it on the minds of the people. But the people, refusing to listen to God’s word, were misled by false prophets and deceitful priests.
13 The failure of the vintage and the harvest is a frequent OT metaphor of complete devastation. When God’s judgment struck, nothing would be left; the desolation of the land and the people would be complete. God would withdraw all his gifts. Since the nation bore no fruit morally, the dissolution of its commonwealth was imminent.
d. The invading army (8:14–17)
14–15 Jeremiah sees the invasion by the northern enemy occurring. Those in the rural areas ask themselves why they should stay where they live, exposing themselves to the enemy’s cruelties. They exhort one another to flee to the fortified cities for greater protection and longer survival. Alas, even if they flee to the fortified cities, these, like “poisoned water,” will be their ruin. The people find to their dismay that the opposite of what they looked for has come on them. The false prophets had purveyed only false hopes.
16–17 Jeremiah graphically describes the invasion of the enemy, who had already come from the north. Dan, in the far north of the land and bordering on Phoenicia, would feel the invasion first. So many would be the enemy’s horses that their sound would shake the earth and they would desolate the land. Suddenly the figure for the invader changes to that of serpents that cannot be charmed away. The invader will be irresistible.
e. The sorrow of Jeremiah (8:18–22)
18–19 Though Jeremiah’s predictions are coming true, he does not gloat over those who opposed him. Rather, he is thoroughly heartbroken. He agonizes over the fall of Jerusalem. He had lived in a state of tension between his love for his land and countrymen and his fidelity to God’s commission for him. Now he foresees Judah’s captivity and the distress of her exile. Forlorn and distraught, the exiles wonder why they have been conquered and degraded. How could this happen when the Lord their King was surely in Zion? They are trying to harmonize their theology with their deplorable condition. Why have they not been delivered? The King referred to is not the Davidic ruler but God. God answers their question with one of his. Why have they gone on defying him with their idolatries when they were constantly warned of his judgment on them?
20 Jeremiah drives home another truth by using the figure of the harvest. Harvest of barley, wheat, and spelt came in April, May, and June; harvest of summer fruits like figs, grapes, and pomegranates came in August and September, and of olives in October. If these were not provided, no fruit was garnered for the winter. The people had lost every opportunity given them by God, and now they were entirely without hope. One favorable time after another went unheeded. The time is past, of course, when either Egypt or other allies could come to their aid.
21–22 In spite of his denunciations, Jeremiah does not hesitate to identify himself with his people. Their hurt (“crushed”) hurts him so deeply that he is filled with mourning and dismay. In a final metaphor Jeremiah asks why, since there is balm in Gilead and physicians to apply it, the nation’s malady has not been healed. The balm referred to is the resin or gum of the storax tree, which was used medicinally. The prophet is distressed because he knows that though there is a remedy for the people, they have not availed themselves of it. Gilead is a mountainous region of Palestine east of Jordan and north of Moab; so the remedy is not far away. But Judah’s sickness is not healed. The plaintive question ’Is there no balm in Gilead?” has become proverbial.
3. Sin and punishment (9:1–26)
a. The prophet’s lament (9:1–2a)
l–2a Jeremiah’s metaphors show the depths of his grief. The destruction to be visited on the nation would be so thoroughgoing that he would weep day and night. The “fountain” is a reservoir or well rather than a spring. The “slain” of this verse are those in need of a physician in 8:22. Their sickness has ended in death.
Two strong emotions gripped Jeremiah: great sympathy for his people and utter revulsion against their many sins. The life of the people was so corrupt as to make it impossible for Jeremiah to live among them. Even a lonely lodging in the desert was preferable to the soul anguish he experienced in the midst of his people (cf. Ps 55:6–8).
b. The glaring sins of the day (9:2b–9)
2b The blatant sins Jeremiah describes are literal. Society was shot through and through with wickedness. The first sin in this bill of indictment was universal adultery. As the prophet has already shown, the reference is to their spiritual adultery of idolatry, with which gross immoralities were carried out. In toto the people were a treacherous assembly. The Hebrew word for “crowd” (GK 6809) is used for solemn assemblies on pilgrimage feasts. They had fallen far short of that concept. The sins of the tongue are noteworthy.
3 The picture is vivid: the tongue is the bow and the lying the arrow. The people are consummate liars. To “make ready” is literally “to tread” because one placed his foot on the bow to fit it with an arrow. Unwearied, the people went from one sin to another. They were valiant, but not for truth. They used their power and influence, not for helping their countrymen, but for oppressing the poor and needy. They had completely abandoned moral and social standards. The inner cohesiveness of the nation had broken down. Judah was laden with deceit. At the same time as Jeremiah was in anguish over the people’s sufferings, he was appalled at the depth of their departure from the Lord. Willful ignorance of God was the root of their sin. They did not care to know or recognize him.
4–5a When a nation lacks spiritual dedication, human relations become insecure. Even the godly succumb to suspicion. Society is threatened when mutual confidence is lost. Even homes and families in Judah were split by mistrust. The unity of the nation was threatened from within. The covenant of God with his people required brotherly love, but their conduct violated this. They went to great pains to deceive one another.
5b–6 To show the unnaturalness of their wickedness, the people trained their tongues contrary to their proper function. Lying takes more effort than speaking the truth, but they were willing to endure the drudgery of sin. They persisted in their wrongdoing. Their desire to do evil exceeded their power and strength. The words of v.6 are addressed to the whole nation. Deceit was the very atmosphere of their life. They lived in it and would rather cling to their deceptive ways than recognize God and abandon their godless deeds. Verse 3 stated that they did not know God; now we are told that they flatly refused to know him. In a world ruled by a Moral Governor, their woes inevitably stemmed from this recalcitrance.
7–9 The prophet returns to the metaphor of refining metals (cf. 6:28–30). But now the process would go on in the fiery furnace of affliction and would aim to remove the dross by suffering. The Lord was still seeking to purge, not exterminate, his people. Reasoning with them, the Lord asks how else he could deal with their sinful ways. No other choice was left him. What other action was open to him? The passage underscores the inevitability of judgment in view of God’s righteousness. He still yearns over Judah, for he addresses the nation as literally “the daughter of my people.” Again, the prophet emphasizes their deceitful dealings. Their tongues are death dealing; deceit is second nature to them. Even when their conversation appears to be cordial, in their hearts they are scheming to ensnare their neighbors.
c. The judgment threatened (9:10–16)
10–11 This section details Judah’s punishment. Jeremiah prepares for mourning in the hour of disaster. The pastures in the Judean wilderness will be burned up because there will be no one to water and care for them. The land will be devastated and its inhabitants exiled. All will be so desolate that the cattle will disappear, and even the birds will abandon the land. So complete will the devastation be that only scavengers will remain.
12–16 Once more the Lord tries to show the people the cause of their ruin. The Lord challenges any of the wise of the nation to state the cause of their calamities. The wise will see by God’s enlightenment that departure from God must always lead to punishment. In v.13 God himself answers the question in v.12. The nation had violated the law given at Sinai and constantly proclaimed by the true prophets; the people repeatedly ignored God’s call to walk in conformity with his revealed will. Instead, they had followed a path to destruction. It was their defection from God that had brought along with it their flagrant social injustices.
The cause of the nation’s problems was an insubordinate spirit that led the people into idolatry—their undoing from the wilderness period to that hour. Their sinful practices were handed down from one generation to another. In the metaphor “bitter food” and “poisoned water,” the first is a plant with bitter juice, the second a poisonous bitter herb. They represent the bitter suffering in the fall of the kingdom and the Babylonian exile. The annihilation does not include the whole nation but only its ungodly members. Repeatedly, Jeremiah shows there will be no complete decimation of the people (cf. 4:27; 5:18; 30:11).
d. The universal lamentation (9:17–22)
17–18 This section describes the people’s expulsion from their land. The “wailing women” were professionals employed to arouse relatives and others at funerals to outward display of their grief. They used plaintive cries, baring their breasts, flailing their arms, throwing dust on their heads, and disheveling their hair (2Ch 35:25; Ecc 12:5; Am 5:16).
19–21 As the people go into captivity, their wailing sounds out from Jerusalem (Zion). Jeremiah gives the words of the women’s dirge. The demand for their services will be so great that they will have to teach others how to mourn, particularly their daughters and neighbors. Death will penetrate into the homes of poor and rich alike. Even children and young men will die in public places. A number of interpreters believe that the death referred to is the result of pestilence. But the passage need not be limited to this. The invading army could do the killing.
22 Here we see Death as the Grim Reaper. The custom was for a reaper to hold in his arm what a few strokes of his sickle had cut. Then he put it down, and behind him another laborer then gathered it into bundles and bound it into a sheaf. So death was to cover the ground with corpses, but the carcasses would lie there unburied because of the paucity of survivors and the great number of dead. The wages of sin is always death (Ro 6:23).
e. The ultimate good (9:23–24)
23–24 Jeremiah speaks of three things people of the world trust in: wisdom, strength, and riches. These three cannot help the worldly. If these fall short in the time of need, what will avail? Our highest good is to know God, not just intellectually or philosophically, but in spirit and in his true character. This is the true and lasting wisdom. The path of God’s approval is clear. Ethical qualities follow a true knowledge of God. God manifests “kindness”—a readiness to manifest grace and mercy; “justice”—a proper evaluation of the rights of men; and “righteousness”—the absolute essential of all faith and worship.
f. Not privilege but morality (9:25–26)
25–26 These verses condemn faith in religious privileges. The paradox shows that circumcision is in itself as valueless as sacrifice, temple, or any other outward form of religious practice. If Judah has the rite of circumcision only in the flesh, she is no different from the pagans who have only an external sign and no inward faith. Judah cannot plead the virtue of her covenant sign when she does not possess what it stands for. The nations enumerated practiced circumcision but not of the heart. Outward rites are unavailing; the condition of the heart is paramount. Judah is placed among these nations—what degradation! Egypt is mentioned first because Israel was so prone to confide in them. Edom seems to have abandoned the practice until it was imposed on them by John Hyrcanus. The Arab tribes, recognized by their peculiar tonsure, were, along with those already mentioned, the objects of Nebuchadnezzar’s attack (cf. 49:28–33).
4. Denunciation of idolatry (10:1–25)
The greater portion of this section is devoted to a condemnation of idolatry. Jeremiah shows his firsthand knowledge of idol worship, both Canaanite and Babylonian. Although people lose their awareness of the true God, they do not thereby lose their need of God. So they substitute the false worship for the true. Idolatry is the result.
a. The folly of idolatry (10:1–5)
1–2 This message is addressed to the whole nation of Israel, not just the Ten Tribes already in exile for more than a century. Those who remained in the land still retained the customs of their heathen neighbors before them. Jeremiah warns the people against being influenced to fall in with the cultic customs of the pagan nations in worshiping their gods. Idol worship was attended by elaborate ritual, motivated by demonic power, and accompanied by moral looseness. Thus it was a constant temptation. The signs of the heavens referred to are not the sun, moon, and stars, or signs of the zodiac, meant by God to be signs (Ge 1:14), but unusual phenomena like eclipses, comets, and meteors, which were supposed to portend extraordinary events. They struck terror into the hearts of those who worshiped the superhuman power in the stars. Both the Egyptians and the Babylonians were addicted to astrology. Idolatry that involves the heavenly bodies displeases God as much as the worship of man-made idols.
3–5 All idols are vanity. The worthlessness of worshiping them is proved by the worthlessness of the pagan gods. Jeremiah details every stage of the making of these worthless images. The first stage is the cutting down of a tree from the forest; the second stage, its shaping with an axe; the third, adorning the idol with precious metals; the fourth, fastening the idol in place. The final stage is dressing the idol in royal apparel. There is an exquisite touch of sarcasm in the mention of fastening the idol with nails. The mighty god has to be kept from tottering. Even after the image is secured, it has no more value than a scarecrow. Immovable, it has no power of speech to comfort the needy soul; it cannot walk to come to the aid of the harassed; instead, it is a burden to be carried. Incapable of moral decisions, it cannot counsel troubled souls.
b. The majesty of God (10:6–16)
6–8 Here the prophet contrasts the majesty of God with the uselessness of idols. Man-made idols cannot walk or stand unaided, but the true God is great in himself and in his power. To attempt to compare him with other gods or creatures shows woeful ignorance of his true character and attributes. In ancient times pagan nations had their own nationally restricted deities; but the Lord God of Israel is King, sovereignly ruling and wisely administering the affairs of the nations. Worship is due him by right and due no one else. Human beings at the highest point of their reasoning can never approximate, let alone comprehend, the blessed God of the universe (1Co 1:21). From a wooden idol no spiritual benefit or instruction can be expected. Instruction from idols is no more valuable than the idol itself. No human skill can turn wood into an intelligent creature. All the wise men among the pagans are foolish because their gods from which they receive instruction are no more than wood. Idolatry has no redeeming feature whatever.
9 At this point Jeremiah speaks of the origin of idols. Silver was obtained from Tarshish—either southern Spain or the island of Sardinia. Spain was rich in silver, iron, tin, and lead—all of which were sent to Tyre. Gold was brought from Uphaz (location unknown). Blue (violet) and purple were obtained from the murex, a Mediterranean shellfish. These pigments were costly and were used in the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex 25:4). In spite of all the workmanship lavished on them, idols are still the work of human hands.
10 In a telling contrast, Jeremiah presents the distinctive attributes of the God of the universe. He is the true God, i.e., God in truth. He is alive, the everlasting King, whose power is manifest in the earthquake and whose wrath the nations endure. This verse contains a threefold contrast with idols: (1) they are false, he is true; (2) they are dead, he is living; (3) they are transitory and subject to destruction, he is eternal.
11 This is the only verse in the book in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the day, so that the pagan idolaters would be able to read the judgment of God on their idolatry. The truths enunciated thus far are that (l) Israel is not to imitate the nations around her, (2) idols are powerless, and (3) God’s power is infinite.
12–16 This section, repeated in 51:15–19, dwells on the theme of the might of the true God, especially in nature, and his relationship to Israel, particularly in his covenant promises. Both the power and the wisdom of God are clearly manifested in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Indeed, every thunderstorm witnesses to the omnipotence of God. Before these wonders of nature, people unenlightened by revelation are without knowledge. Every idolater will ultimately be ashamed when the nothingness of idols is revealed. For a thinking person to engage in idol making and worship is no less than a degrading of his or her God-given endowments. The prophet’s final word on idols is that they are not only worthless but also a work of mockery, worthy only of being ridiculed.
In essence, instead of helping their devotees in time of need, idols will themselves be destroyed. On the other hand, Israel’s God is totally distinct from idols; instead of being made, he is the Maker and Creator of all the universe. Moreover, he is still faithful to his covenant promises, though his people have rejected him (cf. 51:19). Though he is Lord of all, yet he has a special portion or inheritance in Israel. As we come to the end of this classic passage, we should remember this: The Babylonian exile accomplished what everything else failed to do. It cured the nation Israel of idolatry, making the people witnesses of the one true God in every country where they were scattered.
c. Exile for sinning Israel (10:17–22)
17–18 In respect to continuity of thought, vv.1–16 are parenthetical. In vv.17–25 the subject that was interrupted at 9:22 is resumed, thus concluding the temple sermon. The suggested date for the passage is 598–597 B.C., during the siege under Jeconiah. The present portion is a dialogue between Jeremiah and personified Jerusalem. The people of Judah are addressed as they are told of impending exile. Now the doom of the city is at the very gates, so they had better gather up their bundles from the ground because they are to be cast out of the land. Only distress awaits them.
19–22 A new era was to begin for the nation! On other occasions when the nation was invaded, the enemy took spoils and imposed tribute. But this time invasion would result in expatriation. This means for Jeremiah an almost unbearable burden; so on behalf of the nation he laments the catastrophe. The people now recognize and admit that they have merited divine judgment. They are resigned to God’s punishment. Jerusalem is next seen as a tent-dwelling mother, deprived of her children and home. No one is left to rebuild the destroyed land. The blame is placed on the leadership of the nation. Doom is near; the report has it that the army of the enemy is approaching.
d. Prayer for the nation (10:23–25)
23–25 Jeremiah pleads the constitutional mental and moral weakness of humanity in extenuation of his predicament. We can never direct our lives so as to achieve blessing without God’s help. We cannot decide the course of our lives. God is in ultimate control. True to his office, Jeremiah as the prophet of God acts as an advocate for his people. He prays that Judah will not be called on to suffer more than she can endure. He admits her merited punishment but pleads for it to be kept within limits. God should show a measure of mercy so that destruction will not come. It is in this context that the last petition is to be understood. The nations had been moved by a spirit of vindictiveness and out of proportion to what God had intended. They wanted to destroy Israel utterly.
Verse 25 is recited annually at the Passover service of the Jews. The enemies of Israel and the executors of God’s wrath will one day experience his scourge also. This was fulfilled within a century. Nebuchadnezzar was punished with insanity. His grandson Belshazzar was slain in his revelry, and the empire was conquered by the Medo-Persians. Jeremiah’s prayer is not that of a nationalistic Jew against hated Gentiles. It is a plea for God to destroy Judah’s enemies before they are able to carry out their wicked aim to destroy his people. Thus closes this whole great section (chs. 7–10). Its undying message is that God seeks reality in life and worship, and no kind of ritual can ever be a substitute for piety.
D. Signs to Awaken Repentance (11:1–20:18)
1. The broken covenant (11:1–23)
Chapters 11 and 12 form a unit because there is no break between them. Since this section is not dated, scholars differ as to the historical setting. Most likely the historical setting was the reign of Josiah with his reformation, which proved to be only superficial. The date may even have been soon after the discovery of the Book of the Law, before the reform became widespread (v.6; cf. 2Ki 23). Chapters 11–20 contain material that is more autobiographical and more narrative than that in the previous chapters. In this section we find the prophet’s “confessions,” in a sense a private diary. The main emphasis of ch. 11 is an admonition to be faithful to the covenant.
a. The violation of the covenant (11:1–13)
1–3 The initial charges were not directed to Jeremiah alone because the imperatives are in the plural. The commands are not to the people, nor to the priests as the teachers of the law, but to the prophets of the time. The account in 2Ki 22–23 makes it clear that the godly king Josiah was not introducing a new covenant but only calling for a reaffirmation of the old Mosaic covenant, as did other of the prophets aside from Jeremiah. Jeremiah even repeats the very curse pronounced on those who violate the Lord’s covenant with Moses (cf. Dt 11:28; 27:26; 28:15–19; 29:20–21). Ancient Near Eastern treaties contained both benedictions and curses for adherence or nonconformity to them.
4–5 Verses 3–5 contain a summary of the spiritual essence of the covenant (cf. 7:23). The time of the promulgation of the Mosaic covenant is seen as being the whole Exodus period. The iron-smelting furnace refers to the hardships the Israelites underwent in Egypt (cf. Dt 4:20). What the Lord was seeking was an obedient people for his very own, a people who would rejoice in their intimate relationship and fellowship with him. The Lord also had in mind his gracious promises to the patriarchs, which he wished to fulfill. “A land flowing with milk and honey” symbolizes the fertility of the land. Jeremiah reminds the people that they were still in possession of the Promised Land. His own answer to the pronouncement of the curse was “Amen,” indicating his acquiescence in God’s arrangement.
6–8 Verse 6 does not mean that the prophet must take a preaching tour “in the towns of Judah,” for the expression is proverbial for the length and breadth of the country (just as the Lord’s command to Jeremiah in 25:15–29 did not require him to itinerate among the nations). Judah’s response to the Lord’s command reveals faithlessness and breach of the covenant. In spite of the Lord’s loving exhortation through his prophets, the people followed their own ways in violating the law of God. In fact, the nation had already suffered, in the exile of the ten northern tribes to Assyria, some of the penalty for their infractions of the covenant; the remainder of the judgment was soon to be realized in the coming visitation on Judah (cf. Lev 18:28; 20:22; Dt 29:28).
9–13 Jeremiah divulges an existing conspiracy against the covenant of God. It was not the outcome of hasty impulse but of settled policy. The conspiracy need not have been a formal one, though the people willed to assent to it. There was general though secret resistance to Josiah’s policy of reform. The people had determined not to follow in the way of the Lord but in the wicked ways of their fathers. The “forefathers” were probably those who lived during the desert wanderings and during the time of the judges. Josiah’s heart was right with the Lord, but true piety never comes by osmosis. People must submit individually to God and his ways. Of their own accord, Josiah’s generation broke the covenant the Lord made with the nation. The only possible result was inescapable judgment. Not only would their worthless gods be impotent to help them, but the Lord also refused to help them. The hour of his patience was over.
Once more Jeremiah stresses the impotence of the people’s idols. The people’s appeals to the idols will, as always, go unheeded. Not that they had a paucity of idols, for their gods were as numerous as their towns; every city had its own special god. The “shameful god” is Baal. In spite of and contrary to Josiah’s reforms, these secret practices were continuing.
b. Inadequacy of sacrifices (11:14–17)
14–15 Because the nation’s wickedness had passed the limit of God’s patience, Jeremiah is again forbidden (cf. 7:16) to intercede for his people. Their guilt had come to a climax. Their cries for help would go unanswered because they were not repentant. The text of v.15 is obscure. Apparently the people had gone to the temple to pray and offer sacrifices. “My beloved” refers to Judah. The prophet is repeating the worthlessness of sacrifices without godliness and concern for social righteousness. Sacrifices will not avert the doom. Actually, all the people have is defiled meat (cf. Hag 2:12). In their hypocrisy they have tried to hide their apostasy by their temple sacrifices. How, then, can the people think they have a right to rejoice? They cannot, because God cannot be deceived.
16–17 Jeremiah goes on to compare the nation to a beautiful green olive tree—the way the Lord saw it and wanted it to be. Olive trees are common in Palestine, as elsewhere in the Near East. But Judah had become so barren that she must suffer the flames of judgment. The same figure is the basis of Paul’s key passage about the relation of Jew and Gentile in Ro 11:17–24. God’s ideal for the nation was for it to remain green and beautiful; but, because of the barrenness of sin, it must be destroyed. The judgment is clearly determined for both parts of the nation. Baalism has been their spiritual and political ruin.
c. Plot against Jeremiah’s life (11:18–23)
18–20 Here is the first of Jeremiah’s personal crises. Its context is the portion called “The Confessions of Jeremiah.” In them are disclosed deep spiritual agonies. In this instance the plot against his life by his fellow citizens of Anathoth could well have been an aftermath of his temple address (ch. 7). Moreover, they may have resented his support of Josiah’s reforms, with its abolition of local sanctuaries—something that would have been hard for the priests of Anathoth to swallow. It appeared to them that in exalting the Jerusalem priesthood, Jeremiah was further degrading that of Anathoth.
The plot was hatched in secret; so Jeremiah suspected nothing. The Lord had to reveal it to him. Rejecting God and his message, the nation was not afraid to reject his messenger. That his family, friends, and fellow citizens in his native town could conspire to assassinate him was something difficult to bear. God disclosed not only the plot to Jeremiah but also the very words the conspirators said. Unsuspecting and trusting, he was to be murdered in the full vigor of his life. Because he was unmarried (16:2) and thus had no progeny, even his memory would be eradicated. Both he and his work (“fruit”) were to be obliterated. Destroying a tree with its fruit was proverbial of total destruction.
In v.19 the people speak, in v.20 the prophet speaks, and in vv.21–23 the Lord speaks. To understand v.20 we must realize Jeremiah was praying for God’s vengeance on the plotters. Jeremiah was utterly open to the Lord and had entrusted his case to him who knows perfectly all human emotions, thoughts, and desires. This kind of prayer came from the conviction that his enemies were God’s enemies. He was depending on the Lord to deal with them.
21–23 The Lord answered Jeremiah’s request by indicating his intention to vindicate him. The people had threatened Jeremiah with death if he continued to preach in the Lord’s name. That note of authority galled them. They tried to suppress God’s message. Anathothites resented Jeremiah’s favoring the deposition of the sanctuaries other than Jerusalem. (Anathoth was the home of the priestly house of Abiathar, a friend of David, who was deposed by Solomon, who in turn supplanted it with the house of Zadok.) It seemed to them that Jeremiah was siding with Zadok against their own ancestor. Furthermore, being priests, they doubtless hated his castigation of empty priestly ritual. Their punishment would come at the siege of Jerusalem. Death would prevail inside and outside the city. The young men of military age would die in battle, the rest by famine. The threat of “not even a remnant” must be understood only of Jeremiah’s enemies, for some men of Anathoth did return to postexilic Judah (see Ezr 2:23). The year of their visitation was that of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of the land. Anathoth was near the beleaguering armies and was thus more exposed to the carnage of war than Jerusalem.
2. Punishment and promise (12:1–17)
Out of the context of the opposition to his ministry he suffered in his hometown of Anathoth, Jeremiah deals with the question of the prosperity of the wicked. Jeremiah’s perplexity is understandable because the OT does not offer full information on life after death.
a. The prosperity of the wicked (12:1–6)
1–2 The problem of the prosperity of the wicked in the light of God’s righteousness is not directly solved here or elsewhere in Scripture. The only final answer is faith in the sovereign wisdom and righteousness of God. Jeremiah is still deeply troubled by the treachery of his fellow citizens of Anathoth. He acknowledges at the outset that God is righteous. Jeremiah refuses in principle to question the justice of God, but he still has questions about the success of the wicked in the light of his own trials. In a spirit of holy familiarity, Jeremiah would reason or argue the case with the Lord. The wicked he refers to are not just those of Anathoth but the wicked in general. With true discernment Jeremiah realizes that prosperity is not accidental but goes back to God’s general grace in providing human needs. He uses the figure of a fruit-bearing tree. The wicked, instead of thanking the Lord for his goodness and worshiping him, are actually hypocrites, mouthing pious phrases without reality in their hearts.
3 Jeremiah now contrasts the state of his heart and life with that of the wicked. Their hatred of him was uncalled for. He speaks of his intimate fellowship with the Lord, who knows he is not speaking hypocritically. In strong language Jeremiah asks the Lord to deal with his enemies as they deserve. In asking him to “set them apart for the day of slaughter,” Jeremiah is comparing the wicked to animal sacrifices. Though the wicked have been “planted” in the land, they will be utterly destroyed.
4 Jeremiah is describing some consequences of the prosperity of the wicked in Judah. The ungodly are a curse to the nation. God sends punishment, and the righteous suffer with the wicked. The drought does not negate what Jeremiah said in v.1 about the Lord’s righteousness, because calamities like those he is describing affect the godly more than the wicked. The ungodly rich usually escape them. The land, beasts, and even birds suffer along with human beings. If the “he” near the end of v.4 refers to God, then it is the height of wickedness to claim that he is morally indifferent to the sin of the rich. This is practical atheism. Or perhaps the people are mocking Jeremiah’s predictions and claiming they will never be realized. At least, “he” will perish before they do.
5–6 The Lord’s answer to Jeremiah’s complaint is meant to teach him that he is too impatient. He would have to suffer even more. What he had endured in Anathoth would be insignificant compared with the trials he had yet to undergo. His confrontation with the men of his own town has made him realize the magnitude of the task he had undertaken. He could not turn to his family for help because they were part of his difficulty. God now challenges him to greater courage and faith for greater trials in the future.
In spite of his problems, up to this point his situation has been like that of a dweller in a peaceful land. The language in v.5 is proverbial. “The flooding of the Jordan” (cf. NIV note) refers to the annual overflow of the Jordan in time of harvest (Jos 3:15) and earlier (April and May) that filled the Ghor (cf. ZPEB, 2:710). With the flooding of the valley, the beasts of prey were driven from their haunts along the river bank. The reference here is probably to the jungle of the Jordan, the land adjacent to the river covered with bushes and heavy undergrowth and inhabited by wild beasts (cf. 2Ki 6:2).
To give Jeremiah a glimpse of how serious matters would become, the Lord grants him a new disclosure. Even his own family cannot be trusted, for they will raise a hue and cry after him as though he were a criminal fleeing from justice. Nor will they be open and aboveboard; they will use threats to obscure their true intentions toward him.
b. Punishment on the ungodly (12:7–13)
7–8 The Lord, not Jeremiah, is still speaking, viewing future events as though already fulfilled. Judgment for breaking the covenant is in view. The historical background of this passage is probably the events recorded in 2Ki 24:1–2, when Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon after three years of submission. Nebuchadnezzar dispatched Chaldean, Syrian, Moabite, and Ammonite soldiers against Judah. The Lord’s lament over the nation’s devastation contains an abundance of figures: “house,” “inheritance,” “the one I love” (v.7); “a lion” (v.8); “a speckled bird of prey” (v.9); “vineyard,” “field” (v.10). Having warned Judah of the consequences of disobedience, the Lord now abandons her utterly to her enemies.
It was difficult for the Lord to punish his own guilty but beloved people. As ever, his judgment was tempered with love. Thus abandoned by their Lord, the people were incapable of resisting their foes. They surrendered to the enemy because they as fiercely as a lion had opposed the Lord. They had become his declared enemy, raising their voices against him. In saying that he hated his people, the Lord was declaring that he had withdrawn his love and protection from them. He forsook them as though he hated them; this was a greater agony for him than for them.
9 The question requires an affirmative answer. Speckled birds are unusually colored birds, which are attacked by other birds, who will not allow a strange bird among them. So the Lord’s people, different from other nations, will be attacked by them. The Lord invites the wild beasts (Babylon and her allies) to devour the land.
10–13 The Lord’s great love for his land is reflected in his three endearing designations of it (“vineyard,” “field,” “pleasant field”). The shepherds who have devastated his vineyard (Israel; cf. Isa 5:1) are the heads of the invading army. They have done what they wished, heedlessly breaking through and trampling the well-tended area. Though the desolation has been thoroughgoing, no one considers the causes that have brought such judgment. The “sword of the LORD” in the hand of the Lord’s agents will do its work throughout the country. Apparently the enemies will invade from the east. As far as Judah is concerned, nothing has turned out successfully for her people. In spite of all their labors in the field, they gain nothing. They reap the opposite of what they expect. Their crops are a failure (cf. 14:3–4). In fact, the harvests are so poor that even the farmers are ashamed of them. The Lord had not prospered them at all.
c. Promise for the repentant nations (12:14–17)
14–17 In this section we have an anticipation of the prophecies in chs. 47–49. In prophesying to the nations, Jeremiah was fulfilling his commission (1:10). The nations (Syria, Moab, Ammon) were to be punished by the same enemy that punished Judah, namely, Babylon. The Lord identifies himself with Judah when he calls the surrounding peoples “my wicked neighbors.” They too will experience deportation from their lands. This is part of the answer to the prophet’s complaint concerning the prosperity of the wicked. But this is not the end of the matter; these nations are promised future blessing after the Lord has chastened them.
A millennial setting is in view in vv.15–16. Repatriation is promised for Israel and the nations, who have learned about God from his people, just as Israel formerly learned the worship of idols through these nations. The basis of the predicted blessing is repentance and faith. If the pagans adopt the worship of God in truth, they will be incorporated into God’s people. Israel will lead in godliness. There will be a remnant among the nations (cf. Ge 12:1–3; Ro 11:15). But the members of the remnant will have to make a genuine avowal of God as their own. Then the nations with Israel will know peace in the Messianic Age. When they were in the midst of the nations (vv.7, 9), it was to God’s people’s detriment; when the nations are in the midst of God’s people, it will be to the nations’ spiritual blessing.
The chapter closes with the alternative to faith and is a warning to all. For unbelief there will be doom.
3. Corruption of the nation’s life (13:1–27)
a. The marred linen belt (13:1–11)
1–7 Was this act a real one or was it a vision? The chief problem with the literal view is that the distance to the Euphrates (Perath)—and two round trips were made—would require Jeremiah to walk hundreds of miles. The literal view is preferred because (1) the act would have to be witnessed to be of value as a message to the people; (2) the language supports the literal sense; (3) Jeremiah was away from Jerusalem for part of Jehoiakim’s reign, and his absence could account for Nebuchadnezzar’s kind feeling toward him because of previous personal acquaintance (39:11–12); (4) “Perath” should perhaps be understood as an abbreviation of Ephrata, the original name of Bethlehem, about six miles south of Jerusalem. Then it would be easy for Jeremiah to carry out the command literally.
Jeremiah was charged to buy a linen belt, place it around his loins or waist, but not to put it in water. It was to be of linen for two reasons: (1) Linen would easily rot, skin or leather would not; (2) the original cleanliness spoke of Israel’s purity when first in fellowship with the Lord. Also, the linen belt would recall Israel’s priestly calling (priests wore only linen) and character (cf. Ex 19:6). After wearing it for a while, Jeremiah was commanded to hide it in a crevice of the rock at the Euphrates, and he did so. After many days, he was ordered to go to the rock and retrieve the belt he had buried. It was ruined and worthless because it had been close to the moisture of the river. Why the Euphrates? The purpose of the trip may have been to underscore the influence of Mesopotamia in corrupting the nation religiously, beginning with ungodly Manasseh (2Ki 21). Also, there may be an allusion to the coming Babylonian exile.
8–11 A linen belt was used because just as it is placed closely about the body, so the nation Israel was brought into intimate relationship with her gracious Lord. The ruin of the garment teaches that idolatry corrupts anyone who engages in it. Idolatry had corrupted Israel from her loyalty to God and made her worthless. Instead of clinging to her God in faith and love, she destroyed herself.
b. The wine of God’s wrath (13:12–14)
12–14 Possibly at a drinking feast, Jeremiah took occasion to utter a proverbial saying about jars (“wineskins”; GK 5574) and wine, which was probably a platitude concerning the hope of continued prosperity. The jar was the largest earthenware container for storing wine (Isa 30:14). The largest found in excavations hold almost ten gallons. When Jeremiah used the pun of filling, the wine drinkers mocked his banal remark, which he immediately gave a serious turn. Jeremiah pointed out that the people were the jars and were to be filled with the wine of God’s wrath against their sin. He had turned their saying into a prediction of disaster.
Four groups are singled out for the judgment: the kings, the priests, the false prophets, and the people. Jeremiah had several kings in mind; all would be the objects of God’s judgment. His mention of David’s throne perhaps stresses how far they had fallen from the standard of worship in David’s day. All the people will be filled with mental intoxication, a symbol of helplessness and confusion. In the nation’s drunkenness, the male portion of the population, who should have defended the land against the invaders, will be colliding one against another. Jeremiah anticipates the truth elaborated in 25:15–28; 51:7. Three times the Lord declares that he will show no pity on the nation.
c. Warning against pride (13:15–17)
15–17 Pride, the sin of Satan, infected the human family before the Tower of Babel and ever since. Jeremiah warns the people against pride in their spiritual privilege. Proud of their favored position before God as his chosen people, they refused to heed his message through his prophets. The scene in this section is that of a weary traveler on a mountain caught in the dark night. The statement “Give glory to the LORD your God” is an OT idiom for “Confess your sin” (cf. Jos 7:19). To do so would avert the evil about to come on the nation. But Jeremiah knew their obstinate ways; they would not listen. Firm in declaring the truth of God without fear or favor, he was nonetheless tender in his grief and compassion over their obduracy, which would yet lead them into captivity. He took no delight in the prospect of their misery.
d. Tragedy in the royal house (13:18–19)
18 The Lord commands Jeremiah to address the king and queen mother—King Jehoiachin and his mother, Queen Nehushta, who were carried away to Babylon in the second deportation under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:8, 12, 15). The address is an exhortation to humility in view of their impending loss of sovereignty. Because kings practiced polygamy, their mothers were highly influential (cf. 1Ki 2:19; 15:13; 2Ki 10:13). This was all the more true of Jehoiachin and his mother; because he was only eighteen when he began his short reign of three months, she probably had much influence over him. She is mentioned again—but not by name—in 22:26 and 29:2. Both the king and his mother were unreceptive to the message of God.
19 Unlike the invasion of Sennacherib (2Ki 18:13), Nebuchadnezzar would strike the cities of the South, the Negev (the barren area in the south of Judah; Jos 15:21–32). Though the Negev is farthest from Jerusalem, it too would feel Nebuchadnezzar’s might—an evidence of the total extent of Judah’s captivity. The cities would be in ruins with no one to clear them. The statement that “all Judah” would be exiled is rhetorical exaggeration, since only some leaders and skilled workmen were taken to Babylon at that time (597 B.C.). Yet they represented the whole nation.
e. Captivity and shame of Judah (13:20–27)
20–21 Jerusalem is addressed under the figure of a shepherdess who has abandoned her flock. She has been derelict in duty and has misled her flock. Those “coming from the north” are again the Babylonians. Jerusalem was responsible for protecting the entire nation. For her unfaithfulness to the Lord’s flock, Jerusalem would have to endure subjection to the very powers she had helped to gain control. There may be reference here to the foreign policy that courted Egypt and Babylon, especially the latter, when Judah was tributary to Neco of Egypt. Though she toadied to both, Judah would be dominated by them. Judah had tried to make binding alliances with Babylon on more than one occasion (cf. 4:30). Ultimately, she was the one who made the Babylonians her masters by invoking their aid against Egypt instead of trusting the Lord.
22 When Judah is in agony as a mother in childbirth, she will ask why she is suffering. Continuance in sin has deadened the nation’s conscience. She does not feel she is suffering justly. The shameful way the conquerors treat the people will be like the shaming of a prostitute. Exposure of the secret parts was the public disgrace heaped on prostitutes.
23 Using a famous proverb, Jeremiah points out that Judah is so far beyond change that her repentance would be like a suspension of nature’s laws. Yet God still invites people to repent. But with Judah sin was so ingrained that there was no hope of repentance. Here is a classic example of loss of freedom of the will through persistent sinning. Sin becomes natural. Jeremiah is speaking of the force of habit, not denying freedom of choice (cf. Jn 8:34). Obviously Jeremiah is stating the case radically. He does not mean to rule out any response to the working of God in people’s hearts to bring them to repentance, as v.27 shows.
24–27 Because of the nation’s persistent sin, the Lord will subject the people to a process of winnowing—a familiar scene to them, for they had often seen the strong wind from the Arabian desert carry off the useless stubble. None of the things described is accidental; they are God’s judgment on Judah for forgetting him and trusting in “the lie” (NIV, “false gods”)—specifically, Baal. Judah’s retribution will be to know the full measure of disgrace. The “neighings” are a bestial figure for illicit love (cf. 5:8; 50:11). The last question—“How long will you be unclean?”—shows that there is still opportunity for Judah to repent. The Lord does not close the door on a future return from idolatry. He still wants the nation to repent in time and so escape punishment. Two strong emotions struggled in Jeremiah: (1) the certainty of disaster for the nation and (2) the hope that it might yet be averted.
4. Drought and impending exile (14:1–22)
Chapters 14 and 15 are full of Jeremiah’s grief for the future of his people. The references to invasions and exile cannot help to date the material before us because there were three invasions of Judah and as many deportations. Nor can one identify the material with a particular crisis in the life of the nation. The drought here is probably later than that mentioned in 3:3 and 12:4 because this one is connected with war (vv.17–18).
a. The critical drought (14:1–6)
1 The word for “drought” (GK 1314) is plural here, which may indicate a series of droughts. Rainfall in Palestine is never overabundant. A year of drought can cause suffering. Unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, Palestine depends on seasonal rainfall. In Israel a drought was never viewed as a chance occurrence. Drought had been threatened for disobedience (Dt 28:23–24) and was part of the covenant curses. The Lord’s purpose in sending the drought was to bring the nation to repentance.
2–3 The entire country was suffering anguish from lack of water. The drought extended to the city. The nation was clothed in black to express its mourning. The capital cried out for help. Nor were the nobles immune! When they sent their servants to the cisterns for water, they returned with empty vessels. Rain water, stored for time of need, had long been exhausted. In their mourning the people covered their heads, as though to shut out the painful sight. The famine afflicted city, country, human beings, and animals. The ground was “cracked.” The farmers could not work the soil and, hence, could not expect a harvest. They too were in deep mourning.
5–6 It is sad for irrational creatures to have to suffer because the people have incurred God’s displeasure. The doe, known for her care for her fawns, no longer was able to care for her offspring. The wild donkeys, known for their hardiness and ability to survive on very little, were greatly debilitated. Even on the bare heights they gasped for breath. Also, instead of the usual sharpness of sight, they lost the power of vision in their agony.
b. The confession of the nation (14:7–9)
7 The people acknowledge their apostasy and sin, which deserve only death. But they plead on solid ground—namely, that the Lord’s honor may be exhibited to the pagan nations. Because there is no merit in Judah, the Lord’s work in the people’s behalf will reveal his nature as a God of compassion.
8–9 Thus Jeremiah entreats the Lord not to disappoint his people’s hope in him (“Hope of Israel” is a favorite expression of Jeremiah; cf. 17:7, 13; 50:7). The people ask the Lord why he is as a stranger or traveler with no interest in the country he is only passing through. If he is their Hope and Deliverer in times of distress, why does he not now act as such in their behalf? The Lord is not powerless; so why should he hesitate like one paralyzed by fright? His presence is still among his people in the ark, the temple, and the sacred worship. Furthermore, the people plead the covenant, for they are called by the Lord’s name. So they pray that the Lord will not forsake them.
c. The Lord’s answer in judgment (14:10–12)
10–12 The Lord’s reply explains his chastisements. Because his people have kept on in their wickedness, they were being punished for their ungodliness. Apparently the Lord considered the nation lacking in true penitence. They were constantly wandering after foreign gods; because the people rejected him, he was rejecting them. For the third time Jeremiah is forbidden to pray for the people (cf. 7:16; 11:14). They were beyond help because of their determined disobedience. Intercession was an important prophetic function, but Jeremiah was not permitted to intercede at that fateful time. Worse visitations than the drought would overtake the people—i.e., the sword, famine, and pestilence (the combination of these three appears seven times in the book). Neither fasting nor sacrifices would avail to recover God’s favor, as long as the people were bent on idolatry. External marks of repentance were useless, since the Lord sought above all else reality, truth in the heart.
d. The doom of the false prophets (14:13–16)
13 The false prophets are blamed for the plight of the nation. As a mitigation of the nation’s sin, Jeremiah, the unpopular true prophet, pleads that the false prophets have misled the people. False prophets are self-seeking, profiteering, and zealous for popularity, but with no authoritative word from God. In those desperate times they preached deliverance and peace, lulling the people into unwarranted complacency so that they would not believe in the imminence of judgment. They promised “lasting peace,” the very opposite of Jeremiah’s true message. Imagine the confusion in the minds of the people with the babel of bright promises over against Jeremiah’s thundering message of doom.
14–16 Verse 14 points out the four methods by which the false prophets practiced their deception. The Lord’s retribution on the lying prophets will be their endurance of the very punishment they would not predict. The people should have known that the Lord punishes sin, and they should not have believed the false prophets. The judgment of the nation is spoken of here because the people were willing to be deceived.
e. The grief of Jeremiah (14:17–18)
17–18 Jeremiah shows the hardened nation his grief in seeing their coming ruin. He grieves over both war and famine. He cannot view the people’s distress dispassionately (cf. 9:18; 13:17). He calls Judah “the virgin daughter—my people” because she had been jealously kept from the idolatrous nations, as virgins are guarded in Oriental households. Now the prophet describes the conditions in the land after the fall of Jerusalem. The blame still falls on the false prophets and godless priests, who must be exiled to a foreign land.
f. Prayer of confession and plea for help (14:19–22)
19–22 The nation now pleads its own case with the Lord. The questions are more intense. The people cannot believe that the Lord has irretrievably cast them off. Now they freely admit that all their hopes and prospects have been blasted. They also admit the basis of their woes: their wickedness. They acknowledge the sinfulness of their ancestors. In desperation they plead three reasons for the Lord to help them in spite of their sins: (1) his reputation in the earth, (2) his temple, and (3) his covenant. The throne of God’s glory is Zion, especially the temple (cf. 2Ki 19:15; Ps 99:1). Still haunted by the drought, they declare their belief that neither idols nor the heavens by themselves can give rain. Only God can end their trials, and they expect him to help them out of their difficulties.
5. Impending judgment and Jeremiah’s complaints (15:1–21)
The break between chs. 14 and 15 should be disregarded. The mood in this chapter intensifies as Jeremiah elaborates on the Exile. In fact, he plumbs the depths of despair so deeply as to lead him to say some things the Lord rebukes.
a. Prayer unavailing for Judah (15:1)
1 The Lord refuses to avert judgment from his people; his decision to punish them is irreversible. Therefore the continued intercession of Jeremiah or of any others cannot succeed. The people’s incorrigibility has placed them beyond the power of prayer. Moses and Samuel would have been unable to move the Lord from his decision (cf. Ex 32:11–14, 30–34; Nu 14:13–23; Dt 9:1–20, 25–29; 1Sa 7:5–9; 12:19–25). The Lord commands that the nation be sent from his presence. No longer can he tolerate them, nor does he want Jeremiah to keep reminding him of them. Nevertheless, the command is not absolute and final but conditional.
b. The punishment determined (15:2–9)
2–4 Should the nation ask where the people are going, the answer is that each will proceed to the punishment allotted him or her by the Lord. If they think they are only going to be banished, they are tragically mistaken. Their destination will be death by disease (cf. 14:12), warfare, or famine. It will also be exile. Then, as if these judgments were insufficient, the Lord speaks of “four kinds of destroyers against” the people. The first will destroy the living; the other three will mutilate and consume the dead. For a corpse to be dragged on the ground and then become carrion for bird and beast was the ultimate desecration of the dead (cf. Rev 6:1–8). When the Lord refers to making the people an object of horror to all kingdoms of the earth, he apparently has in view more than the generation of Jeremiah’s time. Manasseh’s sin is presented as a root cause of Judah’s captivity. He had contributed to the moral decline of the nation, but the people had imitated his ways when he brazenly led Judah into idolatry (cf. 2Ki 21:3–7, 10–15; 23:26–27; 24:3–4).
5–7 No one will pity Jerusalem when the Lord forsakes her. She will be left desolate without anyone caring. Because the people repeatedly rejected the Lord and his worship by slipping back into apostasy, he will no longer be merciful to them. As a farmer winnows the wheat to remove the chaff, so the Lord will disperse the people from their cities—“the city gates” standing for the whole country. The population will be decimated. The cause of all this is the refusal of Judah to be truly repentant.
8–9 To the Lord’s grief, Judah’s widows will be more numerous than the sand of the seas, an amazing comparison. Even the mothers of warriors will not escape the destroyer, because Judah will be defenseless through the loss of her valiant sons in battle. Likely the reference to “mothers” is figurative of Jerusalem. The enemy will strike at noonday—suddenly and unexpectedly. To have seven sons is a Hebrew picture of complete happiness, but the mother has had her happiness pass all too soon. Because of the blessing of abundant offspring, she might have considered herself secure. But she is seen breathing out her soul or gasping for breath. Any survivors of the fall of Jerusalem will suffer the same end as those already slain.
c. Jeremiah’s complaint (15:10–11)
10–11 In his overwhelming despondency the prophet laments his life’s work and lot. Jeremiah’s greatness lay in his sensitive nature that felt acute pain for his people and their doom. The hopelessness of the nation’s situation and his own difficulties of his position weighed on him. He is lapsing here into self-pity. This is one of the saddest cries in the book. It must have been uttered at a time when he was experiencing great opposition, probably during Jehoiakim’s reign. He feels deeply his alienation from the nation he loves. He wishes he had not been born. His tenderness in addressing his mother stands out. He is like one constantly in a lawsuit with his people. Borrowing and lending are proverbial reasons for disagreement and tense relations among people. The populace are cursing him because he attacked their sins so unsparingly. Passages such as this show that the prophets were not supermen but fully human.
The Lord responds to Jeremiah’s complaint and gives him personal assurance. The force of v.11 is that God promises vindication for Jeremiah against his enemies as well as strength for his ministry, the objective of which is only good. In times of distress, even his enemies will ask for his intercession (cf. 21:1–6; 37:3; 42:1–6).
d. The inevitable judgment (15:12–14)
12–14 This passage clearly predicts the Exile. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Unusually hard iron was available from the region of the Black Sea, famous for being harder than all other iron. The sense is that as little as people can break iron, Judah would not be able to sustain an attack from the power in the north, i.e., the Chaldeans. The question of v.12 demands a negative answer. Because Judah would not be able to withstand the northern enemy, her wealth and treasures would be freely carried off by the adversary. God’s wrath against their sin would not be satisfied until all was plundered and taken to Babylon.
e. Jeremiah’s charge against the Lord (15:15–18)
15–16 On the basis of his loyalty to the will of the Lord, Jeremiah pleads for divine help. He wants vengeance to be meted out by the Lord on those who have opposed his prophet. Jeremiah does not want the Lord to be patient with his enemies and withhold vengeance on them until he is gone. Jeremiah wants vindication in this life. In effect Jeremiah is pleading that God will not be so lenient with his persecutors as to give them time to destroy him. In a striking figure he recalls his first reception of God’s message and how he made it his own. It symbolizes the assimilation of God’s revealed truth. Jeremiah was every inch a chosen servant of the Lord. His chief delight was in God’s word.
17–18 Jeremiah describes his solitariness in the midst of his people. Because he sided with God, he was cut off from the joys of those around him. He was filled with God’s indignation against their sin. It greatly pained him to be out of step with his contemporaries. The hand of God was on him; the constraint of God’s truth weighed on his spirit. The rhetorical questions in v.18 imply that for the moment Jeremiah gave way to despair. He was so deeply and continuously wounded that he wanted to know whether God had abandoned him and had proved unreliable. After all, his own family had betrayed him. The “deceptive brook” was a familiar figure. In Palestine many brooks have water only after a downpour. At other times a traveler may be disappointed if he looks for water in them. In his distraught state, Jeremiah charged the Lord with failure to fulfill his promises to strengthen him in his resistance against his enemies.
f. God’s rebuke and encouragement (15:19–21)
19–21 The Lord tells Jeremiah that if he gives up his doubts and reproaches, avoids worthless statements, and holds to worthy ones, he may continue to be his prophet and mouthpiece. Jeremiah himself will have to undergo the refining process so that he can cleave to precious words, not worthless ones. He must lift his people and not let them drag him down to their level. His only hope is to trust more fully in God and be faithful to the message, whatever response it brings; God promises assurance and victory. These verses are practically a recommissioning of Jeremiah, in which God promises to keep him from the power of the violent wicked. There were such men in Judah, who finally assassinated Gedaliah, the governor of Judah, after the fall of Jerusalem. This word of encouragement was sufficient for the prophet’s need; though opposition to his message mounted perilously, he never again complained to the Lord as he did in vv.10, 15–18.
6. Bane and blessing (16:1–21)
Again, the chapter division is illogical. The date for this passage is probably the fourth year of King Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1–2). Jeremiah had complained of his loneliness in ch. 15, but the Lord promises him no relief. Two sections of the passage deal with doom and two with bright promises for the future.
a. The loneliness of Jeremiah (16:1–9)
1–2 Undoubtedly the Lord’s command for Jeremiah not to marry was an emotional shock for him. Celibacy was unusual, not only in Israel, but throughout the Near East. Among the Jews marriage was viewed as a natural state for a man. The desire to perpetuate the family name led to almost universal marriage in Israel. But Jeremiah’s dedication to his prophetic service allowed him no time for family life or for participation in the usual joys and sorrows of his countrymen. His compliance with the Lord’s command not to marry shows his complete submission to the divine will and underscores the woes predicted for the nation. His being denied a wife and children would be a warning that the family life of the nation was to be disrupted. “This place” was Jerusalem and Judah. Jeremiah had already paid a price for his ministry: isolation from his countrymen (15:10), loneliness (15:17), no marriage, and no participation in funerals (v.5) or times of joy (v.8).
3–4 The Lord tells Jeremiah that the sorrows of parents will be increased. Children will die of “deadly diseases”—epidemic diseases. The number of deaths will be so great that there will be no time for mourning or burial.
5–9 Jeremiah must not mourn over the carnage in the land, for private sorrow would be exceeded by the national doom and mourning. Abstinence from mourning would be a sign of universal disease and death on a universal scale. The rituals for the bereaved—even for those who lost a father or mother—would not be permitted. So Jeremiah would have to refrain from mourning because the Lord would no longer prosper his people or bestow his grace on them. Death would overtake nobles as well as common people. There would be no time to perform the pagan practices of mourning the people.
In time of death, fasting was usual. In the evening, however, food and drink were provided by friends, since the food and drink in the home of the mourner had become ceremonially unclean because of the dead body (Hos 9:4). In later Judaism the cup of consolation was a special cup of wine for the chief mourner (cf. Pr 31:6). Moreover, the prophet was also commanded to abstain from the joys of the people. This was to show the imminence of the calamity that awaited them. He could have little joy at marriage festivities when he remembered the threat hanging over them all. Nor were they to think that the doom was far off; it would happen in their lifetime.
b. The cause of the judgment (16:10–13)
10–13 Jeremiah’s withdrawnness would mystify his people, so he would have to explain it. He was prepared to spell out the cause of their miseries and the reason for the Babylonian exile. Aided by the false prophets, the people had become complacent in their sinning. The prophet explains that they would be exiled for their lapses into idolatry, and he indicts the nation—first its ancestors, then the present generation—for forsaking the Lord. In fact, the latter outdid the former in evil. With great force the Lord was going to “throw” them out of their land into an unknown land. While they may have known about the land, it was unknown to them by the actual experience of living. There Jeremiah ironically assures them that they would have the opportunity of indulging their desire for pagan worship day and night. And the Lord would completely withdraw his favor from them.
c. Restoration to the land (16:14–15)
14–15 Judgment is never God’s last word. After exile will be repatriation. The Exodus from Egypt will pale in significance before the people’s deliverance from Babylon and from worldwide dispersion. The future Exodus will be greater than the past one. The regathering mentioned here is the final one in the consummation of Israel’s national history in the last days. The reference to “all the countries” shows that the prophet was predicting a restoration from a general dispersion. The return will be through God’s gracious faithfulness to the covenant he made with the patriarchs regarding the land (Ge 12:1–3, 7).
d. Complete retribution (16:16–18)
16–17 There would be no escape from the coming judgment of the Lord. The hunters and fishermen are the pagan conquerors who were to be God’s instruments for chastising Israel. No one would escape the invaders. To seek to hide from God would be futile. Jeremiah was not speaking of two periods of divine visitation. Rather, he was simply indicating that in the day of reckoning there would be no place to find refuge anywhere. The Lord knows all the nation’s acts; none of the people’s deeds has escaped his notice. But first, before they can be restored, the people must undergo retribution for their iniquity.
18 The “double” penalty cannot be understood outside the context of the Hebrew viewpoint, which used the term to express ample, full, complete punishment (cf. Isa 40:2). So the punishment would be commensurate in full with the offense. Nothing is more defiling than idolatry. As corpses pollute, so do idols. The “lifeless forms” may refer to either the animals offered to idols or the idols themselves (cf. Lev 26:30; Nu 19:11).
e. The nations in blessing (16:19–20)
19–20 Jeremiah next worships the Lord for restoring Israel and drawing the Gentiles to him. He expresses the hope that the nations will finally turn from idolatry and confess the emptiness of such worship. The threefold “m y” expresses the Lord’s sustaining of Jeremiah in his loneliness. So unprecedented will the divine retribution be that even idolatrous nations will respect the name of the Lord. The nations will come to the Lord, not by human persuasion, but spontaneously and voluntarily (cf. Isa 2:1–4; 45:14; Zec 8:20–23). Without doubt the picture is messianic. It is best to take v.20 as a continuation of the declaration of the enlightened nations. Even they will see the folly of idolatry.
f. The goal of the punishment (16:21)
21 Once and for all, the Lord will manifest his hand and might—namely, by the severe trials incurred by disobedience to his word and his will. What is said will apply to both Jews and Gentiles; there is no need to exclude either one (cf. Eze 36:23; 37:14). All will vindicate God’s unique glory. God is who he claims to be.
7. The deceitful heart of humankind (17:1–27)
As a whole, ch. 17 has no central theme but gathers together important aphoristic or proverbial sayings on the issues of life, sin, and the way of the curse and blessing.
a. Israel’s ineradicable sin (17:1–4)
1 When Jeremiah says that Judah’s sin is “engraved” (GK 4180) on the people’s hearts and on their altars with “an iron tool” or “a flint point,” he means that their sin is indelible. Thus God’s judgment is inescapable. Sin, especially idolatry, had become an integral part of Judah’s life. It had been etched on their very natures and on their temple worship (cf. Ex 27:2). Iron tools were used in cutting inscriptions on stone (cf. Job 19:24). The “horns of the altars” were the metal projections from the four corners. In the temple rituals sacrificial blood was sprinkled for expiation on the four horns of the altar (Lev 16:18). What a perversion to have sin ineradicably engraved on “their hearts” where the new covenant belongs (31:31–34) and on the very places where solemn expiation was made for the sins of the people!
2–4 The children in Judah would be so steeped in idolatry by their parents that the desire for it would emerge at the slightest provocation. Asherim were poles placed beside the altars in Canaanite worship; they were proscribed in the Mosaic Law (Dt 16:21). They represented the sacred tree (asheRah), part of the Baal cult and a symbol of the Canaanite goddess Astarte. Thus long continuance in idolatry is implied. For such iniquities the nation would lose all its wealth to its enemies. “Mountain in the land” is an obvious reference to Zion or Jerusalem. It is addressed this way because of its eminent position as the center of the country. Moreover, Jerusalem is called “rocky plateau” in 21:13. In this case “plateau” does not have to denote level land but the surrounding countryside.
Jeremiah further elaborates on the loss of the nation’s inheritance. The people have outraged the Lord’s patience; so “through [their] own fault” they would be separated from their land.
b. The way of cursing and blessing (17:5–8)
5–8 The main concept of the broader context (vv.5–13) appears to be that of permanence. Verses 5–8 emphasize the need of reliance on God alone in all life’s circumstances. Those who trust in human beings are referred to in vv.5–6; those who rely on God in vv.7–8. The results of choices are clearly spelled out: a curse on the former, a blessing on the latter. Where people depend on humankind, spiritual life cannot thrive; such persons are like the dwarf juniper of the desert, whose leaves are not refreshed by rain; so it is both stunted and starved. On the contrary, those who trust in the Lord are blessed indeed. They need fear no circumstance in life. Again, the figure of a tree is used. The blessed are firmly “planted” where there is abundance of water. Growth and fruitfulness, therefore, are assured.
c. Humanity’s desperate heart condition (17:9–13)
9 If there is such blessing in trusting God, then why do people so generally depend on their fellow humans? The answer lies in the innate depravity of the human heart. The source of all human difficulty is the human “heart” (GK 4213; cf. Pr 4:23), which stands for the total inner being, including reason. From the heart come action and will. The human heart is more deceptive than anything else. It is desperately corrupt and, humanly speaking, incurable. Who on earth can plumb the depths of the heart’s corruption and sickness? Even its owner does not know it.
10–11 The Lord knows the whole truth about the heart, and he will deal with all of us justly, according to our deeds. The noun translated “partridge” (GK 7926) may mean some type of sand grouse rather than a “partridge,” because the partridge does not hatch the eggs of other birds. At any rate, the meaning of the passage is clear: ill-gotten gain is, like a bird with young from eggs that she has not laid, soon lost (cf. Pr 23:5). The brood forsake their foster mother. Those who weary themselves to accumulate wealth unjustly are moral and spiritual fools.
12–13 In these verses Jeremiah extols the majesty of God. True permanence is found only in the Lord. His sanctuary and throne refer to Jerusalem. Unlike riches soon lost is the eternal throne of God. That throne demands both reward and punishment. It is the fixed center of the universe and an endless source of comfort to the believer. In God’s purpose it has been so from time immemorial. Those who forsake the Lord will suffer shame, for a life “written in the dust” instead of in the Book of Life (cf. Ex 32:32; Lk 10:20; Rev 20:12; 21:27) results from having forsaken “the spring of living water” (cf. 2:13). Those who do so are as unenduring as names written on the dust.
d. Jeremiah’s plea for vindication (17:14–18)
14–15 From time to time the unwelcome nature of Jeremiah’s prophecies drove him to plead for divine help. The Lord was his only hope and cure (cf. v.9). So Jeremiah prayed on the basis of his Lord’s known faithfulness. Only the Lord can heal and save. The prophet’s desire for healing and salvation undoubtedly included moral and spiritual ills as well as deliverance from his enemies. Jeremiah’s coreligionists taunted him and scoffed at him daily because his predictions were not fulfilled. They criticized him for being a false prophet (Dt 18:22). This was doubly difficult for him to bear because he had prayed the Lord to refrain from meting out his judgment on Judah. Scoffing, the mockers declared, “Let it [the word of the LORD] now be fulfilled.” This passage indicates that the fall of Jerusalem had not yet occurred; if Jeremiah’s prophecies had already been fulfilled, the people would not have asked their derisive question. God’s continued long-suffering led the prophet’s enemies to demand a visible confirmation of the word he preached.
16 So Jeremiah sets forth a threefold vindication of his ministry: (1) He has not refused to follow God’s will; (2) he has not hoped for their doom; and (3) all his utterances were finally known to God. Moreover, he had not tried to relinquish his ministry because of the suffering it involved. The word “shepherd” (GK 8286) usually refers to a king, but here it refers to Jeremiah as a leader of the people. His enemies accused him of wanting disaster to overtake the nation. But he never wanted his threatenings in proclaiming the Lord’s message to be fulfilled. He took no delight in predicting doom (cf. ch. 40). “The day of despair” is the day of the fall of the city, when the predicted woes would come on it. Furthermore, the Lord knew everything Jeremiah preached, including his prayers that the doom might be averted.
17–18 The “terror” Jeremiah feared was that the Lord might confound him and desert him before his enemies. He wanted the Lord’s protection and prayed that his loyalty to him might not be the cause of his ruin. If the Lord would not encourage him, then he would be doubly bereft of comfort. For the vindication of God’s truth, he needed to be proved right. It was this that pervaded his prayers for vengeance. There is no contradiction between v.18 and v.16 because the people in view are not the same. By “double destruction” is meant full, complete destruction (cf. comment on 16:18).
e. Sabbath observance (17:19–27)
19–23 Prophecies of doom were always ethically conditioned. The way of blessing was still open for Judah. The Sabbath was a vital part of the Decalogue and was the touchstone of Israel’s contractual, covenant relationship with God. Because Jeremiah was against insincere worship, we have no against insincere worship, we have no ground for thinking he would oppose sincere religious practices.
The “gate” where the Lord commanded Jeremiah to deliver his message was one where a number of the people could be found, no doubt one of Jerusalem’s gates. It was distinct from the gate of the priests and Levites. Obviously it was one of the temple gates. In v.19 “the kings” are successive kings of Judah; those in v.20 appear to be the king and his princes, i.e., his royal house.
This passage makes sense only if we understand that the people habitually violated the Sabbath. They used it to conclude the work of the week and to prepare for the coming week’s work. Contrary to the word of Moses, the Sabbath had been chosen by the people to bring their produce in from the country, since they worked the fields during the week. This must not continue. The people carried burdens out of their homes in exchange for the produce brought into the city. The people’s response to Jeremiah’s preaching was highly negative.
24–27 Now the blessings on obedience follow. In summary, the Sabbath recognizes God as Creator, which is a witness against idolatry, and it marks the special covenant relationship between God and Israel. If obedience is forthcoming, the blessings are distinctive: (1) the continuance of the Davidic dynasty, (2) the settling and continuance of Jerusalem, and (3) the temple as once again the center of worship for the nation. Thus Judah is assured the promise of peace, prosperity, and permanence through her native dynasty and the authorized priesthood.
The several regions of Judah mentioned were still possessed by Judah and Benjamin. The land of Benjamin was north of Judah. The lowland or Shephelah (“western foothills”) was the low hills stretching toward the Philistine maritime plain, west and southwest of Judah, and was the center of agriculture. The “hill country” was the central region, with the desert of Judah stretching down to the Dead Sea. The “Negev” was the arid South (cf. Jos 15:21–32). The offerings the people were to bring are divided into blood offerings (two) and bloodless offerings (two). The “incense” mentioned here was one of the ingredients added to the offerings. The list concludes with the “thank offerings,” which were the principal class of the fellowship offerings (cf. Lev 7:11).
The passage concludes with the price of disobedience, though God’s yearning heart would yet keep his people from destruction. Fire is a symbol of destruction throughout the Bible (cf. Am l:3–2:5).
8. The parable of the potter (18:1–23)
The potter’s house is the most familiar of Jeremiah’s figures and is found elsewhere in Scripture (cf. Job 10:9; 33:6; Ps 2:9; Isa 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Ro 9:20–21; Rev 2:27). In this passage we have a true but mysterious blending of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The Lord used the potter to illustrate how he deals with humanity.
a. The message of the potter (18:1–12)
1–4 God is not to be seen here as an arbitrary sovereign; the deeper level of meaning speaks of his grace that underlay the coming disaster on Judah. The command came to Jeremiah to go down to the pottery, where it was the Lord’s intention to give him a message for the people. So he went there from the temple that was in the upper part of the city. The potter’s house was probably on the slopes of the Valley of Hinnom (south of Jerusalem), where water and clay were found. Here the prophet was to be taught the principles of the divine government. At the pottery Jeremiah saw what was already familiar to him. The potter was making a vessel on the wheels, the upper and lower discs made of stone or wood. The lower one was worked by the foot of the potter and was attached by an axle to the upper one, on which the clay was worked. The discs were in a horizontal position.
As happened frequently in the daily life of a potter, the clay did not turn out right. Often in throwing the clay, some defect would become evident. The potter then rolled the clay into a lump to begin his task again to make a more suitable product. The chief point here is the power the potter had over the clay. The clay was in his hand and under his control. The defects were in the clay, not the hand of the potter. The potter’s perseverance is to be noted.
5–10 Now Jeremiah is taught the meaning of the figure. The infinite power of the Lord is compared with that of the potter over his clay. Just as the potter remade the clay to conform to his purpose, so the Lord’s will and power continue to mold the nation until it is conformed to his plan. The Lord will never be defeated even if Judah turns from his way for them. There is a conditional element in his dealings with his people. Repentance can always change the Lord’s decree of judgment, for his threatenings are never unconditional. But the parallel between humanity and the clay must not be carried too far. Human “clay” is not passive. Upon a person’s repentance God can rework him or her into a vessel of honor. The position is not one of absolute fatalism (blotting out human freedom), nor is it one where God’s sovereignty is wholly dependent on a person’s choice. Ultimately, no human being is completely free. But God in his mysterious working in human life has ordered it so that humanity may freely choose.
God does not exercise his omnipotence arbitrarily or capriciously but conditions everything ethically. Though the parable is meant principally for Judah, God deals similarly with all nations. All people are given the opportunity to repent and conform to God’s purpose. When the Scriptures speak of his “relenting” (GK 5714) or repenting, we must understand this in the light of Nu 23:19. When used of God, repentance never means what it does for a human being, for God has never done anything wrong. But he does act differently toward men and women when they turn from disobeying him to obeying him (26:3). With God repentance is not a change of mind but his consistent response according to his changeless nature to the change in the nation’s conduct. So in this parable the prophet is holding out the opportunity for Judah to repent.
11–12 Jeremiah now applies the parable of the potter to his nation. Responsibility clearly rests on them. When the Lord says he is “preparing” (GK 3670) calamity for Judah, the Hebrew verb is the same as the word for potter; so there is a play on words. The threatened calamity is the Exile. What was the nation’s reaction? The people claim it was hopeless to try to dissuade them from their ways. Having gone too far to turn back, they condemned themselves. Their obduracy showed how deep-seated their love of idolatry was. What a disheartening response for Jeremiah to receive after all his pleading!
b. The fickleness of Judah (18:13–17)
13 Even the nations around Judah would have to attest to the revolting nature of her acts. Her willfulness in forsaking the Lord was without parallel in the ancient world. The horror is heightened by calling her a virgin. She had been hedged about by the Lord to preserve her sanctity.
14 The snow from Lebanon and cold running water are dependable, but Judah has proved herself fickle in the extreme. Her conduct has been wholly unnatural. Lebanon (lit., “white mountain”) has permanent snow cover and so regularly provides moisture. Nature does not change its course, but Judah has. Nature’s reliability puts to shame Judah’s instability.
15–17 The appalling sin the people committed was idolatry in spite of a clearly defined path for their blessing. They forgot their Lord; they were misled by their false prophets, false priests, and false gods. The nation had lost its way. The “ancient paths” were those of blessing through obeying the Lord (cf. 6:16). The contrast is between a rough track in the country and an elevated causeway. The result of the nation’s apostasy will be the desolation of her land. This condition will be so shocking that the land will be “an object of lasting scorn.” People will shake their heads at the nation’s uncommon stupidity. The Lord himself will scatter the people as the east wind, the sirocco from the desert east-southeast of Palestine. When the Lord says he will show them his back and not his face, he means that his face will be hidden from them. But this is the very treatment Judah has given him (cf. 2:27). God’s “face” indicates his favor (Nu 6:24–26).
c. The plot against Jeremiah (18:18–23)
18–19 Unable to tolerate Jeremiah’s drastic preaching, the leaders of Judah decided to hound him to death. Their opposition is spelled out: (1) slandering him and turning a deaf ear to his words (v.18), (2) digging a pit for his soul (vv.20, 22), (3) setting snares for his feet (v.22), and (4) planning to slay him (v.23). The very three groups he condemned were in the forefront of the plot against him. They boasted that because they had priests to instruct them in the law, wise elders to counsel them in the affairs of daily living, and (false) prophets to give them the word (supposedly from God), they had no need for Jeremiah. They could not conceive of a time when such ungodly leaders would be unable to fulfill their functions. So their aim now was to silence Jeremiah after they had rejected his message. They were certain that his words would not be fulfilled.
By a charge of treason, the leaders of Judah hoped to effect Jeremiah’s downfall. His messages against Judah’s policies provided ample basis for accusing him of treason. So he pleaded with the Lord to pay attention to him and to hear his enemies’ plots. In so doing, he was using the same words as his foes but now in the affirmative sense. He wanted his prayers answered.
20–23 These verses give Jeremiah’s reaction to his enemies’ conspiracies against him. His imprecations are best understood in the light of the following: (1) Jeremiah’s enemies were not merely personal ones but enemies of God and his truth, and his was not a vindictive cry for personal revenge; (2) life after death and retribution in the afterlife were not clearly revealed in OT times; and (3) Jeremiah delivers the people judicially to the course they have chosen for themselves. What hurt the prophet most was the manner in which his countrymen repaid good with evil. He had only sought their good and had even interceded for them when the Lord forbade him to do so (cf. 14:7–9, 21). Their response is described by the metaphor of digging a pit to trap wild beasts.
Jeremiah’s words are admittedly strong, but that is because the leaders of the people had incited them against him, the Lord’s prophet. Invaders will do their deadly work, in the wake of which other forms of death will come. Not only will calamity strike people outside the city, but even their own houses will provide them no security. Here is the outcry of the prophet’s wounded heart. He realized the depth of the resentment and hatred toward him. Their plans had been concealed, but the Lord knew every secret plot against him.
9. The destruction of Jerusalem (19:1–15)
In ch. 19 we have another of Jeremiah’s symbolic acts (cf. 13:1–11). He delivers his message in two places: in the Valley of Hinnom and in the court of the Lord’s house; and its theme is the destruction of Judah in that generation.
a. The clay Jar at Hinnom (19:1–5a)
1 The Lord commanded Jeremiah to buy a clay jar, one used as a receptacle for water. Because of the jar’s narrow neck, it could never be repaired. Jeremiah was to take with him the elders of the people and of the priests to lend solemnity to the occasion. They were probably chosen to go with Jeremiah because they had lived under Josiah’s reformation. The prophet was about to act out the final stage of Judah’s spiritual hardness. A time inevitably comes when constant opposition to God will result in the people’s overthrow. Whereas ch. 18 taught the sovereignty and patience of God, this passage treats the irreversible judgment about to fall on Judah.
2 The prophet was told to go to the Valley of Hinnom by way of the Potsherd Gate. Because of its proximity to the potter’s house (18:1) and the dumping of potters’ waste outside it, one gate of Jerusalem became known as the Potsherd Gate. It led to the Valley of Hinnom, which was connected with child sacrifice. Josiah had made the valley a garbage dump for Jerusalem, whose fires constantly smoldered (see comment on 7:30–32).
3–5a Jeremiah’s denunciatory words are addressed to the kings and the people. He uses the plural “kings” because the message is not only to the reigning king but to the whole dynasty that was responsible for the apostasy. The place of the calamity is Jerusalem; the disaster will be such that all who hear of it will be stunned. The sins that will bring on the Lord’s judgment are then enumerated. By forsaking the Lord and cleaving to idolatry, the people “made this a place of foreign gods.” They were making it an alien place by “denationalizing” it so that it appeared no longer Israelite. They had brought many innovations into their idolatry. Moreover, this kind of worship desensitized their moral nature, for they shed the blood of innocent people. One of the most debased forms of idolatry involved child sacrifice. It was practiced in the worship of Baal and Molech (cf. 32:35).
b. The imminent calamity (19:5b–9)
5b–7a By a strong anthropopathism, the Lord indicates that the enormities the nation committed in sacrificing children had never been enjoined on them or spoken of and had never even entered into his mind. It was totally alien to and opposed to his will. For these terrible violations of his law, the Lord would bring down such drastic destruction that the place called “Topheth,” or the “Valley of Ben [the Son of] Hinnom,” would have its name changed to the “Valley of Slaughter.” Because the valley had water, an invading force would besiege it first; and its defenders would suffer casualties in trying to hold it. The Lord would make their plans fall to the earth. He would empty them of wisdom that could shield them and their country from the enemy.
7b–9 The tragic prospect facing the nation included death for the people at the hands of their enemies and consumption of their carcasses by birds and beasts. After the horrors and carnage of war had been perpetrated on the nation, passersby would “scoff” in scorn at the havoc. The word rendered “wounds” is used elsewhere of pestilences and literally means “blows,” thus referring to the people’s calamities. The calamity will be so great that the people will be reduced to cannibalism; their distress will overcome natural affection. This prediction was literally fulfilled in 586 B.C., in the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar, and again in A.D. 70, when Titus destroyed Jerusalem (cf. Lev 26:29; Dt 28:53–57; 2Ki 6:28–29; La 2:20; 4:10).
c. The destruction of Judah (19:10–13)
10–13 After this message of doom, Jeremiah was commanded to break the jar in the sight of the elders who accompanied him. In the Near East, it is still the practice to break a jar near a person who has done wrong to one and voice the hope that he will be similarly broken. Such an action is intended to bring about the downfall of one’s enemies. So Jeremiah was vividly portraying the fate of the nation. The gravity of this act lay in that it not only illustrated the Lord’s acts but actually inaugurated them. This was more than dramatization; it was seen as activating the Lord’s word of destruction. This explains Pashhur’s violent reaction and persecution in 20:1–6. The thrust of Jeremiah’s acted oracle was to show the irrevocability of the nation’s ruin. They knew of no way to mend a broken jar, which could only be thrown away. So Judah would be rejected because she failed to repent.
In Judah’s downfall, the dead would be so numerous that even unclean Topheth would have to be used for their burial. Topheth was a place of uncleanness (cf. 7:31), made such by the detestable idolatry practiced there. So the homes in Jerusalem would be defiled by corpses just as their idolatries had made Topheth even more a place of defilement. Even the roofs of their houses had become places of religious corruption. On their roofs the people worshiped the starry host of heaven, a form of idolatry brought from Mesopotamia, where it had flourished.
d. The message summarized (19:14–15)
14–15 In the court of the temple area, to which the prophet had returned from Hinnom, Jeremiah repeated his message of doom. Its summary gave the meaning of the act he had just carried out. The crisis is pictured as rapidly approaching. The reference to “the villages around it” is probably to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. The cause of the nation’s calamity was the people’s stubborn refusal to listen to the Lord’s warnings. “Stiff-necked” is a figure taken from unruly oxen who resist the yoke (cf. Ac 7:51).
10. The lament of Jeremiah (20:1–18)
The prophet’s symbolic actions in the Valley of Hinnom and his words in the temple court could not have gone unnoticed. This section carries the narrative forward and shows the consequence of what Jeremiah did and said.
a. Pashhur’s persecution of Jeremiah (20:1–6)
1 Among the listeners to Jeremiah’s words in the temple court was Pashhur, son of Immer, the deputy or executive priest entrusted with the responsibility for maintaining order through the temple police under his charge (he was not the Pashhur referred to in 21:1 and 38:1; cf. 1Ch 9:12). The mention in 29:25–26 of another person in the same position suggests that Pashhur was taken captive to Babylon in 597 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:15). The date of the prophecy of ch. 19 might have been the occasion of the Babylonian victory over Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.). That prophecy may have been the reason Jeremiah was denied access to the temple (cf. 36:1–3). Immer was the sixteenth priestly family that returned to Jerusalem after the Exile (1Ch 24:14). Jeremiah was a threat to the authority of the overseer priest, especially since this priest added prophecy to his duties.
2 Angered beyond control, Pashhur “struck” Jeremiah (“had Jeremiah beaten”) with his open hand. This is the first recorded instance of violence done to Jeremiah. Notice that “the prophet” stands in apposition to “Jeremiah,” as if to indicate the sacrilege of Pashhur’s act. For him Jeremiah’s words were intolerable. His ministry was becoming a political threat to those who were supposedly concerned for the nation’s security. The “stocks,” where the prophet was confined, were intended both for restraint and torture. They held the feet, hands, and neck so that the body was almost doubled up. Jeremiah was put in the stocks at the Upper Benjamin Gate, one of the city’s most conspicuous places.
3 The next morning Pashhur released Jeremiah only to find that he had not changed his message; instead he heard words of judgment for the indignity done Jeremiah. While “Pashhur” probably means “ease” or “tranquillity,” Jeremiah now gave Pashhur a new name—“Magor-Missabib,” meaning “terror on every side.” From that time he would be “Mr. Terror All-around.” The new name symbolized the terror Pashhur would be to himself and to those about him as a consequence of what the Babylonians would instill in the people of Judah.
4 Jeremiah here interprets the new name. For his opposition to the word of God through his prophet, Pashhur would be exiled to Babylon and die there. This was God’s punishment for the calamity he had helped bring on the land by opposing the truth of God. This is the first time in the book that the king of Babylon is specifically mentioned as the conqueror of Judah. That is why some date this prophecy after the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.), where Nebuchadnezzar was victorious. When the Exile happened, it would be evident how Pashhur, in misleading the people, was responsible for the disaster. Pashhur’s policy would bring judgment on him and on all he had persuaded to follow it.
5–6 Furthermore, Babylonians would plunder the land of its wealth and all its products. Both Pashhur and his family would suffer in the fall of Jerusalem and would die in exile. Apparently Pashhur had not only given the false prophets license to lie but, though a priest, had falsely assumed the prophetic office. For this he was worthy of death. He was probably exiled in 597 B.C. (the captivity of Jehoiachin) because later (29:25–26) Zephaniah had taken over Pashhur’s position.
b. Jeremiah’s inescapable call (20:7–10)
The remaining verses of this chapter are the last of Jeremiah’s so-called confessions and are possibly his saddest and most bitter complaints. At the same time, the passage is one of his most significant self-disclosures. It reveals not only much about the prophet but also about the whole range of canonical prophecy. Nowhere else in Scripture is a prophet’s sense of divine compulsion to his mission so clearly expressed. Jeremiah never doubted the reality of his call and never lost his identity under God.
7 The verb “deceived” (GK 7331) is bold an offensive to religious sensibilities. To be sure, Jeremiah is not accusing God of lying or misrepresentation; but what he calls seduction is the divine compulsion on his spirit. He is claiming that the Lord overpersuaded him to be a prophet. He pleads that, though the Lord overcame his resistance to his call (1:4–10) and he believed the Lord’s promises, he has now been abandoned to shame. But the Lord had clearly informed Jeremiah of the difficulties he would face (1:18). Understandably, he could not have conceived of the magnitude and viciousness of the opposition, but the Lord had not lied to him. He complains that God had seized and “overpowered” him. This statement shows that God’s prophets did not speak by their own will. Jeremiah’s message was so unpopular that he was continually being mocked and laughed at—a mockery so blatant because Jeremiah’s prophecies were so long in being fulfilled. As the doom of the nation approached, he felt the Lord had overpersuaded him in calling him to the prophetic office when he did not realize all it involved.
8–9 In summary form Jeremiah sets forth the gist of his messages: “violence and destruction.” Jeremiah’s prophecies were about coming disaster. The burden became so heavy that he finally decided he would no longer serve as a prophet. But he found out the impossibility of denying his call. He learned that it was irreversible and that God’s word was irrepressible. Though he aroused opposition from his enemies, he could find no other satisfaction than in preaching God’s truth. For Jeremiah the word of God was a reality, not the product of his thinking. It demanded expression in spite of opposition and derision. So great was this compelling force of the revelation that he never doubted its reality.
10 Jeremiah amplifies the reason he was s determined to resign his prophetic office. He includes some of the sayings he has overheard his enemies using. They mimicked him with the phrase “Terror on every side!” Because he had used it so many times, they made it into a nickname. Their plots were intolerable to his sensitive soul. They plotted to report him for treason by beguiling him into unguarded words that could be construed as treasonable. Even his trusted friends waited for him to make a misstep. During the fourth year of Jehoiakim the die was cast. All Jeremiah could do from this time forward was to seek to alleviate something of the judgment that was certain to come on the nation.
c. Prayer for God’s vindication (20:11–13)
11–13 This is Jeremiah’s prayer and hymn of praise for the Lord’s protection and vindication. This was the hope that encouraged him. A new calm enabled him to withstand all criticism and physical sufferings. His ultimate confidence was the Lord’s presence as a warrior striking his foes with dread. Their defeat—never to be forgotten—was as certain as if it had already happened. The Lord, who tests his own and knows all their innermost thoughts, was Jeremiah’s champion. Praise bursts forth from his grateful heart as the prophet contemplates the prospect of his ultimate vindication. His circumstances had not changed, but now he could sing for joy.
d. Jeremiah’s curse on the day of his birth (20:14–18)
14 This passage is enveloped in gloom and despair, but sudden transitions are frequent in Jeremiah. The transition and contrast are psychologically understandable in view of the constant pressures on Jeremiah. Feeling an utter failure after being in the stocks, he wished he had never been born. The passage is emotionally authentic because he was being prepared for the greatest blow of all—the destruction of the beloved city of Jerusalem. The experience of Jeremiah at this time shows how difficult the task of God’s servants can be and how readily available the grace of God is to sustain them in their darkest hours. Jeremiah’s response is normal for one caught between two inescapable contra-rieties: faithfulness to the message of God and love for one’s sinful countrymen.
15–17 Jeremiah’s wish that he never had been born is reminiscent of Elijah’s cry when pursued by Jezebel after his victory at Mount Carmel (1Ki 19:1–3). But Jeremiah held no real animosity against the man who brought news of his birth; his cry is strictly rhetorical. In the East, the messenger who brings news of a son’s birth is usually rewarded. The prophet did not curse his parents, for the law of Moses condemned this (Ex 21:17). The “towns” overthrown by the Lord are Sodom and Gomorrah. The outcry in the morning represents a call for help when under attack—either a shout of alarm or a trumpet blast. Jeremiah goes on to wish his mother’s womb had been at once his birthplace and his grave.
18 As the last of Jeremiah’s “confessions,” this verse portrays the burden he had to bear without interruption. In his outward ministry he never wavered, but his ministry required him to spend himself totally. The “shame” he refers to is that of his inability to avert the catastrophe threatening his people. It is clear that Jeremiah had no revelation of life after death or of the resurrection of the dead. Later, the truth of his predictions was all too evident; so the ridicule against him ceased.
II. Prophecies From the Reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (21:1–39:18)
A. The Trials and Conflicts of Jeremiah (21:1–29:32)
1. Zedekiah’s dilemma (21:1–14)
Chapter 21 moves on to the reign of Zedekiah (597–586 B.C.) and begins a new division of the book. Chapters 21–45 abound in references to time, place, and persons. In particular, chs. 21–23 contain a series of messages Jeremiah delivered during the reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Likely ch. 21 should be dated 588 B.C., when the Babylonians were advancing against Jerusalem but not yet besieging it at close range. This was the ninth year of Zedekiah’s eleven-year rule. The siege lasted one and a half years (cf. 52:1, 4–7).
Chronologically, this chapter should come between chs. 37 and 38. Zedekiah was a vassal king elevated by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2Ki 24:17). The uncle of Jehoiachin, Zedekiah respected Jeremiah but did not have the moral courage to do what he knew was right. He was weak and vacillating, and his reign was made all the more difficult because the Jews still considered Jehoiachin (taken captive in 597 B.C.) as their true king and looked for his early return from exile. The personal interplay between Jeremiah and Zedekiah in the years before the fall of Jerusalem is one of the most remarkable features in the book (cf. 37:3–10; 38:14–18). In the unfolding of God’s plan, chs. 21–29 are of vital importance because they foretell “the times of the Gentiles” (Lk 21:24).
a. The embassy from Zedekiah (21:1–7)
1–2 At the approach of the siege of Jerusalem after the Battle of Carchemish between Egypt and Babylon, Zedekiah sent a deputation to Jeremiah. Depending on Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt, Zedekiah had foolishly rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Now he was terrified at the desperate situation that his breach of fealty to Nebuchadnezzar had brought on him, and he wanted both Jeremiah’s intercession and the Lord’s intervention. Zedekiah had more respect for the prophet than Jehoiakim ever had. The members of the deputation were high officials. Pashhur is not the Pashhur referred to at 20:1 but the important official of that name in 38:1. Zephaniah succeeded Jehoiada the priest (29:25–26; 37:3; 52:24) and was second in rank to the high priest. He was slain by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah; he and Pashhur opposed Jeremiah’s views of the political prospects of the nation. Verses 1–2 are a fulfillment of 15:11.
The embassy hoped that Jeremiah would pray for the Lord’s intervention by lifting the siege of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah wanted an oracle that would reveal the future, showing, perhaps, that the invader and his army would withdraw from the city and the land. He was evidently thinking of the times of Hezekiah (2Ki 18–19), Jehoshaphat (2Ch 20), and the judges. Zedekiah fully expected deliverance from God, though he uttered no syllable of repentance or desire to do God’s will.
3–4 In answer to Zedekiah’s request, Jeremiah did not equivocate. Instead of the one oracle Zedekiah desired, God gave him three: one to King Zedekiah (vv.3–7), one to the people (vv.8–10), and one to the royal Davidic house (vv.11–14). For the nation there was no word of hope. The people could expect no help from God in averting the fall of Jerusalem; in fact, the Lord himself would also fight against them. The Babylonians were to conquer them as the instruments of God’s judgment; since this is what the invading Babylonians were, it would be impossible to turn them back. All Judah’s resistance and all their stratagems would prove useless. The reference to turning the weapons of war against them means that their defense of Jerusalem would fail.
The Babylonians (Chaldeans; see NIV note) were originally a seminomadic tribe living between northern Arabia and the Persian Gulf. In the tenth century B.C., the Assyrians gave the name Kaldu to the area. Later, “Chaldea” was used to include Babylonia as a whole (cf. Eze 23:23; Da 3:8). When the text indicates that the Babylonians were “besieging” them, the meaning is “closing in on you” or “blockading you,” because the actual siege had not yet begun. But the defenders would be driven inside the city when they could no longer fight outside it.
5 To compound Judah–s misery, the Lord himself was to fight against her; thus it was too late for the request for Jeremiah’s intercession. The metaphor of the outstretched hand and mighty arm had been used many times of God’s miraculous intervention on Israel’s behalf in Egypt. But now it is used to express God’s opposition to his people. Their doom was inevitable and their defeat total. Jerusalem would be crowded with refugees who, with their cattle, would have fled from the surrounding areas.
6–7 During a siege, an epidemic is always a threat. A fearful plague would weaken the people. Then the Lord would deliver Zedekiah into the invaders’ hands. Slaughter awaited Judah. The prediction about Zedekiah and his court was literally fulfilled in 586 B.C. (cf. 52:9–11, 24–27). The idiom “put them to the sword” means to slay ruthlessly, mercilessly, without quarter. The fate of Zedekiah, his sons, and many Jewish nobles is clear in the OT. Though Zedekiah was not slain, he died of grief in exile as a blinded, deposed monarch.
b. The choice of ways (21:8–10)
8–10 This section is not part of Jeremiah’s answer to the king’s deputation. It is difficult to determine the time of this message. The setting of “the way of life and the way of death” before the people is reminiscent of the words of Moses (cf. Dt 30:19). Here, however, it refers to escape from physical death in the fall of Jerusalem. Jeremiah’s counsel was for the people to submit to Babylon. Total warfare called for unconditional surrender if they were to be spared. To speak of his nation in this way was a difficult duty for Jeremiah, and it was the reason they called him a traitor. But his motive was more than patriotism; it was the declared will of God. In 38:17–18 Jeremiah also advised giving in to the Babylonians. Again he was charged with treachery, a charge that proved false after the capture of the city when he chose to remain in the devastated land (cf. 40:6).
Though Jeremiah was actually counseling desertion (a form of treason), as a prophet of God he spoke with an authority higher than even that of a king. This made him most unpopular with the nation as a whole, which was in a life-and-death struggle with a powerful invader. Yet some people did take his advice (cf. 39:9; 52:15). All that was promised the nation was bare survival. Those who surrendered would have to realize they would lose everything but their lives. As for Jerusalem itself, it was doomed; the Babylonians, tired of repeated rebellions, would burn it.
c. Exhortation to the Davidic dynasty (21:11–14)
11–12 This message, directed to the royal house, relates to a time when there was still a possibility of escape through repentance and righteous living. The monarch and his court officials were to administer justice in the morning promptly and expeditiously. In the narrower sense, the call was to the king and his family; in the wider sense, to the entire court. It was fitting for Jeremiah to address the royal family because administering justice was the prerogative of the king and not of all. To avoid the heat of the day, court was held in the morning. Even at that late hour deliverance on these godly conditions was not impossible. It is possible that the Lord was not urging righteousness as if the people could escape punishment entirely but as the prerequisite for its mitigation.
13–14 Because of past deliverances (the city had been spared from capture for about two centuries), the people were caught up in a wholly unwarranted confidence in Jerusalem’s invincibility. Complacent in their sins, the people asked, “Who can come against us?” The answer was that God would do so in judgment. They could not claim immunity from punishment on any other ground than obedience to God’s will. Figuratively, “forests” was used of the royal palace (1Ki 7:2; 10:21). The prophets had a keen eye for natural beauty, and a forest connoted grandeur and stateliness. Thus this reference to forests has been equated with the entire city of Jerusalem.
2. Messages to the Davidic kings (22:1–30)
Once more Jeremiah gives us a cluster of prophecies (chs. 22–23), linked not by chronology but by similar themes. Both the temporal leaders (the kings) and the spiritual leaders (the prophets, apart from Jeremiah) were responsible for the national calamity. In the light of vv.13–18, this chapter, with its oracles about four kings of Judah, appears to belong to Jehoiakim’s reign.
a. Exhortation to justice (22:1–9)
1–5 The Lord commanded Jeremiah to go down, evidently from Mount Zion, to the palace south of it. The words were directed to the ruling king and his court and are a strong exhortation to practice justice. The Lord demanded that the Davidic throne make justice its primary responsibility. The king was to be addressed publicly in the midst of his court. There was no question that the sins mentioned were present in the reigns of most Judean kings, but in Jehoiakim’s time they were especially rife (cf. 2Ki 23:35). Since God never desires the death of the wicked but wants them to repent and live, the prophet held out blessing for obedience, a blessing that means nothing less than the continued prosperity of the Davidic dynasty, with the people settled securely in the land. On the other hand, the penalty was also specified; namely, desolation of the house of David and of the land. To emphasize the truth and solemnity of the occasion, the Lord swore by himself. There could be no stronger ratification of a declaration from God.
6–9 These four verses give a clear picture of desolation. Gilead and Lebanon in the north are mentioned because they were regions famous for their beautiful forests. Moreover, the cedars of Lebanon were largely used in the construction of Solomon’s palace. The cedar columns were like trees of Gilead and Lebanon in their loftiness and magnificence. Those who destroyed this grandeur would be God’s instruments of judgment. Even the surrounding nations would realize that the fall of Jerusalem and its palace were the work of the Lord. Furthermore, they would also know the cause of the judgment. The covenant they violated would not be the Davidic covenant of 2Sa 7 but the initial covenant at Sinai referred to over and over in the earlier portion of the book. The extensive devastation would be a lesson to the nations on the perils of idolatry.
b. The fate of Shailum (Jehoahaz) (22:10–12)
10–12 Jeremiah tells the nation at large that they need not mourn the death of the godly king Josiah, who had been slain at the Battle of Megiddo in 609 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 23:29–35; 2Ch 35:75; Zec 12:11). It had become customary among God’s people to sing dirges for departed rulers. But now they were to reserve their weeping for Josiah’s son Shallum-Jehoahaz, who was to be forever exiled from the land. The fate of the slain Josiah was better than that of his son who was exiled to Egypt and died there (cf. 2Ki 23:34). Jehoahaz was the first ruler of Judah to die in exile. He took the throne following the tragic death of his father (cf. 1Ch 3:15). This arrangement did not meet the pleasure of Pharaoh Neco, who after three months deposed him and exiled him to Egypt. His older brother Eliakim, whose name Neco changed to Jehoiakim, was chosen by Neco to succeed Jehoahaz. Jehoahaz is contrasted with his father Josiah to highlight the tragic condition of the young king. Mourning would be more in place for him than for his departed father, Josiah.
c. The condemnation of Jehoiakim (22:13–23)
13–14 The prophecy against Jehoiakim is the most scathing of all Jeremiah’s messages against kings. Though a son of the godly Josiah, Jehoiakim was the opposite of his father in temperament, action, and attitude toward God. There was constant conflict between the prophet and the king (609–597 B.C.). Jeremiah does not mince matters in stating the enormity of Jehoiakim’s injustice and oppression. He mixed injustice with luxury. The building mania, common among Oriental monarchs, had seized him. What aggravated the condition of the nation was that, while he was paying heavy tribute to Neco, Jehoiakim decided to build and beautify his palace by forced, unpaid labor (cf. 2Ki 23:34–35), in direct violation of the law of Moses (cf. Lev 19:13; Dt 24:14–15). The appointments of his palace were sumptuous indeed. Jeremiah’s reference to the people as the neighbors of the king shows how God regarded the sovereign-subject relationship in Israel.
15–16 Jehoiakim is contrasted with his father, Josiah. Scathingly, Jeremiah asks Jehoiakim whether building palaces of cedar made him a king. He had mistaken fine buildings as the mark of a true king. A splendid commendation of Josiah, who held to true values, follows. He enjoyed the normal comforts of life but never made ostentation his goal. He knew how to enjoy life without extortion or oppression. He was no ascetic but did not make it his ambition to rival Solomon in building. For Josiah to do justice and righteousness was food and drink. Therefore, he received the blessing and commendation of God. His deeds reflected true kingly piety, namely, to love God so much that he would not allow any of his subjects to be neglected in their hour of need. Fellowship with God is evidenced in social justice.
17 But Jehoiakim had a contrary spirit, and with splendid irony Jeremiah points out what Jehoiakim excelled in. His motivation was covetousness. This led him to practice oppression and extortion in order to pile up dishonest gain. Finally, he did not stop at “shedding innocent blood,” which may mean that Jehoiakim persecuted innocent persons after rendering unjust decisions on them or that he had them slain (see 26:20–23).
18–19 Following this exposure of Jehoiakim’s evil ways, the intrepid prophet tells him of the disgraceful death that awaited him; there would be no mourning for Jehoiakim. The references to brother and sister show by parallelism that his kin would not grieve for him, nor would he be lamented by subjects or friends. He would be buried without any royal funeral ceremonies (cf. 2Ch 35:24–25). But most shocking of all, Jehoiakim would be buried with a donkey’s burial; his body would be left to the beasts and birds (cf. 36:30). He would be thrown outside the gates of Jerusalem, as though to ensure that he would no longer pollute the city in death as he had done in life. He died in 597 B.C.
20 This section probably is to be dated 597 B.C. Jeremiah calls on his contemporaries to mourn the disastrous results brought on the land by the foolish international policy of Jehoiakim. The occasion was probably the eve of Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition against Judah. The regions mentioned—Lebanon, Bashan, and Abarim—represent the land in its entirety, from north to northeast to southeast. The invaders would overrun the whole land. Abarim refers to the regions beyond the Jordan, i.e., the mountains of Moab, east of the Dead Sea (cf. Nu 27:12; Dt 32:49). Likely the “allies” (lit., “lovers,” “paramours”; GK 170) were Egypt and the other nations Jehoiakim relied on for aid against the Babylonians, because of the contrast with the nation’s leaders—“your shepherds.”
21–23 Jeremiah emphasizes the nation’s practice of disobedience. The people all persisted in their willfulness in spite of God’s blessing on them in times of prosperity (“when you felt secure”). The winds of adversity and invasion would carry off their leaders and allies alike. “You who live in Lebanon” refers to the king and his nobles in their cedar palaces. Jerusalem considered herself secure, like the eagles nesting in the cedars of Lebanon (cf. 21:13).
d. The rejection of Coniah (Jehoiachin) (22:24–30)
24–27 Coniah is the abbreviated form of Jeconiah, an alternate form of Jehoiachin. The son and successor of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin was exiled in Babylon in 597 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:8–17; 25:27–30), after a reign of three months. Coniah’s full name (Jeconiah) means “the LORD will establish,” but permanence and stability were not his portion because of his wickedness. His punishment was mitigated after thirty-seven years (52:31–34).
The signet of a king was very valuable because it was used to authenticate official correspondence and documents. Jeremiah declared that even if Jehoiachin was as dear to God as a signet ring on God’s right hand (and he was not), he would be torn off for his misdeeds. Jehoiachin and his mother (Nehushta [2Ki 24:8]) would suffer exile and die in Babylon, despite the promises of the false prophets (cf. 52:31–34). Both were taken to Babylon and never returned.
28–29 As though this fate was not enough, Jeremiah predicts severe judgment into the distant future. The questions show Jehoiachin’s rejection by the Lord. They expected affirmative answers, but Jeremiah’s concern was for the Davidic line rather than for Jehoiachin personally. He is likened to a broken earthenware pot, undesirable and worthless. His descendants are mentioned because children were born to him in captivity. There was apparently a desire to restore Jehoiachin from Babylon to replace Zedekiah (cf. 28:11; 29:1–32). Before he makes a final pronouncement on Jehoiachin, Jeremiah calls three times on the “land” to hear the word of the Lord. The whole nation was to be impressed by the fate of Jehoiachin.
30 The command to “record” (GK 4180) re lates to a register of citizens (cf. Isa 4:3), i.e, a census list. Jehoiachin had seven sons (cf. 1Ch 3:17), but none succeeded him on the throne. Matthew’s genealogy (1:12) includes Jehoiachin but shows only who Jesus’ legal father was, not his natural one. Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin, though governor of Judah in 520 B.C., never ruled as king, nor did any other descendant of his. Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, reigned after him but died before him (cf. 52:10–11). Jehoiachin was thus the last of the Judean kings. In him the royal line became extinct. So ch. 23 goes on to speak of the new King to be raised up by the Lord (cf. 23:5–6).
3. Messiah the King (23:1–40)
This chapter is linked to Jeremiah’s denunciation of the godless kings of Judah. The three already mentioned in ch. 22 are included along with Zedekiah. The date is probably in the time of Zedekiah’s reign, which may also account for the fact that of the five monarchs (including godly Josiah) he is not mentioned by name (cf. Eze 34:1–6).
a. Godless leaders versus David’s Righteous Branch (23:1–8)
1–2 The “shepherds” (GK 8286) on whom Jeremiah pronounced woe were not only kings but all the leaders of Judah—the civil leaders and the spiritual leaders (the prophets and priests). In Zedekiah’s reign the court officials exercised inordinate influence on policy because of his weakness (cf. 38:5). The leaders were guilty of gross dereliction of duty. By oppression and shedding innocent blood, they destroyed the flock; those who were not destroyed were scattered to wander without protection. So the leaders were guilty of the very things the shepherds were charged with preventing. By leading the nation into idolatry, and so into the Babylonian captivity, the leaders had scattered the people. Moreover, contrary to the duty of shepherds to lead and feed the flock, they had driven the flock away. The doom on the people would not leave their leaders unscathed.
3–4 Just as the scattering of the people was literal, so also would the regathering be. The promise of restoration presupposes the Exile. The return from dispersion had already been announced in 3:15–18. Now it is God himself who does the work of the true shepherd, regathering his sheep from all countries. A world-wide dispersion is in view, not just in Assyria and Babylon. What the shepherds did in driving the people away is now attributed to the Lord because he ultimately carried out the penalty brought on them by their own sins and by the sins of their leaders (shepherds). The people would be returned to their own pasture. Moreover, God would replace the faithless shepherds with faithful ones. They would rule in godliness under the ideal King. The fulfillment of this prophecy awaits eschatological times (cf. Mt 19:28). The hour when assured peace will be Israel’s and none will be missing or lost has not yet come.
5 The reference to good shepherds leads on to a prediction of the Messiah, the Davidic King par excellence. Though Jeremiah has few direct references to the messianic King, this is surely such an instance. The formula “days are coming” is a messianic formula; Jeremiah uses it to direct special attention to what is stated. In contrast to the troublous times of Jeremiah’s day, there will be a time of blessing ahead. The promise is centered in David in view of the covenant in 2Sa 7:8–16.
After Jeremiah has denounced the faithless shepherds of the nation and has predicted the coming of good shepherds, he describes as a climax the incomparable rule of the King Messiah, the “Branch” (GK 7542). This designation has much in common semantically with “seed” (Ge 3:15), the Davidic “son” (2Sa 7), and the “servant of the LORD” (Isa 42–53). In each case there is a general reference to a number of individuals; but by a process of strict selection and narrowing down, the seed, the son, and the servant ultimately find highest fulfillment in the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, “the Seed of the Woman,” “the Son of David,” and “the Servant of the LORD.” The Lord was thus superintending the historical process in such a way that his ultimate choice unmistakably was Jesus of Nazareth.
It is clear that the term “Branch” is symbolic of the Messiah because the adjective modifying it is a quality of persons and not plants. The shoot or sprout is a scion of the stock of David. “Branch” has a collective meaning when used horticulturally but not when used symbolically. Furthermore, the collective sense cannot be permitted here because (1) “a King who will reign” cannot refer to a number of kings; (2) “The LORD Our Righteousness” cannot speak of a series of monarchs; and (3) the parallel passages refer to one person (cf. 30:9; Eze 31:23–24; 37:24; for the use of Branch for the Messiah, cf. Isa 4:2; Jer 33:15; Zec 3:8; 6:12). Moreover, he will reign as a true king, not as a puppet like Zedekiah and his immediate predecessors. He will execute justice and righteousness like his ancestor David (cf. 2Sa 8:15). In contrast to the inequities and injustices common to the Davidic kings, the Messiah’s reign will be the opposite.
6 Now Jeremiah dilates on the benefits that will come to Messiah’s people from his reign. First, he will rule over a reunited nation; both Judah and Israel will be restored (cf. Eze 37:19). Second, he will bring salvation to his people. The verb “saved” (GK 3828) denotes spiritual deliverance. Third, peace and security will characterize Messiah’s righteous rule.
Much diversity of opinion surrounds the interpretation of the last half of v.6. Does it refer to the nation as a whole (cf. 33:16)? That it is a symbolic surname (not for actual use but as an ideal inscription or objective characterization) seems apparent. This King who is “The LORD Our Righteousness” will be righteousness in actuality. Some see here the name of the Messiah and that of none other. It would, they believe, be totally out of keeping with the context for Jeremiah to be speaking of a Davidic descendant and then without warning or preparation to turn to a name for Jerusalem. The Jews also understood the name to be that of the Messiah.
7–8 That which is directly and inseparably related to the messianic hope is the national restoration of Israel (cf. 16:14–15). The future restoration of the people will exceed anything in the past. It will surpass the deliverance from Egypt. The Exodus will pale into insignificance in comparison with the future ingathering of the nation from worldwide dispersion. The inauguration of the new Exodus cannot be equated with the return of Israel under Cyrus in the last part of the sixth century B.C. (cf. Isa 11:11–12).
b. Condemnation of the false prophets (23:9–12)
9 The remainder of this chapter gives Jeremiah’s classic denunciation of the false prophets. Because the tension between Jeremiah and the false prophets was greatest during Zedekiah’s reign, this section may well be dated from that reign. The false prophets’ characteristics were that (1) they used God’s name without authorization, (2) they were of low moral character, (3) they spread false hopes and promises among the people, (4) the source of their messages was their own minds or those of other false prophets, and (5) they were never called of God. Other prophets also denounced these misleaders of the people (cf. Isa 28:7–13; Eze 13:1–16; Mic 3:5–12). Jeremiah did not take his condemnation of the false prophets lightly. It cost him tremendous emotional and physical stress. Next to the ungodly kings, they were those most responsible for bringing about the nation’s ruin. He was disturbed and shocked at the enormity of their offenses and was so overcome with the trauma of it that he could only liken himself to a drunken man. Jeremiah showed no vindictiveness against those who tried to nullify his life’s work, only heartbrokenness. When he contrasted their evil ways and words with the holy words of God, it was more than he could contemplate without deep agony of soul.
10 As always, immorality directly leads to godlessness. The influence of the false prophets on the nation was totally evil; the people followed the evil ways of their leaders. The adultery referred to is not just the spiritual unfaithfulness of breaking the covenant with God but the gross immorality of these godless men, whose ways could never lead to repentance. The curse on violation of the laws of God was manifest in a drought. Their use of their power was perverted. Only in doing wrong were they strong.
11–12 Furthermore, the false prophets had accomplices—the priests. Instead of drawing the people to God, the priests were part of the national corruption. Their wickedness reached into the house of God itself; it was either greed like that of Eli’s sons or idolatry as in Manasseh’s day (cf. 1Sa 2:12–17, 22; 2Ki 21:5; 23:12; Eze 8:6, 10, 14, 16). The penalty for such sin would be spiritual blindness. “Slippery paths” symbolizes the punishment of falling into perilous life situations. The imagery of darkness parallels 13:16.
c. False prophecy in Samaria and Jerusalem (23:13–15)
13–15 The prophets of the northern kingdom (Samaria) were devoted to Baal and seduced the people from worshiping God. The prophets of the southern kingdom were worse, having learned nothing from the sinful deeds and tragic consequences of their counterparts in the north. The Samaritan prophets prophesied by a false god, but the Jerusalem prophets were misusing God’s name and committing moral outrages. Polluted by adultery, advocating idolatry, living in immorality, and being indifferent to good and encouraging evil, they hardened the nation against repentance. The Jerusalem prophets had no influence for godliness. In God’s sight all the people of Jerusalem had become as bad as those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the prophets were the instigators. God’s only recourse was to punish the prophets, and this he declares in unequivocal terms. Because they had poisoned the nation’s spiritual springs, the Lord would inflict drastic judgment on them—portrayed by “bitter food” (“wormwood”; i.e., strong smelling and bitter tasting) and “poisoned water.”
d. Characteristics of lying prophecy (23:16–22)
16–17 The false prophets’ messages originated with them and thus lacked any real authority (cf. v.18). When they deceived the people with empty hopes by self-devised messages, they showed that their words had not come from the mouth of the Lord. The heart of false prophecy was that it always held out false hope. Therefore the false prophets led the sinning nation into false security that prevented moral transformation. Because they continually denied any future evil or calamity, they could be called “success prophets.” Their messages of peace and prosperity at any price marked them out as false. True prophets were burdened by necessary messages of doom (cf. 28:8–9).
18 According to Eastern custom, ministers or royal servants remained standing during deliberations. Standing in the council of the Lord pictures a group of friends in close consultation (cf. Ps 25:14). The council concept was an integral part of monotheism and was based on the Lord’s desire to share his truth with his trusted servants. The reason for the false prophets’ corruption was that they had not gone to the fountainhead for their message. Anyone who had had intimate dealings with the Lord could not follow the ways of the lying prophets (cf. v.22).
19–20 The tempest of the divine wrath was soon to burst upon the impenitent wicked. When that judgment finally fell, there would be no mistaking the Lord’s intention. The force of the phrase “in days to come” is that when the judgment finally came, events would show the nation the truth of Jeremiah’s words and warnings.
21–22 Because Jeremiah’s message was relentlessly opposed by the false prophets, he had to express God’s displeasure against them and their deceitful works. He showed clearly that no prophet of God can ever derive his message from observing the times he lives in. Graphically, Jeremiah points out how the words of the lying prophets were wholly unauthorized. Their call was merely from themselves. They never received a divine commission (cf. v.32); yet they ran, with their false messages, eagerly and energetically trying to accomplish their own objectives. No words could more emphatically state the falsity of their lives and ministry. On the other hand, if they had been in the intimate circle where God divulges his plans to his faithful followers, i.e., in his council, they would have uttered God’s truth to his needy people. The result would have been the repentance of the nation and their restoration to godliness. A proof of the true prophet was his desire to win others to the way of godliness in which he himself was walking. The results of his ministry were indicators of the genuineness of his call and message.
e. Lying versus true prophets (23:23–32)
23–24 The questions in this section are meant to point out that the Lord cannot be circumscribed as though the false prophets could escape his notice. God is not a localized deity whom it is easy to avoid; he is inescapable (cf. Ps 139:7–10). God is both immanent and transcendent, omniscient and omnipresent. The false prophets cannot hide from God’s judgment. An omnipresent and omniscient God cannot be deceived and has surely heard the lies of the false prophets.
25–26 This section contains a strong contrast between dreams and the word of God. Jeremiah is not denying that dreams were a legitimate method of divine revelation. But some of the false prophets relied on their dreams as the origin of their inspiration, a channel of revelation easily abused and counterfeited. The deceivers knew just how to trick the gullible, but the omniscient Lord was aware of their lies.
27–29 The impunity of the falsifiers would not last. They were having the same baneful effect on the contemporaries of Jeremiah as Baal worship had had on an earlier generation. When the lying prophets prophesied, the Lord was banished from the hearts of the nation. The truth of God and mere dreams were so different in essence that they had to be kept separate. If a prophet had a dream, he was to relate it as a dream and nothing more. Words of the false prophets have no value; those of the true messengers of God are as wheat, as food for believers. So Jeremiah then presents the qualities of the true word. In contrast to the useless, powerless words of the false prophets, God’s truth is like fire. It is penetrating and purifying, and it consumes evil (cf. 5:14; 20:9). Moreover, God’s word is full of power like a hammer strongly wielded. His message does not lull people in their sins; it crushes the heart to bring it to repentance. The true word convicts and converts; it neither amuses nor entertains.
30–32 Jeremiah describes three classes of false prophets. Three times he declares that the Lord is against the false prophets (each verse begins with a statement of the opposition of God to the godless seers). The first group misappropriate the prophecies of the true prophets, giving them out as their own. To their lies they add plagiarism; their words were not original but stolen from others. A second group are accused of using their tongues as the main weapon in their deceptions. They “wag” them to introduce their lies by the formula of the true prophets: “The LORD declares.” They did this to give their words a ring of authenticity. The last group held national interests paramount. Their word—true or not—must lift national morale. No wonder the prophet refers to their speech as empty talk.
f. The burden of the Lord (23:33–40)
33–34 There is here a play on the word “oracle” (massa; GK 5363). In its main meaning, massa comes from the verb “to lift, lift up”; thus it denotes a “burden” in the physical sense. By usage, however, the word came to mean that which was placed as a burden on the heart of a prophet, having already been such on the heart of God. Thus it referred to a threatening prediction or “oracle.” Jeremiah indicates that the people, the priests, and the prophets had begun to use this important word mockingly and derisively. They would ask Jeremiah, “What is the oracle [burden] now?” The answer to the question in KJV and NASB is stated either as “What burden?” or “What burden!” NIV has “What oracle?” The LXX, Vulgate, and NRSV translate it, “You are the burden!” Not only were the lying prophets the burden, but the Lord immediately indicated that he would unburden himself of them. The word of God is ultimately not the burden on them, but they are a burden to the Lord.
35–37 Moreover, because the false prophets derisively called the word of the Lord a burden, when they themselves were a constant burden to him, the word “oracle” (“burden”) was forbidden them. Since they misused the word, they were no longer to use it in their prophecies. So Jeremiah’s contention was that, since all the prophets of his day were using this phrase in their oracles, such frequent and overdone usage destroyed the force of the words. Their use showed irreverence and impenitence. Interestingly, though the term “oracle” was used by canonical prophets, Jeremiah never used it of his own prophecies because it had become the hallmark of the lying prophets. Punishment would now follow their use of the word. Jeremiah even points out how they should inquire about a message from God. There were clear alternatives to “oracle” (“burden”) they could use. What lying prophets spoke in jest would be found to be heavy indeed. Their mockery of the word would weigh them down and crush them. This was the penalty for misusing that word for their own purposes.
38–40 The last three verses of the chapter deal with the penalty for ignoring the Lord’s admonition. The result of the false prophets’ pointless mockery of God’s oracles against them would be that they would live to fulfill them. False prophecy had assumed such proportions that drastic measures had to be taken to eliminate it. The horrifying prospect of being utterly forgotten of God loomed before the lying prophets.
4. The good and the bad figs (24:1–10)
This chapter belongs to the same period as chs. 22 and 23, namely, in the reign of Zedekiah. Its date is fairly well indicated by the chronological reference in v.1. The time was after Nebuchadnezzar had deported Jeconiah and his skilled laborers to Babylon in 597 B.C. Ezekiel was included in this captivity, which carried off the better element of the nation, those who would be useful to Nebuchadnezzar in his building projects and would not participate in a siege against his invading forces (cf. 2Ki 24:14–16).
a. The vision of the baskets of figs (24:1–3)
1–3 The purpose of the vision was to declare that those who went into exile with Jehoiachin would be better off than those left behind in Jerusalem; those who escaped the deportation would naturally think just the opposite. The emphasis is on the poor caliber of leadership left in Judah in contrast to the able men now in Babylon (cf. 52:28). Fig trees in Palestine produce fruit three times a year. The first-ripe figs are especially juicy and are considered a delicacy; they ripen in June (cf. Isa 28:4; Hos 9:10). The question the Lord asked Jeremiah was meant to focus attention on the vision and its explanation.
b. The explanation of the good figs (24:4–7)
4–7 This passage identifies the good figs and holds out some comprehensive promises of future blessing: (1) constant prosperity from the Lord, (2) restoration to their own land, (3) permanent establishment in that land, and (4) spiritual turning to the Lord in genuine conversion. The passage says that the good figs are the exiles of 597 B.C. Jehoiachin. The word “good” refers to the exiles’ circumstances (they were not taken to Babylon for their piety and goodness). But the Lord promised that he would look with favor on them, which was manifested in their exemption from the horrors of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and in their being cured of idolatry. These exiles prospered in Babylon (cf. 2Ki 25:27–30; Jer 29:4–7), and the influence of men like Daniel must have helped them. Jeremiah’s evaluation of them was the exact opposite of the opinion prevalent among the people of the land. To them, the very fact that they had escaped exile was an evident token of God’s favor to them.
After purification in Babylon, the exiles would return, whereas those left in Jerusalem would be slain at the destruction of the city. What appeared in 597 B.C. to be all disaster, the Lord would overrule for good. Jeremiah was right: the future of the nation lay with its exiled portion. Physical restoration to the land would be followed by spiritual renewal. God foretold their reinstatement into the original covenant (cf. 31:31–34)—an event in the distant future.
c. The meaning of the bad figs (24:8–10)
8 The bad figs represent Zedekiah and his courtiers, and for them a bleak future is prophesied. Those who remained with Zedekiah were yet to be scattered in disgrace. The reference to those living in Egypt could be the Jews who were deported with Jehoahaz to Egypt by Pharaoh Neco (cf. 2Ki 23:31–34). Or perhaps they were emigrants who were opposed to the Babylonian domination of Judah or who fled to Egypt at the first approach of Nebuchadnezzar. Archaeological research reveals that those who remained in Egypt set up a rival temple; the Elephantine Papyri confirm a Jewish colony with a temple in Egypt before 525 B.C.
9–10 The doom awaiting the Jews in Judah and Egypt is detailed. The new exiles would witness the same privations as the previous ones had. The people had failed to repent. Those left behind became more hardened in their wickedness. The broad prediction in v.9 surely looks beyond the imminent Babylonian exile to a worldwide dispersion. The prophecy of v.10 was fulfilled in part in the fall of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar’s day (cf. Dt 28:25, 37) but more so in the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman emperor Titus in A.D. 70 (cf. Mt 23:38).
5. Prophecy of the Babylonian captivity (25:1–38)
In 605 B.C., the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish, thus bringing to an end the domination of Palestine by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt. This decisive battle affected the course of history in western Asia. Through it Jeremiah was enabled by the Lord to see the working out of the divine purposes of judgment on Judah. Not only is ch. 25 important historically, geographically, and prophetically; it is also remarkable for the abundance of its ideas, the variety of its figures, and the diversity of its style in treating the same theme of sin, repentance, and judgment.
a. Israel’s rejection of the prophetic ministry (25:1–7)
1 This prophecy is precisely dated to show it extraordinary significance. The fourth year of Jehoiakim synchronizes with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 36:1; 45:1; 46:2), i.e., 605 B.C. This verse and Da 1:1 are not in conflict. Archaeology has shown that there were two methods of chronological reckoning in the Near East—by accession year and by nonaccession year. Judah used the first method; Babylon, the second.
The first year of Nebuchadnezzar marked his first invasion of Judah with his allies (cf. 2Ki 24:1–2). It also began an important era in redemption history—“the times of the Gentiles” (cf. Lk 21:24)—because his reign began the succession of the four great kingdoms that exercised world dominion (cf. Da 2; 7). The emphasis in vv.1–7 rests on Israel’s continued disobedience. Jeremiah’s purpose was to lead the nation to reconsider her past sinful ways and to alert her to the future. The Lord’s patience with Israel had at last been exhausted.
2–7 That Jeremiah could address “all” in Jerusalem and Judah shows that he was still able to move about freely and speak publicly (cf. 36:1, 5, 26). It must have been sad for him to look back on twenty-three years of faithful ministry for the Lord and then to have to pronounce it a failure as far as Judah was concerned. Nineteen years under Josiah and four under Jehoiakim (Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin ruled only three months each) did not suffice to turn Judah to repentance; she would not hear. It was now about the middle of Jeremiah’s career (cf. 1:2–3), and more difficult days lay ahead. Moreover, in his grace the Lord had sent other godly prophets contemporary with Jeremiah to warn Judah of the impending disaster (Uriah, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk). The heart of the message of all true prophets was the appeal to God, lest the nation jeopardize the blessings of God and the privilege of living in the Promised Land. Above all, the people were repeatedly exhorted to forsake the senseless worship of idols; but their response was always the same—persistent obstinacy.
b. Prediction of the Exile (25:8–11)
8–9 Because of Israel’s determined disobedience, the Lord had his agent of judgment ready to inflict the merited judgment. That agent was Nebuchadnezzar and his followers. The reference to “peoples of the north” is probably to the Babylonians in general. Nebuchadnezzar is designated three times as the Lord’s “servant” (here; 27:6; 43:10), which shows the magnitude of the work committed to him (cf. Isa 44:28; 45:1). As the Lord’s instrument, he was to execute the divine plan for Judah and the nations. He was unconsciously doing God’s will by devoting whole populations to destruction.
10–11 Specifically, Jeremiah points out the domestic effects of invasion. Normal life would be totally disrupted, and the land would be shorn of its inhabitants. All joy and domestic work would go. Sounds of normal human activity would cease. In v.1l, Jeremiah for the first time indicates the duration of the captivity in Babylon—seventy years (cf. 29:10). Most who take the number of years to be precise—namely, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim (the first year of Nebuchadnezzar) to the end of the Babylonian dynasty with the coming of Cyrus (cf. 2Ch 36:21–22; Ezr 1:1–3)—hold that the reckoning must be precise because Daniel (cf. 9:1–2) went to Babylon with the first deportation and knew that he had been there seventy years. Furthermore, the number of years involved in the period of the seventy heptads of years in Da 9:24–27 is based on the years of the Captivity.
Defenders of the precise period of seventy years offer a choice between 605 B.C. (or 606) and 536 B.C., when resettlement took place under Zerubbabel and Joshua; or 586 B.C., the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, and 516 B.C., the year of the completion of Zerubbabel’s temple. The former appears more tenable in view of the period of the three deportations, dating from Jehoiakim’s reign to Jehoiachin’s to Zedekiah’s.
c. Judgment on Babylon (25:12–14)
12–14 The same divine principles that worked against Judah’s sin would also be effective against Babylon. Its rule was terminated by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus (c. 536–535 B.C.). The threat of everlasting desolation probably looks beyond the near future to a far-distant day. Babylon was not to be punished for carrying out God’s will but for her own sins (cf. 50:11–13; Isa 13:19). God used Babylon, not because of her merit, but because of Israel’s sin. Verse 14 indicates that Babylon would receive retribution in kind (cf. 50:29; 51:24). The “many nations” and “great kings” refer to the Medes and Persians with their many allies or tributary kings under Cyrus the Great. They would impose forced labor on the once-invincible Babylonians.
d. The cup of God’s wrath (25:15–29)
15–16 This powerful passage records a message about God’s wrath on Judah and the nations. It is not that the nations would be given a potion to help them endure the force of God’s fury but that the cup symbolizes his wrath. As the agent of God’s fury, Nebuchadnezzar would be victorious over the nations. There is no need to believe that Jeremiah actually took a cup and went to these nations, because stupefying judgments are figured here. The cup is a common figure in Scripture to signify God’s wrath (cf. 49:12; 51:7; Jn 18:11; Rev 14:8, 10; 16:19; 18:6; et al.). With the mention of the sword, fact replaces the figure. The horrors of war would drive the nations mad.
17–18 But how did Jeremiah take the cup and make all the nations drink it? The cup is not a physical cup but the wrath of God, and the drinking is not physical. Jeremiah declared the Lord’s judgment on the nations through Babylon as his instrument. The roster of the nations that would suffer judgment began with Jerusalem and Judah. All the nations named in chs. 46–51 except Damascus are included. The list runs from south to north, from Egypt to Persia. The kings of Judah include Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. The sins of Judah and her kings had been most offensive to God because Judah was so highly privileged. So they are the first to be mentioned. The words “as they are today” may have been inserted by Jeremiah after the fulfillment of the prophecy.
19–22 Egypt is listed after Judah because Pharaoh Neco instigated the alliance against the Babylonians. “All the foreign people” have been understood as being the mercenaries who joined the Egyptian forces, or foreigners in general, or some of the Egyptians of mixed blood. Uz (cf. Job 1:1) was east or northeast of Edom. The Philistine pentapolis, except for Gath, is mentioned next; by this time it had lost its importance (cf. 2Ch 26:6; Am 6:2). Jeremiah speaks of the remnant of Ashdod because that city was destroyed by Psammetik I (663–609 B.C.) after a siege of twenty-nine years. Ashdod was rebuilt in Nehemiah’s day (Ne 13:23). Edom, Moab, and Ammon, all blood relations of Israel, were in Transjordania. The main Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, are named as objects of Babylon’s wrath. The coastlands were the Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean, which some have identified with Cyprus.
23–25 The Lord’s judgment moves on to other nations. Now northern Arabian tribes are mentioned. Dedan, a son of Abraham by Keturah, lived southeast of Edom (cf. Ge 25:3). Tema was a son of Ishmael (cf. Ge 25:15; Job 6:19). Buz represents a tribe descended from Nahor, brother of Abraham (cf. Ge 22:21). “All who are in distant places” are the Bedouins of the Arabian desert (cf. 9:26; 49:23). They are followed by the inhabitants of the portion of Arabia contiguous to Palestine. The “foreign people” may refer to many tribes of Arabia that had intermarried with Cushite elements. The location of Zimri is unknown. Perhaps Zimri is to be connected with Zimran, a son of Abraham by Keturah (cf. Ge 25:2). He lived in a region between Arabia and Persia. Elam and Media were lands east of the Tigris River. The first was northeast of the Persian Gulf, about 200 miles east of Babylon, and is here representative of all Persia. It was known as Elymais by the Greeks. Media was north and west of Persia. The arm of Babylon was to reach afar to the Caspian Sea, ultimately encompassing a worldwide dominion (cf. Da 2:38; 4:22).
26 Finally Jeremiah reaches the culminating point of the prophecy—the judgment of “Sheshach.” This name occurs only in Jeremiah. Following Jerome, many hold that the name is a cryptogram (code) that stands for Babylon (see NIV note). The technical name for this type of cipher is Atbash, a system of secret writing that substituted the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so through all the Hebrew consonants (cf. v.12; 51:1, 41, where the Chaldeans are meant under “Leb Kamai”). Sheshach has three consonants in Hebrew. By substituting sh = b (twice) and ch (or k) = l, we get bbl, the Hebrew consonants for Babylon (GK 951). The phrase “after all of them” indicates that Babylon’s judgment too will come finally. Jeremiah may have resorted to the code name while Nebuchadnezzar was at the gates of Jerusalem.
27–29 This passage underscores the inevitability of the judgment Jeremiah has been describing. The same divine governmental principles apply to the other nations just as they do to Israel. The meaning of the cup metaphor is set forth. In a series of staccato commands, the Lord addresses all the aforementioned nations. They must be reduced to utter helplessness. Should any nation be so foolish as to seek to resist the will of God through Babylon, it will be futile. With irresistible logic God asks, as it were, “If Israel suffers, will you nations escape?” It will be impossible for any people to escape destruction for their sins (cf. Eze 9:6; 1Pe 4:17).
e. Judgment on all the world (25:30–38)
30–33 Turning from the metaphor of the cup, Jeremiah uses the metaphor of the lion. Like a lion’s roar, the Lord’s voice sounds from heaven against his own fold—the Holy Land and its people. Again, judgment begins with Judah. Suddenly the imagery shifts to a vintage scene, which was always attended with shouts of rejoicing. The shouting symbolizes a war cry; here it becomes the shout of the Lord treading down the nations (cf. Isa 63:3; Rev 14:19–20; 19:15). The noise is like the trampling of an army; it is the crash of war. Again changing the figure, Jeremiah portrays a lawsuit in which God is both prosecutor and judge of all the nations. Then he takes another metaphor of judgment from nature, namely, that of a tempest (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar). Nation after nation will fall under the domination of Babylon. Then in plain prose Jeremiah describes the appalling scene of the multitudes of unburied dead.
34–38 Jeremiah returns three times to the shepherd metaphor for the leaders of the nation. In each instance the shepherds are called “leaders of the flock,” in short, the elite of the nation. They are to weep, wail, and cover themselves as thickly with dust as though they had rolled in it. The hour of reckoning has come so that only slaughter and dispersion remain for them. Jeremiah, great writer that he is, moves from the figure of a flock of sheep to that of “fine pottery” smashed by a fall. Flight from the calamity will be out of the question. The leaders will be inconsolable because with the decimation of the flock their pastures will be destroyed. Even the peaceful land will suffer the ravages of the Lord’s anger. As a lion abandons a den that has been destroyed, so the Lord will abandon his own land after he has devastated it with the sword of the oppressive invader.
6. Consequences of the temple address (26:1–24)
Chapters 26–45 combine incidents in the life of Jeremiah. Some are autobiographical; others are biographical. This chapter gives us the setting of the temple address (7:1–20). The affinities between chs. 7 and 26 are too many and too minute for them not to relate to the same address. Here the emphasis is on the results of the temple address and on a brief summary of it. The heart of the temple address was that unless Judah repented, Jerusalem would be as Shiloh. By his specific warnings, Jeremiah had incurred the wrath of the false prophets and their followers. And later on when he predicted the seventy years5 captivity, they tried to bring about his death.
a. The temple address (26:1–6)
1–3 The Lord gave the prophet specific orders as to where and when he would address the nation and what he would say to them. The date is chronologically earlier than that of 25:1, most likely being the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign with his accession year (609–608 B.C.).
To give the greatest publicity to his message, Jeremiah was charged to stand in the outer court, where the people assembled. It was doubtless a feast day when the people from the towns of Judah came together for worship. Furthermore, Jeremiah was not to omit a word of his message for fear of the consequences of his preaching. Nor was he to trim it to suit the feelings of his hearers. Notice how the words “perhaps . . . each will turn from his evil way” show that repentance is always an individual matter. Predictions of divine judgment are conditional. True repentance on the part of the people of Judah before the hour of doom would have been met by God’s willingness to relent from his threatened punishment.
4–6 Here we have a kind of summary of the longer address in ch. 7. Three things stand out: the necessity of obeying God’s law if the coming punishment was to be averted; Jeremiah’s alignment with other prophets in Judah who had preached repentance or judgment; and the unrelieved gravity of the sentence on the temple and on the city of Jerusalem. Shiloh was not far from Jerusalem; the people could see the evidences of its destruction (c. 1050 B.C.), even though it had been the first resting place of the ark of the covenant in the land. Even worse, Jerusalem and Judah would become notorious among the nations as examples of God’s execration. Debased before the nations, Jerusalem would be an object lesson of the consequences of incurring God’s wrath. What a contrast to the promise in Ge 12:3!
b. The arrest, trial, and condemnation of Jeremiah (26:7–11)
7–9 The people listened in hushed respect until Jeremiah had finished speaking, shocking though his words were. Even the priests and false prophets did not interrupt him. But once Jeremiah had concluded, the pent-up fury of the crowd broke loose. He was arrested and the death penalty pronounced on him. The priests, prophets, and people refused to believe his seemingly incredible prediction. For them it was blasphemy and false prophecy—both of which were crimes punishable by death (cf. Dt 18:20). The priests and false prophets were at the forefront of the opposition to Jeremiah. They were angered because they had consistently promised immunity to the city and sanctuary, relying on God’s past deliverances (cf. Isa 37:36–37).
10–11 So great was the tumult around Jeremiah that the court officials, hearing of the mob’s fury, hurried from the palace to the temple. It was indeed a timely move because the tumult could easily have led to Jeremiah’s death. So the officials took their places where trials were held—at the “New Gate.” The priests and false prophets, with their vested interest in the situation, were the leaders of the opposition against Jeremiah. Acting as the prosecution, they announced the verdict beforehand: “A judgment of death belongs to this man!” (lit. Heb.). Although Jeremiah had spoken against both the temple and the city, his accusers referred only to his words against the city. This gave their charge a political slant and appealed to those who heard the message.
c. Jeremiah’s defense (26:12–15)
12–13 The prophet defended the message directly, courageously, and appropriately. Nowhere does he appear in a better light than here. He did not trim his message, cower, or beg for mercy. His defense was always the same: God had sent him to deliver the controversial message. Jeremiah stated the source of his message. He did not deny the truth he had preached; instead, he stressed its origin and authority. Their contention would have to be with God, for it was solely his message. Then Jeremiah called them to repentance. He was not to be diverted from the central issue but stuck to it with unswerving fidelity. There was still time for repentance. Though from the death of Josiah till the fall of Jerusalem conditions in Judah varied little, yet Jeremiah held out the only hope God offered his sinful people.
14–15 In the hour of trial, Jeremiah’s courage and fidelity to God shone brightly. He did not plead for his life. He recognized the ability of his enemies to carry out the death sentence against him but warned them of the consequence of killing him. He knew that he faced imminent death; but he also knew that he had done no wrong, let alone committed any capital crime.
d. The release of Jeremiah (26:16–19)
16–19 The prophet’s honesty and conviction by the Spirit gripped the hearts of the civil officials and the people. They sided with Jeremiah against the priests and false prophets. The judges and people were freer of prejudice than the religious leaders. They saw in Jeremiah what he claimed to be: God’s spokesman. To the shame of the priests, the laymen alone realized the prophet was bound to preach what the Lord had committed to him. At this point the elders added their confirmation to what had been expressed. “Elders” here (GK 2418) expresses only that they were men of advanced age. They cited as a precedent the case of Micah in the days of Hezekiah (eighth century B.C). Micah had lived more than a century before; he also prophesied about the destruction of the temple. As in law cases, citing a precedent carried weight. The reference to this prophecy turned the tide for Jeremiah.
Micah was a native of Moresheth, about twenty-three miles southwest of Jerusalem. Possibly he was as influential in the reforms of Hezekiah as Isaiah was (cf. 2Ki 18:3–6). Micah’s warning message bore fruit. Hezekiah and his people heeded the Lord’s words and turned to him instead of threatening Micah’s life. Thus the calamity was averted from Judah in that day. The people saw the possibility of averting judgment by repenting. The argument from precedent was successful. Though not explicitly stated, Jeremiah was acquitted by the civil leaders. They saw the enormity of the guilt that would be incurred by mistreating the Lord’s messenger.
e. The murder of Uriah (26:20–24)
20–24 These can scarcely be the words of Jeremiah’s opponents because there is no introductory formula. We do not know when the events narrated took place. Not all faithful preaching had the same results as Jeremiah’s. Uriah’s situation turned out differently, and he paid for his preaching with his life. Except for the Lord’s intervention, this could have been Jeremiah’s fate also (cf. 36:26). Jeremiah did not, however, run from his mission.
God does not always grant immunity to his servants. Uriah (mentioned only here) was a true prophet from Kiriath Jearim. His message agreed with Jeremiah’s preaching. When Jehoiakim and his military leaders heard Uriah’s words, their intense hatred of the truth sought an outlet in slaying Uriah; but he escaped to Egypt, the natural refuge for fugitives from Palestine. At this time rights of extradition prevailed between Egypt and Judah because Jehoiakim was a vassal of Egypt. Extradition was part of vassalage terms imposed by Egypt. The head of the embassy to implement it was Elnathan (perhaps the Elnathan of 2Ki 24:8, grandfather of Jehoiachin and father-in-law of Jehoiakim; cf. 36:12, 25). If so, his father, Acbor, was one of the deputation in 2Ki 22:12.
Once extradited Uriah was slain and dishonored by burial in a common cemetery, not in a family sepulcher. He was denied due process of law and the elementary right of burial with his ancestors. That Jehoiakim had no part in Jeremiah’s case may mean it occurred early in his reign, before he gained influence over the civil leaders. Even though Jeremiah had been acquitted, he was still in danger. Ahikam, an official under Josiah (cf. 2Ki 22:12, 14) and father of Gedaliah, governor of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (cf. 39:14; 40:13–41:3; 2Ki 25:22), espoused his cause. And Ahikam’s prominence helped secure Jeremiah’s release.
7. The yoke of Babylon (27:1–22)
Chapters 27–28 attack the false optimism of the prophets of Judah and are dated by most scholars in the fourth year of Zedekiah (594–593 B.C.). Foreign envoys were coming to Jerusalem to promote a confederacy against Nebuchadnezzar. Neighboring countries were apparently trying to involve Judah in a rebellion against Babylon, an enterprise encouraged by the false prophets at Jerusalem. The contemplated rebellion failed because of Nebuchadnezzar’s forthright action. Chapters 27–29 dispel the erroneous view that Babylon was just a passing power, not to be reckoned with. From 51:59 we may infer that Zedekiah was called to Babylon to explain what part he had in the unsuccessful plot against Nebuchadnezzar.
a. The message to the ambassadors (27:1–11)
1–2 With Judah on the verge of revolt against Babylon, God spoke to Jeremiah and commanded him to make a yoke and place it on his neck. The yoke, similar to that used for oxen, was made of wooden bars held together by leather thongs (see also 28:10). A yoke symbolized submission, servitude, and captivity.
3 Jeremiah did not make duplicate yokes to be sent to the kings represented in the conclave. He did, however, convey to the kings the message of the yoke. Their envoys had assembled to plan how to shake off the yoke of Babylon; so the yoke symbol was highly appropriate. Jeremiah required great courage to stand against these envoys as well as his own countrymen, but he was exercising his commission as a prophet to the nations (cf. 1:10). Smaller nations often revolted against their Mesopotamian conquerors, but seldom with success. Through Jeremiah the Lord is charging them all that it is his will for them to submit to Nebuchadnezzar for their own good. The enumeration of the kings is from south (Edom, Moab, Ammon) to north (the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon). The rebellion of the smaller nations may have been activated by the accession of Psammetik II as the pharaoh of Egypt.
4–7 The message the envoys took back to their kings was that the sovereign Creator of the universe had the right to give the dominion of earth to whomever he pleased. Revolt was futile and wrong because God had appointed Babylon to execute his purpose of judgment. Resistance was useless because Nebuchadnezzar was God’s instrument. To resist the known will of God is always spiritual suicide. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion was vast, extending even to the animals of the field. As to its duration, Babylonian rule would extend from Nebuchadnezzar to the third generation. It passed from him to Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar (52:31; Da 5:1, 30). Thus the Babylonian threat was not to be temporary, as the false prophets glibly promised. When the appointed time came for the termination of Babylonian supremacy, the rulers of Persia, Media, and contiguous areas finally overthrew it. God is Creator of the universe and Administrator in the affairs of the nations.
8–11 The meaning of the yoke is explained. Those resisting the Babylonian power would be punished by the threefold stroke of sword, famine, and plague. Above all, the prophecies of the false prophets were not to be trusted, for they were dealing in lies that would only lead the nation to disaster. Moved by the knowledge of God’s message and its authority, Jeremiah did not shrink from opposing the whole array of false leaders in all the countries. The five kinds of soothsayers mentioned in v.9 all helped forward the policy of rebellion. They represented various pagan methods of predicting the future. The result for Judah would be deportation, a policy the Assyrians had used for Israel and one the Babylonians would use for Judah. But nations that obey God would remain in peace in their lands and would prosper.
b. The address to King Zedekiah (27:12–15)
12–15 The warning already extended to the envoys of the nations is now directed toward Zedekiah. Here we have the meaning of the yoke for the Davidic king. The thrust of the message is Zedekiah’s submission to the Babylonians. He was a weak and ambivalent ruler who could never carry through a resolve to follow the Lord wholly. Zedekiah is exhorted not to choose the way of resistance and disobedience, which would only bring disaster with it. So powerful was the influence of the false prophets at this time that the king had to be counseled to ignore their lying pronouncements. God never sent them; they predicted lies; the result of their advice could only be exile for the nation. To underestimate the power of a lie in times of national distress is sheer folly.
c. The warning to the priests and people (27:16–22)
16–18 So vital was the message of Jeremiah at this time that it had to be repeated to the priests and people. The false prophets were holding out baseless hopes that the temple vessels taken to Babylon were soon to be returned. This was a powerful incentive for Judah to revolt against the Babylonians, but Jeremiah reiterated the necessity of submitting to Nebuchadnezzar. The prophets of “peace” thought that their words would be more effective if they referred to details like the temple objects. Some were carried away in the deportation of Jehoiakim (cf. 2Ch 36:5–7), and even more were carried away in 597 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:13). Instead of these vessels being returned “shortly,” as the lying prophets claimed, the vessels remaining in the temple would be carried off too (cf. 2Ki 25:13). In fact—and here Jeremiah places the false prophets under a severe test—if the prophets who were predicting a speedy return of the vessels taken to Babylon were indeed what they claimed to be, they could serve the nation best by praying that the vessels still in the temple would not be taken to Babylon. History reveals that the temple vessels were taken to the land of exile.
19–22 Of all the temple appointments, three are mentioned here (see also 52:17). The pillars were made of bronze and were placed in front of the temple; their names were Jakin and Boaz (cf. 1Ki 7:15–22). Before being taken away to Babylon, they were actually broken into pieces because they were too large to take intact. The Sea was a large cast basin, supported on the backs of twelve cast oxen and used for the washings of the priests (cf. 1Ki 7:23–26). There were also stands to support the lavers (cf. 1Ki 7:27–37; 2Ch 4:6), and the stands were on wheels. All these remaining vessels would be taken to Babylon also, Jeremiah prophesied. The hope the false prophets held out was impossible of fulfillment and hence not from God. To the prediction of the carrying away of all these things, the Lord added a promise that they would be restored in the day that he would execute judgment on Babylon. The vessels were returned to Jerusalem by Cyrus at the beginning of his reign (c. 536 B.C.; cf. Ezr 1:7–11).
8. Hananiah against Jeremiah (28:1–17)
Chapter 28 continues without a break in the narrative of ch. 27, which shows that Jeremiah was still wearing the yoke.
a. Hananiah’s contradiction of Jeremiah (28:1–4)
1 The mention of the fourth year of Zedekiah as the “beginning of his reign” (lit. Heb.; NIV, “early in the reign”), which lasted eleven years, reflects Jewish usage. The date was indeed the beginning of his rule, for the Jews divided periods of time into halves: beginning and end. It means simply “in the first half of his reign.”
Hananiah the prophet seized an opportunity when the temple was frequented by the people, either at the celebration of the new moon or a Sabbath, to contradict what Jeremiah had just said (cf. ch. 27). Apart from this chapter, we know nothing of Hananiah. He has been characterized as a fanatical nationalist prophet who was sincerely wrong. He was a native of Gibeon, five miles northwest of Jerusalem. It was one of the priestly cities; so Hananiah may have been a priest. The year was 594–593 B.C., and the fifth month places the episode in the summer.
2–3 Hananiah had the temerity to use the same introductory formula as Jeremiah, implying a claim for inspiration similar to his. The yoke refers to the one Jeremiah had just made. Flatly contradicting Jeremiah’s God-given counsel of submission, Hananiah predicted a return of the captives and the temple vessels within two years, emphasizing the time element by putting it first. This mention of two years was meant to bolster the credibility of his false prophecy. He paid no attention to the warning in 23:31. That the prophecy was never fulfilled showed its falsity. The Babylonian Chronicle indicates that Nebuchadnezzar was quelling a revolt in Babylon at the time. This may have acted as a spur to Hananiah’s optimism.
4 Perhaps Hananiah saw approval on the faces of his hearers because he went even further. He predicted that Jeconiah would be restored from exile, a contradiction of Jeremiah’s prophecy in 22:24–27 (fulfilled in 52:31–34). Hananiah’s prediction showed he favored Jeconiah over the vacillating Zedekiah because he may have thought that the former would resist Nebuchadnezzar better. To make his message more uplifting, he made a sweeping prediction of the return of all the Judean exiles. One can well imagine the confusion created in the minds of the populace by the spectacle of the false prophet’s denying the central elements in the message of the true prophet of God.
b. Jeremiah’s appeal to the past (28:5–9)
5–9 Jeremiah’s response to Hananiah was immediate. His “Amen” revealed how deeply he desired Judah’s good. He was just as concerned for the nation as Hananiah was. As a man of God, he sincerely desired the captives’ return. He reminded Hananiah of the words of the true prophets who had preceded both Hananiah and him. Hananiah’s words contradicted their predictions just as much as they contradicted those of Jeremiah. The former prophets also spoke in warning messages because of the sinful condition of the people they ministered to. In view of the nation’s long spiritual decline, prophecies of disaster were not new. He made it clear that the fulfillment of a prophecy remained the best proof of its truthfulness.
The scope of the prophetic activity was comprehensive, reaching to many lands and many kingdoms, small and great. In the contest between Hananiah and Jeremiah, antecedent probability was in favor of a prophet who spoke in agreement with the true prophets of the past. The trouble with the false prophets was that they always predicted prosperity unconditionally and without need of repentance. It is always less popular to predict calamity rather than prosperity; so the presumption of truth rests with the prophet of calamity. At this time Jeremiah evidently had no specific message from God against Hananiah.
c. Hananiah’s response (28:10–11)
10–11 Because of Jeremiah’s incontrovertible argument, Hananiah resorted to force. He took the yoke from Jeremiah’s neck and smashed it, to show that Nebuchadnezzar’s power would be shattered in two years. Once more Hananiah presumed to use the introductory formula of the true prophets. Instead of waiting for the fulfillment of his prediction, he acted violently to capture the people’s attention and mask his own confusion. In doing so, he may have hoped to reverse the impact made by Jeremiah’s making and wearing the yoke. Jeremiah left without replying. He could have been waiting for a time when emotions had cooled off. Also, he was doubtless waiting for further instructions from the Lord. There was no need for haste anyway, because it would take two years to see whether Hananiah’s prediction came true. And Jeremiah may have left without answering Hananiah so as not to confuse the people.
d. Jeremiah’s stronger pronouncement (28:12–14)
12–14 The Lord’s answer through Jeremiah did come a short time later. To one who had falsified the Lord’s reiterated intentions for Israel, it was an emphatic rebuttal. By breaking the yoke, Hananiah had raised false hopes of successfully resisting the invaders—hopes that were only to make their lot harder. By breaking it, Hananiah had alleviated the pain of the yoke. But Jeremiah replied that the people were exchanging the wooden yoke of submission for the inflexible iron yoke of servitude in Babylon. Not only were the people to suffer more, but, as 38:17–23 shows, Zedekiah’s fate was more severe than that of Jehoiakim or Jehoiachin. Whereas for Hezekiah to resist Assyria in 701 B.C. was an act of faith, for Judah to rebel against Babylon in Jeremiah’s time was an act of disobedience. Not only would all the nations serve Nebuchadnezzar, but his dominion would extend over all the wild animals.
e. Prediction of Hananiah’s death (28:15–17)
15–17 Perhaps after an interval of only a few days, Jeremiah received a word from the Lord against Hananiah. First, the Lord said that he had not sent Hananiah. Second, Hananiah had misled Judah into believing lies. Hananiah had set a time limit of two years for the realization of his prediction, but the Lord did not choose to wait that long. He decreed that Hananiah was to die that very year, and he died in two months after his wicked prophecy. He had to die because in opposing Jeremiah he instigated rebellion against the Lord. The Jews knew the penalty for apostasy (cf. Dt 13:1–5; cf. Eze 11:13; Ac 5:1–11). Jeremiah’s prophecy was authenticated in the death of Hananiah, which discredited him as a fraud. Thus the authority of the true prophet was vindicated.
9. Jeremiah’s letters to the exiles (29:1–32)
This chapter may be placed a few years after the exile of 597 B.C. More important than the precise date are the contents of the chapter—a letter to the three thousand Jews who had been exiled with Jehoiachin to Babylon, among them a number of priests and prophets. In Jerusalem, Jeremiah heard that some exiled false prophets were predicting an early fall of Babylon and an early restoration of the exiles to Judah. Jeremiah’s letters warned the exiles against this deception and urged them to wait patiently for God’s time.
a. Introduction (29:1–3)
1–2 Jeremiah rightly felt he still had a God-given responsibility for the “surviving elders,” those who had not died through the rigors of the deportation. Clearly some form of community organization like that in Judah had been continued in the Exile. The letter was directed not only to the elders but to all the exiles. The “queen mother” was Nehushta (cf. 13:18; 2Ki 24:8). The craftsmen and artisans were deported to help King Nebuchadnezzar beautify Babylon.
3 Jeremiah gave his letter to an embassy whom Zedekiah sent to Nebuchadnezzar. The embassy’s purpose is not stated, but it likely was sent with tribute and assurance of Zedekiah’s loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. Elasah son of Shaphan was probably a brother of Ahikam (cf. 26:24); he agreed with Jeremiah and would have been welcome in Babylon. Gemariah son of Hilkiah was probably a son of Josiah’s high priest Hilkiah (cf. 2Ki 22:3–4). Babylon probably permitted communication between Judah and the exiles. The exiles were just as subject to false prophets as the people in Jerusalem. They might have been expected to heed Jeremiah’s words (cf. 24:5–7). The false hope of a quick end to the Exile would only have nullified the disciplinary effects of the Exile.
b. The letter of Jeremiah (29:4–19)
1) Warning against false prophets (29:4–9)
4–7 Rather than a word-for-word record of Jeremiah’s main letter and the other subsidiary letters, we probably have the gist of what was written. Underlying the main letter is the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar was the agent of the Lord. Ultimately the Lord himself had brought about the Exile. Since the Lord’s will was behind it, the part of wisdom was submission. The exiles were to settle in Babylon and live normal lives there, even praying for their captors (cf. Mt 5:43) and working for peace and prosperity. Otherwise, their influence would be negligible and their exile all the more galling.
What unusual advice for Jeremiah to give his exiled countrymen! History shows that in all the centuries of their worldwide dispersion, the Jews have tried to follow this pattern. They have identified themselves with the country of their residence, while at the same time looking toward eventual restoration to their native land.
Jeremiah’s exhortations show that the Babylonian stay would be an extended one. His advice to build homes there implies they had not yet been in Babylon a long time. The freedom allowed them implies they were neither slaves nor prisoners in their new land. Any feeling that they should not build homes in a foreign, unclean land was thus dispelled. The wives Jeremiah encouraged them to marry were Jewish, not foreign (cf. Dt 7:3). The seed of Abraham must continue according to the divine promise (cf. Ge 12:1–3).
8–9 Again Jeremiah warned the exiles not to trust false prophets. In Babylon, as in Judah, false prophecy was flourishing (cf. vv.15, 21). The theme was always the same: a speedy return to the homeland. Rosy predictions were the stock in trade of such people. Such deceptive dreams could only work havoc among the exiles. The deceivers must not be trusted because they had never been commissioned by the Lord.
2) The seventy-year exile (29:10–14)
10–11 Jeremiah now presents a beautiful prophecy of encouragement to the exiles. The Lord’s ultimate purpose for his people called for blessing. The length of the Exile is again given as seventy years (cf. 25:11). The seventy years were “for Babylon” because Jeremiah linked the duration of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom with the termination of the Exile. The “gracious promise” is that of the exiles’ restoration to Judah (cf. 27:22). Moreover, the Lord assured them that despite their surmise as to his lack of concern for their plight, he had not forgotten them. The Lord was not denying them hope for the future; it would not be realized immediately or in the near future. Jeremiah’s words “hope and a future” are literally “an end and a hope,” which means “a hopeful end.” This word from the Lord was surely more heartening to the exiles’ spirits than the false prophets’ promises of quick deliverance.
12–14 The remainder of this section stresses the nature of the hopeful future. The Lord says that he could and would be entreated of the exiles. The promises, however, were contingent on their wholehearted repentance. Then the Lord would listen to them and make himself accessible to them. The declaration “I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you” looks far beyond the Jews’ return from Babylon to their future restoration from worldwide dispersion.
3) A “second letter” of Jeremiah (29:15–19)
15–19 Conceivably vv.15–19 form a second letter written at a subsequent time and inserted parenthetically here. The situation was doubtless something like this: The exiles asked why Jeremiah insisted on an exile of seventy years when their prophets in Babylon were telling them the very opposite. Jeremiah replied that the false prophecies would be shown to be lies and their perpetrators would perish. For the Jews to depend on the pronouncements of the deceivers was the highest folly. Actually, the Jews still in Jerusalem were soon to experience grievous judgments for their persistence in disobeying the Lord.
Again, it must be emphasized that vv.15–19 were probably part of a second letter not sent by the king’s embassy (v.3) because the king in v.16 is Zedekiah, who was yet destined for exile. “This city” was Jerusalem. The false prophets made much of the fact that in Jerusalem a Davidic king still ruled, and they argued from this that the Exile would soon end. But those still in Judah were to undergo the calamities of war and were likened to vile figs of the worst sort (cf. 24:1–10). And even in exile, the grace of God was seen in raising up Ezekiel in 592 B.C. (cf. Eze 1:2–3). Once more the Lord states that he is the Author of the Exile.
c. Denunciation of the false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah (29:20–23)
20–23 Jeremiah was well informed about conditions in Babylon. Two false prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah—of whom nothing more is known than that they had famous names and were deceitful and grossly immoral—are singled out as examples of the heinousness of false prophesying. They were probably condemned as guilty of treason against the Babylonian crown. Like Hananiah, these false prophets would become object lessons of the Lord’s wrath. Babylon used burning as a punishment (cf. Da 3:6, 20, 23).
d. Condemnation of Shemaiah (29:24–32)
24–28 After castigating the two false prophets for their deceit and profligacy (v.23), Jeremiah pronounces the Lord’s condemnation on Shemaiah the Nehelamite, a false prophet who presumed to order a member of the priesthood in Jerusalem to silence Jeremiah. Of Shemaiah nothing more is known than what we have in this passage. The background of his letter is clear. Jeremiah’s letter understandably angered the false prophets in Babylon. Shemaiah, who was one of them, wrote the deputy priest Zephaniah to silence Jeremiah. Instead, Zephaniah read Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah, who replied in a message predicting the doom of Shemaiah for denying Jeremiah’s authority. The false prophets had apparently overlooked the promises Jeremiah had given (vv.10–14).
Zephaniah was the chief warden in charge of police regulations of the temple (cf. 21:1; 37:3; 52:24). Apparently Shemaiah, on his own initiative, had displaced Jehoiada the priest (cf. 2Ki 11:4) with Zephaniah. Although in that day insanity (“madman”) may have been considered as an aberrant gift of prophecy (cf. 1Sa 19:20–24; 2Ki 9:11), this charge was an insult to Jeremiah. The “neck-irons” were an iron collar that held the head immovable while the prisoner was in the stocks (cf. 20:2). Knowing nothing of Jeremiah’s divine call, Shemaiah had accused him of usurping authority as a spokesman for God.
29–32 After Zephaniah had read the letter to Jeremiah, the Lord told him to send a letter to all the exiles, unmasking Shemaiah’s hypocrisy and announcing a twofold punishment: He would have no descendants, and he would not see the blessings on the Lord’s people that Jeremiah had been predicting. Shemaiah had forfeited the privilege of participating in the restoration to the homeland.
B. The Book of Consolation (30:1–33:26)
1. Trial and triumph for Israel (30:1–24)
Chapters 30–33 constitute a group of prophecies that has been called “The Book of Consolation.” Verse 1 of chapter 32 gives us the historical background of these prophecies (cf. 33:1). Jerusalem was in the final period of an eighteen-month siege by the Babylonians. Other Judean cities had already capitulated to them. The temporary intervention of Egypt (cf. 37:4–5) had failed to stem the tide of events, and Jerusalem remained disillusioned and helpless. Though written during a time of deep distress for Jerusalem, chs. 30–33 foretell a glorious future for the nation (cf. the latter part of 1:10).
Up to this point in the book, Jeremiah’s prophecies have mostly been threatening and gloomy. Now the prophetic outlook changes. This is all the more striking since chs. 32–33 (probably chs. 30–31 also) were given in the tenth year of Zedekiah, when the final blow was about to fall. The overall theme is that Israel would not perish as a nation. Jeremiah was in prison, the city in dire straits by famine and disease; yet it was then that he spoke words of greatest comfort. He predicted the permanence of the nation, the coming of the Gentiles to the truth, the institution of God’s new covenant of redemption, and the rule of the Davidic King over cleansed Zion.
a. Return from captivity (30:1–3)
1–3 These verses strike the hopeful theme of the nation’s restoration. The Lord commanded Jeremiah to write these prophecies in a book to ensure their permanence at a time when so many in the nation were being exiled. Also, his activities may have been restricted at this time. Obviously “the book” was not to contain all we now have in the book of Jeremiah, not even all he spoke to this time.
The words “the days are coming” look to eschatological times (cf. 3:16; 16:14; 23:5; 31:27, 31). Jeremiah is contemplating the distant, not near, future of the nation. This statement restricts the material involved to “The Book of Consolation.” To bring back any people from captivity indicates a restoration of their fortunes, which is the emphasis of this section. The good news was the promise of the people’s restoration to and their possession of their homeland, a message of glorious hope in that gloomy hour. Moreover, we must not forget that this hope relates to Israel and Judah, not to one without the other (cf. v.10).
b. “A time of trouble for Jacob” (30:4–7)
4–6 Here the prophet speaks of the whole nation over which David and Solomon ruled. Jeremiah is stating that before the just-mentioned promise of restoration can be fulfilled, the nation must be severely disciplined, thought not to the extent of final calamity. “Fear” and “terror” point to war. The awful terror that will come can be compared only with the travail of a mother in childbirth, a figure of extreme distress.
7 It is not clear whether this passage is referring to (1) the immediate situation, (2) the whole period of the Captivity, or (3) the time of tribulation in the end time before Israel’s final restoration. If the first, then “that day” may mean the day of the capture of Babylon, with emphasis on the terror caused by the approach of Cyrus. Cyrus was the Jews’ liberator from those who took them captive.
However, in the light of the immediate context and what follows, it seems preferable to assume that the reference is to the Day of the Lord. “That day” was not one immediately at hand. It is not the day of the destruction of Jerusalem but the day of God’s comprehensive judgment. The present is not to be excluded, but it is swallowed up in the future. That day is to be marked by great calamities. It is vitally important to remember that v.7 speaks of JacOb’s trouble, not Babylon’s. The prophetic Scriptures are replete with references to this unique time of Jacob’s distress; e.g., “There is none like it” (cf. Mt 24:21 with Da 12:1; cf. also Jer 46:10; Isa 2:12–21; 13:6; 34:1–8; et al.). Notice that the travail will issue in both physical and spiritual deliverance (cf. Zec 12:1–13:1) and that liberation will be such that never again will Israel be enslaved by any nation. This can never be said of any deliverance to this present hour; it must refer to eschatological times.
c. Freedom from bondage to oppressors (30:8–11)
8–9 Only in the most preliminary way may “the yoke” refer to bondage to Nebuchadnezzar; what is meant is total liberation from all foreign oppressors. This can be effected only by the glorious intervention of Israel’s messianic King (cf. Eze 34:23; Hos 3:5). After the yoke of foreign rule has been broken, the benevolent yoke of their King will be gladly assumed by the godly in Israel and Judah (cf. Mt 11:28–30). Notice the pairing of “the LORD their God” with “David their kin.” It is significant that in the prophetic Scriptures a resurrection of David himself is not predicted as antecedent to the rule of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, on the Davidic throne (cf. Eze 37:24–25). The person indicated here is the future ideal King, the so-called second David (cf. “last Adam” and “second man” in 1Co 15:45–47). The Targum is correct in identifying this ideal King as “Messiah, the son of David.” Among the Jews the name David came to be used of any royalty, much as Pharaoh, Caesar, or Czar, but only in the highest and final sense.
10–11 Jeremiah closes this section with promises of return, peace, freedom, and permanence. He refers to the nation as Jacob, God’s “servant”—a title of honor. God’s people are to be regathered from all the lands of their dispersion. Jeremiah makes a telling distinction between the fate of God’s people and that of their oppressors: the oppressors may be removed finally from the scene of history, but God’s people never will (cf. 4:27; 5:10, 18; 46:28). This is not partiality on God’s part, for he will not overlook his people’s sins. They can no more sin with impunity than any other persons or nation. The Lord must chasten them, and he will do so with justice, not capriciously. It is no wonder that Isaiah refers to Israel (i.e., Israel and Judah) as an eternal nation; for whereas Ammon, Assyria, Edom, Moab, and others no longer exist, Israel is present throughout the world today, even though in the divine chastening of dispersion.
d. Israel’s wounds healed (30:12–17)
12–15 In turning to the serious condition of Israel, Jeremiah wants to show that her punishment was well deserved. Her wounds were, apart from God, incurable. Doubtless, the wounds are those she has received from her enemies because of her flagrant sins. Because God’s people have transgressed so grievously, no one can defend them; moreover, there is no hope of their recovery. Jeremiah mingles his figures of speech: he sees Israel as a defendant in a lawsuit and as one suffering from a fatal wound. All her antagonists have the upper hand as they accuse her before God. What made her trial harder to bear was that Israel’s allies had left her in the lurch. Her punishment clearly stemmed from the Lord because sin was at the root of all her calamities. Furthermore, she had no right to complain of her punishment since she amply deserved it.
16–17 The prophet contrasts Israel’s mistreatment by her supposed lovers with the Lord’s actions on her behalf. Because his people have undergone judgment and have acknowledged their guilt, God pronounces retaliation in kind on their enemies. The future blessings begin with judgments on Israel’s oppressors. God will heal her and afflict her enemies. The Babylonians who devoured the nation will in turn be devoured by the Medes and Persians. Those who treat God’s people ill have to reckon with God as avenger (cf. Ge 12:1–3). Again, the promise of restored health precedes any action the Lord may take against Israel’s foes. In their contempt, the enemies of God’s nation called her an outcast, for whom no one cared. The figure is that of a woman put away by her husband (cf. Isa 62:4). The Lord considered this treatment of his nation a great offense because their words and actions revealed their disregard of God and his expressed purpose for his people. Ultimately, calling them an outcast impugned God’s faithfulness to his elect people.
e. Rebuilt Jerusalem and her ruler (30:18–22)
18–20 Days of rich blessing are ahead. These verses deal with Jerusalem rebuilt, repopulated, and governed by a native prince responsive to the Lord. It also shows the nation experiencing the blessings of renewed fellowship with the Lord. The “tents” and “dwellings,” now desolate, refer to the wretched condition of their houses in their homeland. Jerusalem will be rebuilt on its original location. The word “ruins” is the well-known term tel (GK 9424), now used by Arabs for the ruined mounds of Palestine that contain the remains of ancient cities. Jerusalem and its buildings are probably intended. The meaning is that the city will be settled by a king, with all that pertains to such a residence.
Furthermore, along with material prosperity will come joy and honor so long denied the people. Out of the city and palace will flow praise and merriment. Instead of degradation and insignificance, the people will grow in numbers and in the esteem of the nations as the Lord honors them. The children of Jacob will enjoy prosperity like that in the heyday of the monarchy under David and Solomon. The congregation—the people as a whole—will be established under God’s oversight.
21–22 Embedded in this passage so full of promise is one of the most beautiful of the messianic predictions in the OT. First, the nation will be blessed by a native, not a foreign, ruler. This was surely a prophecy of strong consolation in view of the nations imminent subservience to a foreign power. Second, this ruler will have the privilege of approach to God, i.e., priestly position and ministry (cf. Ps 110:4; Zec 6:13); he will need no mediator. Thus he will be greater than David and Solomon. Like Melchizedek he will have a dual role. No man can take to himself the office of priesthood (cf. Heb 5:1). In fact, it was dangerous for even a king to do so (cf. 1Ki 12:26–33; 13:1–6; 2Ch 26:16–20). This was permitted only to the priests and, on the Day of Atonement, only to the high priest. Here is a reiteration of the promise to restore the Davidic line. And no one would “devote himself to be so close” to God on his own initiative.
Immediately Jeremiah turns to the result of Messiah’s ministry—the old covenant is renewed. The nation will be restored to the position of fellowship and worship that God intended for her. The people will be seen to be God’s people.
f. Judgment, then blessing (30:23–24)
23–24 Before there can be blessing, judgment must be meted out to the guilty. This passage is inserted here lest the careless be given false security in their sins. In spite of promises of hope, God’s moral purposes always remain the same. God is behind the judgment to be executed by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah uses the figure of a sudden storm to describe it. The Lord does his work of redemption by his power displayed in judgment. The blessings Jeremiah has been speaking of are only for the godly. The reference to “the days to come” appears to point to a time after the judgment has passed.
2. The new covenant (31:1–40)
In ch. 30 the restoration of Judah is foretold; here that of the nation of Israel is predicted. The dominant themes in this chapter are the restoration of God’s people and the new covenant.
a. God’s mercy for Ephraim (31:1–6)
1–2 The time reference is the “days to come” of 30:24, i.e., the Messianic Age. Although vv.1–6 deal primarily with the northern kingdom, “clans of Israel” must be allowed to comprehend the Twelve Tribes in light of the promise to the whole nation in 30:22. Jeremiah dilates on the grace of God revealed to the northern tribes. “The people who survive the sword” could refer to those who survived the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings; more likely, however, it refers to the return of the Ten Tribes from Assyrian captivity, perhaps also including the later captives from Babylon. The Lord is continuing the grace he showed his people in the desert wanderings (cf. 2:1–3). The desert is thus a figure for the land of the Exile in contrast to their homeland. As of old, the Lord in his infinite grace is concerned about finding “rest” (GK 8089) for his troubled, weary people. What he did by the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in the desert, he was willing to do for the returning exiles.
3–4 In one of the most beautiful poems in his book, Jeremiah cites the declaration of the people: “The LORD appeared to us.” Again the people recall the unparalleled love, grace, and comfort God had extended to them “in the past.” What comfort was theirs in the recognition of such perpetual love! Addressing Israel as a virgin, unsullied before God, Jeremiah implies that the Lord sees her just as appealing as in the time of her departure from Egypt (cf. 2:1–3; Hos 2:14–23). Grace blots out the past. Both rebuilding and joy are promised the northern kingdom. Contrasted with the sorrow of the Exile (Ps 137:1) is the use of tambourines at dances in times of rejoicing. In ancient times dancing was often a religious exercise (cf. 2Sa 6:14).
5 Amplifying the thought of restoration, Jeremiah says that the hills of Samaria will be planted with vineyards. Essentially an occupation in time of peace, viniculture is often interrupted by war. But in the time Jeremiah is looking forward to, those who plant grapes will enjoy the fruit of their labors. The law of Moses did not permit the Hebrews to eat the fruit of the first three years. Fruit of the fourth year was given to God, but it could be redeemed and eaten (cf. Lev 19:23–25). Thus Jeremiah’s reference to the vineyards implies that Israel will be settled in her land and enjoying it under normal conditions.
6 Even more glorious is Jeremiah’s prediction that watchmen will direct those of Ephraim (the northern kingdom) to go up to Zion to worship the Lord there. In the OT the temple in Zion was always considered the only authorized sanctuary. According to Jewish tradition watchmen were appointed for the appearance of the moon, from which their months were counted. Here the watchmen on the hills of Samaria are to show the northern kingdom how to go up to Jerusalem to keep the feasts, as the pilgrimage feasts were annually observed in ancient times (cf. Dt 16:16). This will mark the end of the disruption of the kingdom of Solomon in 930 B.C. Ephraim’s condition in blessing will be permanent because Jeroboam’s misleading them from the Lord’s sanctuary will be a thing of the past. The breach of many centuries will at last be healed.
b. The restoration of Israel in joy (31:7–14)
7–9 Verses 7–14 emphasize joy at the end of the Exile. With exuberance Jeremiah celebrates the great salvation provided for Israel. Israel will be restored to her rightful position. Moreover, in his answer the Lord promises a return, not only from the north country, but ultimately from all parts of the earth. And from that restoration none will be excluded. The blind, the lame, the pregnant women—even those in labor, for whom the journey would be especially burdensome—will be included. The picture is of universal participation. Furthermore, the return will be accompanied by weeping and tears of repentance. Weeping for their sin and rebellion will then be overshadowed by the joy of return. Repentance, as always, issues in salvation. As the people give themselves to prayer, the Lord will lead them by streams of water, a metaphor of refreshment.
All this tenderness and concern for Ephraim (Israel) stem from the original elective purpose of God declared in Ex 4:22 (cf. Dt 32:6). The designation of “firstborn” in Ex 4:22 included the whole nation, whereas here it is transferred to Ephraim, the head of the Ten Tribes. Ephraim is mentioned before Judah (vv.23–26) because the Ten Tribes were in exile much longer and, humanly considered, were less likely to be delivered. The prophet could with warrant call Ephraim the firstborn, for Joseph actually received the birthright of the firstborn, which was forfeited by the sin of Reuben (cf. 1Ch 5:1–2). Sonship in the OT includes the concept of paternal love and care on a national scale, rather than the NT concept of personal membership in the family of God by the Spirit.
10–14 The word is to be spread afar that the Lord has regathered Israel. The nations will be told that it was the Lord who exiled his people and that it is he who restores them. The figure of shepherd and flock portrays the dual concepts of tenderness and concern. Just as the Lord alone was responsible for Israel’s chastisement, so now he alone will regather them. The Lord will ransom Israel, delivering the people from foreign bondage under the power of a pagan world ruler. Promises are heaped one upon another—predictions of joy, return to Jerusalem, nature transformed, and a new prosperity. Israel will be ransomed, redeemed, rejoicing, and restored. When the people come to Zion, they will find every need supplied. God’s “bounty” (GK 3206) includes material blessings. Never again will God’s people sorrow as they did in the time of their Exile. So great will be the prosperity bestowed on them that the priests will be satiated because of the many sacrifices brought by the worshipers. With abundant harvests, the portions of the priests will increase.
c. Israel’s lamentable present (31:15–22)
15 From glowing predictions of tenderness and joy, Jeremiah turns back to the sad conditions of his day. He pictures Rachel at Ramah weeping disconsolately for the loss of her children. She was an ancestress of the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (through Joseph), as well as of Benjamin in the south. Undoubtedly, she is lamenting the exile of her children in 722–721 B.C. Ramah was five miles north of Jerusalem, the very place where exiles were gathered before deportation to Babylon (cf. 40:1). Jeremiah himself was in a camp for exiles in Ramah. She who had so longed for children (cf. Ge 30:1) is cruelly bereaved of them, but God purposes to restore them.
16–17 The Lord bids Rachel to stop mourning because now she can comfort herself by the promise of her children’s return (spoken twice). The “work” to be “rewarded” includes bearing, rearing, sorrowing over, and praying for her children. As they were a source of grief to her, now they will be a joy on their return from exile.
A question arises as to how this prophecy of Rachel can be fulfilled in Herod’s slaughter of the innocents recorded in Mt 2:17–18. First, it must be stressed that Matthew’s method of quoting an OT reference does not automatically imply a direct fulfillment (cf. “The Old Testament in the New Testament,” EBC, 1:617–27). For proof, see the immediate context in Mt 2:15, where Hos 11:1 in its original context unmistakably speaks of the nation Israel but by analogy and higher fulfillment refers to Christ. Similarly, that which related to Israel in original revelation is by analogy used in speaking of Herod’s atrocities. In both cases God will overrule the nation’s sorrow for her ultimate joy.
18–20 It is one thing to hear of Rachel’s concern for Ephraim, but what was the latter’s attitude? Ephraim expressed godly sorrow for his sins. He prayed for the Lord to restore him. He at last recognized the need to repent before restoration. He was formerly like an untrained calf, in need of training. Through the Lord’s judgments he learned discipline. Once he was chastened and became submissive to the providences of the Lord, Ephraim smote his thigh (NIV, “breast”) in grief and sorrow. The Spirit of God had done his effective work so that Ephraim recognized the shame his earlier sinful life brought on him. Finally we have the Lord’s answer to Ephraim’s confession of need. His fatherly concern for the prodigal Ephraim is beautifully expressed. Divine love will not be denied him in spite of his sin. Fatherly tenderness prevails over childish recalcitrance. Ephraim is forgiven.
21 Jeremiah now addresses the returning exiles of the northern kingdom. They are to make ample preparation for their homeward journey. The succession of imperatives shows the urgency of their preparation for return. It was the custom of caravans to set up pillars, poles, and heaps of stones to guide them. So the exiles are told to mark out the old route, to set up signs to help them find their way back. They are to pay heed to the way they went into exile in order to be able to retrace their steps. The imperatives admonish them not to delay their return by wavering.
22 This verse is difficult because the background is lacking. One view sees here a prophecy of the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. This ancient interpretation comes from the Church Fathers, but this interpretation is ill suited to the context. Granted that the word “virgin” occurs in v.21 and earlier in v.4, it is plain that these references are to Israel, not to an individual. Other solutions do not fare much better (see EBC, 6:571). It is foolhardy to be dogmatic about the meaning of these puzzling words. On the whole, it seems best to take them as a proverbial saying about something amazing and hard to believe.
d. Judah’s bright future (31:23–26)
23–25 Jeremiah, after painting a magnificent picture of Ephraim’s return and blessing, addresses Judah with words of strong assurance and with promises similar to those given Ephraim. When the southern kingdom and her cities are restored, the old greeting of those visiting Jerusalem will be heard once more. “O sacred mountain” refers to the temple mount and Jerusalem as a whole (cf. Ps 2:6; Isa 66:20). The city will again be characterized by her righteousness (cf. Isa 1:21). Once spiritual things are cared for, temporal things will be provided. Judah’s cities will not be abandoned by their inhabitants, and those settled in them will enjoy tranquillity and prosperity without fear of marauders or invading armies. Indeed, every individual need will be amply met.
26 Jeremiah gives his own response to the bright promises of the millennial time under Messiah. The truths he had been communicating had been given him in a supernatural dream during a sleep that may have been ecstatic. Jeremiah’s sleep was sweet because the truths he received in them were comforting predictions of future glory for God’s people.
e. National increase under Messiah (31:27–30)
27–30 Because invasions and deportations had taken humans and animals from the land, the Lord used Jeremiah to portray a dramatic renewal of the land through resowing the country with both. That messianic times are in view is clear from the formula “The days are coming” (cf. 30:3). What a contrast to the condition of the land with its population and cattle decimated by the captivities! Once their chastisement and suffering are over, the Lord will refashion his people and his land; he prefers to build rather than destroy. Verses 29–30 reflect the bitterness of the exiles who traced their predicament to the sins of their parents and ancestors. They felt that God was judging them unjustly for circumstances they were not responsible for (the popular proverb mentioned in v.29 is also used by Ezekiel in Eze 18:2–4). One would think that in light of Dt 24:16 no one would claim that children had to pay for the sins of their parents. The altogether sufficient answer to the fatalistic despair voiced by the proverb is that in the suffering of Israel individual responsibility is clear. Each man and woman was personally responsible; so none could claim exculpation.
f. God’s new covenant (31:31–34)
This portion of the book has been acclaimed as one of the most important passages in the entire OT. It is beyond dispute that the passage has had tremendous influence on NT doctrine. Likely the concept of the new covenant is Jeremiah’s greatest contribution to biblical truth.
At this point an outline of the remainder of the chapter, detailing the fullness of Jeremiah’s revelation, will be useful:
1. The time of the covenant (v.31)—“The time is coming”
2. The Maker of the covenant (v.31)—the LORD (vv.3, 20, 32, 35);
3. The name of the covenant (v.31)—new (Ro 11:27; Heb 8:6–13; 10:14–18; also Mt 26:26–28; Mk 14:22–24; Lk 22:19–20; 1Co 11:23–25);
4. The parties of the covenant (v.31)—“house of Israel” and “house of Judah” (cf. Eze 37:15–19; Ro 9:4–5);
5. The contrasted covenant (v.32)—not like the old covenant: based on merit and works, susceptible of infraction, no enablement, did not give life (Gal 3:21);
6. The nature of the covenant (vv.33–34)—not dependent on external law nor human interpretation; law written on the heart; gives intimate knowledge of and fellowship with God, forgiveness of sins, and peace of heart;
7. The immutability of the covenant (vv.35–37)—the unchanging purpose of God reflected in the fixed order of nature;
8. The physical aspects of the covenant (vv.38–40)—rebuilt Jerusalem in holiness and permanence;
9. The Guarantor of the covenant (vv.31–40)—“declares the LORD” or “the LORD says” (nine times), as though to swear by himself (cf. Heb 6:17–18).
31 This mountain-peak OT passage stands in a real sense as the climax of Jeremiah’s teaching. Jeremiah wrote the passage while he was shut up in the court of the guard. The words “the time is coming” have already been used by Jeremiah; they are an eschatological formula that places the prophecy in messianic times in the Day of the Lord, the consummation period of the nation’s history (cf. v.27). The promise relates to a “new covenant” and is a prediction of a radical change in God’s economy (i.e., his dealing with humanity). Thus when Jeremiah foretold a new covenant, by implication the Mosaic covenant became the old one (cf. Heb 8:13). Moreover, the new covenant is an eternal one. National covenants do not die because of old age. The old covenant spoke of a great physical deliverance from Egypt through the blood of lambs and the power of God; the new covenant proclaims a great spiritual deliverance from sin and death through the efficacious blood of the Lamb of God and the power of God. The Passover Feast memorialized the first; the Lord’s Supper memorializes the second.
Jeremiah explicitly presents the parties to the covenant: the Lord, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Notice that the covenant brings to mind the cleavage of the nation into two kingdoms, but notice also that both parts of the nation are included. The whole covenant is for the whole nation. Significantly, the new covenant will be with God’s chosen people, as was the old. It could not be made with the church because no former (old) covenant had been made with her.
Does this mean that believers today have no part in this new covenant? Surely not, for the same death of Christ that implemented the new covenant for Israel does so for all sinners for all time. The testimony of the entire NT is too clear on this point to be misunderstood. Because Israel rejected the covenant in the first advent, Gentiles availed themselves of its provisions (cf. Ro 9:30–33); and Israel will yet ratify it at the climax of her history (cf. Zec 12:10–13:1). Thus it is correct to say that all believers in Christ are by virtue of this covenant grafted into the stock of Abraham (cf. Ro 11:16–24).
Does this mean that another covenant needs to be made for either Israel or Gentiles? Obviously not, since both share redemption by faith in the blood of the new covenant. Writing to Hebrews of his time, including believing Hebrews, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews makes clear how the new covenant now avails for both (cf. Heb 8; see also Eph 3:1–7).
Some ask how the new covenant can apply to the church when it was to be negotiated with Israel and Judah. The historical argument is insurmountable: when the new covenant was inaugurated (see the gospel accounts), there was no church, nor could there be until the resurrection of Christ (cf. Eph 1:22–23). Furthermore, although Jer 31 does not state it, the making of the new covenant was inextricably bound up with the crucifixion of Christ for all humankind. When Israel refused to enter into the covenant (cf. Isa 53; Mt 22:1–10; Lk 14:15–23), God having but one way of salvation for all ages of history, the offer of redemption (the procuring means of the covenant) went out to all people. Although the church is not explicitly seen in the OT, the salvation of non-Jews is predicted more than once (cf. Isa 49:1–7, esp. v.6). It is the new truth of the NT that redeemed Jews and Gentiles constitute the church of this age. Salvation is possible only through the death of Christ, and this is the basis of the new covenant. All sinful humanity is thus in view in this covenant. Finally, Israel as a nation will ratify the covenant after the “full number of the Gentiles has come in” (Ro 11:25–27).
32 Jeremiah points out in this verse that the new covenant is built on the fact of Israel’s failure under the old covenant. Because the old covenant was a legal one (“If you do . . . I will do”), it was incumbent on both parties to maintain its provisions. Israel did not, for the people broke the first commandment before Moses descended from Sinai. The fault lay with the people and their sin; they broke the covenant. Thus the new covenant must supersede the old. If the old covenant had not been broken, then what need was there for the ministry of Jeremiah or any of the OT prophets?
The day when the covenant was “made with their forefathers” refers to the whole period of the Exodus (cf. 7:22). “I took them by the hand” is a tender nuance of paternal love and concern. The blame for breaking the covenant rested wholly on Israel and Judah, for there was no fault in God; he had ever been as faithful to them as a faithful husband to his wife. This marriage relationship was the very basis on which God expected obedience to and fidelity in the covenant.
33 Once more Jeremiah stresses the nature of the covenant as a national covenant. The parties are the same as in v.31. The time factor is after the return from exile. Instead of changing his covenant relationship to his people because they broke the old covenant, in his grace God finds a way whereby they will not break the new covenant. God will write the law on their hearts. The old covenant had been engraved in stone; the new covenant will include a revolutionary change in will, heart, and conscience. It will be an internal covenant. The law now becomes a principle of life (cf. Ro 8:1–4), a part of the nature of God’s people. The core of the new covenant is God’s gift of a new heart (cf. Eze 36:25–27). The motivation for obeying God’s law is inner knowledge of his will, coupled with an enablement to perform it—all founded on the assurance that sins are forgiven.
Permanence is also a feature of this covenant (cf. vv.35–37). Since the inward dynamic was absent in the old covenant, it could not be effective. There must be an inner force, a new power. The entire transaction implies the new birth set forth in the gospel. The regenerate spirit is the source of all godly action. The “heart” (GK 4213) includes one’s emotional, ethical, and intellectual life. The goal of the covenant is that relation between God and his people that was emphasized from Abraham’s time on (cf. Eze 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Jn 1:10–13; 3:1–16).
Is it not strange that many believers today yearn for laws and rules, putting themselves under the economy of the old covenant, which Jeremiah, Christ, and the apostles warned was not capable of fulfillment? No wonder the new covenant is a missionary message for the world! Its nature is individual, internal, and universal. The reason Jeremiah emphasized the national factor (cf. vv.31–33) was that he wanted to stress the origin of the covenant and to sharpen the contrast between the new covenant and the old covenant, which was made with Israel only at Sinai.
34 One grand feature of the new covenant is that it affords a clear apprehension of God and his will by believers without human mediation. God will be known instinctively and his will performed spontaneously (cf. Isa 54:13; Jn 6:45). The knowledge spoken of is not theoretical knowledge transmitted by religious instruction. It is rather knowledge of God based on a heart experience of divine grace and imparted by the Holy Spirit, with assurance that the believer has been received into the family of God through the forgiveness of sins.
This knowledge does not militate against or render unnecessary religious instruction (cf. 1Co 12:28–29; Eph 4:11–12). There will be direct access to God for both Jew and Gentile through Christ, our High Priest (cf. Heb 4:16; 10:19–22). This does not mean that every believer will be self-sufficient and independent of others. But it does indicate that all will have their own experience of God without resort to others. “The least of them” is broad in meaning and includes “the least” in intellectual ability, in influence or position, in moral capacity—all are included in the comprehensive scope of the phrase.
The climax of this wonderful section comes in the revelation that the basis of the new covenant is forgiveness of sin. Thus gratitude for forgiveness will issue in spontaneous obedience. The new covenant does not envision sjnlessness but forgiveness of sin, resulting in restoration of fellowship with God. Its foundation is the absolute and complete forgiveness of all sins. The covenant shows no dependence on law, temple, sacrifices, ark, human priesthood, nation, or country. The old covenant did not, could not, and was never intended to save anyone. The last clause of v.34 states that what grace forgives, divine omniscience forgets.
In summary, the enunciation of the new covenant, which differs so much from the old, focuses on its permanence and its sustaining principle that evokes gratitude for the forgiveness of sin. The overarching emotion is love, not fear. The goal in both covenants is the same: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (cf.Ex 29:45; Lev 26:12).
g. The perpetuity of Israel (31:35–40)
35–37 The value of the new covenant is that it is an eternal covenant made with an eternal people. The permanence of the nation is illustrated from the fixed arrangements in nature. The survival of Israel through the centuries can be explained only on supernatural grounds (cf. 33:20, 25). As unchangeable as the laws of nature is God’s covenant with the deathless nation. The concept of “nation” (GK 1580) carries with it geographical location, government, and other ethnic features to be fully realized in the end time. In short, it is utterly impossible that Israel should cease to be a nation before God. National existence is assured, regardless of how God may have to deal with individuals in the nation. God regards his promises rather than their demerits.
38–40 Since a literal nation must have an actual geographical location, it is revealed that the capital, Jerusalem, will be rebuilt and expanded—the very city that Jeremiah was before long to see destroyed by the Chaldean army. A renewed covenant demands a renewed Jerusalem. It will be greatly enlarged and permanently settled. The rebuilding is not for the people themselves or for secular purposes but for the glory of the Lord. It will be dedicated and separated to him.
The rebuilding of the city will encompass the four corners of the capital (cf. Zec 14:10). The Tower of Hananel was the northeast corner of the city (cf. Ne 3:1; 12:39; Zec 14:10). The Corner Gate probably refers to the one at the northwest corner of the city wall (cf. 2Ki 11:13; 2Ch 26:9). The locations of Gareb and Goah are unknown. The valley of the corpses and ashes is generally understood to be the Valley of Hinnom (cf. 7:31). The Kidron flows east of Jerusalem (cf. 2Sa 15:23). The Horse Gate is apparently at the southeast corner of the temple courts (cf. Ne 3:28 with 2Ki 11:16; 2Ch 23:15). Thus even the polluted areas would be sanctified to the Lord.
In strong language this section closes with the affirmation that the city will be invincible forever. A permanent nation calls for a permanent capital. The rebuilding of the city envisioned here cannot be that effected in Nehemiah’s day because the contextual considerations demand the end time for Israel (cf. “days are coming” [vv.27, 31]) and the temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel was again thrown down and destroyed (cf. Mt 24:1–2; Lk 21:2–4). Finally, in the broader context of prophecy, this passage will not permit an interpretation that applies it to a spiritual, heavenly, or symbolic Jerusalem.
3. The manifestation of faith (32:1–44)
This chapter shows the reality of Jeremiah’s faith in the Lord’s promises of the nation’s restoration. The time was the second year of the siege of Jerusalem (588–587 B.C.). The siege had begun in Zedekiah’s ninth year (cf. 39:1), but the Babylonians had withdrawn on hearing of the approach of the Egyptian army (cf. 37:5). Jerusalem fell in August of the following year, 586 B.C. On “the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar,” see comment on 25:1.
Chapter 32 deals with what happened during the years before the capture of Jerusalem, the destruction of the city, and the incidents that immediately followed. What Jeremiah did at that time showed his faith in the nation’s restoration to the land after the Captivity. It was indeed a dark time. Jerusalem was undergoing its final siege, and Jeremiah himself was in prison. But it was also just the time for a heroic example of faith.
a. The setting for Jeremiah’s act of faith (32:1–5)
1–2 This entire chapter moves within the framework of the OT law of redemption. The tenth year of Zedekiah was 587 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 25:8). The siege of Jerusalem was at an advanced state. The outlook was dark, the situation desperate. Verse 2 tells of Jeremiah’s imprisonment; vv.3–5 give the reason for this.
Chapter 37 shows us that Jeremiah had not yet been imprisoned during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and the raising of that siege by the approach of the Egyptian army (cf. 37:4–12). During the temporary raising of the Babylonian siege, when he tried to leave the city to go to the land of Benjamin, Jeremiah was taken and thrown into a dungeon on the pretense that he was defecting to the Babylonians (37:11, 16). He remained there until Zedekiah ordered him to appear before him to be questioned about the outcome of the war. When he told Zedekiah that he would be captured by Nebuchadnezzar (37:17), Jeremiah then lamented about the difficulty of his own imprisonment (37:20) and begged not to be put back into the dungeon. So Zedekiah ordered him (37:21) to be moved to the “courtyard of the guard,” where he stayed until the city fell (38:13, 28; 39:14). He was shut up at the request of the officials (38:4–6) and at Zedekiah’s command. The courtyard of the guard, probably a stockade (cf. Ne 3:25), was the part of the palace area set apart for prisoners. The soldiers who guarded the palace were quartered there.
3–5 There is no contradiction between v.3 and 37:15. Verse 3 is a general account without details. The officers had confined Jeremiah in Jonathan’s house (37:15), but Zedekiah had moved him into the palace (37:21). Even though Zedekiah witnessed the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s predictions, he was angry enough to imprison him, as if this could alter what was happening. Zedekiah, then, is ultimately responsible for Jeremiah’s imprisonment. Zedekiah should have known by this time that Jeremiah’s message was not his own. In plain, unequivocal terms Jeremiah foretold Zedekiah’s fate. Most scholars believe that v.4 speaks of the Lord’s punishment of Zedekiah. All that is intended by the passage, however, appears to be Zedekiah’s death, because he was never released from Babylon.
b. The Lord’s command (32:6–8)
6–7 Throughout this chapter Jeremiah is giving his own report of events. His purchase of the field from Hanamel, his cousin, was meant to encourage the people regarding their return from captivity and to show Jeremiah’s firm faith in their future despite their desperate situation. The situation is all the more dramatic since the field Jeremiah was to buy had already been captured by the invading Babylonians.
The Lord told Jeremiah in advance that his cousin Hanamel would come to him. That Hanamel did so was in accordance with the law in Lev 25:23–28 (cf. Ru 4:1–6). Family property must not pass into the hands of an outsider. The purpose of this law was to keep property in the family. For the seller this was duty; for the relative or kinsman-redeemer it was a right. Thus such a transaction is spoken of as the duty of redemption and the right of preemption. Hanamel was evidently childless. The passage reveals that the ancient laws of land tenure were still followed in Judah in spite of its apostasy. In addition to the general law for all Israel, these land-tenure laws would in Jeremiah’s time have special relevance to alienation of property belonging to priestly families—property that should not pass into nonpriestly hands.
8 Here was a public test of Jeremiah’s prophecies about the future blessing of the land. Hanamel was able to visit Jeremiah because the siege was not yet a tight one. His request for his cousin to buy the field seemed preposterous with the enemy at the gates of Jerusalem and exile certain. When Hanamel came, Jeremiah knew that the Lord was behind the offer. He had not doubted the Lord’s word and had its confirmation in vv.6–7. Now he realized all the meaning of the purchase in relation to the nation’s future.
c. The purchase (32:9–15)
9–11 Jeremiah’s faith sustained him in what appeared to be the inevitable loss of his money. We do not know the source of his income, nor can we speculate about the adequacy or inadequacy of the price or about the size of the field. The transaction was carried out with legal precision. This is the only account in the Bible of a purchase of this kind. Before the introduction of coinage about the sixth century B.C., payment in financial transactions was made by weighing out quantities of gold or silver. Signing, sealing, and the presence of witnesses were necessary for legalizing a transaction like the one between Hanamel and Jeremiah. Two copies of the deed were made, one for security and the other for future reference in proving that the agreed-on terms had not been tampered with. All the conditions of the sale were carefully specified. The title deeds went to the buyer. The practice of sealing deeds throws light on the metaphor of the seven-sealed scroll (Rev 5:1), which was the title deed to the world purchased by Christ.
12–14 The deed (in duplicate) was given Baruch, the trusted confidant and secretary of Jeremiah, for preservation from loss or mutilation. Up to this point, Baruch had kept himself in the background; this is the first mention of him in the book. The sale was made as public as possible; secret transactions were avoided. Moreover, the publicity stressed and disseminated the message implicit in Jeremiah’s purchase of the field. The documents were stored in clay jars to ensure their permanence (the Dead Sea Scrolls, written on leather, have survived in earthenware jars for over two thousand years). Usually the jars were sealed with pitch. As for Jeremiah’s transaction, it is obvious that after the Exile the deeds would be of great value to the owners. Here, then, is an instance of ancient title insurance.
15 Finally, Jeremiah stated that his purchase of the field symbolized the restoration of Israel to her land after the Captivity. This afforded comfort to the beleaguered people of Judah. Jeremiah had availed himself of the opportunity the Lord had given him of showing his full confidence in the prophecy that had been revealed to him by the Lord.
d. Jeremiah’s doubts and prayer (32:16–25)
16 Jeremiah may have longed for some reconciliation of his purchase with his prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction. There was the possibility that his hearers would accuse him of changing his position on the fate of Judah. He could hardly believe the promises the Lord had commanded him to proclaim. 5o he had misgivings when he thought it over later on. Although he had explained the meaning of the episode (v.15), he was still troubled by its improbabilities; furthermore, he also longed for reassurance for the people.
17–25 In his prayer Jeremiah deals with the Lord’s grace to Israel throughout her long history. He begins at the place where all theology should begin—the person and works of God. He acknowledges the power of God-in creation. Then Jeremiah speaks of the boundless grace of God to humankind and the truth of divine retribution for sin. Grace does not disregard the righteousness of God. Divine retribution is likened to a harvest laborer’s putting his pay into the folds of his children’s garments.
Next Jeremiah magnifies the wisdom of God, who in his omniscience surveys all the deeds of humanity in order to dispense absolute justice. Jeremiah sees the wonderful works the Lord did on behalf of Israel in Egypt as harbingers of mercies he continued to show them “to this day.” After that Jeremiah summarizes the Lord’s gracious dealings from the Exodus through the Conquest and Israel’s settlement in the land. Finally, in spite of this outpouring of God’s love to them, Jeremiah acknowledges that Israel decided to live in disobedience to God’s will, thus bringing on themselves their present calamities.
The “siege ramps” (GK 6149) were earthworks used in capturing a city. The Babylonians had already reached the city walls. As the Lord had foretold, the enemy had ample weaponry. The siege was successful, the city was doomed, and there was no hope of escape. The Lord’s long and patient warnings were coming true. The fall of the city and the divine command for Jeremiah’s purchase of land seemed irreconcilable. The incongruity was plain. Why buy the field when it would soon be lost to the Babylonians? Yet God had commanded Jeremiah to buy the field and to do it publicly. It was a situation calling for faith in and obedience to the word the Lord had given him to proclaim. So Jeremiah prayed for illumination rather than for confirmation of his understanding of the purpose of God.
e. The Lord’s answer (32:26–35)
26–9 The Lord’s reply to Jeremiah’s prayer was reassuring. As impossible as a bright future for Jeremiah and his people might seem, it was not outside the range of the Lord’s power. The omnipotent God is the source of confidence for believers in all ages. So the Lord’s assurance came to Jeremiah in the very words he had used (cf. v.17). A divine summary of the nation’s punishment follows. The people’s sins had made judgment inescapable, and Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem was the inevitable retribution for persistent idolatry. The homes the Lord had given his people had been used for the degenerate worship of Baal. That the people practiced their idolatry on the rooftops shows their brazen defiance of the Lord’s repeated warnings.
30–33 The nation’s stubborn resistance to the Lord’s will had characterized the people from the beginnings of their national existence, which 2:2 places at the Exodus (cf. Ex 32). The reference to the work of their hands probably includes not only their idols but also their deeds in general. This was what aroused God’s wrath in punishing them. In sweeping condemnation Jeremiah declares the long-standing character of their idolatry “from the day [the city] was built.” Solomon had completed the building of the city, and he was the first of all Israel’s kings to fall into idolatry. All the inhabitants of the city, from the highest to the lowest, were implicated in the sin, unwilling to be taught and to be turned from their wicked practices.
34–35 The height of the nation’s impiety was reached when the people set up their idols in the temple of God himself. Their obscene symbols had been removed during Josiah’s reforms, but they were reintroduced in the years of apostasy after Josiah’s reign (cf. 7:30; 2Ki 23:4, 6). Molech worship included human sacrifice; so along with gross idolatry went child sacrifice (cf. 19:1–13). So abhorrent was this practice that the Lord by a strong anthropomorphism says that it had never entered his mind that his favored people would stoop so low.
f. Promises of restoration (32:36–44)
36–42 The Lord views the “city” as representing the whole kingdom. In their ultimate condition, the people would be restored to their land, and the country would again be prosperous. After the punishment, a godly remnant would return from exile to normal activity. “All the lands” presupposes a worldwide dispersion.
The new covenant is reiterated because the prophets looked forward to more than just a physical return of the people (cf. 31:32). The covenant bond between God and his people will be renewed, and they will walk in righteousness. This relationship is at the heart of the covenant in the past and in the future. Material and spiritual blessings go hand in hand. Moreover, the nation will be characterized by unity of purpose and life. They will show singleness of purpose in both thoughts and acts devoted to the Lord. The reference to inner disposition and outward expression again points to the new covenant with its promise of a new heart. Unity always characterizes the Messianic Era (cf. Zep 3:9; Zec 14:9; Jn 10:16). The covenant will never again be broken (cf. Isa 55:3; Eze 37:26). Moreover, the promise of restoration (“assuredly plant them”) is just as certain as the predictions of punishment. Whatever God foretells, he makes good.
43–44 Finally, Jeremiah returns to the main theme of this chapter. His transaction was an example to be universally followed in the future restoration. What he did will be repeated by many others in that coming day. A population increase after the decimation of warfare and exile is implied. Jeremiah mentions several specific places in the land to show that the Lord’s promise covers the whole country (cf. 17:26). Benjamin is mentioned first perhaps because of the property of Jeremiah at Anathoth.
4. The righteous reign of the Davidic Ruler (33:1–26)
This chapter concludes the Book of Consolation (chs. 30–33). The remainder of Jeremiah deals with Jerusalems final siege and destruction and with the ultimate results of the prophecies against the nations. It also contains additional promises of future blessing. The theme of ch. 33 is the restoration of Jerusalem and the reestablishment of its worship. The date and occasion are the same as in ch. 32. Once more the Lord gives Judah light in her darkest hours.
a. The exhortation to call on the Lord (33:1–3)
1–3 This new message probably came to Jeremiah soon after the Lord spoke to him about the field (ch. 32). He was still imprisoned in the courtyard of the guard, where the elders and officers of the king could consult him. But the word of God is not bound. The pronouncements now to be given Jeremiah are weighty; so the Lord underscores their veracity by affixing his eternal name to them. He himself is surety for the program he is unfolding. So he invites Jeremiah to ask him for remarkable disclosures. The things to be revealed are “funsearchable” (GK 1290) because they are beyond the grasp of human knowledge. The things under consideration are the truths concerning the restoration of the nation and Jerusalem.
b. The certainty of the fall of Jerusalem (33:4–5)
4–5 All the efforts of the king and his people to save Jerusalem would be futile. Theirs was a lost cause. “The houses . . . and the royal palaces of Judah” were not demolished by the enemy but by the besieged people of Jerusalem who used them for defense against the Babylonians. But whatever measures were taken to defend the city would be useless. “The dead bodies” refers to the defenders of Jerusalem, not to the Babylonians. Opposing the invaders could not change the situation, for God had withdrawn his favor from his people because of their wickedness.
c. Days of return and rejoicing (33:6–13)
6–9 Past trials will yet be turned into blessings. So Jeremiah sets forth promises of prosperity: health, restoration, joy, and peace. The word “health” (GK 776) is literally “new flesh.” The Exile will have a healing effect. The wounds of the nation will be bound up in peace and security. God will repair the losses and rebuild the land that had been destroyed. The restoration of Judah and Israel must refer to the latter days (i.e., the Messianic era) because the captivity of Israel did not end after seventy years. Judah and Israel will be restored as one kingdom, just as they were before the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam. Far more important than any territorial restitution will be the pardon and cleansing from the Lord. The future for the Jews will be so glorious that the nations will stand in awe of them and tremble at their greatness. Thus Jerusalem, with its former state reversed, will be made holy.
10–11 Jeremiah sees Judah and Jerusalem as already desolate and fallen. But they will arise; there will be joy in worship in the temple. Joy and gladness will not only mark the relationships of God’s people but will also mark their worship in his temple. The liturgical words are those used by the Levitical singers in the temple service (Ps 106:1) and show that the temple will be rebuilt and the ministry restored as in preexilic days. Joy will be accompanied by security.
12–13 The reference to shepherds with their flocks points to a future time of peace, tranquillity, and prosperity. In ancient Israel and Judah, shepherds counted their sheep as they came to the fold at night. So in the restored and united kingdom, the shepherds will count their sheep in peace.
d. Restoration of royalty and priesthood (33:14–22)
14 Jeremiah declares that monarchy and priesthood, interrupted by the Exile, will coexist permanently. He proclaims the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty and the Levitical priesthood without equivocation. The predicted restoration (“the days are coming”) is not, however, to be looked for in the immediate time of the return from the Exile. Only in a limited and preliminary way were these promises fulfilled in Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar after the Exile (cf. Ezr 1:8; 2:2; also 2:40–54; 8:15–20). Ultimately, they are combined in the highest sense in Christ (cf. Ps 110:4) and are yet to be fulfilled in his reign on earth.
15 The good word the prophets announced comprises the entire panorama of glorious promises made to both parts of the nation. “Those days” are the messianic times (cf. the parallel prophecy in 23:1–8). It is through the Lord Messiah, the righteous One, that the restoration and attendant blessings will be realized. Jeremiah’s picture of the coming Messiah is varied and unique. He pictures the coming Messiah as (1) “the spring of living water” (2:13); (2) the good “shepherd” (23:4; 31:10); (3) the “righteous Branch” (here and 23:5); (4) the “Redeemer” (50:34); (5) “The LORD Our Righteousness” (23:6); (6) “David their king” (30:9); and (7) the agent of “the new covenant” (31:31–34).
16 Salvation and safety are in store for Judah and Jerusalem because of the presence of justice and righteousness personified. The name given the Messiah in 23:6 is here given to Jerusalem. The holy city can have the same name as the Messiah because she reflects that righteousness the Messiah bestows on her. Jerusalem will then be the embodiment of the nation’s ideal in the Messiah. The city will be marked by righteousness.
17–18 If one sees in these verses a constant presence and succession of Davidic rulers and Levitical priests, then history does not validate this interpretation. But the passage claims no such thing. It says only that David’s dynasty will never cease. Temporary interruption is only apparent; there is no true cessation. David’s Scion still lives in the Messiah. To Jeremiah, David will never lack a descendant to occupy his throne. His dynasty will never be permanently cut off (see Lk 1:32–33 and comments). The permanence of the royal and priestly lines is thus forcefully stated. In the highest sense Christ as King-Priest, of course, fulfills these promises (cf. Ps 110:4).
But in the priestly realm the primary emphasis is on Levi’s line, which must not be confused with Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Monarchy and priesthood were the two bases of the OT theocracy. When these appeared to be in danger of extinction in Jeremiah’s day, we find their continuance couched in sure and irrevocable terms. What is affirmed of the monarchy in v.17 is promised the priesthood in v.18. The Levitical priesthood is assured a permanent ministry (cf. Nu 25:13). As legitimate priests, they will serve the Lord.
19–22 What has been stated in 31:35–37 as a guarantee of the new covenant is now used to illustrate the certainty of the continuance of the monarchy and priesthood. The greater the promises, the stronger the assurances that they will be fulfilled. The certainty of the prophecies is riveted in God’s order in nature, and the prophecies themselves are linked with the unfailing regularity of the natural order. A nullification of the covenant is an impossibility. Just as the covenant with Noah (cf. Ge 8:22) is kept, so the covenant with David (cf. 2Sa 7) and that with Levi (Nu 17) will also be kept. Moreover, the Lord adds a promise of a great increase in the descendants of David and the Levites; what was originally stated of the entire nation is here specifically applied to them (cf. Ge 15:5; 22:17).
e. Confirmation of the promises (33:23–26)
23–24 The reproach that the nation had suffered from her neighbors and even the unbelievers in her midst will be removed. The two kingdoms are Israel and Judah. This points to a time when the nation will still be divided as in Rehoboam’s time. Certain Jews, discouraged by the times, thought that without freedom and a government of their own they were no longer a nation (cf. Ro 11:1). The fear and lament of the people shows that they considered that God had forsaken them utterly and finally.
25–26 Of what use would the greatest national promises be if the nation did not exist to enjoy them? The Lord guarantees his people that he will make good every promise. They will certainly return from exile. They are undeniably the eternal nation. The Lord will allow no one to impugn his covenant promises to Israel. The threefold mention of the patriarchs points to the whole chain of promises repeatedly given them. Nature will utterly collapse before God goes back on the slightest promise to his people.
C. Messages and Events Before the Fall of Jerusalem (34:1–39:18)
1. Zedekiah and the mistreated slaves (34:1–22)
Chapters 34–38 are largely occupied with Jeremiah’s experiences during the siege of Jerusalem. Like other portions of the book, they are not in strict chronological order. Most of the events they narrate took place in the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.
a. The warning to Zedekiah (34:1–7)
1–2 This section stresses the certainty of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem. In view of this it would have been wise for Zedekiah to surrender. Jeremiah’s faithfulness in delivering this warning led to his imprisonment. He set clear choices and their consequences before the king.
This passage must be dated before the actual siege began (i.e., 589–588 B.C.; cf. 39:1–2; 2Ki 24:20–25:1), because the Judean cities were only being threatened by Nebuchadnezzar at this time, and Jeremiah was not yet in prison. Cities like Lachish and Azekah (v.7) were not yet captured and Jerusalem was still free. The siege itself lasted from 588–586 B.C. Soldiers came from subject countries to join in the siege (cf. 2Ki 24:2). As v.22 shows, the Babylonians, who had temporarily retired from the siege (37:5), would return to finish the destruction of Jerusalem.
3 This verse discloses the fate of Zedekiah in the siege. The Lord’s message to him was that he should not be led astray by the temporary respite in the siege; the situation was actually hopeless. Zedekiah himself would have to face the invader (32:4). The mention of a face-to-face confrontation with Nebuchadnezzar shows something of the fear he inspired. Zedekiah could not escape the consequences of his treason in breaking his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar. He would have to answer personally for it. After his confrontation with Nebuchadnezzar, Zedekiah was blinded and taken to Babylon (52:11; cf. Eze 12:13).
4–5 Through Jeremiah the Lord counseled Zedekiah to surrender. The Lord promised him that he would not be slain but would die in captivity. Unlike Jehoiakim (cf. 22:18–19), Zedekiah would die a natural death. The “funeral fire” does not refer to cremation, which was not practiced by the Hebrews, but to the custom of burning spices at royal funerals (cf. 2Ch 16:14; 21:19). The lamentation “Alas, O master!” was normally used of mourning for a king (cf. 22:18).
6–7 Speaking so boldly to the king was hazardous, but Jeremiah feared only God. At the time of this prophecy the only cities that remained uncaptured were Jerusalem, Lachish, and Azekah. The latter two had been fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:5, 9); both were southwest of Jerusalem—Lachish, thirty-five miles, Azekah, fifteen miles, not far from the Philistine border. Since their fall was necessary to the capture of Jerusalem, they marked the southern limit of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion. The Lachish Letters give a vivid picture of these events. Letter 4 reads: “We are watching for the smoke signals of Lachish . . . because we do not see Azekah.” That is, Azekah had already fallen. Lachish capitulated soon after this.
b. The perfidy against the slaves (34:8–11)
8–10 When the siege became more severe, Zedekiah made a covenant with the people to liberate their Hebrew slaves. The Hebrew law concerning slavery (cf. Ex 21:1–11; Lev 25:39–55; Dt 15:12–18) apparently had fallen into disuse. The covenant did not follow the letter of the law because it liberated all the slaves no matter how long they had served. It was ratified most solemnly in the temple (cf. vv.18–20). The covenant probably was made with the thought that the liberated slaves would join in defending the city.
11 When the siege was temporarily lifted through the intervention of their Egyptian allies, the Jews forced the liberated slaves back into former bondage. This was not only a shameful repudiation of their solemn covenant but a flagrant violation of Dt 15:12; it also profaned the Lords name, in which they had made the covenant. To reimpose slavery on those who had been freed showed that the covenant had not been motivated by compassion, justice, and obedience to the Lord’s command.
c. The sin of the nation (34:12–16)
12–14 The Lord reminds the people that their ancestors had been slaves in Egypt. Who, then, should have more compassion on slaves than those who were obligated to keep the Passover, the annual celebration of Israel’s release from Egyptian slavery? Part of the law given at Sinai dealt with Hebrew slaves, and this the people had disobeyed. The words “sold himself” reflect the Near Eastern custom of voluntary slavery for economic reasons. The covenant Zedekiah made did not exactly fit the law in Dt 15:1, 12, because it required the immediate liberation of all slaves, not just those who had served six years. Thus the law did not cover this case. The “seventh year” is the year of liberation; the Hebrews counted both the first and the last years in calculating time periods.
15–16 The sin of Zedekiah and his people was especially serious because they had made the covenant of freedom in the house and name of the Lord. In contrast to earlier generations, they had decided to obey the law of releasing Hebrew slaves. Their covenant was not only a civil and economic act but a religious one as well. Their perfidy had profaned the Lord’s name, in which they had sworn this covenant. Zedekiah was already notorious for breaking his pledged word (cf. Eze 17:11–21) to Nebuchadnezzar on ascending the throne of Judah.
d. The Lord’s retribution for the perfidy (34:17–22)
17–22 Since they had not actually given the slaves freedom, God ironically declares that the people themselves would be freed—freed from his protecting hand. The guilty would be freed for doom and destruction. Because they had enslaved their brothers and sisters, they were to be subjected to their enemies. The ancient method of making a covenant is indicated in v.18 (cf. Ge 15:9–17). The intention was that as they passed through the pieces of the divided sacrifice they invoked on themselves a curse that, if they broke the covenant, they would be cut in pieces like the sacrificial calf. Notice how large a number of the people had contracted to release slaves. The heinousness of their sin is underlined by the punishment decreed for them. The Babylonians had only temporarily lifted the siege to meet Pharaoh Hophra (cf. 37:5, 7–10). The Lord assured Zedekiah and the people that the destruction would finally be consummated. The Babylonians did return and destroyed the city.
2. The faithfulness of the Recabites (35:1–19)
The events of this chapter (which, along with ch. 36, precede chs. 32–34 chronologically) occurred at the close of Jehoiakim’s reign, some seventeen years earlier (i.e., about 606 B.C.). The Babylonians and Arameans were ravaging the land (cf. v.1l; 2Ki 24:2) and had driven many in Judah, the Recabites among them, to take refuge in Jerusalem.
a. Jeremiah’s test of the Recabites (35:1–5)
1–2 The episode is a rebuke to the nation for their unfaithfulness to God. “The Recabite family” refers to their clan. They were a separatist group, stemming from Jonadab (or Jehonadab, c. 840 B.C.; cf. 2Ki 10:15–23). Desiring to return to the simplicity of the nomadic life, they banned all sedentary occupations. As relations of the Kenites, they were kindred of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law (cf. Jdg 1:16; 1Ch 2:55). Their ancestor Jonadab was prominent in purging the northern kingdom of Baal worship in the time of Jehu (c. 840 B.C.). The Recabites lived in the southern deserts (1Sa 15:6) and in Israelite territory (Jdg 4:17; 5:24). With the fall of the northern kingdom, they moved south into Judah. The “side rooms” were probably anterooms of the temple used for storage and available to the Levites (cf. 1Ch 28:12). This chapter must not be interpreted in such a way as to imply that God necessarily approved of the restriction Jonadab placed on his descendants, the Recabites. What God commended was the fidelity of the Recabites to their convictions.
3–5 Jeremiah’s testing of the Recabites was commanded by the Lord. We know essentially nothing of the persons mentioned in vv.3–4, except for Maaseiah, who was probably the father of Zephaniah the priest (cf. 21:1; 29:25; 37:3). He was in charge of the money given for the temple repair (cf. 2Ki 12:10). Jaazaniah was probably the leader of the group. The leaders were brought into the house of the Lord in order to publicize the message that was to follow. “The sons of Hanan” (a prophet of God) were probably his disciples. He appears to have been in sympathy with Jeremiah. The three leaders (cf. 52:24; 2Ki 25:18) probably had charge of the inner and outer court of the temple and the entrance door. They ranked next to the high priest and his deputy. Jeremiah put wine before the Recabites and invited them to drink.
b. The Recabites’ loyalty to Jonadab (35:6–11)
6–11 The Recabites could not be tempted to disregard the commands of their ancestor, called “father” (GK 3) in the broad Semitic sense of ancestor. This prohibition was apparently meant to help them escape the defiling Baal worship, which was accompanied by wine drinking and carousing. Viniculture could not be carried on under nomadic conditions, so it too was banned. The restrictions imposed by Jonadab, however, went far beyond abstinence from wine and grape growing; they led to an austere and nomadic lifestyle, reminiscent of the Nazirites (cf. Nu 6:1–21). For over two hundred years this clan had obeyed their forefather’s command. Again, Jeremiah’s commendation was not the asceticism of the Recabites but their fidelity to Jonadab. With the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar and the Arameans, the Recabites could no longer live in tents in the open country but were forced to seek refuge in Jerusalem; but this did not compel them to drink wine.
c. The rebuke to Judah (35:12–17)
12–17 These verses drive home the purpose of the Recabite episode. Jeremiah probably spoke these words in one of the temple courts. They were meant to shame the people of Judah and Jerusalem for the way they had treated the Lord.
1. The Recabites obeyed a fallible leader; Judah’s leader was the eternal God (cf. Mal 1:6).
2. Jonadab gave his commands to the Recabites only once; God repeatedly sent his messages to his people through his prophets.
3. The restrictions that bound the Recabites did not deal with eternal issues; God’s messages to his people had eternal as well as temporal implications.
4. The Recabites obeyed the commands of Jonadab for about three hundred years; the Lord’s people constantly disobeyed.
5. The loyalty of the Recabites would be rewarded; for their disloyalty God’s people would be punished.
d. The Recabites’ reward (35:18–19)
18–19 In promising to bless the Recabites for their fidelity, God did not commend all aspects of their lifestyle (cf. 32:1–15 on land tenure). The expression “serve me” (lit., “stand in my presence”) has been variously understood. It is a technical term for the privilege of service, used of prophets (1Ki 17:1), priests (Nu 16:9), and kings (1Ki 10:8). The term usually involves service in the temple but may not connote that here. Some think the promise in v.18 was literally fulfilled in the Recabites’ being in some way incorporated into the tribe of Levi. But the promise may be a general one because the expression was used of patriarchs (Ge 19:27), of Moses and Samuel (Jer 15:1), and of the nation worshiping the Lord (7:10).
3. Jehoiakim’s penknife and God’s Word (36:1–32)
This chapter contains a unique description of the writing of a substantial portion of God’s Word. We learn from it how Jeremiah’s prophecies were written down after he had spoken them. In those days dictating to a secretary was common. Taking dictation was then, as now, a specialized skill. Jeremiah dictated his book in Jehoiakim’s fourth year (605 B.C.); when the first copy was destroyed (cf. vv.23, 32), a new one with additions was produced. This was a year of highly significant events: the Battle of Carchemish, the defeat of Pharaoh Neco, and the subjugation of Jehoiakim to Nebuchadnezzar. Events before and after the siege of Jerusalem are covered in chs. 36–44.
a. The dictation of the scroll (36:1–8)
1–3 The year is the same as in 25:1 (see comments). The way the events are narrated implies the presence of an eyewitness—doubtless Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary. The Lord commanded Jeremiah to write on a scroll all the messages he had received from the Lord from the beginning of his ministry under Josiah “till now,” i.e., the fourth year of Jehoiakim (cf. 25:1–3; 30:2). (These were undoubtedly the messages Jeremiah had spoken to the people.) The contents of the scroll probably included a summary of Jeremiah’s messages from 626–605 B.C. The written word might be more successful than the preached word. The impending capture of Jerusalem added weight to the hope that the Lord’s warnings through his prophet might yet be effective. The purpose of all Jeremiah’s prophecies of judgment was to spur the nation to repentance, hence the conditional nature of the warnings (cf. 18:8; 26:3).
4–8 Baruch, the prophet’s secretary, came from a prominent family (cf. 45:1; 51:59). Jeremiah was inspired by the Lord to dictate to Baruch from memory. The dates in this chapter (vv.1, 9, 22) show that a number of months passed between the dictation and public reading of what was written. Jeremiah was “restricted” from going to the temple. The authorities had probably forbidden him to speak there because of his unpopular temple address (cf. 7:1–15; 26:1–7). With Nebuchadnezzar on the march against Jerusalem, Jeremiah’s message could no longer be considered harmless. Because he could not go to the temple, he had Baruch act as his agent. To guarantee a good hearing of his written messages, Jeremiah chose a fast day when the people would be assembled in the temple. After the Exile, fast days were specified (cf. Zec 7:3, 5; 8:19), but earlier they were called in times of emergency (cf. Joel 2:12, 15). Some public calamity had occasioned this fast. Internationally, it was a most opportune time for a fast because Jeremiah saw the significance of Egypt’s defeat by the Babylonians at Carchemish in 605 B.C. There was a feeling that turning to the Lord in a public fast might avert the judgment that had been conditionally predicted.
b. The public reading (36:9–10)
9 The “fifth” year was 604 B.C., and the “ninth” month was about December. The fast (proclaimed by the people, not the king) was not that of the seventh month stated in the Law (cf. Lev 16:29; 23:27) but possibly one specially designated because of the first capture of Jerusalem in 605 B.C. (Jerusalem would again be invaded in 597 and 586 B.C.). The ninth month was the one in which the Babylonians sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. These events may have decided Jehoiakim’s shift of allegiance from Egypt to Babylon. The public reading was the first of three readings that day (cf. vv.10, 15, 21). Because of the repeated readings, it is probable that only certain portions were read.
10 Gemariah was the son of Shaphan, Josiah’s secretary of state (cf. 2Ki 22:3, 8, 12). This Gemariah was the brother of Ahikam, a friend of Jeremiah (cf. 26:24); he was not the Gemariah mentioned in 29:3. Shaphan’s family was evidently a noble, godly one. Gemariah permitted Baruch to use his room in the temple’s inner court. Evidently Baruch stationed himself at the door to Gemariah’s room so that what he read could be heard by the assembled people.
c. The reading to the officials (36:11–19)
11–15 It was in Micaiah’s father’s chambers that Baruch read the scroll for the first time (cf. v.10). Micaiah doubtless felt that what Baruch had read affected the public interest; so he told the officials about it. When they had heard what was in the scroll, their response was immediate; and they asked that it be read to them. Of the officials mentioned, Jehudi, otherwise unknown, must have been an important person, since his ancestry is traced back to the third generation. Cushi (lit., “Ethiopian”) does not necessarily imply Ethiopian descent, because the prophet Zephaniah (cf. Zep 1:1) was a son of Cushi and of Hebrew descent. Observe the interest and respect the officials had for the message of the scroll. The way they addressed Baruch (vv.15, 19) implies that they favored him and Jeremiah. Baruch assumed the sitting position of an Oriental teacher (cf. Lk 4:20).
16–19 The reading showed the officials truths so opposed to the hopes of the king that they were stricken with fear. They believed the prophecies and may have feared for the lives of Baruch and Jeremiah as well as their own. Jehoiakim was no champion of the truth. Not in the sense of informers, but because of the terrifying contents of the book, they felt that the king should hear the message. The scroll contained such bold announcements at a time of crisis and struggle for the nation’s existence that they felt it imposed a solemn responsibility on them. Not wishing to appear before the king as uninformed, they asked Baruch how the scroll had come to be written. Artlessly, he told them precisely how he had written down what Jeremiah had dictated. He had only put down the words; in no sense was he a collaborator or an editor. Realizing the potential danger involved and knowing the king’s character, the officials showed their concern for the safety of Jeremiah and Baruch. Later on (cf. v.25) they even risked the king’s displeasure. Their concern for safety was a wise precaution (cf. 26:20–23).
d. The reading to Jehoiakim (36:20–26)
20–21 King Jehoiakim’s reception of the message was openly hostile. Unlike Josiah, his godly father (cf. 2Ki 22:1–23:25), Jehoiakim was not interested in spiritual reform but in an alliance with Egypt and, hence, was not favorable to Babylon (cf. 2Ki 23:34–35). Before the officials came into the inner courtyard where the king’s chambers were, they deposited the scroll in the room of Elishama for safekeeping. They may have surmised what Jehoiakim’s response to it would be; so they tried to keep it out of his reach. But the king ordered the scroll read in his presence.
22–26 So startling are the events that follow that Jeremiah describes them in detail. The king was in the winter house, a warm apartment in a sheltered part of the palace facing the winter sun (cf. Am 3:15). It was December, 604 B.C. A brazier (“firepot”) with burning charcoal was placed in a low place in the middle of the room. Jehoiakim reacted violently to the reading. In an appalling act of blasphemy and contempt for God’s written Word, Jehoiakim took a scribe’s knife and cut off consecutive strips of the scroll as Jehudi read them and tossed them into the fire. Most of the court officials stood by indifferently. They shared the king’s contempt for God’s truth. Three men who opposed the king’s actions are mentioned. Elnathan (cf. 26:22) was now on Jeremiah’s side. In a further act, Jehoiakim compounded his sin by ordering the arrest of Baruch and Jeremiah. But the Lord intervened and used faithful friends to hide them.
e. The prophecies rewritten (36:27–28)
27–28 Soon after the king’s destruction of the scroll, the Lord ordered Jeremiah to write a duplicate of it. God’s message was not to be lost but rewritten in toto—with more added to it.
f. The condemnation of Jehoiakim (36:29–31)
29–31 The king’s anger at Babylon may show that Jehoiakim had already decided on rebellion against Babylon (cf. 2Ki 24:1), a rebellion that resulted in the captivity during the reign of Jehoiachin. The three-month reign of Jehoiachin (cf. 2Ki 24:6, 8) does not contradict the prediction of v.30. Jehoiachin’s succession was not a valid one but only a token one because he was immediately besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, surrendered in three months, and then went into exile, where he died after many years. No other descendant of Jehoiakim ever ascended the throne (Zedekiah was the uncle of Jehoiachin). Possibly Jehoiakim died either in a palace uprising or in an uprising of the people (cf. 22:18–19).
g. The prophecies recorded again (36:32)
32 Jehoiakim’s destruction of the scroll was one of many attempts through the centuries to destroy God’s Word. It is certain that our present text of the book of Jeremiah is longer than the original portions that had brief abstracts of Jeremiah’s earlier prophecies. The additions doubtless included the doom of the godless king.
4. Resolute Jeremiah and weak Zedekiah (37:1–21)
Chapters 37–44 are a continuous record of the later work and experiences of Jeremiah, beginning with the accession of Zedekiah. They include the incidents from the fall of the city and from Jeremiah’s sojourn in Egypt. In ch. 37 we have the captivity of the prophet, in ch. 39 that of Zedekiah.
a. Zedekiah’s request (37:1–5)
1 This verse shows the fulfillment of the judgment Jeremiah pronounced against the godless Jehoiakim in 36:30. Instead of Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar put on the throne Zedekiah, Jehoiakim’s brother and thus the uncle of Jehoiachin. The latter was deported to Babylon after three months’ reign. Zedekiah had solemnly pledged his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar in the name of the Lord. Because of Egyptian influence at his court, which he could not resist, Zedekiah decided to break his pledge. This was the immediate cause of the final siege of Jerusalem. This chapter appears to be the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign, but earlier chapters have already spoken of him (cf. chs. 21, 27–79, 32, 34). He reigned for eleven years (597–586 B.C.).
2–3 The root of Judah’s trouble was spiritual; the people were disobedient to God. In spite of his refusal to heed the word of God, Zedekiah sent messengers to Jeremiah (cf. 21:1–2). The approach of the Egyptian forces (vv.5, 9) seemed to contradict the message of 34:2–7; moreover, with the withdrawal of the Babylonian army, Zedekiah may have thought that Jeremiah’s predictions of doom were wrong after all. Also, Zedekiah may have been encouraged by his alliance with Pharaoh Hophra (c. 590–570 B.C.). At any rate, he revolted against Babylon. Perhaps wanting a message from Jeremiah that would please him, he asked the prophet to pray for him (i.e., to support his actions). What Zedekiah wanted was for the Lord to make the temporary withdrawal of the Babylonians permanent. He may somehow have felt that the presence of Jeremiah, though he predicted doom, would ensure God’s protection against Jerusalem’s capture. As for his regard for Jeremiah, it was with superstition. Jehucal (cf. 38:1), one of the messengers sent to Jeremiah, later became an enemy of the prophet.
4–5 Jeremiah was not yet imprisoned (see also v.13). To help understand the narrative, there is a historical note in v.5 (see 34:8–11). At the approach of Egyptian troops, led by Hophra (cf. 44:30), Babylon temporarily raised her siege of Jerusalem. Soon after this, the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians and resumed the siege of Jerusalem.
b. Jeremiah’s reply (37:6–10)
6–10 Jeremiah did not waver in his fidelity to the truth. The relief of Jerusalem was, he said, only temporary and would ultimately change nothing. This was only a passing incident. Circumstances and appearances to the contrary, God’s ultimate word about Jerusalem was that it would be taken and burned. There was no basis for a false hope. Then the prophet stated in the strongest terms God’s unchanging purpose to destroy Jerusalem. This was unquestionably his will. Escape was out of the question. Even the “wounded” would be able to carry out the doom threatening God’s people.
c. The charge of treason against Jeremiah (37:11–15)
11–12 This section deals with Jeremiah’s imprisonment after he was charged with treason. There was no proof whatever that he meant to defect to the Babylonians when the siege was temporarily lifted. His enemies misinterpreted his leaving the city and threw him into a dungeon. Apparently he left the city to care for certain of his property affairs in his native Anathoth. Jeremiah’s intention is clear; the time was opportune for settling his affairs. But he planned to remain in Judah in spite of his divinely given warnings of impending disaster.
13–15 The Benjamin Gate was north of the city and led to the territory of that tribe. Irijah accused Jeremiah, who was already suspect because of his exhortations to surrender to the invaders (cf. 21:8–10), of defecting to the enemy. But Jeremiah could hardly have been deserting to the enemy, because they were already gone. The charge was vicious and nonsensical. Perhaps revenge for Jeremiah’s prediction of the death of Irijah’s grandfather Hananiah (cf. 28:16) motivated the charge. Many who heard Jeremiah followed his advice and deserted to the Babylonians (cf. 38:2, 19; 39:9; 52:15). The officials involved in beating and arresting him were surely not those of Josiah’s time (cf. 26:16; 36:19), for they were probably captives in Babylon with Jehoiachin. Beating Jeremiah was an indignity his sensitive spirit felt deeply.
The home of Jonathan the secretary was made the prophet’s prison, perhaps because he was just one of many deserters and political prisoners. It was not uncommon in the ancient East to use part of an officer’s home as a prison. The treatment Jeremiah received is understandable, not excusable, on the grounds of the desperate plight of the city. Jonathan’s house turned out to be a place where Jeremiah’s life was endangered.
d. Jeremiah in the dungeon (37:16–21)
16–17 The prophet was put in “a vaulted cell in a dungeon” (lit., “the house of the cistern-pit”). The cell was a subterranean room adjoining the dungeon. The “long time” refers to the period when the Babylonians renewed their siege. So desperate was the situation for Jerusalem that Zedekiah felt he must have another message from Jeremiah even if he had to speak to him in secret. The nature of this meeting shows Jeremiah’s unpopularity as well as Zedekiah’s weakness in confronting his officials face to face. By this time he realized that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God. Evidently he was hoping Jeremiah would give him a more encouraging word about the Babylonian menace. But Jeremiah did not change his message; it was God’s word, and the condition of Judah remained the same. Though without confidence in his advisers, Zedekiah was too weak to take a firm stand.
18–20 Jeremiah asked for justice, not pity. He wanted a valid accusation because he knew he was innocent of any treasonable actions. Since his words had proved to be true, why should he be imprisoned? If he was imprisoned for telling the truth, why were the false prophets, whose predictions were unfulfilled, not given the same treatment? They were the real traitors. Jeremiah’s questions were uncomfortably fair because events had unmasked the false prophets (cf. Dt 13:1–5; 18:20–22). The situation was ironic: the false prophets who lied to the king and the nation were free; Jeremiah who told them the truth was in prison! The prophet then asks not to be sent back to the house of Jonathan the secretary, lest he die there.
21 Solicitous for the welfare of the prophet, Zedekiah reversed the decision of his officials and transferred Jeremiah to the guardroom, a move that doubtless gave him more security and saved him other indignities. The king also gave him a daily allotment from the rapidly failing food supply. But he did not liberate the prophet, because he still feared his officials. defense of the city rested saw him only as a traitor and called for his death. Judah’s leaders never saw that the Exile was God’s way of using the Babylonians to purge the nation of idolatry.
5. Confined in a cistern (38:1–13)
The events recorded in this chapter took place near the end of the siege of Jerusalem. As tensions mounted in Judah, the anti-Babylonian group at court wanted to do away with their chief opponent, Jeremiah.
a. The accusation against Jeremiah (38:1–4)
1–3 The officials’ opposition to Jeremiah kept up to the fall of Jerusalem. They hated him for his condemnation of their godless policies. The four mentioned doubtless represented a larger group. Jeremiah’s confinement in the courtyard of the guard (cf. 37:21) still permitted him to make his message known. With the security of the guardroom as a base, he could have had access to a good many people. Gedaliah was probably the son of the Pashhur who beat Jeremiah and placed him in the stocks (cf. 20:1–6). Jehucal is mentioned in 37:3. All were in the Egyptian party. They naturally quoted Jeremiah’s words in their accusation. They considered his messages treasonable, and even to ordinary listeners they sounded that way. Clearly, Jeremiah spoke as one constrained by the Lord. His counsel was either to surrender or suffer ruin.
4 Jeremiah was officially charged with working against the war effort and with weakening the will of the people to resist the invaders. Since he was speaking during the final months of the siege, no wonder his message was judged dangerous. By weakening the morale of the soldiers with whom he was in contact in the guardroom, he infuriated his enemies. There was probably truth in the statement of Jeremiah’s opposition (cf. v.19) because some would have believed his words. The officials on whom the burden of the
b. Jeremiah in the cistern (38:5–6)
5–6 Zedekiah was too weak to withstand his officials. His capitulation to them was a clear giveaway of his lack of moral fiber. While he did not actually sign Jeremiah’s death warrant, neither did he do anything to prevent it. The intention of Jeremiah’s enemies was plain enough: they wanted to silence him for good. To throw Jeremiah into the miry cistern would have surely resulted in his death had he not been rescued. This was his third and harshest imprisonment. The cistern was deep, because ropes were used to lower Jeremiah into it. By this punishment his enemies tried to salve their consciences from the burden of having actually slain him. Restrained by the Lord, they stopped just short of executing his prophet. “Malkijah, the king’s son” was not one of Zedekiah’s sons but a royal prince (cf.36:26).
c. The rescue of Jeremiah (38:7–13)
7–9 As “a eunuch,” Ebed-Melech was excluded by divine law from the congregation of God’s people (cf. Dt 23:1). In ancient courts eunuchs were employed as keepers of the royal harem. Thus they had private access to the king (cf. 2Ki 24:15). It must, however, be recognized that “eunuch” did not always mean a castrated person but had a broader meaning, such as “officer” or “court official.” The times were surely out of joint. Only a foreigner cared enough about Jeremiah to rescue him. Evidently Zedekiah did not know how his officials had used his capitulation to them, and he was too cowardly to ask them about it. But one official, Ebed-Melech, took pity on Jeremiah and told the king of his plight. It took courage for him to oppose the prophet’s enemies. Ebed-Melech did not mince matters in speaking to Zedekiah but told him that Jeremiah was in deadly peril. He boldly accused the officials and pled with the king for the prophet’s life. Under the famine condition of the siege, it was unlikely that Jeremiah would get food.
10 Zedekiah was concerned and provided a rescue team of thirty men. Thirty men would not have been needed to lift Jeremiah from the cistern, but they would have been a sufficient guard to discourage the officials from intervening.
11–13 Godly Ebed-Melech knew where to get the needed manpower. He knew what the wardrobe storeroom contained, and he understood how weak Jeremiah was. There is a fine touch of compassion in v.12. So Jeremiah was transferred to the guardroom. His fourth imprisonment, this was a lifesaving move from the noxious cistern.
6. Counsel to the king (38:14–28)
a. Zedekiah’s secret interview with Jeremiah (38:14–23)
14–16 This was Zedekiah’s last meeting with Jeremiah. The king realized that only through Jeremiah could he get the truth. Again he questioned (cf. 37:17) the prophet and received essentially the same answer. The king still hoped for a change in the Lord’s message, but it remained the same. The meeting took place privately, probably in a room connecting the palace to the temple. Apparently Jeremiah believed that Zedekiah had approved the brutal treatment he had received. He was no longer eager to warn a king who would neither protect him nor believe his message—a king who could never be trusted to keep his word. Jeremiah was under no illusions as to how his message would be received. In a highly secret oath, the king promised Jeremiah that no harm would come to him for disclosing the Lord’s message.
17–19 The alternatives for Zedekiah were still the same: surrender and live or resist and suffer the worst. Though Nebuchadnezzar himself was not at the siege, he had his headquarters at Riblah (cf. 39:5; 2Ki 25:6). Zedekiah was afraid of both the officials in Judah and the Jews who had defected to Babylon (cf. 39:9; 52:15)—a fear that affected his political decisions and showed his weakness of character and lack of faith. He was afraid the Babylonians would turn him over for torture to the Jewish defectors. They had always advised submission to Babylon and would have dealt harshly with him for not doing as they had done—a course of action that might have spared Jerusalem the agony of a long siege.
20–23 As for Zedekiah’s refusal to obey God, the Lord showed Jeremiah in the vision of the two baskets of figs some of its consequences (24:1–10). The Babylonians usually treated rebel kings ruthlessly and often mutilated them and put them to death. So certain was the coming doom that Jeremiah even predicted what the women of the royal harem would say on being taken into captivity. More cutting than the ridicule of the defectors would be their ridicule on him for his gullibility in trusting faithless allies. Desiring to gain favor with their Babylonian masters, the women would point out that Zedekiah’s friends had impelled him to a suicidal opposition. In his hour of deepest distress, Zedekiah’s so-called friends would leave him in the lurch. Out of his own experience, Jeremiah could understand all this. But the Lord would not protect Zedekiah as he had protected the prophet. What had happened to Jeremiah physically (cf. v.6) would be the lot of the king politically and spiritually. So the blame rested where it belonged—on the shoulders of Zedekiah, who would bring indignity and defeat on himself, ruin to the nation and its capital, and lasting shame on his own family.
b. The officials’ inquiry (38:24–28)
24–26 Again Zedekiah did not heed the Lord’s advice that came to him through Jeremiah. Until the last moment the king remained weak and afraid. He was fearful that if news of his secret talk with Jeremiah leaked out, it would be seriously misunderstood by the officials. So he warned the prophet that the officials might kill him. This precaution was needed (v.27). Just as suspicious of the king as he was of them, the officials had been spying on him. So Zedekiah told the prophet to reveal only his plea not to be sent back to Jonathan’s house (cf. 37:15, 20).
27 Jeremiah’s compliance with the king’s request has been severely criticized on ethical grounds. Jeremiah’s answer has been called a “half-truth” or “a white lie” for the king’s sake. But we must be extremely reluctant to fault a true prophet of God like Jeremiah—a man of courage, brotherly love, patriotism, tremendous spiritual stature, and unparalleled devotion. In Jeremiah’s defense, the following points need to be considered. (1) The precarious position of the king must be taken into account. (2) To allay suspicion was as much in the king’s interest as in his own. (3) Jeremiah’s answer was not a falsehood because the petition was implied in vv.15-16. (4) At this critical time, the king did not want to occasion a break between himself and his generals. (5) The officials themselves had no authority to question either the king or the prophet. (6) Jeremiah told only what was necessary and no more.
28 This verse shows that the capture of Jerus alem verified Jeremiah’s forty years of ministry to the nation of Judah.
7. The Fall of Jerusalem (39:1–18)
Without doubt, the fall of Jerusalem dramatically authenticated Jeremiah’s prophecies. This account generally agrees with those in ch. 52 and 2Ki 25.
a. The capture of the city (39:1–3)
1–3 After the long siege, the city walls were finally breached and Jerusalem fell. The dates span the beginning and end of the siege, which lasted about eighteen months. The fall of the city, which had been weakened by the siege without and by famine within (cf. 52:4–16; 2Ki 25:1–12), is described more fully in ch. 52. Jeremiah gives the Babylonian names of the Babylonian high officials (it is unclear how many individuals are actually listed here). Nergal-Sharezer was Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law, who succeeded him under the name Neriglissar. The “chief officer” was head of the eunuchs who served as chamberlains. “A high official” is literally “chief magi.” When these officials sat in the gate of the city, the prediction of 1:15 was fulfilled. The “Middle Gate” was probably between the upper and lower divisions of the city. The purpose of the officials’ session at the Middle Gate was either to plan their military strategy or to establish their quarters there.
b. The fate of Zedekiah (39:4–8)
4–5 This passage describes the flight, capture, torture, and imprisonment of Zedekiah. The flight was at night; thus the verb “saw” is to be taken in the sense of hearing or learning that the Babylonians had taken the gate of the citadel of Zion. Zedekiah, realizing the end of Jerusalem had come, still hoped to save his life. He and his company tried to escape by way of the Jordan Valley (“Arabah”). The position of “the two walls” can only be conjectured; there may have been a gate in a double wall between Zion and Ophel. Zedekiah aimed to escape to the eastern side of the Jordan. The “king’s garden” was near the Pool of Siloam (cf. Ne 3:15). Zedekiah was captured and taken to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters. It was a strategic site, which had been the military headquarters of Pharaoh Neco in his campaign against Assyria (cf. 2Ki 23:33). Riblah, on the Orontes River fifty miles south of Hamath, some sixty-five miles north of Damascus, was a good vantage point for gaining control of both Aram and Palestine.
6–8 At Riblah, Nebuchadnezzar began slaying all the resisters, starting with the king’s sons and going on to the nobles of Judah. Only Zedekiah was spared for captivity after he saw with his own eyes the slaughter and then was blinded. “The nobles of Judah” were those who had been so persistently and perniciously opposed to Jeremiah. By modern standards what Nebuchadnezzar did was unusually harsh, but it was in accord with ancient pagan practices and is understandable in view of the trouble that Judah and especially Zedekiah had given Babylon. Thus two prophecies were fulfilled: Zedekiah would see the king of Babylon and be taken there (cf. 32:3–4), and he would die in Babylon without ever seeing it (cf. Eze 12:13). To add to his torture, Zedekiah had to witness the slaughter of his sons and the nobles, so that the last memory of this world’s light might remain a grief. Verse 8 adds the finishing touches to the gruesome scene. The fall of Jerusalem was so important that Scripture relates it four times—here, in ch. 52, in 2Ki 25, and in 2Ch 36.
c. The release of Jeremiah (39:9–14)
9–10 After Nebuchadnezzar had dealt with the leadership of Judah, he took the people of Judah into exile in Babylon. This final deportation of the nation (586 B.C.) came some eleven years after that in Jehoiachin’s time. Nebuzaradan, “commander of the imperial guard” (lit., “chief of the executioners”), was the man who had this assignment. To make a new beginning and not leave the land utterly desolate, Nebuzaradan placed some of the poorest people in charge of fields and vineyards as their own, though with reclamation rights by the conqueror (cf. 52:16; 2Ki 25:12). The Babylonians doubtless felt that gratitude would prevent the settlers from rebelling.
11–14 More interesting than the land grant to the poor were the instructions of Nebuchadnezzar about Jeremiah. Undoubtedly the Babylonians had favorable information about Jeremiah and probably considered him a sympathizer. Besides, those who had deserted Judah in the siege gave a report of him. Jeremiah’s advice about submitting to Babylon even during the siege had been proclaimed over so long a time that it could not have escaped the attention of the Babylonian authorities. They realized that he was no threat to them. Paradoxically, he was treated better by foreign invaders than by his own countrymen whom he so dearly loved. So word was passed along to release Jeremiah from the courtyard of the guard and to entrust him to Gedaliah, the appointed governor, with whom he was to remain. Gedaliah was the son of Ahikam, who had been active in saving Jeremiah’s life (cf. 26:24). For three generations his family had been true to the word of the Lord that came through his prophets.
d. The commendation of Ebed-Melech (39:15–18)
15–18 Verses 11–14 show how the Lord preserved his prophet; vv.15–18 show the Lord’s concern for Jeremiah’s rescuer. The scene goes back to Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the cistern (38:1–13). This message must have come to Jeremiah soon after Ebed-Melech had rescued him. It is included here so as not to break into the chain of events (cf. 38:14 39:14). Ebed-Melech needed this message of hope, for he had doubtless incurred the wrath of Jeremiah’s enemies for lifting him out of the cistern and so feared reprisals. Ebed-Melech was assured that he would escape death because his compassionate acts were motivated by his trust in the Lord.
III. Ministry of Jeremiah After the Fall of Jerusalem (40:1–45:5)
Chapters 40–44 contain prophecies and a record of events after the fall of Jerusalem. Chapters 40–42 deal with prophecies and events in Judah; chs. 43–44 with those in Egypt.
A. Ministry to the Survivors in Judah (40:1–42:22)
1. Gedaliah the governor (40:1–16)
a. The release of Jeremiah (40:1–6)
1 Since there is no prophetic word till 42:9, “word” is to be taken in the sense of history as well as prophecy. The two are related. Ramah is about five miles north of Jerusalem. This Benjamite town was the place where the captives were questioned before being deported to Babylon. In the confusion when Jerusalem fell, Jeremiah was at first taken and placed in chains—manacles for the hands only (cf. v.4). When Jeremiah arrived at Ramah, he was released at the command of Nebuzaradan, who had evidently been told who Jeremiah was and what Nebuchadnezzar had ordered to be done with him.
2–3 Some doubt whether Nebuzaradan could or would have said the words quoted in vv.2–3. The Assyrians, however, paid attention to the beliefs of the people whom they fought, for use in psychological warfare (cf. 2Ki 18:22, 33–35). The Babylonians may have been aware of certain supernatural reasons for Judah’s fall; Jeremiah’s reputation as a prophet was evidently known to them. Unquestionably the words sound like those of Jeremiah himself, and this may show that Nebuzaradan had some acquaintance with the prophet’s teaching.
4–5 Nebuzaradan first freed Jeremiah from his manacles and then gave him a choice of where he would live. These actions were wholly within his authority as an official representative of Nebuchadnezzar, who was then in Riblah. Jeremiah was given the option of either going to Babylon or remaining in Judah. Nebuzaradan promised to care for him in Babylon: “I will look after you.” Recognizing that Jeremiah was not sure about where he would go, Nebuzaradan sent him back to Gedaliah. The book says nothing about any relationship between Jeremiah and Gedaliah, who was made puppet governor of Judea by the Babylonians. It is obvious that Nebuchadnezzar had lost all faith in the house of David. His dealings with the last three kings of Judah were disappointing in the extreme.
6 Nebuzaradan sent Jeremiah off with some food and a gift. The way he treated the prophet stands in striking contrast with what his own countrymen did to him, particularly in the last days of Jerusalem (cf. Mt 13:57). Apparently the Babylonians did not care to have the Jews remaining in Jerusalem, their former capital; so they made Mizpah the administrative center of the remnant in the land. Jeremiah chose to stay in the land he loved. This does not mean that he doubted his own message in 24:4–10. He loved his people in spite of their mistreatment, hatred, and threats on his life. Now he would at least be free of ungodly priests and false prophets. His devotion to the land and his conviction that it would be the scene of future blessing influenced his decision to remain in it at this critical time.
b. Gedaliah’s assurances (40:7–10)
7–8 Gedaliah’s appointment by Nebuchadnezzar as governor encouraged some of the surviving Jews who had fled to neighboring areas to return to Judah. Just as Nebuchadnezzar had confidence in Gedaliah, so did his countrymen. The land had been deprived of its leaders; so chiefs of guerrilla bands, who remained hidden while the Babylonian army was besieging, waited the turn of events after the fall of the capital. They showed their trust in Gedaliah’s ability to govern by joining him at Mizpah. He was a good ruler and was doubtless supported by Jeremiah. Ishmael was a grandson of Elishama, of the house of David (cf. 41:1). Netophah was a place in Judah between Bethlehem and Tekoa, about twelve miles west of Bethlehem.
9–10 Gedaliah tried to quiet the fears of the survivors and advocated submission to the conquering power. He sought to reestablish normal living in the land and promised to represent them before the Babylonians. To some, however, he appeared to be a collaborator with the destroyer of their nation. Since Jerusalem fell in the middle of summer (cf. 39:2), the people had time to gather the late fruits of summer to sustain them during their first bleak winter in the land. Moreover, they would need the harvests to pay tribute to the Babylonians. Everything was being done to hasten the return to normal peaceful conditions. Notice that the invaders had shown great enlightenment in refraining from any defoliation or “scorched-earth” policy. The clause “the towns you have taken over” indicates that the captains of the roaming bands took what towns or cities pleased them.
c. The return of the fugitives (40:11–12)
11–12 With his forthright honesty, Gedaliah inspired confidence; and his orders were obeyed. Many of those returning to Judah had fled from the Babylonians and had taken refuge in a number of neighboring countries. In God’s mercy these refugees constituted a remnant. That one of their own nation was made governor gave them confidence; thus they felt that the Babylonians were not wholly without compassion for them in their time of tragic need.
d. The warning of Gedaliah (40:13–16)
13–14 Judah was still in a state of much unrest. Now a plot to assassinate Gedaliah comes to light, instigated by Baalis, king of Ammon, who used as his agent Ishmael son of Nethaniah. The man who told Gedaliah of the plot was the loyal Johanan son of Kareah. Gedaliah had apparently forgotten that Ishmael was of the house of David and thus did not appreciate being passed by in Gedaliah’s favor. Or Ishmael may have considered Gedaliah a traitor for agreeing to govern under the Babylonians. Baalis may have felt that eliminating Gedaliah would make it easier to carry out his own plans to conquer Judah. The king of Ammon may have feared that Gedaliah might again make Judah a formidable nation and a potential threat to him. Also, Baalis, an ally of Zedekiah and an enemy of the Babylonians (cf. 27:3), was angry that the family of Ahikam opposed the league referred to in ch. 27.
15–16 A man of ability but lacking in knowledge of people and their devices, Gedaliah was too trusting and naive to believe Johanan’s warning. The least he could have done was to have protected himself against the assassination of which he had been warned. What Johanan feared, actually happened (41:1–3); and the remnant was scattered because of Gedaliah’s death. Though Johanan tried earnestly to impress Gedaliah that his life was essential for the welfare of the remnant in Judah, he apparently failed to inspire confidence. Moreover, Gedaliah may have been overconfident. At any rate, he was not convinced of Johanan’s veracity. Gedaliah was right in forbidding Johanan to assassinate Ishmael but wrong in his estimate of Ishmael.
2. The atrocities of Ishmael and the flight into Egypt (41:1–18)
a. The assassination of Gedaliah (41:1–3)
1 The narrative in ch. 40 goes on without a break in ch. 41. Because v.1 gives only the month and not the year, two dates have been proposed for the assassination of Gedaliah: 586 B.C. and 583–582 B.C. Those who support the first date believe that only three months elapsed from the fall of the city to the events now recorded (cf. 39:2). But others think the text does not require that the events in ch. 41 occurred in the same year as the fall of Jerusalem. On the basis of 52:30, they hold that the reaction of Babylon to the assassination took place after five years, so that 41:1 gives the end of Gedaliah’s governorship only. The Jews still keep the Fast of Gedaliah in the seventh month (Sept/Oct), on the third day of the month, the first and second days being the New Year (cf. Zec 7:5; 8:19; see also 2Ki 25:8, 25). Ishmael came from a collateral line of the Davidic family through Elishama, son of David (cf. 2Sa 5:16). Moreover, he was prominent in affairs of state with Zedekiah.
2–3 The “ten men” should not be thought of as being alone, for they may have brought a retinue of attendants with them. Ishmael, being violently anti-Babylonian, may have been motivated by deep resentment at the cruel treatment of Zedekiah (cf. 39:6–7). Ishmael carried out his dastardly plot while enjoying the hospitality of Gedaliah. Pretending friendship for him, he violated the sacred law of Eastern hospitality. In spite of having been warned of an assassination plot, Gedaliah had taken no precautions. Ishmael made no distinction between Jews or Babylonians; he killed all the fighting men, including Gedaliah’s Babylonian bodyguard. For eleven men to kill so large a group indicates how unsuspecting the victims were. The reference to “all the Jews” includes only those who were in the house with Gedaliah. The number of Babylonian troops was apparently small.
b. The massacre of the pilgrims (41:4–10)
4–5 For Ishmael human life was so cheap that he had no compunction in slaughtering seventy pilgrims. Such a deed could not be concealed indefinitely. A group of men from the northern kingdom were on the way to Jerusalem to lament its desolation. Josiah had destroyed the altar at Bethel (one of the lasting effects of Josiah’s reform), so they were bringing offerings to the Jerusalem temple. They had even gashed themselves—a relapse into heathen custom forbidden in Dt 14:1. In spite of the destruction of the temple itself, they came to the temple site, which was still used for worship by those who survived the fall of the city. Even the ruins were held to be sacred.
Though living among heathen colonists (cf. 2Ki 17:24–41), the men from the northern kingdom had continued to worship the Lord in Jerusalem and to celebrate the feasts (cf. 2Ch 34:9). Their offerings were bloodless sacrifices because no facilities were available for animal sacrifices (cf. Dt 12:13–14, 17–18).
6–8 Ishmael went out to meet the men, weeping hypocritically as though for the loss of the temple. Courteously he invited them to pay their respects to Gedaliah the governor before going on to Jerusalem. So he lured them into Mizpah, where he had them trapped. Just as in the assassination of Gedaliah, Ishmael used the element of surprise. Here it enabled eleven men to slaughter seventy of the eighty pilgrims. The massacre may have been done for plunder and to intimidate the remnant in Judah. Casting them into a cistern was senseless, for it made Mizpah’s water supply ceremonially unclean and unfit to drink. Ishmael’s greed led him to spare ten of the eighty men because of their cache of food, which was probably concealed in a cistern in a field.
9–10 At this point Jeremiah inserts a historical notation, showing that King Asa of Judah (913–873 B.C.) had ordered this cistern to be made to ensure ample water for Mizpah when he fortified it against King Baasha of Israel (910–887 B.C.; cf. 1Ki 15:22; 2Ch 16:6). IshmaeFs next stop was to transport the remnant of the people from Mizpah to Ammon (according to 40:14, Ishmael was in alliance with Baalis the Ammonite king). Ishmael’s motive in transporting the remnant may have been threefold: (1) to escape punishment, (2) to find refuge with Baalis, who had instigated the assassination of Gedaliah (40:14), and (3) to sell the remnant as slaves to the Ammonites. The king’s daughters, spared through Babylonian clemency, were royal princesses—not necessarily Zedekiah’s own daughters, but women related to Ishmael. Included among this remnant were probably Jeremiah and Baruch (cf. 42:2).
c. The escape of Ishmael (41:11–15)
11–15 Johanan, having had prior knowledge of the plot, was quick to follow Ishmael’s tracks. Now Johanan acted responsibly, not as he had previously wanted to do (40:15). He and those with him overtook the assassin before he had gone far—Gibeon is about a mile from Mizpah. Gibeon was the city of priests in the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Jos 18:25; 21:17). Possibly “the great pool” is the same as “the pool of Gibeon” (cf. 2Sa 2:13). Ishmael may have taken a circuitous route to confuse his pursuers. When the people saw Johanan and his companions, they rejoiced; for they had followed Ishmael only because they had been compelled to do so. And because of the popularity of Gedaliah, they were glad to see his murder avenged. Ishmael lost only two of his men and drops out of the narrative after fleeing to Ammon.
d. The flight to Egypt (41:16–18)
16–18 Johanan now decided to go as quickly as possible to Egypt. He and the army officers with him feared reprisals when the news of Gedaliah’s assassination reached Babylon. Ishmael had completely frustrated any plans for peaceful settlement in the land. Geruth means “lodging place.” Kimham was the son of Barzillai, the wealthy Gileadite and faithful partisan of David during the revolt of Absalom (cf. 2Sa 9:38, 41). Johanan, able in military matters (he had given advice to Gedaliah), was wrong in thinking flight to Egypt was the only solution to the problems of the remnant. Actually, it created other problems, and certainly it did not place them beyond the reach of Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Warning against going to Egypt (42:1–22)
Johanan overtook and routed Ishmael and his forces, the residue of which escaped to Ammon. At this point the remnant of people were afraid to remain in Judah, but they were equally afraid to seek safety in a foreign country. Johanan and the remnant were anxious not to make a mistake that would incur the wrath of God, which had already been poured out on Jerusalem and Judah; hence they inquired of Jeremiah. They did not recognize that by deciding to go to Egypt they had already decided on a certain course of action (cf. 41:17).
a. The inquiry of the remnant (42:1–6)
1–3 There was an unusual unity among the remnant, all of whom were without exception concerned about what they should do and where they should go. Jezaniah is the Azariah of 43:2 (cf. NIV note). The remnant came to Jeremiah, who had apparently been a captive of Ishmael. The esteem in which they still held Jeremiah is evident in their recognition of him as a prophet of the Lord. The inquirers hoped that God would answer according to their desires. They earnestly wanted confirmation of their decision, not guidance from the Lord (cf. v.17). According to their thinking, the unrest and absence of security in Judah made resettlement there an impossibility.
4–6 Jeremiah gently reminded the remnant that the Lord was their God as well as his. Since he was no longer restrained from praying for them, he would gladly agree to ask the Lord for guidance. Realizing the gravity of their situation, he promised not to hold back any part of the Lord’s answer. At this, the people solemnly pledged to obey everything the Lord would tell Jeremiah; that is, they promised to obey the Lord regardless of the nature of his answer. Later on the record shows that they actually wanted approval to settle in Egypt (cf. 43:2). Even more, their request for the Lord to be “a true and faithful witness against us” implies their acceptance of his punishment for disobeying his express will.
b. The Lord’s answer to Jeremiah’s question (42:7–17)
7 For ten days Jeremiah awaited the Lord’s message. We may imagine the suspense and tension of this time. The prophet wanted to be certain of the Lord’s will. Here was a matter on which the entire future of the nation might depend and one that at the least was crucial for the remnant. Perhaps God wanted to give the Jews an opportunity to show the sincerity of their claim that they would obey his leading and to allow time for their anxiety that bordered on panic to be dispelled.
8–12 Once more Jeremiah had to deliver an unpopular message. In strong anthropopathic language the Lord implied that the penalty given Judah would be canceled. In other words, the Lord would change his dealings with the nation. God’s dealings with us are according to our obeying or disobeying his will. At this point God promised he would deal with Judah in a different way since the people were now in a different category from before the fall of Jerusalem. During Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem, the people had cause to fear him; now there was no occasion for them to do this. In fact, God would see that Nebuchadnezzar would show them compassion, and God would turn to their favor every action of this king.
13–17 In unsparing words, Jeremiah warned of the terrifying consequences if the remnant insisted on leaving the land. Trust in human beings would neither avail them nor bless them. They would find no safety in Egypt. In fact, going there would bring on them the very disasters they were trying to escape. For their part, the people hoped that the farther they were from Babylon, the less they would be in danger of invasion. Although Egypt had lost the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.), it had not been the scene of other military actions. Thus the remaining Jews could not fail to be impressed by the contrast between peaceful Egypt and war-torn Judah. Actually, however, Judah’s trials were past; Egypt’s were soon to begin. Jeremiah was quick to see that his listeners were already determined on a different course of action than the one the Lord had for them. Fleeing to Egypt would bring terrible trials. (Nebuchadnezzar was yet to invade Egypt; cf. 43:8–13.)
c. Further penalties for settling in Egypt (42:18–22)
18–22 The survivors of the fall of Jerusalem and Judah would suffer the same fate in Egypt that had overtaken them because of their disobedience. Egypt would be the place of their undoing, without a glimmer of hope of their returning to their native country. In an epilogue after the Lord’s reply, Jeremiah adds to the admonition in vv.13–18. The Lord’s message remained unchanged—stay in the land and do not settle in Egypt. He rebukes them for asking his will with no intention of following it.
Jeremiah shows the remnant their duplicity in asking for a message from God when they had no intention of following it. All the time they were intent on doing their own will, in the hope that God’s will would coincide with theirs. So they were victims of self-deception and self-delusion. How little did they realize that in Egypt the temptation for them to worship idols—the very sin that had led to the nation’s fall—would be even stronger than before! Jeremiah also reminds them it was not he that had instituted the inquiry; they themselves were responsible for provoking the Lord’s severe answer. The passage closes with the threefold judgment of sword, famine, and plague ringing in their ears. The issue was clear, the warning was faithfully transmitted; but the remnant were set on having their own way.
B. Ministry in Egypt (43:1–44:30)
Chapters 43–44 relate to the remnant in Egypt. Johanan and the people disregarded the Lord’s warning and went there, taking Jeremiah and Baruch, probably by force. The prophet doubtless died in Egypt.
1. The flight to Egypt (43:1–13)
a. The warning flouted (43:1–7)
1–3 The response to Jeremiah’s message from the Lord was both immediate and negative. In no uncertain terms, Azariah and Johanan and “all the arrogant men” who dominated the frightened remnant accused Jeremiah of lying. To divert attention from breaking their promise to obey the Lord’s message, they tried to save face, not only by giving Jeremiah the lie, but also by accusing Baruch of conniving to get Jeremiah to deliver the remnant to the Babylonians. Because Jeremiah was an old man and might conceivably have been under the influence of his secretary and companion, the charge against Baruch had a superficial plausibility. But there was not a scintilla of evidence for it. The prophet who would not trim his message for the king would never have beeh manipulated by his secretary.
4–6 At the death of Gedaliah, Johanan, who appears in a bad light ever since his determined opposition to Jeremiah, became the rallying center for the people. His action cannot be divorced from an element of self-promotion. The remnant was made up of the many Jews who had fled to nearby countries after the fall of Jerusalem. Unfortunately they all agreed to follow Johanan and their other leaders instead of the Lord. Such is the perversity of fallen human nature; when people reach unanimity, too often they rebel against God’s will. Jeremiah and Baruch were doubtless taken to Egypt against their will; for them to have gone there voluntarily would have violated Jeremiah’s prophecies (cf. 32:6–15; 40:1–6; 42:13–18).
7 This verse shows the full extent of the people’s disobedience. They arrived in Egypt at Tahpanhes, a fortress city on the northern border of Lower Egypt guarding the road to Aram. Pharaoh had a palace here. Located on the Pelusian branch of the Nile, Tahpanhes was known to the Greeks as Daphne (cf. 2:16). Think of it! Abraham’s descendants returned to Egypt long after their liberation from it. With great suffering they had been delivered from their bondage in Egypt, only to return there a defeated and hopeless remnant nearly nine hundred years later.
b. Jeremiah’s prophecy in Egypt (43:8–13)
The fugitives probably stopped at Tahpanhes to obtain permission from Pharaoh to enter the country and to assure themselves of some means of livelihood during their stay in it. We are not told how Jeremiah and Baruch fared in Egypt. Jeremiah’s first message to the remnant in Egypt foretold the certainty of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over Egypt; thus the flight of the remnant was useless. Because of the tenor of his message, Jeremiah’s stay in Egypt was not a happy one; when his political position became known, the government could hardly have favored him. There is no evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt, though there is evidence that he invaded it.
8–9 In Tahpanhes the Lord told Jeremiah to act out a message for the people. He was to hide some large stones in the mortar of the brick pavement at the entrance to Pharaoh’s house. This was the place where Nebuchadnezzar would set up his throne on his invasion that would bring death and destruction to Egypt.
10–11 The Jews’ flight to Egypt to escape the Babylonians was futile because the Lord was going to send Nebuchadnezzar to invade it (ch. 44). The royal “canopy” has been understood as a covering over the throne or perhaps as a gorgeous carpet on which the throne stood. A fragmentary text in the British museum indicates that Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt occurred in the thirty-seventh year of his reign (568–567 B.C.). It was a punitive expedition; after it Babylonia and Egypt had amicable relations. The Lord calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant” (cf. 27:6)—the executor of death, captivity, and destruction for Egypt.
12–13 These verses show the Lord’s unalterable opposition to the idolatry of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar would burn the wooden images and the temples with them and carry off the idols of gold to Babylon. In ancient times idols of defeated foes were carried in the triumphal processions of conquering kings. Not only would the temples be destroyed, but the sacred pillars—i.e., the obelisks, monuments of Egypt’s idolatrous pride (cf. Dt 16:21–22; 2Ki 23:14)—would be broken. Jeremiah likens the ease with which Nebuchadnezzar would do these things to the casual way in which a shepherd wraps himself in his garment. In fact, the conqueror would return unscathed from Egypt. The sacred pillars were the finest representations of Egyptian idolatry. The king of Egypt at this time was Pharaoh Hophra (cf. 44:30).
“The temple of the sun” (Heliopolis; modern Tell Husn) was about six miles northeast of Cairo. The sun god was elaborately worshiped there in antiquity. The reference to “Egypt” distinguishes the Egyptian city from the Palestinian one with the same name (“Beth Shemesh”; cf. 2Ki 14:11). But the prophet has not spoken his last word on Egypt; more follows in chs. 44 and 46.
2. Condemnation of Ishtar worship (44:1–30)
This chapter contains Jeremiah’s last message. It has been dated 580 B.C. because the dispersion implied in v.1 would have taken some years. The message reviews the Lord’s dealings with Judah and emphatically reminds the Jews in Egypt that their sins have brought on them the wrath of God that had been foretold by Jeremiah.
a. Exhortation to heed past experience (44:1–10)
1–6 This section rebukes the Jews disperse in Egypt. It is surprising that the Jews were practicing idolatry in Egypt; they had not yet learned from their past sins. Jeremiah mentions four places, three in Lower (northern) Egypt—Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Memphis—and one in Upper (southern) Egypt. The mention of these places shows how rapidly the Jews had spread out in Egypt. The reason for Jeremiah’s prophecy was the continued idolatry of the exiles in spite of their captivity. If ever a prophecy had immediacy, it was this one; for in it Jeremiah brought the light of history to bear on the very day in which he spoke.
7–10 Moving to the current hour, Jeremiah remonstrated with the people regarding the sins in which they were still steeped. Once more the nation was committing national suicide. All his warnings previously made no difference in their thinking or in their acts. The Jews in Egypt had become ensnared in the idolatry of that land—a sin that the Lord had foreseen and that was one of the reasons God had forbidden them to go there. This must have been disheartening for Jeremiah, who had spent a lifetime preaching against idolatry in Judah; the Jews were practicing in Egypt the very sins that had brought about the fall of Jerusalem. The remnant showed they were neither repentant nor contrite.
b. Warning of punishment (44:11–14)
11–14 Now judgment is announced. It is the same for the Jews in Egypt as it had been for those in Judah. The reference to “all Judah” covers all the Jews there in Egypt—with the exception of permanent Jewish settlers there and the few mentioned in vv.14b, 28. First of all, Jeremiah roundly rebukes them for coming to Egypt. Then he dramatically specifies the troubles the remnant can expect in Egypt. He makes it clear that he is not referring to any permanent Jewish settlers in Egypt (cf. v.14) but only to those who had sought refuge there in the hope of returning to the land of Judah at the earliest opportunity. Only casual fugitives will survive.
c. The stubborn persistence in idolatry (44:15–19)
15–19 This passage is one of the strangest in the book. How stubborn the resistance to Jeremiah’s message was! The people openly and unashamedly refused to forsake their idolatry; indeed, they found pragmatic justification for it. They brazenly declared that they would keep on in their idolatry. The occasion here may have been an idolatrous feast in which the women had a major part, probably because Astarte, “the Queen of Heaven” (vv.17, 18, 19, 25), was the goddess of fertility.
The remnant—women as well as men—admitted that they were not engaging in any new worship. They affirmed a causal relationship between their idolatry and the abundance of food. They also affirmed that when they stopped their idolatrous practices, food shortages and war were the result. They doubtless ascribed their troubles to the reforms of Josiah, to which they senselessly attributed the downfall of Judah. In short, the remnant claimed that idolatry had done more for them than the Lord whom Jeremiah represented. Nothing is more blinding than unbelief. Not once did they connect their trials with their sins.
Finally, in an insolent rhetorical question that implied an affirmative reply, the women acknowledged to Jeremiah that they had carried on their worship of the Queen of Heaven with the full knowledge and approval of their husbands (cf. Nu 30:3, 6–7, 12). Why then should Jeremiah complain about their actions? The “cakes” had an image of Astarte on them, said to be the image of the full moon.
d. Condemnation of the remnant’s stubbornness (44:20–30)
20–22 Verses 20–30 constitute the very last message of Jeremiah recorded in the book (the remaining chapters contain prophecies dating from earlier years). The message abounds in contrast and confrontation. Jeremiah flatly denies the women’s twisted defense of their idolatry. How obtuse they were not to realize that all the while they were engaged in their detestable practices, God knew all about what they were doing! The plain fact was that God, now as before, could no longer abide their idolatries. This statement stands in marked contrast to their claim that prosperity attended them as long as they were idolatrous.
23–25 Since the people were going ahead with their idolatrous worship, Jeremiah announces their punishment. It was tragic that corrupt rulers had so influenced the nation’s women. In a powerful expression of irony and revulsion, Jeremiah tells the remnant to proceed with fulfilling their godless vows. He may have been pointing to their incense and libations and to the very cakes they were carrying.
26–28 The severe prediction could be taken to mean that God was saying that he would no longer be their covenant God; thus they would forfeit the privilege of calling on his name. Or perhaps v.26 means that the remnant would not be able to name God’s name because they would perish in Egypt. The death penalty is perhaps best understood with the qualification that “the remnant” (cf. v.14) are excluded from this threat. Only they will survive to know the truth of Jeremiah’s prophecy; they will be easily numbered because they are so few. The outcome of events will demonstrate whose word stands; God is always willing to have his word tested alongside human words.
29–30 The last verses of the chapter give the sign of the truth of God’s words—the fall of Pharaoh Hophra (588–568 B.C.), the ally of Zedekiah, who had sent an army to help him when Jerusalem was besieged (cf. 37:5). Even this Pharaoh whose protection the Jews had sought would succumb to his enemies. The text does not compel the interpretation that Pharaoh Hophra was killed in the invasion of Egypt by Babylon. The facts are otherwise. Hophra was overthrown by Amasis, one of his officers, who revolted against him and then shared rule with him. Amasis rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar in 570 B.C. and was defeated in 568 B.C. So sixteen years after the fall of Jerusalem, Hophra was dethroned and strangled by some of his subjects. Again Jeremiah was vindicated.
Scripture is silent on what happened to Jeremiah after the events of this chapter, though tradition has been overly active. There are many legends concerning his death. One states that he was killed at Tahpanhes. Another claims’he carried away the tabernacle, hiding it in the mountain where Moses died (2Mc 2:4–8). Yet another indicates he was alive with Enoch and Elijah, expected to return as a forerunner of the Messiah.
C. The Message to Baruch (45:1–5)
This brief chapter contains the message the Lord gave to Baruch. Historically it supplements 36:1–8 and can be precisely dated at 604 B.C. (cf. 36:1). This antedates sections about the remnant and Egypt. The message was meant to encourage Baruch, who had become disheartened, just as Jeremiah had been. Jeremiah may have had other secretaries, but Baruch is the only one mentioned in the book.
1. Baruch’s complaint (45:1–3)
1–3 Baruch came from an influential family of noble birth. He was the grandson of Mahseiah (cf. 32:12), governor of Jerusalem in Josiah’s reign (cf. 2Ch 34:8). His brother had been chief chamberlain in the court of Zedekiah (cf. 51:59). He may have had hopes of attaining a high office or even of receiving the gift of prophecy. But such expectations were not to be realized. Rather, he was to spend his life in a secondary role. So he may have been depressed. “The words" refer to the scroll (ch. 36; cf. “the fourth year of Jehoiakim”). Baruch shared Jeremiah’s burdens. He grieved over what he had to record about the people’s sin and their coming punishment. His sorrow, pain, and groaning wore him out, and his emotional involvement in what he wrote gave him no rest.
2. The response of the Lord (45:4–5)
4–5 These verses imply that the Lord’s concern for his people is greater than any human being’s. The destruction of Judah is in view in v.4. On the other hand, it has been proposed that “throughout the land’’ actually refers to the whole earth (cf. “on all people’’ in v.5). The reply to Baruch’s complaint was simple: Do not expect to be more than you are. Why should Baruch be so concerned about his own welfare and position? He should not be self-seeking. When the nation was suffering drastic judgment, instead of making demands, he should be satisfied that his life was spared. With this he must be content. The last clause of v.5 implies that Baruch would have to flee for his life. Short though the chapter is, it has a timeless message for the Lord’s servant.
IV. Prophecies Concerning the Nations (46:1–51:64)
Except for ch. 52, the remainder of Jeremiah is made up of prophecies against foreign nations. The prophecies against Egypt (ch. 46) and Babylon (chs. 50–51) contain promises of Israel’s restoration (cf. 46:27–28; 50:19–20). Some messages were sent to Babylon; others were delivered in Egypt. The battle between Egypt and Babylon at Carchemish forms the background for 46:2–6.
Jeremiah was a man of world vision. He was a contemporary of five kings of Judah, of the greatest monarch of the neo-Chaldean empire, and of four kings of Egypt: Psammetik I (664–609 B.C.), Neco II (609–594 B.C.), Psammetik II (594–588 B.C.), and Hophra (588–568 B.C.). The prophecies concern ten nations: Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Syria (Damascus), Kedar, Hazor, Elam, and Babylon. They were doubtless given to Jeremiah at different times, though collected here under a common theme: judgment. The prophecies move from west to east. Unlike the judgments pronounced against foreign nations by other OT prophets, the nations’ sins are not identified.
At this point it is important to consider certain basic principles that underlie all biblical prophecies that threaten world powers. (1) God is the God of all the nations. As the Sovereign over everything, he has the authority to speak to all peoples. (2) God is first and foremost the God of holiness and righteousness (cf. Isa 6:3). (3) God’s judgments are never vindictive (revengeful) but vindicative (justifying). (4) Judgment is God’s strange work (cf. Isa 28:21; Eze 33:11). He does not delight in it; he rejoices in salvation (cf. Mt 1:21). (5) God is impartial. He judges among the nations just as he judges Israel’s sin.
Caption for the Prophecies Against the Nations (46:1)
1 This verse serves as the introduction and title for all the chapters that follow, except ch. 52.
A. Concerning Egypt (46:2–28)
1. The defeat of the Egyptian army (46:2–6)
2 This chapter gives a prophecy against Egypt. The Pharaoh Neco referred to is the one who slew Josiah at Megiddo (609 B.C.) and placed Jehoahaz on the Judean throne. In three months he removed him, imprisoned him at Riblah, and set up Jehoiakim as king. In Jehoiakim’s fourth year (605 B.C.), Neco was defeated at Carchemish. Carchemish is north of the junction of the Chebar and Euphrates rivers. The name “Carchemish” means “the fort of Chemosh,” god of the Moabites (cf. 2Ki 23:13). The only great city in that region, it was the key to Syria on the east and commanded the passage of the Euphrates. It had been under the rule of the Hittites and Assyrians.
After the fall of the Assyrian Empire, at the Battle of Carchemish, the military ambitions of Egypt were blocked by the Babylonians. Thus it was one of the decisive battles in history. It proved that Assyrian power could not restrain the rising might of Babylon, which Egypt opposed in favor of Assyria. Nebuchadnezzar pursued Neco toward Egypt but was halted by the news of the death of his father, Nabopolassar. On returning to Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was crowned king. Babylon now dominated Mesopotamia and the near eastern Mediterranean area. The times of the Gentiles had begun (cf. Lk 21:24; also Da 2:36–38). The fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (see comment on 25:1).
3–6 In words tinged with sarcasm, Jeremiah vividly describes the preparation of the Egyptians for the battle, their march to it, and their defeat. The “shields, both large and small” were the large shield protecting the whole body of the heavily armed soldier and the small round buckler protecting the lightly armed soldier. Horses were always an important element of Egyptian warfare. Their helmets on, the Egyptians are told to put themselves in battle formation. Coats of mail (“armor”) were worn by light troops. An army as well accoutered as the one described here would naturally be victorious. But events took an unexpected turn. Panic supernaturally induced brought defeat to such a force. The Egyptians were conquered and destined not to return home but to fall on foreign soil. History has fully confirmed Jeremiah’s predictions: Egypt’s advance was halted at the Euphrates.
2. The humbling of Egypt’s pride (46:7–12)
7–9 Now the name of the nation whose army has been defeated is mentioned. The approach of the Egyptian army is compared to the annual flooding of the Nile. The rivers referred to are the branches of the Nile in the Delta region in Lower Egypt. Egypt’s boast of world conquest and her defeat (vv.5–6) are described, and both descriptions lead to a climax. Her chariots and infantry are summoned to sally forth, implying that with them will be the mercenary troops which, from the time of Psammetik, formed the main part of the Egyptian forces. Cush and Put are Ethiopia and Libya (or Somaliland—both descended from Ham; cf. Ge 10:6; Eze 30:5). The Lydians (cf. Ludites, Ge 10:13) were not from the coast of Asia Minor but an African people living west of Egypt. They were the lightly armed part of the army.
10 There is more to military campaigns than international conflicts. Verse 10 presents the theological interpretation of the defeat of the Egyptians. Jeremiah does not speak of the Day of the Lord but of a day that is peculiarly God’s—in short, the time of God’s judgment on a nation.
11–12 Jeremiah advises Egypt to seek a remedy for her wounds. Her defeat dealt her an irrecoverable blow; she could not heal herself. From antiquity Egypt was famous for her medical arts. It was from Egypt and India that the knowledge of medicine came to Europe. The defeat will be publicized among the nations. In their rout, the warriors will get in each other’s way.
3. The coming of Nebuchadnezzar (46:13–19)
13–14 Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt left it vulnerable to future attack. Not only at Carchemish but in Egypt itself the victory would be Babylon’s (cf. 43:8–13). Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt came long after the Battle of Carchemish, which had prepared the way for it. Verse 14 announces that the foe has already reached the Egyptian borders. The surrounding nations had been subdued, perhaps even Tyre, so Nebuchadnezzar moved on Egypt. The news of the death of his father prevented Nebuchadnezzar from moving deeper into Egypt. He had to return to Babylon to take up his duties as king.
15–17 In v.16 the speech of the soldiers is overheard, as mercenary troops decide to return to their own countries. They call Pharaoh “a noise” (i.e., a braggart), blaming him for ruining his chances of victory by his procrastination—probably an allusion to his inaction when Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon after Carchemish.
18–19 Nebuchadnezzar’s return to Egypt is likened to the majesty of Tabor and Carmel, mountains in northern Palestine on the road to Egypt. The Babylonian invasion of Egypt will be as outstanding as is Tabor among the mountains and as irresistible as impregnable Carmel. The defeated Egyptians are exhorted to provide themselves with what they will need for exile.
4. The fall of Egypt (46:20–26)
20–24 Jeremiah describes Egypt’s doom in highly figurative language. The “beautiful heifer” is Egypt; the “gadfly” from the north is Nebuchadnezzar. Egypt’s mercenaries are like calves fattened for slaughter. The fleeing Egyptians will sound like a serpent escaping from woodsmen by slithering through underbrush. The Babylonians carried axes—a novelty to the Jews. The serpent figure is an ironic reference to one of the most noted of Egyptian deities, prominent even in royal insignia—the coiled uraeus. The devastating power of the enemy is likened to a locust plague (cf. Joel 1:1–2:27). To Jeremiah, Egypt will be at the mercy of the Babylonians.
25–26 Jeremiah now predicts judgment on the gods and kings of Egypt. Amon (Amun) was the chief god of No (Thebes), the capital of Upper Egypt. The judgment will overtake all the people of Israel who looked to the pharaoh for help against Babylon. Yet the desolation of Egypt will not be perpetual; the Lord promises her future restoration (cf. Isa 19:24–25; Eze 29:8–14).
5. Blessing on Jacob (46:27–28)
27–28 In striking contrast with the vivid portrayal of Egypt’s fall and destruction is the salvation here promised to the people of Israel in words that will encourage them in captivity (cf. 30:10–11). Looking, as they do, beyond the captivity, vv.27–28 are indeed consoling. If Egypt’s woes are but temporary, those of Israel are even more so.
B. Concerning Philistia (47:1–7)
The Philistines settled in the coastal region known as the Philistine plain. Their pentapolis consisted of Ekron, Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Gath. The Philistines were greatly reduced in power by the campaigns of David against them, but during the divided kingdom they asserted their independence from Judah. Military actions against them from the Assyrian Age down through the time of Alexander the Great weakened them; finally they were conquered by the Maccabees (second century B.C.) and merged into Israel.
1 The somewhat indefinite historical reference makes it difficult to date this prophecy. One view identifies the Pharaoh as Neco, who conquered Gaza about the time he defeated Josiah at Megiddo (cf. 2Ki 23:29–30); another view sees the Pharaoh as Neco capturing Gaza on his return from his defeat at Carchemish; still another identifies the Pharaoh as Hophra, who took Gaza in his campaign against Tyre and Sidon.
2–3 Jeremiah uses a flood to describe the Babylonian threat to Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon. The word “waters” is an OT figure for an army (46:8; cf. Isa 8:7). The distress from the invading Babylonians will be so great that fathers will leave their children defenseless; limpness of hands indicates the paralyzing effect of fear. “The day” is not the Day of the Lord. In her distress, Philistia will find no help in her former allies, Tyre and Sidon. These two cities were flourishing commercial centers on the coast of what is now Lebanon. Jeremiah sees Philistia as the remnant of the ancient Aegean civilization headed by Caphtor (Crete; cf. Am 9:7). Crete was probably the original home of the Philistines before their entrance to Palestine (cf. Dt 2:23).
5–7 Shaving the head is a sign of deep mourning (cf. 16:6; 41:5; 48:37). To cut oneself was forbidden to the Jews (Dt 14:1). The “remnant on the plain” is difficult to explain. It is in apposition to Ashkelon (the RSV follows the reading of the LXX, translating “plain” as “Anakim,” i.e., a tall nation). Connected with the Philistines (cf. Jos 11:22), the Anakim lived near Hebron in prehistoric times. The “cry” is that of the Philistines—their appeal is for the divine judgments to cease. That “the sword of the LORD” must first accomplish its judgment on the seacoast, the Philistine plain, is Jeremiah’s answer.
C. Concerning Moab (48:1–47)
The Moabites were descendants of Lot (cf. Ge 19:37). They lived east of the Dead Sea and were often in conflict with Israel. Moab joined in the marauding bands Nebuchadnezzar sent against Judah in 602 B.C., after Jehoiakim’s revolt (cf. 2Ki 24:2; Jer 12:7–13). They joined in a plot to revolt against Babylon early in Zedekiah’s reign (cf. 27:1–11). The Moabites were conquered by Nebuchadnezzar and disappeared as a nation.
There is no way to determine with certainty the date of the prophecy in this chapter. Its historical setting may be the Moabite invasion into Judah during Jehoiakim’s reign. This prophecy against Moab is longer than any other prophecy in chs. 46–49. It is the most thorough of all the OT prophecies about Moab.
1. Desolation of the Moabite cities (48:1–10)
1–2 More than a score of cities are mentioned in this chapter. “Nebo” is not the mountain (cf. Dt 32:49) but the city of Reuben (cf. Nu 32:38). According to the Moabite Stone, it was taken by King Mesha of Moab (c. 895 B.C.). Kiriathaim is ten miles west of Medeba. The towns of Moab will be plundered. Moab will have no more basis for boasting. Originally Moab extended from Heshbon to Bozrah. At Heshbon the Babylonians planned their attack on Moab. Once the capital of the Amorite kingdom of Sihon (cf. Nu 21:26; Dt 2:24), this city was given to Reuben (cf. Jos 13:17), then passed to the Gadites, becoming a Levitical city (cf. Jos 21:39). It was ten miles east of Jordan, opposite Jericho, almost midway between the Arnon and the Jabbok rivers. Its enemies decided on conquest and destruction.
3–6 Only destruction is decreed for Horonaim (the name is evidently used for the two Beth-horons; cf. 2Sa 13:34). The “little ones” may mean the “abject ones,” made so by distress. Whether ascending or descending, the fugitives will go weeping as they flee from the enemy. Their condition is likened to a desert bush (juniper)—a picture of destruction and forsakenness.
7 Pride was the root of Moab’s trouble. Her idolatry was centered in the worship of Chemosh, a name occurring several times on the Moabite Stone. Chemosh was the national deity of Moab (cf. Nu 21:29; 1Ki 11:7, 33). The reference to trust in “deeds and riches” implies that the reason for Moab’s fall was her materialism. When Chemosh went into exile, his followers accompanied him. Idols were usually taken captive with their worshipers (43:12; Isa 46:1–2).
8–10 The “valley” is the Jordan Valley, which touched Moab on the west. All the Moabite cities will be involved in the doom. The “plateau” is the extensive region where most of the Moabite cities were located. With the towns doomed for destruction, flight would be the only hope for Moab; but she would need wings (v.9; see NIV note) to escape the sudden onslaught of the enemy. Since the Lord has commissioned Moab’s enemies to punish her, they must be diligent in performing their duty.
2. The proud complacency of Moab (48:11–19)
11–13 Moab had enjoyed a more settled life than Judah, but now she will know upheaval and disturbances. The Moabites had been made tributary but not exiled. Now their rest will be changed to unrest. Moab had experienced a certain insulation from judgment, for she had not undergone frequent invasions and deportations. As in the figure of “wine,” her flavor had continued unchanged. But no longer will Moab rest quietly. Unlike an earthenware jar that is carefully tilted so as not to lose the sediment of the wine, Moab will be roughly dealt with (“pour her out”) and emptied like jars and smashed like jugs. Moab’s hope will be unrealized; Chemosh will be powerless to aid her. Jeremiah compares Moab’s hope to the useless confidence that the northern kingdom had in the Bethel sanctuary, where the bull was worshiped (cf. 1Ki 12:26–33). In the hour of trial, the bull did not protect the Israelites from Shalmaneser and deportation. Whether in Moab or Israel, God is interested only in genuine faith in him.
14–17 Moreover, Moab will no longer boast of her valor. When the enemy forces march on her cities, slaughter will abound. “The LORD Almighty” vouches for the prediction; in spite of what the Moabites think, the Lord is still their Lord also, not Chemosh. And the hour of reckoning is not far off. The blow will be so great that the neighboring lands will sympathize with the Moabites and mourn with them. The emblems of their rule and authority, “the scepter” and “the glorious staff,” will be broken, showing that their power and national glory will pass.
18–19 Dibon stood on two hills, thirteen miles east of the Dead Sea near the Arnon River. Her people are commanded to come down and sit on the ground. The Moabite Stone was found here in 1868. Her residents are about to be deported, but in their hunger and thirst they must await the pleasure of the enemy. Aroer is the southernmost city of Reuben on the northern side of the Arnon River.
3. The downfall of Moab (48:20–28)
20–28 If anyone in Aroer should ask why the fugitives were streaming from Moab, the answer would be that the land of Moab was devastated. So Jeremiah issues the call to proclaim by the River Arnon the destruction of Moab. The Arnon is the perennial stream that flows into the Dead Sea. Thus the news that the Babylonians have utterly destroyed Moab will reach its very border. The towns involved in the destruction are named to show its extent. In Joshua’s time they were in the portion allotted to the Reubenites and later reconquered by the Moabites. These towns are listed from north to south (most of the places are unknown). The “horn” (i.e., an animal horn) and the “arm” (i.e., a human one) are metaphors of strength and military power, which Moab will lose. The main reason for her fall was the sin of pride. Judgment will come on the Moabites because of their derisive, arrogant treatment of the Lord’s people. Drunkenness from the wrath of God is the same metaphor that appears in 25:27–29. The Moabites are exhorted to leave their settlements and live precariously.
4. The pride of Moab (48:29–39)
29–35 Jeremiah has already referred to Moab’s pride (cf. vv.7, 11), but not in the strong terms of v.29. Those who have heard of the sin are Jeremiah and his countrymen (cf. Isa 16:6). With pride always go boastings, but they are futile. Because of the impending judgment, the Lord expresses his compassion and sorrow for his creatures, the Moabites. “Kir Hareseth” was the chief fortified city of Moab (cf. Isa 16:7, 11). Moab’s ruin is likened to that of a vineyard because Moab was noted for its vineyards. The joy usually accompanying the vintage will be replaced by lamentations. The bitter cry of mourning will be carried from one place to another so as to cover the whole land. Furthermore, God will cut off all the idolatrous worship of the Moabites.
36–39 Jeremiah will lament for Moab the way her people do. Flutes were used at funerals; so they denote mourning. The usual signs of mourning—shaved heads and beards, lacerated hands, and sackcloth—will be visible. Moab is no longer a useful vessel but a shattered one. She will be a sad spectacle to all: mourning, shame, ridicule, and terror will mark her.
5. The terror caused by the invader (48:40–47)
40–47 Finally, Jeremiah proclaims that God’s judgment still hangs over Moab. He likens the swiftness of the enemy’s approach to the flight of an eagle (vulture)—a reference to Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 49:22; Eze 17:3). The strongest cities in Moab will be utterly helpless, because of Moab’s defiant pride toward God. There will be no escape from the calamity; it is everywhere (cf. Am 5:19). Even fleeing for refuge to Heshbon will not avert the destruction. Balaam’s prediction will be fulfilled (cf. Nu 21:28; 24:17). Historically, the name Moab appears to have been submerged after her exile by that of the Arabians. But God’s pity knows no end. Wrath is always his strange work in which he does not delight. The Moabites will not utterly perish (cf. 46:26; 49:6, 39); they too will have a remnant. So the restoration of Moab is predicted, though without details. “Days to come” refers here to messianic times.
D. ConcerningAmmon (49:1–6)
Chapter 49 deals with prophecies against five (or six) nations. All had incurred God’s wrath for their idolatry and their treatment of Israel.
The Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot (cf. Ge 19:38). Their territory was north of Moab. A more migratory people than the Moabites, it seems that the Ammonites originally occupied the land in which the tribe of Gad was settled after the fall of Sihon, who had probably captured it from Ammon. Their important city was Rabbah. The conquest of the Transjordanian tribes by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria in 733 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 15:29) led the Ammonites to encroach on Gad’s territory, which was east of the Jordan from Heshbon to the Jabbok (cf. Nu 32:34–36; Jos 13:24;28), and to settle between the Arnon and Jabbok rivers toward the desert.
The Ammonites were often in conflict with Israel; they opposed Judah during Jehoiakim’s reign (cf. 2Ki 24:2) and helped the downfall of the remnant after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 40:11–14). They joined in the invasion of Judah in 602 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:2) and were among the conspirators against Babylon (cf. 27:3). They were condemned because they confiscated land from Gad during the Assyrian invasion in 733–732 B.C. The destroyer of Ammon, though not named, was probably Nebuchadnezzar.
1–3 Jeremiah asks whether the tribe of Gad had no heirs since the god of the Ammonites was inheriting their land and his people were living in Gad’s cities. Although the northern tribes had been carried away by the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser III, their land still belonged to them and was to be inherited by their sons. Molech was the national god of Ammon (cf. 1Ki 11:5, 7, 33). Jeremiah prophesies that war and destruction will overtake Rabbah, the chief city of the Ammonites (now Amman, the capital of Jordan). Her nearby villages will be engulfed in the catastrophe. Jeremiah names two of the more prominent towns that the Babylonians will devastate.
Five or six miles from the Ammonite border, Heshbon had been under the Amorite king Sihon (cf. Nu 21:25 30, 34). Later it came under Moabite control. Ai is not the Ai captured by Joshua (cf. Jos 8:1–29) but the Ammonite Ai.
4–6 Living in an inaccessible country with mountains on three sides, Ammon considered herself beyond invasion. She was proud of her valleys made fertile by the Arnon waters. Everyone will flee precipitately by the shortest route with no one to rally the fugitives. Josephus says that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Ammon in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem. The Ammonites opposed Israel even after the Exile (cf. Ne 4:1–15; cf. also 1Mc 5:6, 30–43). As with Moab (cf. 48:47), the Lord graciously promises restoration.
E. Concerning Edom (49:7–22)
This prophecy is closely related to that of Obadiah, which was written after 587–586 B.C. The Edomites, whose relations with Israel were always poor, were descendants of Esau (cf. Ge 36:1–19) who lived in the mountainous region south of the Dead Sea toward the Gulf of Aqaba until the Nabateans displaced them. Later on the Maccabees forced them to become Jews. The severity in all the prophecies about Edom reflects the close and stormy relationship between Esau (progenitor of the Edomites) and his twin, Jacob (progenitor of Israel). Edom’s cardinal sin was its pride manifested in its unrelenting and violent hatred of Israel and its rejoicing in her misfortunes (Ob 3, 10–14). No future restoration is prophesied for Edom.
7–12 Teman was in northern Edom, the home of Eliphaz (Job 2:11); it was renowned for wisdom (Eze 25:13). The rhetorical questions show how suddenly calamity overwhelmed the wisest in Edom. Could they not see that destruction was imminent? Dedan, a tribe living south of Edom, was known for its commerce (25:23; Eze 25:13). The people of Dedan are warned to flee from their usual contacts with Edom, lest they be overtaken in its destruction. Contrary to the practice of grape gatherers, who left something for the poor, the enemies of Edom will leave nothing but will plunder everything.
The compassionate tone of v.11 is in keeping with the Lord’s character. The sense is that when the men of Edom have been slain in war, their widows and orphans may look to the Lord for protection. But the nation will have to drink the cup of God’s wrath (cf. 25:28). If Israel had to drink of this cup, how could Edom escape? Because of the Edomites’ complicity in Jerusalem’s fall, they are especially guilty (cf. Ob 10–14).
13–22 Here the desolation of Edom is underscored. Bozrah is referred to because it was the capital of Edom in Jeremiah’s time. It was midway between Petra and the Dead Sea, and here it represents all the Edomite cities (cf. Isa 63:1). The completeness of Edom’s overthrow is left beyond doubt. The cause of her downfall is her inveterate pride (cf. 48:7, 29; 49:4; Ob 3, 10–14).
The nations are summoned to war against Edom. Because of her fortifications and topography, Edom had convinced herself that she was impregnable. The “rock” referred to was later called Sela (Petra, a name that means “rock”)—the capital city and chief fortress of the Edomites. The ruin of Edom will be irreversible (cf. Ge 14:2, 8). Edom’s foe will pounce like a lion scattering a flock. Dispersion, destruction, and devastation will be her lot. Her doom shows how fearful it is to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31).
F. Concerning Damascus (49:23–27)
23–27 It is difficult to fit this prophecy into any recorded event relating to Damascus. The important cities in Aram were Hamath, Zobah, and Damascus—the last being the seat of a powerful dynasty. Hamath and Arpad had their own local kings and gods (cf. Sennacherib’s boast, 2Ki 18:34; 19:13). Word of the enemies’ approach terrifies one city after another. Hamath on the Orontes is about 110 miles north of Damascus, and Arpad is about 95 miles north of Hamath. Damascus was in southern Aram. All three Aramean cities had been conquered by Assyria (Isa 10:9). Damascus was also defeated by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. The reference to the “sea” must be figurative because Aram had no seacoast in ancient times. Damascus was famous in antiquity because of its location in a large oasis and because of its commerce (cf. Eze 27:18). It ought to have been abandoned before its conquest. The young men, soldiers, the walls, and fortresses of the city are all to be destroyed. Fire will ruin its walls and defenses. Ben-Hadad was the name of a dynasty that ruled Damascus in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. as well as the name of individual kings (cf. 1Ki 15:18, 20; 2Ki 13:24). In conquering Damascus, Nebuchadnezzar vindicated Babylon’s surge toward the west.
G. Concerning Kedar and Hazor (49:28–33)
28–33 Nebuchadnezzar also moved against some of the eastern tribes. Their secluded position in the Arabian desert will not ensure them of safety, for they too will feel the might of Babylon. Kedar was an Ishmaelite desert tribe (cf. Ge 25:13; Isa 21:13, 16; Eze 27:21). Although these nomads, who were rich in livestock, were good at archery (Isa 21:16–17), Nebuchadnezzar conquered them. Hazor is not the fortress Hazor in northern Palestine (cf. Jos 11:1–13) because this Hazor was in a desert region. The areas controlled by Hazor may have included Kedar and those named in 25:23. Little is known of the early history of the Arabs. Kedar (cf. 2:10) is mentioned often in Assyrian inscriptions. Terror and destruction will strike the people of Hazor and Kedar as they have other people (cf. 6:25; 20:4; 46:5). The Lord calls the Babylonian forces to attack Hazor. Behind judgment scenes the Lord is at work, carrying out his plan. As did so many others, Kedar and Hazor lived in careless self-complacency.
H. Concerning Elam (49:34–39)
34–39 This prophecy dates from the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign (i.e., 598 B.C.). Elam was an ancient kingdom (cf. Ge 14:1), two hundred miles east of Babylon and west of the Tigris River. It had been an important power but was conquered about 640 B.C., in the time of Ashurbanipal of Assyria. Later it was united with Media, then Persia. Its capital, Susa, was the residence of Darius Hystaspes and became the nucleus of the Persian Empire (Ne 1:1, Da 8:2). The purpose of this prophecy may have been to show that Elam would not and could not curb the Babylonian power. The reference to breaking the bow is a pointed one because the Elamites were famous for their skill in archery (Isa 22:6); the bow was their main weapon. Nevertheless, invaders will overwhelm them from every direction. When compared with other prophecies of Jeremiah against foreign nations, this one against Elam does not mention Nebuchadnezzar but refers only to enemies in general. Verse 38 indicates that the Lord himself will sit in judgment on Elam (cf. 1:15). “In days to come” Elam is to be restored. Some have seen the fulfillment of this prophecy when Elam, with Susa as her capital, became the center of the Persian Empire. But the phrase shows the eschatological dimension of the prophecy.
I. Concerning Babylon (50:1–51:64)
The prophecy against Babylon is by far the longest of those against foreign nations. These two chapters emphatically stress the truth of Mt 25:31–46, that the criterion by which God judges the nations is their treatment of his chosen people whom he has made the vehicle of salvation (cf. Jn 4:22) and placed at the center of the consummation of human history (cf. Isa 2:1–4). The only clue to the date of chs. 50–51 is 51:59–60, which mentions the fourth year of Zedekiah—i.e., 594–593 B.C.
Two main emphases run throughout these chapters: the fall of Babylon and the return of the Jewish exiles to their home. This does not mean that Jeremiah was pro-Babylon or pro-Judah. He had declared that Judah must be punished for her sins, and Babylon was God’s agent for it. Then Babylon is to be judged for her own sins.
1. Babylon’s doom announced (50:1–10)
1–10 The references to Babylon are not, as a rule, to the city but to the nation. First of all, the idols of Babylon are discredited. Bel and Marduk are alternate names for the same great Babylonian deity. Jeremiah sees the future doom as already completed. The idols are contemptuously referred to as “dung pellets” (NIV, “her idols”). “A nation from the north” (i.e., the Medes and Persians) will execute judgment on Babylon. The Lord exhorts his people to flee from Babylon because of the impending invasion. Scattered and penitent Israel is given a chance to escape. Flight alone will enable her to escape Babylon’s doom. The reunited nation will return to Jerusalem to join herself to the Lord, never to forget the eternal covenant.
2. Babylon’s sin and judgment (50:11–16)
11–16 Judgment on Babylon will be in retaliation for her treatment of Israel. Babylon herself is addressed so that she may realize the issues involved in her visitation. No nation in ancient times influenced the fortunes of Israel in a more devastating way than Babylon did. Her desolation is expressed in numerous ways. Babylon’s enemies are summoned to wreak destruction on her. Babylon was in a fertile agricultural area. With the decline of her political power, the irrigation canals were silted up so that the country became desolate. Cyrus, who unified the Medo-Persian Empire and then overwhelmed Babylon (2PEB, 1:1054–56), was careful to spare the country; so the references must be to a later attack. Babylon will learn the agony the law of retaliation entails.
3. Consolation to Israel (50:17–20)
17–20 This short portion summarizes the biblical interpretation of Israel’s history. The sufferings of Israel are stated, then the judgment God will bring on those who inflicted such sufferings on Israel, next her return to her land in peace and plenty, and, finally, the greatest blessing of all—the pardon of Israel’s iniquity. All these will be realized in messianic times.
4. God’s vengeance on Babylon (50:21–28)
21–28 Once more God calls on the foes of Babylon to execute his wrath on her. “Merathaim” (“double rebellion”) signifies Babylon; “Pekod” means “visitation” or “punishment.” Cause and effect are thus indicated in the play on the place names—i.e., “double rebellion” and “visitation.” The unexpected nature of the visitation is pointed out. Babylon, who hammered so many nations to pieces, will know the armory of God opened against her through her foes. There will be wholesale slaughter of Babylon’s finest men. Clearly God is reckoning with Babylon for having burned his temple in the capture of Jerusalem. The escapees from Babylon will announce in Zion that the Lord has avenged the destruction of his temple.
5. Babylon’s arrogance (50:29–32)
29–32 The stress here is on Babylon’s insufferable arrogance against the Lord. The fall of the proud will be complete. The exiles, as they summon archers, are seen exulting over God’s retribution on Babylon. The call is to complete the extinction of the haughty empire. Verse 30 is practically a verbatim repetition of 49:26, where Jeremiah pronounced judgment on Damascus. It is equally appropriate. Babylon is viewed as the epitome of arrogance—pride personified! The message originally addressed to Jerusalem (cf. 21:13–14) is directed against Babylon here with the necessary changes. For godless Babylon the consequences can only be fall, fire, and final consumption.
6. Israel’s Kinsman-Redeemer (50:33–40)
33–40 Few nations have ever realized that God is the “Redeemer” (GK 1457) of Israel. The OT concept of kinsman-redeemer includes the protection of a relative’s person and property. It involves avenging the murder of a relative, the purchase of his alienated property, and/or the marriage to his widow (cf. Lev 25:25; Nu 35:21; Ru 4). God as Redeemer is voluntarily committed to champion Israel’s cause. He will bring peace to his own but unrest to his oppressors. In a sense, Israel is the epitome of all that Babylon enslaved.
7. The permanence of Babylon’s doom (50:41–46)
41–46 This section should be compared with 6:22–24 and 49:19–21. The lion now is Cyrus, whereas in 49:19 it was Nebuchadnezzar. The desolation of Babylon will be permanent, as was that of Sodom and Gomorrah. The doom of Babylon will indeed terrify the nations who witness it. In 6:22–24 Judah was warned of an unnamed northern invader; the same language is now directed against Babylon, with appropriate changes. The “many kings” are those who were allied with Persia (e.g., the Medes) to bring about the defeat of Babylon. The executors of Babylon’s judgment are described as to their war paraphernalia, their vast cavalry, the deafening tumult, their military formation, and their merciless attitude toward their enemy. It is clear why the “king of Babylon” is overcome with fear. Verses 44–46 are practically a verbatim repetition of the condemnation of Edom in 49:19–21. The reason is clear: since Edom’s sins resemble Babylon’s, God in righteousness must judge them similarly. The phrase “among the nations” indicates a wider audience than the one in view in 49:21 because of the greater prominence of the Babylonian power.
8. The Lord’s vengeance on Babylon (51:1–14)
1–4 Chapter 51, the longest in the book, continues the message of condemnation and ruin for Babylon and concludes with a word concerning an important mission sent to Babylon by Jeremiah. A northern enemy is dispatched against Babylon, which is to be destroyed as chaff is winnowed from grain. “Leb Kamai” is Hebrew for “the heart of those who rise against me”; it is a cipher for Chaldea (see comment on 25:26; cf. 51:41). Why Jeremiah used these ciphers is not known, because he generally used the name Babylon. An obvious reason would be to hide the identity of the nation prophesied against. It is the enemies of Babylon who are called on to perform the will of God regarding her. Though the Babylonians with their weapons guard the walls, yet they are to be attacked and none spared.
5–10 The judgment is the vengeance of the Lord on Babylon for her treatment of Judah. She that was as a cup of wrath to the nations will now be shattered herself (cf. 25:15–16). The cup was a golden one because she intoxicated the nations with her wealth and power. And there is no healing for her mortal wound. Thus will God vindicate his cause in Judah.
11–14 The aggressor (Media) is now identified and the work of judgment described. The Medes were allied with Babylon in the destruction of Nineveh in 612 B.C. Later they joined the Persians to defeat Babylon in 539 B.C. (cf. Da 5:28, 31; 8:20). Again Jeremiah specifies that this judgment is for the destruction of the temple. All Babylon’s strength cannot avert her fall that has been determined by the Lord. The invaders will swarm over her like locusts.
9. The omnipotent Lord and impotent idols (51:15–26)
15–23 In ch. 10 Jeremiah showed how the house of Israel had no cause to fear the impotent idols of the pagans. Here he demonstrates to the Babylonians the uselessness of their idols, which will all be destroyed before the mighty Creator and Ruler of the universe. The biblical doctrine of the requital is predicated on the basis of God’s control over the affairs of all the nations on the ground of his creative activity (27:5) and his zeal for righteousness (Ge 18:25). In vv.20–23, Jeremiah prophesies that Cyrus of Persia, the Lord’s “war club,” will shatter Babylon. This passage underscores the great power of Persia. Ten times the phrase “with you” falls like hammer blows.
24–26 Babylon was situated on a plain; so “O destroying mountain” is a metaphor for a powerful kingdom (cf. Da 2:35, 14–15). But Babylon will become as an extinct volcano—“a burned-out mountain.” She will never be rebuilt.
10. The nations summoned (51:27–33)
27–33 A call summons the nations to fight against Babylon. As God’s avenger, Cyrus will harvest her. The people north of Babylon, who were conquered by the Medes early in the sixth century B.C., are named: Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz. These three are called to aid the Medes against Babylon.
11. Babylon’s defenses useless (51:34–44)
34–44 The Lord in his judgment will answer Zion’s complaint against Babylon. This will mean the end of Babylon. Babylon is compared to lions’ cubs. She will be given a feast, followed not by drunken sleep, but by the perpetual sleep of death. In v.41 “Sheshach” is mentioned again (see comment on 25:26; cf. 51:1). Two things Babylon was famous for were the god Bel and the great wall of the city. Bel will be compelled to disgorge the nations he has swallowed, and the great wall will collapse.
12. Warning to Israel to flee Babylon (51:45–48)
45–48 Again, the Lord’s people are warned to flee the doomed city before disaster strikes. They will need faith and courage until Babylon falls. But they are not to be terrified by the rumors that will be rife, for each year will have its own rumors of tyrants against tyrants. Heaven and earth will rejoice over Babylon’s fall (cf. Rev 19).
13. The certainty of Babylon’s fall (51:49–53)
49–53 Retribution will overtake Babylon. The remnant of Israel is ashamed when they think of Jerusalem, for they have been the cause of the temple’s having been defiled by strangers. And Babylon’s idolatry will not escape judgment.
14. The completeness of Babylon’s destruction (51:54–58)
54–58 Jeremiah sees the destroyers of Babylon as already present. The enemy overruns the land as tidal waves sweep over a country. When most needed, Babylon’s men are made drunk by God’s wrath. The slave labor of many nations expended in building the wall will have been for naught.
15. The mission of Seraiah (51:59–64)
59–64 This is Jeremiah’s word to Seraiah, the staff officer who was responsible for looking after the comfort of the king of Judah whenever he stopped for the night. He was probably the brother of Baruch (cf. 32:12). In lieu of Jeremiah, Seraiah was to perform a symbolic act. The fourth year of Zedekiah (594–593 B.C.) was possibly the year when Zedekiah attempted to clear himself of complicity in a revolt against Babylon. Seraiah’s symbolic act was a visual enactment of the fall of Babylon. This passage is an appendix to this prophecy against Babylon that shows how it was taken to Babylon. It is remarkable that at the very time Jeremiah was advising submission to that city, he was also foretelling its final overthrow. Verse 64b is commonly understood to be a compiler’s note, added to separate ch. 51 from ch. 52.
V. Historical Supplement (52:1–34)
This chapter is a historical supplement to the book of Jeremiah. It deals with the fall of Jerusalem; tells what the Babylonians did to the temple and its vessels; describes how Nebuchadnezzar treated Zedekiah, Jehoiachin, and other officials; and lists the number of Jews taken into exile. The purpose of the chapter is to show how Jeremiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in contrast to those of the false prophets. The chapter is almost identical with 2Ki 24:18–25:30.
A. The Fall of Jerusalem (52:1–11)
1–11 Verses 1–3 give a brief summary of the reign of Zedekiah and show the proximate cause of the fall of Jerusalem. The narrative goes on to give a vivid account of how the city fell. So crucial was this event that the OT records it four times—in 2Ki 25; 2Ch 36:11–21; Jer 39:1–14; and in this passage.
B. Results of the Fall (52:12–27a)
12–27a Here the narrative goes into detail about what happened in Jerusalem after it fell. There is no contradiction between v.12 and v.29. In the former the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar has been included; in the second it has not. The account of the taking of the sacred vessels to Babylon (cf. 1Ki 6–8) is more elaborate here than that in 2 Kings. Zedekiah’s revolt surely had an effect opposite from what the priests and false prophets had wanted. Solomon’s magnificent temple, one of the wonders of the ancient world, was plundered and ruined. In v.24 the three orders of the priests are referred to. Apparently the priests and false prophets had been largely responsible for inciting Zedekiah’s revolt against Nebuchadnezzar. They and the chief officers of the city were captured because of their responsibility for the calamity.
C. Nebuchadnezzar’s Captives (52:27b–30)
27b-30 The three deportations to Babylon listed here occurred (1) in 598–597 B.C., (2) in 587–586 B.C., and (3) in 582–581 B.C. Under Judean kings there were three deportations: (1) under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), which marked the beginning of the seventy years of exile; (2) under Jehoiachin (597 B.C.); and (3) under Zedekiah (586 B.C.). If only Jews are numbered or only males reckoned in vv.28–30, the ultimate total of exiles was doubtless much higher.
D. Evil-Merodach’s Kindness to Jehoiachin (52:31–34)
31–34 This passage agrees with 2Ki 25:27–30. The humane treatment accorded Jehoiachin (c. 561 B.C.) is confirmed by cuneiform tablets. These verses conclude Jeremiah’s somberly beautiful book with a comforting thought—namely, that the Lord did not forget the Davidic line, even in exile.
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Jer 7:11 | Mt 21:13; Mk 11:17; Lk 19:46 | A den of robbers |
| Jer 9:24 | 1Co 1:31; 2Co 10:17 | Boasting in the Lord |
| Jer 31:15 | Mt 2:18 | Crying in Ramah |
| Jer 31:31–34 | Heb 8:8–12; 10:16–17 | The new covenant |
| Jer 32:38 | 2Co 6:16 | God and his people |