CHAPTER 24

JEREMIAH 24:1-2

The meaning of this vision is, that there was no reason for the ungodly to flatter themselves if they continued in their wickedness, though God did bear with them for a time. The King Jeconiah had been then carried away into exile, together with the chief men and artisans. The condition of the king and of the rest appeared indeed much worse than that of the people who remained in the country, for they still retained a hope that the royal dignity would again be restored, and that the city would flourish again and enjoy abundance of every blessing, though it was then nearly emptied; for everything precious had become a prey to the conqueror; and we indeed know how great was the avarice and rapacity of Nebuchadnezzar. The city then was at that time almost empty, and desolate in comparison with its former splendor. They however who remained might indeed have hoped for a better state of things, but those who had gone into exile were become like dead bodies. Hence miserable Jeconiah, who was banished and deprived of his kingdom, was apparently undergoing a most grievous punishment, together with his companions, who had been led away with him; and the Jews who remained at Jerusalem no doubt flattered themselves, as though God had dealt more kindly with them. Had they really repented, they would indeed have given thanks to God for having spared them; but as they had abused his forbearance, it was necessary to set before them what this chapter contains, even that they foolishly reasoned when they concluded, that God had been more propitious to them than to the rest.

But this is shewn by a vision: the Prophet saw two baskets or flaskets; and he saw them full of figs, and that before the temple of God; but the figs in one were sweet and savory; and the figs in the other were bitter, so that they could not be eaten. By the sweet figs God intended to represent Jeconiah and the other exiles, who had left their country: and he compares them to the ripe figs; for ripe figs have a sweet taste, while the other figs are rejected on account of their bitterness. In like manner, Jeconiah and the rest had as it were been consumed; but there were figs still remaining; and he says that the lot of those was better whom God had in due time punished, than of the others who remained, as they were accumulating a heavier judgment by their obstinacy. For since the time that Nebuchadnezzar had spoiled the city and had taken from it everything valuable, those who remained had not ceased to add sins to sins, so that there was a larger portion of divine vengeance ready to fall on them.

We now see the design of this vision. And he says that the vision was presented to him by God; and to say this was very necessary, that his doctrine might have more weight with the people. God, indeed, often spoke without a vision; but we have elsewhere stated what was the design of a vision; it was a sort of seal to what was delivered; for in order that the Prophet might possess greater authority, they not only spoke, but as it were sealed their doctrine, as though God had graven on it, as it were by his finger, a certain mark. But as this subject has been elsewhere largely handled, I shall now pass it by.

Behold, he says, two baskets of figs set before the temple. fE119 The place ought to be noticed. It may have been that the Prophet was not allowed to move a step from his own house; and the vision may have been presented to him in the night, during thick darkness: but the temple being mentioned, shews that a part of the people had not been taken away without cause, and the other part left in the city; for it had proceeded from God himself. For in the temple God manifested himself; and therefore the prophets, when they wished to storm the hearts of the ungodly, often said,

“Go forth shall God from his temple.” (Isaiah 26:21;

Micah 1:3.)

The temple then is to be taken here for the tribunal of God. Hence, he says, that these two baskets were set in the temple; as though he said, that the whole people stood at God’s tribunal, and that those who had been already cast into exile had not been carried away at the will of their enemies, but because God designed to punish them.

The time also is mentioned, After Yeconiah the son of Jehohoiakim had been carried away; for had not this been added, the vision would have been obscure, and no one at this day could understand why God had set two baskets in the presence of Jeremiah. A distinction then is made here between the exiles and those who dwelt in their own country; and at the same time they were reduced to great poverty, and the city was deprived of its splendor; there was hardly any magnificence in the Temple, the royal palace was spoiled, and the race of David only reigned by permission. But though the calamity of the city and people was grievous, yet, as it has been said, the Jews who remained in the city thought themselves in a manner happy in comparison with their brethren, who were become as it were dead; for God had ejected the king, and he was treated disdainfully as a captive, and the condition of the others was still worse. This difference then between the captives and those who remained in the land is what is here represented.

He now adds, that one basket had very good figs, and that the other had very bad figs. If it be asked whether Jeconiah was in himself approved by God, the answer is easy, — that he was suffering punishment for his sins. Then the Prophet speaks here comparatively, when he calls some good and others bad. We must also notice, that he speaks not here of persons but of punishment; as though he had said, “ye feel a dread when those exiles are mentioned, who have been deprived of the inheritance promised them by God: this seems hard to you; but this is moderate when ye consider what end awaits you.” He then does not call Jeconiah and other captives good in themselves; but he calls them good figs, because God had chastened them more gently than he intended to chastise Zedekiah and the rest. Thus he calls the Jews who remained bad figs, not only for this reason, because they were more wicked, though this was in part the reason, but he had regard to the punishment that was nigh at hand; for the severity of God was to be greater towards those whom he had spared, and against whom he had not immediately executed his vengeance. We now perceive the meaning of the Prophet. The rest we shall defer to the next Lecture.

PRAYER

Grant, Almighty God, that since thou delayest with so much forbearance the punishments which we have deserved, and daily draw on ourselves, — O grant, that we may not indulge ourselves, but carefully consider how often, and in how many different ways we have provoked thy wrath against us, that we may thus learn humbly to present ourselves to thee for pardon, and with true repentance so implore thy mercy, that we may from the heart desire wholly to submit ourselves to thee, that whether thou chastisest us, or, according to thine infinite goodness, forgivest us, our condition may be ever blessed, not by flattering ourselves in our torpitude, but by finding thee to be our kind and bountiful Father, being reconciled to us in thine only-begotten Son. — Amen.

LECTURE NINETY-SECOND

JEREMIAH 24:3-5

In the last Lecture we began to explain the meaning of the vision which the Prophet relates. We said that the miserable exiles whose condition might have appeared to be the worst, are yet compared to good figs, and that those who still remained in the country are compared to bad and bitter figs. We have explained why God shewed this vision to his servant Jeremiah, even because the captives might have otherwise been driven to despair, especially through the weariness of delay, for they saw that their brethren were still in possession of the inheritance granted them by God, while they were driven into a far country, and as it were disinherited, so that no one could regard them as God’s people. As then despair might have overwhelmed their minds, God designed to give them some comfort. On the other hand, those who remained in the land not only exulted over the miserable exiles, but also abused the forbearance of God, so that they obstinately resisted all threatenings, and thus hardened themselves more and more against God’s judgment, hence God declares what was remotest from what was commonly thought, that they had a better lot who lived captives in Babylon than those who remained quietly as it were in their own nest.

We have said that the badness of the figs is not to be explained of guilt, but of punishment: and this is what Jeremiah confirms, when he says, As these good figs, so will I acknowledge the captivity for good, or for beneficence, hbwf, thube. It is well known that captivity means the persons led captive, it being a collective word. Then he says,

“I will acknowledge the captives of Judah, whom I have driven from this people, so as to do them good again.” fE120

As this doctrine was then incredible, God calls the attention of the Jews to the final issue; as though he had said, that they were mistaken who took only a present view of things, and did not extend their thoughts to the hope of mercy. For they thus reasoned, “It is better to remain in the country where God is worshipped, where the Temple is and the altar, than to live among heathen nations; it is better to have some liberty than to be under the yoke of tyranny; it is better to retain even the name of being a separate people than to be scattered here and there, so as not to be a community at all.” Hence, according to their state at that time, they thought their condition better: but God corrected this wrong judgment; for they ought to have looked to the end, and what awaited the exiles and captives as well as those whom the king of Babylon had for a time spared. Though, indeed, it was the Prophet’s object to alleviate the grief of those who had been led away into Chaldea, yet he had a special regard to the people over whom he was appointed an instructor and teacher. He was then at Jerusalem; and we know how perverse were those whom he had to contend with, for none could have been more obstinate than that people. As God had delayed his punishment, they supposed that they had wholly escaped, especially as they had an uncle as a successor to their captive king.

Hence, then, was their contempt of threatenings; hence was their greater liberty in sinning: they thought that God had taken vengeance on the exiles, and that they were saved as being the more excellent portion of the community. The Prophet, therefore, in order to break down this presumption, which he could not bend, set before them this vision, which had been given him from above. We now, then, see that the doctrine especially set forth is, that God would remember the captives for the purpose of doing them good, as though he had said that a wrong judgment was formed of the calamity of a few years, and that the end was to be looked to. It follows —

JEREMIAH 24:6

He confirms what he said in the last verse, but in other words, for it was difficult to persuade them that they were happier who were apparently lost, than those who still enjoyed some measure of safety. He had said that he would acknowledge them; but he now adds, I will set my eye upon them. He uses a metaphor which often occurs in Scripture, for God is said to turn away his face when he hides his favor; and in the same sense he is said to forget, to depart, not to care, to despise, to cast away. Then, as God might have seemed to have no more any care for this people, he says, “I will set my eyes on them.” But he goes even farther, for he refers to the sentence announced in the last verse — he had said that he was the author of their exile, “I have cast them into the land of the Chaldeans” but he now confirms the same thing, though in other words, when he says, “Mine eyes will I set on them for good.” For God is said to visit men, not only when he manifests his favor towards them, but also when he chastises them and punishes them for their sins. He had then set his eyes on them to execute punishment; he says now that he would act differently, that he would kindly treat the miserable.

He afterwards says, I will restore them. For, as he had sent them away, it was in his power to restore them. As, then, he could heal the wound inflicted by his own hand, this promise ought to have been sufficient to dispel every doubt from the minds of the captives as to their return; and further, the Jews, who as yet remained in Jerusalem and in the land of Judah, ought to have known that they in vain boasted in their good lot, as though God treated them better than their captive brethren, for it was in his power to restore those whom he had banished.

And he adds, I will build and not pull them down, I will plant and not pluck them up. This mode of speaking would not be so significant either in Latin or in Greek; but such a repetition, as it is well known, often occurs in Hebrew. But whenever a negative is added to an affirmative, such form of expression is to be thus interpreted, “I shall be so far from plucking them up, that I will plant them; I shall be so far from pulling them down, that I will build them up;” or, “since I had pulled them down, I will now build them up; since I had plucked them up, I will now plant them:” or a perpetuity may be meant, as though God had said, “I will plant them, so as not to pluck them again; I will build them, so as not to pull them down again.” But the most frequent import of such expressions is what I first mentioned, “I will not pull them down, but on the contrary build them up; I will not pluck them up, but on the contrary plant them.”

The meaning of the whole is, that however sad might be the calamities of the people in Chaldea, they being as exiles reduced to a desolate condition, yet God could collect them again, like one who plants a tree or builds a house. The metaphor of building is common in Scripture, and also that of planting. God is said to plant men, when he introduces a certain order among them, or when he allots to them a certain place to dwell in, or when he grants them peace and quietness. God is said in Psalm 44:2, to have planted his people; but I will not refer to the many passages which are everywhere to be met with. God often says that he had planted his vineyard. (Isaiah 5:2, etc.) And then well known is this passage,

“The branch of the Lord, and the planting for his glory.” (Isaiah 60:21)

This is said of the preservation of the Church.

The meaning then is, that though God severely chastised the exiles who had been led into Chaldea, yet their condition was not to be estimated by one day, or a month, or a few years, but that a happy end was to be expected. And as God intended at length to shew himself reconcilable and propitious, it follows that the calamity which had happened to them was lighter than that which awaited the rest, who resolutely despised God and his prophets, and thus increased the vengeance which had been already denounced on them. It follows, —

JEREMIAH 24:7

Here is added the main benefit, that God would not only restore the captives, that they might dwell in the land of promise, but would also change them inwardly; for except God gives us a conviction as to our own sins, and then leads us by his Spirit to repentance, whatever benefit he may bestow on us, they will only conduce to our greater ruin. The Prophet has hitherto spoken of the alleviation of punishment, as though he had said, “God will stretch forth his hand to restore his people to their own country.” Then the remission of punishment is what has been hitherto promised; but now the Prophet speaks of a much more excellent favor, that God would not only mitigate punishment, but that he would also inwardly change and reform their hearts, so that they would not only return to their own country, but would also become a true Church, a name of which they had vainly boasted. For though they had been chosen to be a peculiar people, yet, as they had departed from true religion, they were only a Church in name. But now God promises that he would bring them, not only to enjoy temporal and fading blessings, but also eternal salvation, for they would truly fear and serve him.

And this is what we ought carefully to observe, for the more bountiful God is towards men, the more is his vengeance kindled by ingratitude. What, then, would it avail us to abound in all good things, except we had evidences of God’s paternal favor towards us? But when we regard this end, that God testifies to us that he is our Father by his bounty towards us, we then make a right use of all his blessings; and God’s benefits cannot conduce to our salvation except we regard them in this light. Hence Jeremiah, after having spoken of the people’s restoration, justly exalts this favor above everything else, that the people would repent, so that they would not only fully partake of all the blessings they could expect, but would also worship God in sincerity and truth.

Now, God says that he would give them a heart to know him. The word heart is to be taken here for the mind or understanding, as it means often in Hebrew. It, indeed, means frequently the seat of the affections, and also the soul of man, as including reason or understanding and will. But though the heart is taken often for the seat of the affections, it is yet applied to designate the other part of the soul, according to these words,

“Hitherto God has not given thee a heart to understand.” (Deuteronomy 29:4)

The Latins sometimes take it in this sense, according to what Cicero shews when he quotes these words of Ennius, “Catus AElius Sextus was a man remarkable in understanding.” (Egregie cordatus; Cic. 1 Tuscul.) Then, in this passage, the word heart is put for the light of the understanding. Yet another thing must be stated, that a true knowledge of God is not, as they say, imaginary, but is ever connected with a right feeling.

From the words of the Prophet we learn that repentance is the peculiar gift of God. Had Jeremiah said only that they who had been previously driven by madness into ruin, would return to a sane mind, he might have appeared as one setting up free-will and putting conversion in the power of man himself, according to what the Papists hold, who dream that we can turn to either side, to good as well as to evil; and thus they imagine that we can, after having forsaken God, of ourselves turn to him. But the Prophet clearly shews here, that it is God’s peculiar gift; for what God claims for himself, he surely does not take away from men, as though he intended to deprive them of any right which may belong to them, according to what the Pelagians hold, who seem to think that God appears almost envious when he declares that man’s conversion is in his power; but this is nothing less than a diabolical madness. It is, then, enough for us to know, that what God claims for himself is not taken away from men, for it is not in their power.

Since, then, he affirms that he would give them a heart to understand, we hence learn that men are by nature blind, and also that when they are blinded by the devil, they cannot return to the right way, and that they cannot be otherwise capable of light than by having God to illuminate them by his Spirit. We then see that man, from the time he fell, cannot rise again until God stretches forth his hand not only to help him, (as the Papists say, for they dare not claim to themselves the whole of repentance, but they halve it between themselves and God,) but even to do the whole work from the beginning to the end; for God is not called the helper in repentance, but the author of it. God, then, does not say, “I will help them, so that when they raise up their eyes to me, they shall be immediately assisted;” no, he does not say this; but what he says is, “I will give them a heart to understand.” And as understanding or knowledge is the main thing in repentance, it follows that man remains wholly under the power of the devil, and is, as it were, his slave, until God draws him forth from his miserable bondage. In short, we must maintain, that as soon as the devil draws us from the right way of salvation, nothing can come to our minds but what sinks us more and more in ruin, until God interposes, and thus restore us when thinking of no such thing.

This passage also shews, that we cannot really turn to God until we acknowledge him to be the Judge; for until the sinner sets himself before God’s tribunal, he will never be touched with the feeling of true repentance. Let us then know that the door of repentance is then opened to us, when God constrains us to look to him. At the same time there is more included in the term Jehovah than the majesty of God, for he assumes this principle, which ought to have been sufficiently known to the whole people, that he was the only true God who had chosen for himself the seed of Abraham, who had published the Law by Moses, who had made a covenant with the posterity of Abraham. There is then no doubt but that the Prophet meant that when the Jews became illuminated, they would be convinced of what they had forgotten, that is, that they had departed from the only true God. This mode of speaking then means the same as though he had said, “I will open their eyes, that they may at length acknowledge that they are apostates, and be thus humbled when made sensible how grievous was their impiety in forsaking me the fountain of living waters.”

He afterwards adds, that they should be to him a people, and that he in his turn would be to them a God; for they would return to him with the whole heart. By these words the Prophet shews more clearly what he had before referred to, that God’s blessings would be then altogether salutary when they regarded their giver. As long then as we regard only the blessings of God, our insensibility produces this effect, that the more bountiful he is towards us, the more culpable we become. But when we regard God’s bounty and paternal kindness towards us, we then really enjoy his blessings. This is the meaning of the Prophet’s words when he says,

“I shall be to you a God, and ye shall be to me a people.”

What this mode of speaking means has been stated elsewhere.

Though God rules the whole world, he yet declares that he is the God of the Church; and the faithful whom he has adopted, he favors with this high distinction, that they are his people; and he does this that they may be persuaded that there is safety in him, according to what is said by Habakkuk,

“Thou art our God, we shall not die.” (Habakkuk 1:12.)

And of this sentence Christ himself is the best interpreter, when he says, that he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, (Luke 20:38; ) he proves by the testimony of Moses, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead, were yet alive. How so; because God would not have declared that he was their God, were they not living to him. Since then he regards them as his people, he at the same time shews that there is life for them laid up in him. In short, we see that there is here promised by God not a restoration for a short time, but he adds the hope of eternal life and salvation; for the Jews were not only to return to their own country, when the time came to leave Chaldea, and a liberty granted them to build their own city; but they were also to become the true Church of God.

And the reason is also added, Because they will return to me, he says, with their whole heart. He repeats what we have already observed, that they would be wise (cordatos) and intelligent, whereas they had been for a long time stupid and foolish, and the devil had so blinded them, that they were not capable of receiving sound doctrine. But these two things, the reconciliation of God with men and repentance, are necessarily connected together, yet repentance ought not to be deemed as the cause of pardon or of reconciliation, as many falsely think who imagine that men deserve pardon because they repent. It is indeed true that God is never propitious to us, except when we turn to him; but the connection, as it has been already stated, is not such that repentance is the cause of pardon, nay, this very passage clearly shews that repentance itself depends on the grace and mercy of God. Since this is true, it follows that men are anticipated by God’s gratuitous kindness.

We hence further learn, that God is not otherwise propitious to us than according to his good pleasure, so that the cause of all is only in himself. Whence is it that a sinner returns to the right way and seeks God from whom he has departed? Is it because he is moved to do so of himself? Nay, but because God illuminates his mind and touches his heart, or rather renews it. How is it that God illuminates him who has become blind? Surely for this we can find no other cause than the gratuitous mercy of God. When God then is propitious to men, so as to restore them to himself, does he not anticipate them by his grace? How then can repentance be called the cause of reconciliation, when it is its effect? It cannot be at the same time its effect and cause.

We ought therefore carefully to notice the context here, for though the Prophet says that the Jews, when they returned, would be God’s people, because they would turn to him with their whole heart, he yet had before explained whence this turning or conversion would proceed, even because God would shew them mercy. They who pervert such passages according to their own fancies, are not so acquainted with Scripture as to know that there is a twofold reconciliation of men with God: He is first reconciled to men in a hidden manner, for when they despise him, he anticipates them by his grace, and illuminates their minds and renews their hearts. This first reconciliation is what they do not understand. But there is another reconciliation, known by experience, even when we feel that the wrath of God towards us is pacified, and are indeed made sensible of this by the effects. To this the reference is made in these words,

“Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,” (Zechariah 1:3)

that is, “I appear severe and rigid to you; but whence is this? even because ye cease not to provoke my wrath; return to me, and you shall find me ready to spare you.” God therefore did not then first begin to pardon sinners, when he does them good, but as he had been previously pacified, hence he turns them to himself, and afterwards shews that he is really reconciled to them.

By the whole heart, is intimated sincerity or integrity, as by a double heart, or a heart and a heart, is signified dissimulation. It is certain that no one turns to God in such a manner that he puts off all the affections of the flesh, that he is renewed at once in God’s image, so that he is freed from every stain. Such a conversion is never found in man. But when the Scripture speaks of the whole heart, it is in contrast with dissimulation;

“with my whole heart have I sought thee,” says David; “I have hid thy words and will keep them: I have prayed for thy favor; I will ask,” etc., (<19B910>Psalm 119:10-16;)

“They will seek me,” as Moses says, “with their whole heart.” (Deuteronomy 4:29; Deuteronomy 10:12)

David did not divest himself of everything sinful, for he confesses in many places that he was laboring under many sins; but the clear meaning is, that what God requires is integrity. In short, the whole heart is integrity, that is when we deal not hypocritically with God, but desire from the heart to give up ourselves to him.

As we have before refuted the error of those who think that repentance is the cause why God becomes reconciled to us, so now we must know that God will not be propitious to us except we seek him. For there is a mutual bond of connection, so that God anticipates us by his grace, and also calls us to himself; in short, he draws us, and we feel in ourselves the working of the Holy Spirit. We do not indeed turn, unless we are turned; we do not turn through our own will or efforts, but it is the Holy Spirit’s work. Yet he who under pretext of grace indulges himself and cares not for God, and seeks not repentance, cannot flatter himself that he is one of God’s people; for as we have said, repentance is necessary. It follows, — but I cannot today finish this part, for he speaks of the badness of the figs, and of the remnant which still remained.

PRAYER

Grant, Almighty God, that as we are placed in this world, that while daily receiving so many blessings, we may so pass our time as to regard our end and hasten towards the goal, — O grant, that the benefits and blessings by which thou invitest us to thyself, may not be impediments to us, and keep us attached to this world, but on the contrary stimulate us to fear thy name as well as to appreciate thy mercy, so that we may thus know thee to be our God, and strive on our part to present ourselves to thee as thy people, and so consecrate ourselves and all our services to thee,

that thy name may be glorified in us, through Christ our Lord. — Amen.

FOOTNOTES

ftA1. According to an ancient tradition, mentioned by Jerome and others, Jeremiah was stoned to death by the Jews at Tahpanhes in Egypt, (see Jeremiah 43: 8) shortly after their removal there, subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem. So that he did not live long after that event: it may be two or three years.

ftA2 ,Ιδιομάτων κοινώνιαν, which may be rendered “ The communication of peculiarities.” Ed.

ftA3 “Christus ubique totus est, sed non totum.” Lib. 3, Senten. dist. 22.

ftA4 Non ignora mali, miseris succurrere disco.

ftA5 Scott says that Jeremiah “ entered upon the prophetic office almost seventy years after the death of Isaiah.” Ed.

ftA6 The word does not properly mean a “ child, “ as in our version, or “ puer, “ as rendered by Calvin, but a youth, or rather a young man. Abraham’s trained servants were thus called, Genesis 14:24, and his servant who dressed the calf for the angels, Genesis 18:7, and his “ young men” who accompanied him to Mount Moriah, Genesis 22:5. Joshua had this name given him, when he was attending Moses at the tabernacle, Exodus 33:11. It is rendered “ (newterov)-a youth or a young man, “ by the Septuagint. The most probable thing is, that he was, not as Adam Clarke supposes, about 14, but a young man verging on maturity. The length of time during which he prophesied, would lead us to conclude that he was young when he was appointed to his office.

There are two remarkable resemblances between Jeremiah and Moses. They both made an excuse for declining the office to which God called them, and made a similar excuse. The other resemblance is what Lightfoot has noticed, that Moses was a teacher of the people for forty years before they entered the land of Canaan, and that Jeremiah was their teacher for forty years before they were banished from it and driven into exile.-Ed.

ftA7 The reasons alleged against Jeremiah being the son of the high priest are by no means conclusive: indeed, all the circumstances being considered, the probability is in favor of that supposition. The family of the high priest resided no doubt at Anathoth; what is said in 1 Kings 2:26, respecting Abiathar, is a proof of this. That the high priest resided at Jerusalem during the term of his office forms no objection; nor is the genealogy of the high priests as given in 1 Chronicles 6:1-17, any objection; for though in verse 13, Azariah is said to be the son of Hilkiah, yet Jeremiah might have been one of his younger sons. Most commentators agree indeed with Calvin, -Gataker, Henry, Scott, Blayney, etc.; but they adduce no satisfactory reasons, sufficient to invalidate the opinion of the Rabbins and the intimation contained in the Targum: and this opinion is what the translators of the Geneva Bible have adopted. Ed.

ftA8 The second verse begins with rça which Calvin renders “ nempeeven, “ and takes it in an exegetic sense: but this is not its meaning. Our version is no doubt correct, “ to whom;” though there is no preposition before it, it is yet found before the personal pronoun “ to him, “ that comes afterwards. It is an idiom of the language, and the very same exists in Welsh, in which the version is literally the same with the Hebrew a relative pronoun without a preposition followed by a personal pronoun with a preposition profixed to it. It would be literally in English, “ whom the word of Jehovah came to him.” The Welsh also retains the peculiarity of the Hebrew, in having prepositions prefixed to pronouns and attached to them, though this is not the case generally with nouns,

*Yr hwn y daeth gair Jehova atto.*

The verb too, as in the Hebrew, precedes its nominative; “ came” is before “ the word of Jehovah.” It is rather singular that the Septuagint have rendered this relative by “wJs-as, “ which shews that the Hebrew idiom was not understood by them. Ed.

ftA9 More strictly, “in the inside,” or belly, ˆfb. The specific term for womb is in the next sentence, µjr.-Ed.

ftA10 The words admit of two meanings. Rbd yt[dyAal-I have not known word, or, I know not word. The phrase may signify, I have no word to say, or, I know not how to say a word. The first meaning is what the context seems to countenance. The answer given to him refers to his two objections-that he had no word to say, and that he was a young man. The last is first answered, according to the usual mode of writing adopted by the prophets, “ To every one whom I shall send thee to, thou shalt go;” and then the first objection is removed, “ and everything that I shall command thee, thou shalt speak.” The answer goes on, and refers to the points in the same order, “ Fear not;” and then to remedy the want complained of; Jehovah is represented as putting his words in his mouth, so that he might have what was necessary for him to say. God promised courage though he was young, and gave him a message to deliver: thus his two objections were removed.

We meet with a similar phrase in Jeremiah 6:15; Jeremiah 8:12, which is, literally, “ and shame they know not.” -Ed.

ftA11 The proper rendering is, “Fear not before them,” or, on their account:

ynms is invariably a preposition, before, from before, because of, on account of, for, by, through; Deuteronomy 2:21; Exodus 14:19; Deuteronomy 7:19; Jeremiah 6:13; and it is often, though not always, so rendered in our version. The very same phrase is found in Joshua 11:6, and rendered, “Be not afraid, because of them;” and also in this book, Joshua 41:18, “They were afraid of them.” It may, indeed, be rendered, “Fear them not,” or, “Be not afraid of them.” To introduce “face” or “faces” is by no means right. Gataker’s rendering is, “Fear not before them;” and Blayney’s, “Be not thou afraid because of them.”-Ed.

ftA12 “Earthly kings and sovereigns,” observes Gataker on this verse, “are not wont to go with those whom they send on embassage; God goeth along with those whom he sends, and is by his powerful protection, at all times and in all places, present with them.” -Ed.

ftA13 The whole of this verse is arranged according to the usual manner of the Prophets. The word “ nations” comes first, and then “ kingdoms.” Three lines follow; the first word in each line refers to “kingdoms,” and the last to “ nations.” The w, vau, in the second line is omitted in many copies, and there seems to be no need of it; and it is not true what Blayney says, that there are MSS. which supply the w before the last line, though it be supplied by the Septuagint. To preserve the distinct meaning of each verb, I offer the following rendering: -

*See, I have set thee this day* *Over nations and over kingdoms,* *To root up, and to break down,* *To destroy, and to erase,* *To build up, and to plant.*

He was to root up kingdoms, and to break down nations; then he adds stronger words, for he was to destroy, or wholly to destroy kingdoms, and to erase or to obliterate nations. The reason for the repetition is well stated by Calvin. As to his other work, two words only are used: he was to build up kingdoms, and to plant nations. A nation, of course, exists before a kingdom, and this order is observed in the second line; but the order, as it is usual with the sacred writers, not only of the Old, but also of the New Testament, is then reversed. See an instance in Romans 10:9, 10, where indeed the true order is given last, the ostensible act being in the first instance stated, and then the principle from which it proceeds.-Ed.} ftA14 The word is rendered “ a rod of almond” by the Septuagint, the Arabic version, and Theodotion; and also by Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, and Blayney; and “ the rod of the watcher” by Sym., Aq., and the Vulgate. The latter is no doubt more suitable in a translation. Some conclude, from what is related in Numbers 17., that the head of each tribe carried a wand or a staff made of the almond tree as a token of watchfulness: if so, the probability is, that this wand was presented to the view of the Prophet. It being a well-known emblem of watchfulness, and called perhaps the watchful rod or staff, it was most suitable to the purposes here designed. The verb dqç does not mean to hasten, but to watch, or to be awake. Then the version of the passage would be the following: -

11. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, “ What seest thou, Jeremiah?” and I said, “ The rod of a watcher is what I see.”

12. Then Jehovah said to me, “ Thou seest rightly, for I am watching over my word to do it.” -Ed.

ftA15 Most agree with Calvin, that the pot means the Jewish nation; so the learned Gataker in the Ass. Ann., Grotius, Henry, and Scott. There is some difference as to “ its face.” The first of these authors, followed by the two last, thinks that the face means the front of the fire or the

hearth, and therefore the front of the pot. This face or front was towards the north, signifying that the fuel and the blowing would be from that quarter, as it is afterwards stated. As to the metaphor, the pot, or cauldron, see Ezekiel 11:3, 7; 24:3, 5.

The version of the Geneva Bible is, “ I see a seething-pot looking out of the north;” and the Chaldean army is regarded as the pot: and Blayney, following the marginal reading of our version, has given a similar rendering, “ and the face thereof is turned from the north.” But ynpm is a preposition, and rendered often, “from before,” and, “before,” (see note on verse 8;) and to say that its face was before the north means the same as towards the north: and this is the rendering of Jun. and Trem., and Piscator, “ versus Aquilonem.”

“The boiling-pot” is a pot “kindled under-ὑποκαιόμενον,” by the Sept. The literal rendering of jwpn rys is, “ a pot blown, “ meaning the fire under it. It was a pot set on a fire that was blown, and the front of it was toward the north, from whence the blowing came. The same word as a noun is used by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 6:29, and signifies an instrument for blowing, and is rendered “ bellows” in our version. It was then a pot set on a fire that was blown, which intimated the severe calamities which the Jews were soon to endure, as Grotius observes.-Ed.

ftA16 Perhaps the more literal rendering would be, “I will call to,” or for. The version of Septuagint is, “συγκάλω-I will summon;” of Vatablus, “invitabo-I will invite;” of Piscator, “vocabo-I will call;” and of Blayney, “I will call for.” -Ed.

ftA17 They are called “ families, “ say some, because kings are called fathers; but probable it is a mode of speaking retained from primitive times, as we find that those called “ families” in Genesis 12:3, are called “nations” in Genesis 22:18.-Ed.

ftA18 The original word, ask, not only means a throne, but a seat; see 1 Samuel 1:9; 1 Samuel 4:18; and 2 Kings 4:10,

where it is rendered in our version “a stool.” Grotius renders it here “praetorium castrense-a camp’s tent.” The “throne” is derived from the Septuagint.-Ed.

ftA19 Literally it is “The opening of the gates.” The preposition at is not in the original; and the word in some other places is found without it. See Genesis 19:11; Genesis 43:17. The preposition ἐπὶ is given by the Septuagint, “ἐπὶ τὰ πρόθυρα-at or in the vestibules, “ etc. We have the fulfillment of this expressly recorded in Jeremiah 39:3. The idea suggested by Adam, Clarke, that they would sit as judges in the gates, as these were the courts of justice, is evidently not intended here; for they would also fix their tents or their seats by or on the walls, and in all the cities of Judah. The latter portion of the verse may be thus rendered, -

*And they shall come, and set, each his seat,* *At the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem,* *And on all its walls around,* *And on all the cities of Judah.*

The description betokens an entire possession of the whole land.-Ed.

ftA20 The idea conveyed by the Septuagint is somewhat different, and I believe that it is what the original words mean, “λαλήσω πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ κρίσεως-I will speak to them with judgment.” The original literally is, “ and I will speak my judgments to them;” that is, I will not speak words but judgments: or, I will not address them with words, but with actual judgments. Then in the following words the reason is assigned. The verse may be thus rendered, -

16. And I will speak by my judgments to them, On account of all their wickedness, Because they have forsaken me, And have burnt incense to strange gods, And have bowed down to the work of their own hands.

It is better to retain the outward act as expressed by the last verb, “ bowed down.” or, more literally, “ bowed down themselves, “ as the verb is in the reflective mood, than to adopt the abstract term “ worshipped.” So the verb is rendered in the second commandment,

Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9.

The first, line is rendered by Grotius, “Proedicam illis decreta mea-I will declare to them my decrees, “ that is, by Jeremiah and others, -by Jun. and Trem., “I will speak my judgments against them,” that is, by the prophets, -by Henry. “ I will pass sentence upon them,”-by Blayney, “I will pronounce my judgments against them;” and Scott gives the same view. But Gataker says, “It seems rather to import an efficacious and actual decree that God would, in his own appointed time, pass upon them, and put in execution by the Chaldeans.” Hence he renders the phrase like Henry, “I will pass sentence, “ or, “ give judgment, upon them.”-Ed.

ftA21 This is correctly given, only the w need not be rendered “then” or “therefore.” It is an instance of the nominative absolute, or of the anticipative case, -

*And thou, gird thy loins,* *And arise, and speak to them* *All that I shall command thee.*

“And as for thee,” by Blayney, is very tame and prosaic. The version of the Geaeva Bible is, “Thou, therefore, trusse up thy loyns.” -Ed.

ftA22 It is true that the primary meaning of the verb here used is, to be broken, or to be broken down, to be broken in pieces. It is applied to the breaking of a bow, and to the breaking down of images, 1 Samuel 2:4; Jeremiah 50:2; and to the breaking down of nations, (Isaiah 8:3; Isaiah 30:31.) Such is its meaning when applied to what is material and visible; but when applied to the mind or spirit, it means to be dispirited, daunted, terrified, or dismayed, 2 Kings 19:26; Jeremiah 8:9. It is here first in a passive sense, and then in

Hiphil, as in Job 31:34; and in Jeremiah 49:37, -

*Be not dismayed at them,* *Lest I cause thee to be dismayed before them.*

or,

*Be not terrified by them,* *Lest I terrify thee before them.*

Blayney gives to the verb first its secondary meaning, and then its primary, “ Be not thou afraid of them, lest I should suffer thee to be crushed before them.” How crushed before them? By whom? And to say that there is no threat included in the last line is singular, as words could hardly be framed to express it more distinctly.

The Targum expresses the meaning of the first line, “Restrain not thyself from rebuking them.” Grotius renders the last line, “Ne ego to perterrefaciam coram illis-lest I terrify thee before them;” which seems to be its best rendering.-Ed.

ftA23 Cotton, the old translator, has rendered it very strikingly, “If thou quailest,” expressing the two words in one.-Ed.

ftA24 We find here nearly the same form or mode of speech as at the beginning of the previous verse, “And I, behold I have made thee,” etc.: and Blayney renders it so here, though not in the preceding instance.Ed.

ftA25 There is the preposition l before “city,” “pillar,” and “wall.” It is an idiom. The full meaning is, “I have made thee to be for a fortified city.” The same idiom exists in Welsh, the preposition yn is used, which implies that the verb to be is understood. But it is not necessary to retain the preposition in a language in which a similar idiom does not exist. The Septuagint render the preposition by “ὡς-as,” and Jun. and Trem., by “velut-as,” or like. And such a word would be suitable in our language, -

*And I, behold I have made thee this day* *Like a city that is fortified,* *And like a pillar of iron,* *And like a wall of brass,* *With regard to the whole land,* *To the kings of Judah, to its princes,* *To its priests, and to the people of the land.*

“To” here means in opposition to-he was to stand opposed to the kings, etc., as a fortified city, etc. “Wall” is plural in the received text; but many MSS., the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Targum, and the Vulgate, have it in the singular number, which seems most suitable.-Ed.

ftA26 It ought to be, “For with thee will I be, to deliver thee;” for the verb to be, being understood, it must be put in the same tense with the other verbs in the passage: and such is the rendering of Blayney.-Ed.

ftA27 Though most of modern commentators, Grotius, Gataker, Blayney, Scott, Adam Clarke, etc., give the same view of this verse with Calvin, yet the probability is, and something more than the probability, that the sense in which it was taken by the ancients is the correct one; which is the sense given in our version, and adopted by Henry. A literal rendering of the verse is sufficient to shew its meaning, -

2. Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Jehovah,- I remember, with regard to thee, The kindness of thy

youth, The love of thy espousals, Thy coming after me in the desert, Through a land not sown.

“Thy coming, or, walking after me, “ stands in the same relation to “ remember” as the two preceding words: this is plainly the construction; and this construction determines the meaning of the foregoing lines. Our version is quite wrong in rendering ˚l, “thee;” it ought ever to be rendered as above, when the verb, as here, is followed by an accusative case. See Leviticus 26:45; Psalm 79:8; <19A645>Psalm 106:45.

What has led commentators, no doubt, to divert this passage from its right meaning was their impression that more is here ascribed to Israel than their history warrants. But this is not the only instance in which their former conduct is contrasted with their latter conduct. This is done in Malachi 2:5, as to the priests. The object here is to set forth the difference between the people when brought out of Egypt, and following God’s guidance in the wilderness, and their conduct at the time of Jeremiah. They were indeed very far from being what they ought to have been in the first instance, but their deportment in Jeremiah’s age was incomparably worse.-Ed.

ftA28 Blayney considers this verse as referring to Israel in ancient times, and as spoken by God: hence he renders the last words, “said Jehovah.” The first part seems to declare what Israel was, and the other appears to be the language of God respecting them,-

*Holy was Israel to Jehovah,* *The first-fruits of his produce:* *“All his devourers shall be deemed guilty,* *Evil shall come to them,” said Jehovah.*

The verb µça is rendered “πλημμελήσουσι-shall offend,” by the Septuagint, as in our version, and by Grotius; “trespass,” by Gataker; and, “guilty of a trespass,” by Blayney. The contradiction of guilt is what is meant, as the punishment is announced in the next words. See <19A514>Psalm 105:14, 15.-Ed.

ftA29 The literal rendering of this verse is as follows, -

5. Thus saith Jehovah, What have your fathers found in me? Oppression? For they have gone far from me, And have followed after vanity, And have become vain.

The word lwç, oppression, injustice, or tyranny, is so placed in the sentence that it cannot be construed with “what.” The word “vanity” means often an idol, and it is so considered here by the Targum, by Piscator, Grotius, Gataker, and others. It is often found in the plural, “vanities,” as it is here in the Septuagint; see Deuteronomy 32:21; 1 Kings 16:26; Psalm 31:6: but it is here the poetical singular. They “became vain,” that is, foolish, sottish, having no more sense or reason than their idols, as idolaters are represented in <19B508>Psalm 115:8. Their senselessness is set forth in the next verse. An idol is especially called “vanity,” because it can do no good and avails nothing: deluded imagination alone gives it all its efficacy and power. Samuel gives a true account of idols, 1 Samuel 12:21. But as long as the devil deceives and deludes the world, idols and images will be in repute, though they are in themselves wholly useless and worthless, while yet they prove ruinous to the souls of men.-Ed.

ftA30 Though the general import of this verse is given, yet the version is not very accurate. I offer the following-

And they have not said, “ Where is Jehovah, Who brought us up from the land of Egypt, Who led us in the wilderness, Through a land of waste and of the pit, Through a land of drought and of the shadow of death, Through a land in which no man traveled, And no human being dwelt there?”

The word “pit” is used poetically, the singular for the plural, and correctly rendered “pits” in our version. It is probably an allusion to the practice of digging pits and covering them over, in order to catch wild beasts; and the word is used here only to express hidden dangers. “The shadow of death” means a barren dreariness. After “land,” in the last line but one, rça is supplied by three MSS., and by the Septuagint, though by no means in character with the Greek language; but the idiom of the Hebrew requires it, and is no doubt the true reading. I have rendered µda in the last line, after Blayney, “human being.” The five last lines are thus given by the Septuagint, -

Who conducted you in the wilderness, In a land unknown and inaccessible (ἀβάτῳ) In a land without water and barren (ἀκάρπῳ-fruitless) In a land through which no man passed, And no son of man inhabited there.

The word “barren” is rendered more literally by Theodotion, “skias θανάτου-of the shadow of death.”-Ed.

ftA31 That the word means a fruitful field or country is evident from Isaiah 10:18; Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 4:26, etc.

there was also a city bearing this name, situated in the tribe of Judah,

Joshua 15:55, and also a mountain belonging to the tribe of

Manasseh, Joshua 19:26.-Ed.

ftA32 “And ye came” is left out. The same verb in a causative sense is used at the beginning of the verse, rendered, “I brought.” It would be more striking to retain the same verb, and not to use “ but when” in the latter instance, as in our version,-

And I caused you to come into a fruitful land, To eat its fruit and its rich produce; And ye came and polluted my land, And made mine heritage an abomination.

The whole runs thus much better, and has the conciseness of poetry: and the idea intended to be conveyed is more apparent-God caused them to come, and they came.-Ed.

ftA33 It appears that the Prophet has already condemned the people in the foregoing portion of this chapter. In Jeremiah 1:18, we find the different classes thus arranged-kings and princes, priests, the people of the land. At the beginning of this chapter, he addresses the people-the whole community, and here he names the priests, and the pastors, i.e., in the state, including kings and princes. Thus he reverses the order according to the common usage of Scripture: but to these are added here, prophets, because they were the spiritual pastors, as kings and princes were the civil.-Ed.

ftA34 Perhaps no better word can express the verb here used than that of our versions., “handle”-”they that handle the law,” that is. explain and teach it. To “handle the harp,” is to play on it, Genesis 4:21; to “handle war,” is to carry it on, Numbers 31:27; to “handle the our,” is to ply with it, Ezekiel 27:29; and to “handle the bow,” is either to use it, or to know how to use it, Amos 2:15. They who handled the law were evidently those who undertook to explain and teach it to others. To lay hold on, seems to be the primary meaning of the verb, and that either for a good or a bad purpose. “The Scribes,”

observes Scott, “who undertook to expound the Scriptures, did not understand them.”-Ed.

ftA35 Some say that idols are referred to; and others, as Calvin think that the false gods are intended: the meaning is the same; only the context seems more favorable to the latter idea. The Septuagint have a neuter adjective, “ After what is profitless-ἀνωφελοῦσ-have they gone.” The verb for profit is plural; and if we take al only as a negative, both the antecedent and relative are omitted: but al here, and in Jeremiah 2:11, and in other places, is evidently a noun or a pronoun, signifying none or nothing: and like neb, none, in Welsh, it is either singular or plural, according to the verb in connection with it. It precedes here a verb in the plural number, and in Jeremiah 2:11, in the singular. The relative is often understood both in Hebrew and in Welsh before future verbs, and in both languages especially when the present time or act is intended. In the present instance, both languages may be considered to be literally the same. The Hebrew, word for word, may be thus rendered in Welsh:

*Arol neb a lesant y rhodiasant.*

*After none (who) profit have they walked.*

That is, After none who can do them good have they gone.-Ed.

ftA36 Gataker thinks that it was verbal pleading: “It is as if he had said, ‘I have argued the case with your forefathers already, let me debate the matter a little further with you, and let your posterity also consider well what I now say, ‘ (see Deuteronomy 31:19, 31.) And so is the same word afterwards used for debating the case or pleading, verse 29 (Jeremiah 2:29).” Henry, Adam Clarke, and Blayney, take the same view; but Scott seems to agree with Calvin. The verb bwr, followed as it is here by ta, ever means a verbal dispute or contention. See Numbers 20:13; Nehemiah 13:11, 17; Proverb 25:9; Isaiah 45:9.-Ed.

ftA37 Parkhurst doubts whether the word µyya, rendered islands, has ever strictly that meaning. He renders the singular, ya, a settlement, a habitation, and refers to Job 22:30; Isaiah 20:6; and says, that the plural, in Isaiah 42:15, ought to be rendered “habitable places,” and not “islands,” as in our version. It may be rendered here, “countries,” as by Blarney.-Ed.

ftA38 “Their glory” are by some considered to be God himself, and not the glory, that is, the honor, dignity, and greatness which he bestowed on the people, as Calvin here intimates: but the latter is more consistent with what follows, which literally is, “for nothing that profits:” for the al here, as in Jeremiah 2:8, is evidently a noun, or a pronoun. The comparison here is between what God gives and what false gods give; the comparison before was between God himself and the false gods. God gives glory, renders his people great and illustrious; but the false gods give nothing that profits, that really benefits, or does any good.-Ed.

ftA39 Blarney, following the Septuagint, renders the verbs as in the third person plural. “The heavens are astonished,” etc.; but it is better to take them as being in the second person in the imperative mood, as both Aquila and Symmachus do. Similar passages are so construed, see Isaiah 1:2. There is alliteration in the two first words, as though we said in our language, “Heave, ye heavens:” and there is a gradation in the expressions-be astonished-be horrified-be wholly wasted, or consumed, or dried up,-

Astonished be ye, the heavens, for this, And be horrified, Be ye wholly wasted, saith Jehovah.

The alteration in the last verb, in accordance with the Syriac, wdrj, which means to “tremble,” instead of wbrj, though proposed by Secker and approved by Horsley, is by no means necessary, and countenanced by no MSS. Nor is the emendation of Blarney, in conformity with the Septuagint, to be at all approved. These alterations are not only unnecessary, but destroy the expressive and striking character of the passage. Learned men are sometimes led too much by an innovating spirit.-Ed.

ftA40 Blarney innovated here, because he seemed not rightly to distinguish between the two words that are here used. Both are rendered “ cisterns” in our version; but they are two distinct words, though they are similar, and mean similar or the same things. The first is twrab, pits, and the other is trab in our received text, but ought evidently to be twrb, or, as in one MS., trwb, which means “wells” or pools. The first is a feminine noun, the last is a masculine noun; and hence we find that the adjective added here to the last word is masculine, as in other places, see Deuteronomy 6:11; 2 Chronicles 26:10; Nehemiah 9:25; while the first is accompanied with adjectives in the feminine gender. The verse may be thus rendered,-

For two evils have my people done,- Me have they forsaken, the fountain of living waters; In order to dig for themselves pits, Broken wells, which cannot hold water.

It is singular that Adam Clarke should say that these cisterns were “vessels in put together,” since they were pits dug in the ground to receive rain-water.-Ed.

ftA41 The difficulty of understanding this passage has arisen from not considering the questions in a negative sense, as implying a strong denial-”Is Israel a servant (or, rather a slave)?” No, by no means. “Is he one begotten in the house,” that is, in a state of bondage? No, by no means. Then the following question comes naturally; since he is neither a purchased slave, nor a slave born in the house, “why has he become a prey?” That there were two sorts of slaves of this kind is evident from many parts of Scripture. See Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:27; Exodus 21:4; Leviticus 22: l1. This is the view taken evidently in our version, by Jun and Trem., Piscator, Gataker, Grotius, Henry, and Scott.

Blarney renders the two first lines thus,Is Israel a slave? or if a child of the household, Wherefore is he exposed to spoil?

He considers “the child of the household” to be the son and the heir, as Isaac was, and refers to Galatians 4:7. Horsley coincides with him. But the usus loquendi gives no countenance to this view, while it confirms the other. To refer to filiusfamilias in Latin is to no purpose. “The child of the house,” as the expression literally is, and similar phrases, ever mean in Scripture those who were born slaves in a family.-Ed.

ftA42 The verse literally is as follows,-

Over him shall young lions roar; They have uttered their voice, And have made his land a waste; His cities are grown over with grass, Without an inhabitant.

The verb in the first line is future, the other verbs are in the past tense; and Blarney thinks that they are so put to denote the certainty of what is said, as it is often done by the prophets: and this is rendered probable by what is contained in Jeremiah 4:7, where the same judgment is spoken of. The verb htxn, in the received text, ought evidently to be wtxn, according to the Keri and twenty MSS.; and so we find it in Jeremiah 9:10. Our version and Calvin give it the idea of “burning;” but according to Leigh and Parkhurst, its meaning is, to shoot forth, to produce grass, or to grow over with grass, as the case is with ruined cities; and the words connected with it here and in other places seem to favor this meaning. It is rendered in our version, “laid waste, “ in Jeremiah 4:7, and “desolate” in Jeremiah 46:19.-Ed.

ftA43 There have been many expositions of this latter clause, which may be seen in the Assembly’s Annotations, which were written, as to Isaiah and Jeremiah, by the learned Gataker. He gives the preference to the idea, that the crown of the head means the best and the principal part of the land, and to break the crown means the plunder of this portion. See Isaiah 28:4. This seems to correspond in meaning with the previous verse. It was the opinion of Blarney that an allusion is prophetically made to the slaying of Josiah by the Egyptians. The words literally are, They shall break thee, the crown of the head.

“The crown of the head” seems to be explanatory of “thee;” it might then be rendered,They shall break thee, even the crown of thy head.

The Septuagint mistook one letter for another, and took the verb to be, ˚w[dy, “they knew thee,” instead of ˚w[ry “they shall break thee;” but what they made the last word to be, it is hard to know, for they rendered it, “and searched thee.” The Vulgate has followed the Septuagint; and the idea is a very indecent one: and there is nothing in

the context to favor it. The Targum’s paraphrase is this, “They shall slay thy brave men, and plunder thy riches;” which countenances the idea evidently conveyed by the figurative terms of the Hebrew.

The next verse literally rendered is as follows,-

Is not this what thou wilt do for thyself, By thy forsaking of Jehovah thy God, At the time he was leading thee in the way?

The first verb is no doubt future, whether it be rendered in the second or third person. The sentence may be rendered in Welsh without “Is,” or the relative “what,” and word for word,-

Ai nid hyn a wnai i’th hun? And the future is understood as the present. Blayney’s version is, Shall not this be done unto thee, Because thou hast forsaken Jehovah thy God, At the time that he led thee in the way?-Ed.

ftA44 No doubt this is the peculiar import of the passage, as though the Prophet had said, “What good to thee is to travel to Egypt to drink the waters of Sihor, a muddy river, (as the word imports;) and what good to thee is to travel to Assyria to drink the waters of the river, while thou hast at home a fountain of living, pure and perennial waters?” So Gataker considers the drift of the passage:-”To drink the water of Nilus in Egypt is put here for to seek help and relief there: but he delivereth it in these terms, as if he should say, that they could have nothing to do there, or no errand thither, unless it were to drink of the puddle water of that river, when they had, or might have had, as good, yea, far better than that, nearer at hand, at home. See Jeremiah 18:14; so 2 Kings 1:3.” Then the plainest version would be thus,-

And now, what hast thou to do with a journey to Egypt, That thou mightest drink the waters of Sihor? And what hast thou to do with a journey to Assyria, That thou mightest drink the waters of the river?

The comparison evidently is between the waters of Sihor and of the river Euphrates, and the living waters. As in other parts of Scripture the Euphrates is no doubt meant by the river, though here, as in Psalm 80:11, and Isaiah 7:20, the article h is not prefixed to it.-Ed.

ftA45 Blarney renders it “adversity.” That the word sometimes means that, is true, but most commonly wickedness; and this is the sense required by the context: it must be that which corresponds in character with the word that follows-apostasy, or turning aside. “ Wickedness” is the meaning sanctioned by all the early versions, as well as modern.-Ed.

ftA46 The word is singular in all the early versions. It is rendered “apostasy-

ἀποστασία,” by the Septuagint, and, “turning aside-aversio,” by the Vulgate. Though there is no MS. in favor of the singular, yet the verb connected with it is in that number. The true reading no doubt is according to the versions, confirmed as it is by the number of the verb.Ed.

ftA47 The verse literally is as follows,-

19.Chastise thee shall thy wickedness, And thy apostasy, it shall correct thee; Know then and see, That evil and bitter shall be Thy forsaking of Jehovah thy God; And my fear is not in thee, Saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts.

The future is spoken of. They were warned; they were to know and see, or consider, that the forsaking of God, “the apostasy,” would be afflictive and bitter: and then the cause of the “wickedness” first mentioned is stated, no “fear” of God. How “wickedness” was to chastise them, and “apostasy” to correct them, is signified,-they would turn out to be “evil”-affiictive-hurtful, and “bitter”-grievous-painfully distressing. Hence Grotfius’s exposition cannot be right-”Thy wickedness shall be a proof that thou art justly punished.” The reference is to the very evils and miseries to which their “wickedness” and “apostasy” would inevitably lead them. Their foreign alliances were eventually the means of their degradation and misery; and in seeking them, they forsook God as their protector; and by adopting idols, they forsook him as the object of their worship.-Ed.

ftA48 On the authority of the Septuagint and of the Vulgate, Blarney has rendered this verb and the following in the second person, “thou hast broken, “ etc. There is no MS. that has this reading except one, and that as to the first verb only. The Targum and the Syriac retain the first person; but the Arabic the second. There is no necessity of a change, as Blarney intimates, arising from the usus loquendi; see Jeremiah 28:2; Isaiah 9:4. Jerome followed the

Septuagint; but all modern versions have adopted the Hebrew text. Horsley gives this version,-

20. Verily of old time I broke thy yoke, I burst thy bands asunder; Yet thou saidst, I will not obey: Verily, upon every high hill, And under every green tree, Thou layest thyself along, playing the strumpet.

Blarney having proposed to amend the last line, the Bishop justly says, “The text wants no correction.” The verb h[x found only here, and in Jeremiah 48:12, and in Isaiah 51:14; Isaiah 63:1, means, according to Buxtorff and Leigh, to wander, to ramble, to travel up and down, and in a transitive sense, to cause to travel, or to migrate; but, according to Parkhurst, to stretch out, to lie along, and transitively to cause to be stretched out, that is, to throw down. The first meaning is more suitable to the passages referred to above. It is here a participle, preceded by a pronoun, “thou,” the way in which a present act is commonly expressed in Hebrew. The line may then be thus rendered,Thou ramblest, playing the strumpet.

The Targum gives the meaning, though not the right tense, “Thou didst worship idols.”-Ed.

ftA49 The received Text has db[, to serve, and the Keri, rb[, to transgress. In favor of the latter there are about 30 MSS., while the rest of those examined by Kennicott (in all 198, 71 examined throughout, and 127 on particular parts) retain the former verb, and also all the early versions, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Vulgate. The Targum only has the latter. Piscator, Jun. and Trem., Capellus, Blarney, and Horsley decide with Calvin in favor of the former; while Munster and Gataker side with our version and that of Geneva, in which the latter has been adopted. Clearly the former has the weight of authority: and the contrast, too, is striking, “I have broken thy bonds of slavery; but thou hast refused to serve or obey me.” The former part of this verse is of the same purport with Jeremiah 2:6, and the latter with Jeremiah 2:25. The verse begins with yk, rendered “for” in our version, by Calvin, and many others, but “surely” by

Blarney, and “verily” by Horsley. It is omitted in the Vulgate. Were it rendered “though,” the meaning would be more evident,-

Though from old time I had broken thy yoke, I had burst thy bands asunder; Yet thou hast said, “I will not obey:” For on every high hill and under every green tree Thou ramblest, playing the strumpet.-Ed.

ftA50 The word means not only the seed of vegetables, but whatever forms that from which anything grows. It is applied as a verb to the planting of shoots or cuttings in Isaiah 17:10. The proper rendering here would be,The whole of it a genuine plant (or shoot).

What is rendered “choice vine,” qrwç is the yellow vine; the best was so called, because it produced wine of that color.-Ed.

ftA51 Much difference exists as to the literal meaning of this clause, though the general meaning is quite evident. None of the early versions are the same. The word yrws is rendered, “into bitterness-eijv πικρίαν,” by the Septuagint; “thou hast rebelled,” by the Syriac; “into what is corrupt-in pravurn,” by the Vulgate; “thou hast declined from my fear,” by the Targum. Blarney takes it as a verb in the imperative mood, and renders the two lines thus,Yet how I find thee changed! Depart, O vine of spurious growth.

But there is a harshness and incongruity in this version that renders it inadmissible. Besides “vine of spurious growth” is not the meaning of the words used, for it is “a foreign vine,” that is, a heathen vine; which contains an allusion to the idolatry which had been imported from heathen nations.

It is most probable that yrws, or in full, µyrws, means degenerate shoots or branches, as Parkhurst thinks. To turn aside, to decline, to degenerate, seems to be the most common meaning of the verb. There would in this case be a congruity in the whole verse,-

And I myself had planted thee a choice vine, The whole of it a genuine plant; How then art thou become to me The degenerate shoots of a foreign vine?

The plant was of the best kind, but the shoots or the branches had become degenerated, such as a foreign or heathen vine produced.-Ed.

ftA52 What we call “nitre” is different from the “nitron” here mentioned. The verb, from which the noun is derived, means to loosen, to set free: and hence the article called nitron dissolves in water, and loosens and washes away spots and stains. Borith was an herb, which, being burnt, and its ashes dissolved in water, had a strong cleansing power.-Ed.

ftA53 The verb rendered “stamped” is only found here in Niphel, but, as a participial noun, it seems to mean gold stamped or marked to shew its genuineness. See Psalm 45:9; Proverbs 25:12. A stain or spot is not what it signifies, as given by the Septuagint and the Vulgate, nor “blot,” according to Blarney; but it refers to the stamp or mark imprinted on a hard metal, such as gold: and this idea alone corresponds with the other parts of the verse. A stain, a spot, or a blot, might be cleansed by abstergents, but not a mark stamped on a metal,-

But thou washest thyself with nitron, And multipliest for thyself fuller’s ashes: Stamped is thine iniquity before me, Saith the Lord Jehovah.-Ed.

ftA54 “The Jews, it seems,” says Loath, “had found out distinctions, whereby to reconcile the worship of the true God with those religious rites which they paid to the deities of the heathen, called here Baalim. These, they pretended, were only inferior demons or spirits, or the souls of men departed, and might be worshipped in subordination to the supreme God.” Scott adds to this quotation this just remark, “This, and nothing better, can the Papists urge in excuse of their manifest idolatry in worshipping saints and angels” -Ed.

ftA55 The grammatical anomalies at the beginning of this verse are satisfactorily removed by Parkhurst, and what he has proposed is approved by Horsley. He considers hrp to be the female dromedary, he derives dml from dm, measure, or extent, with a l prefixed, and regards hçpn as the true reading, being that of the Keri, and of the largest number of MSS. This verse and the preceding are to be thus connected,-

23. How canst thou say, “ I have not been polluted, After Baalim have I not walked!” See thy way in the valley, Know

what thou hast done,- Like a swift dromedary which winds about her courses,-

24.A female which, in the wide space of the wilderness, Through the desire of her natural instinct, Snuffs up the wind she meets with: Who can turn her back? All who seek her, Let them not weary themselves; In her month they shall find her.

By “winding about her courses,” or tracks, or ways, is meant running in this and in that direction, and not in a straight course. The word, as a noun, denotes the string or latchet by which the ancients fastened their sandals, and which they twined round the feet. “The wind she meets with,” is literally, “the wind of her meeting.” The Septuagint and the early versions have departed widely from the original; the Vulgate comes nearest to it; nor is the Targum far off-Ed.

ftA56 That the word means to be barefooted, or without shoes, is clear from

Isaiah 20:2-4, and also from 2 Samuel 15:30: and it is nowhere else found except here. It being here a noun, it signifies literally barefootedness. They are here exhorted not to travel for aid to foreign lands, so as to wear out their shoes and thus become barefooted. This was said in contempt, in order to pour ridicule on their folly in seeking foreign aid.-Ed.

ftA57 It has been disputed whether the negative “no,” refers to the advice given at the beginning of the verse, or to the immediately preceding word. The latter is the most natural. The word çawn is a participle, as in Job 6:26. The verse may be thus rendered,25. Keep thy foot from being bare And thy throat from thirst; But thou hast said, “ Hopeless! No; For I have loved strangers, And after them will I go.”

The first part implies that they were pursuing a useless course. The insolent answer was, “Is it hopeless? By no means.” The Septuagint omit the negative, and have only “ἀνδριοῦμαι-I will act manfully;” and this version has been followed by the Syriac and Arabic. The Vulgate has, “desperavi, nequaquam faciam-I have despaired, I will by no means do so.” The most literal rendering is given above, and affords the best and the most suitable meaning.

To confess that it was a hopeless thing to attempt to reform them, is not so appropriate, as to deny it to be hopeless to have recourse to foreign alliances: which seems to be the import of the passage. This is the view which Gataker seemed most inclined to take; and he mentions this rendering, “Should I despair? No.” To the same purpose is the version of Jun. and Trem. But Grotius, Henry, and Adam Clarke, agree with the explanation of Calvin.-Ed.

ftA58 The verb rendered “is ashamed,” is in the past tense in Huphal, and means “made ashamed,” or, “confounded,” as rendered, by the Targum and the Vulgate. The Septuagint have converted it into the future tense, and so have the Syriac and the Arabic, which have been followed by most modern versions, and by commentators. If we rightly view the whole passage, we shall see reason to take this verb as we find it, in the past tense. The verse is an answer, as it were, to what is contained in the latter part of the previous verse, by a reference to what had already taken place as to the people of Judah; and the 30th verse (Jeremiah 2:30) countenances the past tense. This and the following verse may be thus rendered,-

26.As a thief is ashamed when he is found out, So made ashamed have been the house of Israel, They, their kings, their princes, Their priests and their prophets;

27.Who have said to the wood, “My father art thou,” And to the stone, “Thou hast begotten me.” Though they have turned to me the back and not the face; Yet in the time of their calamity, They say, “Arise and save us.”

The participles in Hebrew are regulated as to their tense by the verbs in the passage. Hence µyrma in Jeremiah 2:27, is to be in the same tense with the previous verb. The future in the last line is to be in the present, as it expresses what was commonly done. Then what was usually said to them is mentioned in the following verse,-

28.But where are thy gods, which thou hast made for thyself? Let them arise, if they can save thee In the time of thy calamity: For according to the number of thy cities Have been thy gods, O Judah.

Blayney has kept to the past tense as to the last line, and also as to the beginning of Jeremiah 2:26.-Ed.

ftA59 The words employed by Calvin are the technical terms, latria and dulia, the fictions of the Papists. The first means specifically worship, and the second, service, obedience. The verb δουλεύω in the New Testament is never used in the sense of worshipping or adoring, but of serving and obeying: but to bow to images or to kiss them, is an act of adoration, and not of service.-Ed.

ftA60 The “neck” here means evidently the hinder part, for it is in contrast with “ face;” and the word generally means the hinder part. Hence it is properly rendered here “back” in our version and by Blayney, and so by the Targum and the early versions, except the Syriac, which retains the hinder part of the neck. We have no single word, except it be nape, which denotes the back part of the neck. There is one in Welsh, “ gwegil, “ and so in Latin, “ cervix, “ and in Greek, ἀυχὴν. But the Septuagint have adopted here “νῶτα-backs.”-Ed.

ftA61 The verb rendered “plead” in our version, is followed by la, against or in opposition to. There are two other instances, Judges 21:22; Job 33:13. Our version in Job is, “Why dost thou strive against him?” The most suitable rendering of this passage is, Why should ye contend against (or, with) me?

Then follows a fact sufficient to put an end to all contention,All of you have rebelled against me, Saith Jehovah.

The primary idea of [çp is, to go, to pass, to march on. See Isaiah 28:4. Its meaning depends on the preposition which follows it. Followed by l[, over, it means to transgress, it being a going or passing over the limits set by the law, Hosea 8:1,-by m, to go from, to revolt, to apostatize, 2 Kings 8:22,-and by b, to go against, to rebel, as in this passage. Hence the noun has attained various meanings-transgression, apostasy, and rebellion. Its precise meaning in any case is to be determined by the context. Gataker and Blayhey render the verb here the same,All of you have rebelled against me, saith Jehovah.

The early versions vary. The Septuagint have “ἠσεβήσατε-ye have acted impiously,” the Syriac, “ye have denied me,”-the Arabic, “ye have sinned against me,”-and the Vulgate, “ye have forsaken me.” The general idea is the same, but the specific one is that of rebelling against God.-Ed.

ftA62 Blayney renders the word “instruction.” The Septuagint have “παιδείαν-discipline: “the Syriac, Vulgate, and the Targum are the same; but the Arabic has “instruction-eruditionem.” The strict meaning of the word rswm, is restraint, check, discipline, correction. Not to receive restraint or correction, is not to be thereby improved or reformed, but to proceed in the same course, see Jeremiah 5:3. The word has also a secondary meaning, instruction, as the effect of correction, see Zephaniah 3:7. But here it clearly means correction.-Ed.

ftA63 The beginning of this verse literally is “The age, ye,” that is, “Ye of this age,” or generation. He was speaking before more especially of the preceding age. He now appeals to the people of that generation,-

Ye of this age, see, spoken hath Jehovah,- Have I been a wilderness to Israel, Or a land of darkness? Why have they said, even my people, “We have ruled, we will no more come to thee?”

The above rendering of the latter part of the first line is favored by the Septuagint, “Hear ye the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord.” The Arabic is the same. The Vulgate has, “See the word of the Lord,”-and the Syriac, “Hear the word of the Lord.’ Blayney renders thus, “Behold ye the cause of Jehovah.” Gataker takes “see” in the sense of considering, “See, “or seriously consider, “the word of the Lord.” The particle µa after h, may be rendered “or,” as in the Syriac. See Joshua 5:13. The word hylpam is found in two MSS., hlypam, which seems to be the true reading, countenanced by the Targum, and all the early versions, except the Vulgate, which has “serotina-lateward.” Darkness is a common metaphor for wretchedness and misery “We have ruled” is the literal rendering of wndr, and there is no other reading. The Septuagint gives the same meaning, though the form is different, “We shall not be lorded over-ouj κυριευθησόμεθα.” The Arabic is the same. It is the language of proud independence. The Targum, the Vulgate, and the Syriac have mistaken the verb for wndry, which means, to descend, to come down, to bring down. Blayney gives the correct idea, “We are our own masters, “which Horsley approves. The preterite in Hebrew often includes the present; so the full meaning is, “We have ruled and do rule.”-Ed.

ftA64 The second word, hlk, is rendered “sponsa-a bride,” in our version, by Calvin and Blayney, and so by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum, but by the Septuagint, “παρθένος-a virgin:” and Parkhurst says that it never means a bride. The version then ought to be, Can a maid forget her ornaments, A virgin her bands?

That the word µyrçq means bands of some kind is evident, as the verb signifies to bind, to join closely. Bands or bandage for the breastστηθοδεσμίδα, is the version of the Septuagint; the Arabic and the Vulgate are the same. Parkhurst considers that “head-bands” are meant. The word is found also in Isaiah 3:20; where the Septuagint render it “δακτυλίοις-rings,” and the Targum, “murenulas-chains,” which were of gold, and worn around the neck. For any practical purpose it is only necessary to know that they were embellishments which young women delighted in: and women in every age are too fond of such things, and men too; but the case is introduced here only for the sake of illustration.-Ed.

ftA65 The exposition of this verse is no doubt materially correct. The words have been variously rendered, On the first clause there is a general agreement, The verb “taught” in the second, is in the first person in the received text; and to this reading Blayney gives the preference, and thus renders the line,Therefore also have I taught calamities thy ways.

That is, “that God had directed calamities where to find them.” But this, is rather a remote idea. In favor of the second person, “thou hast taught, “are several MSS., all the early versions and the Targum; and it is what has been by most adopted. “The wicked ones” of our version is a rendering not countenanced by any of the ancient versions, nor by the Targum; all render it evil or evils or wickednesses.-Ed.

ftA66 Our version of this text seems on the whole the best. “Blood,” µd, is to be taken here in a collective sense, as the verb to which it belongs is plural. Instead of “poor innocents, “it ought rather to be “the innocent poor, “as the noun in Hebrew generally precedes its adjective. “Found” is in the first person, and there is no different reading, and it is so in the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, though the Syriac and Arabic give the second person, and the Targum the third person plural, as Calvin does. The last word is rendered “these” in the Vulgate and the Targum; but “oak” in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, and adopted by Blayney, but disapproved by Houbigant and Horsley. As to the word, rendered in our version, “secret search,” the early versions have pit, pits, or ditches, and so the Targum. Blayney renders it “a digged hole, “of which Horsley approves; and he refers, as an illustration, to Leviticus 17:13, and to Ezekiel 24:7. The word means digging, and seems to be used here metaphorically for searching; there is no need of adding “secret” to it,-

Also in thy skirts has been found The blood of the souls of the innocent poor: Not by searching have I found it, But upon all these (i.e., skirts.)

The reference is to what is said in Jeremiah 2:30, where the Jews are charged with the killing the prophets. As to “the blood, “we find a similar passage in Ezekiel 24:7, 8.-Ed.

ftA67 The literal rendering of this verse is as follows:-

35. And thou hast said, “Verily I have been innocent; Surely turned away has he his anger from me: “ Behold I will contend in judgment with thee, On account of thy saying, “I have not sinned.”

The Septuagint have rendered the second line, “Let his anger be turned away from me;” the Vulgate and the Arabic are the same. The Syriac is, “therefore he turns away his anger from me.” “Turned away is his anger, “is the Targum, Piscator, Jun. and Trem. Blayney renders it,Surely his wrath shall turn from me.

There is no reason for construing the verb in the future tense, or in the imperative mood. It is in the past tense, and there is no other reading. The claim of innocency is made on the supposition that God had turned away his displeasure. Hence the declaration that follows-that God would contest the matter-would bring it as it were into trial, as the verb here when in Niphal means.-Ed.

ftA68 The idea of gadding, or of running here and there, is not countenanced by any of the early versions. The notion of vileness or degradation is what the versions convey. The Vulgate is,-

Quinn vilis factus es nimis, iterans vias tuas! How extremely worthless art thou become, iterating thy ways!

The other versions are nearly of the same general import. Blayney’s version is,-

Why wilt thou make thyself exceedingly vile, In repeating over again thy ways?

Modern critics have considered the verb to be lza, and not lz. It no doubt may be either. As shame is threatened at the end of the verse, the latter verb is the most suitable,Why shouldest thou become wholly degraded By repeating thy course? Even by Egypt shalt thou be put to shame, As thou hast been put to shame by Assyria.

“Course,” or way, means here a proceeding, and to repeat it is to pursue a course similar to what had been previously adopted.-Ed.

ftA69 There are three other expositions of the words rendered by Calvin, “on this account.” One is that of our version, “from him;” the second is, “from hence,” i.e., from Egypt, adopted by Piscator, Grotius, and Blayney; and the third is, “from here,” i.e., from this place, their own land; which, as Gataker says, is probably “the genuine sense:” it is a threatening, that they were to be led into captivity. The rendering of the Septuagint is, “ἐντεῦθεν-from hence,” or from this place; of the Vulgate, “ab ista-from that,” meaning, evidently Egypt; of the Syriac and Targum, “ex hoc-from this;” and of Arabic, “illinc-from thence.” The particle hz is “this,” and not “that.”-Ed.

ftA70 “The gesture” mentioned here, a striking example of, we find in 2 Samuel 13:19. Many consider the w here as having the meaning of “with,” and render the line as Blayney does,With thy hands upon thy head.

But more consistent with the genius of the language is to regard the auxiliary verb to be understood,And thy hands shall be on thy head.

There is a similar phrase in Isaiah 35:10, which ought to be rendered thus,And everlasting joy shall be upon their heads.-Ed.

ftA71 The verb for “abhor” is µam, which means to reject, that is, with disdain and contempt; and the same when followed by b, though often rendered “despise” in our version. It is rendered “reject, “without the b, in 1 Samuel 15:23; Jeremiah 7:29; and “despise” being followed by b in Judges 9:38; Jeremiah 4:30. The early versions and the Targum mostly differ, and none of them give the specific meaning of the verb, except that the Septuagint give its meaning when not followed by b, “ἀπώσατο-has rejected.” The whole verse may be thus rendered,-

37.Also from this place shalt thou go forth, And thy hands shall be on thy head: For rejected has Jehovah those in whom thou trustest, And thou shalt not prosper by them.

It is not correct to render ˚yjfbm, “thy confidences;” for the word means “thy confided ones, “it being a Huphal participle. The Syriac renders it, “those who afford thee confidence-fiduciam tibi praebentibus.” Blayney’s version is, “the objects of thy trust;” and he translates the verb, “reprobated.” That this is its meaning when followed by b is evident from Jeremiah 6:30.-Ed.

ftA72 The word at the beginning of this verse has puzzled most, the form being so unusual. It is left out by the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic. The Vulgate has “vulgo dieitur-it is commonly said.” But l means at times “according to;” and it may be so rendered here,-

According to what is said, If a man sends away his wife, And she goes from him and becomes another man’s, Is he to return to her again? Polluted, shall it not be polluted, even that land? But thou hast played the harlot with many friends, Yet return to me, saith Jehovah.

The particle ˆh in the first line is Chaldee for µa; it is so rendered by the Targun and the early versions. The pronoun ayhh after “land” cannot be rendered as Calvin proposes; it agrees in gender with “land.” It is singular that the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have “woman” instead of “land;” yet the Syriac and Targum retain “land: “but in them all this pronoun is construed with the noun. Gataker takes “land” here, and in Deuteronomy 24:4, as meaning “the state, “the community, and refers to Numbers 35:33; <19A638>Psalm 106:38; Isaiah 24:5.-Ed.

ftA73 The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, have by a mistake rendered the word “pastors” or shepherds; but the Vulgate has “lovers, “which our version and Blayney have adopted. But the word means companions, friends, intimates, neighbors. Gataker renders it “mates.”Ed.

ftA74 Gataker suggests another idea,-that the reference is made to the Arabian traders, who fix their tents in the wilderness to wait for the merchants. Blayney renders the lines differently,-

Lift up thine eyes upon the open plains, and see; Where hast thou not been defiled in the highways? Thou hast sat waiting in them like an Arabian in the desert.

To render µypç, “open plains,” is without authority; it means “craggy eminences, “or elevated places. See Numbers 23:3; Isaiah 41:18; Jeremiah 14:6. The division, too, is arbitrary. “The ways,” or highways, connects better with the following verb; and µhl is not “in them, “but to or for them, that is, her lovers, mentioned in the preceding verse. Our version is the most suitable, with which that of Calvin corresponds.

“Arabian” is rendered “crow” by the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic; “robber” by the Vulgate, but “Arabian” by the Targum. It is true that the word for a crow is from the same root, but the iod attached to it shews it to be a proper name. Where the Vulgate got the word “robber, “it is hard to know.-Ed.

ftA75 It is usual to render the w before “restrained,” “therefore;” but the sentence will read better, connected as it is with the latter part of the previous verse, by giving it its most common meaning,-

And restrained have been the showers, And the latter rain has not been; Yet the front of a wanton woman hast thou had, Thou hast refused to be made ashamed.

This last verb is in the Infinitive Huphal. It means in Hiphil, to make ashamed; and then in Huphal, to be made ashamed. The Targum expresses thus the general sense of the last line, “Thou hast been unwilling to humble thyself.” The rest of the verse is rendered almost literally. The Septuagint and the Arabic wander very far from the Hebrew. The Vulgate is a literal version, and the Syriac is nearly so, only it connects “wickedness, “in the last verse, with restrained, thus,And for thy wickedness have been restrained the dews.

And it is not improbable but that this was the original reading.-Ed.

ftA76 This and the preceding verse have been variously explained. The view given by Calvin has been most commonly adopted; but it is hardly consistent with a literal rendering of the original, which I consider to be as follows,-

4.Hast thou not from this time called to me, “ My Father, the guide of my youth art thou:

5.Will he reserve wrath for ever, Or keep it to the end?” Behold, thou hast so spoken, And hast done evils and persevered.

“From this time,” that is, the time spoken of before, when the people followed idolatry. During this time, they called God their Father, and promised themselves the remittance of his displeasure. They said this, and yet followed their superstitions. This is the view which Gataker seemed most disposed to take. Horsley thus paraphrases the last line,“ Thou hast persisted incorrigibly in doing evil.”

The Septuagint give “called,” in the past tense; the Vulgate, in the imperative, “voca-call;” the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Targum, in the future tense, “Wilt thou not call,” etc. The received text has ytarq, which is no doubt wrong; the iod is not found in very many MSS., and all the early versions agree in giving the verb in the second person. The same is to be said of ytrbd, it ought to be trbd, though Horsley prefers the former; but neither the early versions nor the context favor it. The phrase ht[m is rendered by the Septuagint, “wJs οἰκόν-as a house,” and by the Arabic, “ut filia-as a daughter.” How such mistakes could have been made, it is difficult to say. The Syriac has “hereafter;” and the Targum, “from this time.”-Ed.

ftA77 It is correctly rendered as a noun, for had it been an adjective or a participle, it would have followed the word Israel. Literally it is, “the apostates,”Hast thou seen what she did, the apostates Israel?

Or, it may be rendered, “the backslider Israel,” though the word is deficient, having no feminine termination.-Ed.

ftA78 The difficulty at the beginning of the eighth verse may be removed either by adopting haraw, as in two MSS., and taking the verb to be in Hiphil, or artw, as in one MS., as a repetition of the former verb, according to the Syriac. It is left out in the Vulgate. But it is most suitable to the context to take the verb to be in Hiphil. Then the passage would read thus,-

6.Hast thou not seen what she did, the apostate Israel? Go did she on every high hill and under every green tree, And play there the harlot:

7.And I said, after she had done all these things, “To me return;” but she returned not: And see this did the hypocrite, her sister Judah:

8.And I caused her to see, that on all these accounts, As adultery the apostate Israel would commit, I dismissed her, and gave to her The bill of her divorcement; Yet fear not, did the hypocrite Judah, her sister, But went and played the harlot, even herself.

“On all these accounts,” or, for all these reasons, refers to several things-the first apostasy-God’s invitation-and Israel’s refusal. God caused Judah to see these things by his prophets, but Judah feared not. The word hdgb, hypocrite, or the perfidious one, is a feminine participle, used as a noun. It is explained in the tenth verse by “feignedly” or falsely. Hypocrites would be the correct rendering. It is rendered by the Septuagint, “faithless-ασύνθετος,”-by the Vulgate, “prevaricatress-praevaricatrix, “and by the Targum, “falsifier” or cheat.-Ed.

ftA79 This verse may be thus rendered,-

And it was, that through the report of her fornication, She polluted the land; And she committed adultery with stone and wood.

There is no instance of lq, in the sense of swiftness, etc., being used as a noun. It is the Chaldee for lwq, voice, fame, report. Gataker paraphrases the words thus, “by her notorious fornication.” The early versions and the Targum all differ. Excessive addiction to idolatry is evidently what is spoken of.-Ed.

ftA80 This verse stands connected, not with the preceding, but with the eighth,-

Yea, even for all this, Return to me did not the hypocrite, Her sister Judah, with all her heart, But in falsehood, saith Jehovah.

“In falsehood,” or, by dealing falsely, as it may be taken by a participle preceded by a preposition.-Ed.

ftA81 This is the literal expression, but the word çpn is often taken for oneself, and ought often to be so rendered. See Numbers 30:5; Job 18:4; Psalm 7:2; God is said to swear by his soul, that is, by himself, Amos 6:8-

Then said Jehovah to me,- Justified herself hath apostate Israel, More than the hypocrite Judah.

Manifest and open apostasy is more honest than the double dealing of hypocrites, who combine God’s worship with idolatry; nor is it so hateful to God.-Ed.

ftA82 12.Go and proclaim these words towards the north, and say,- Return, apostate Israel, saith Jehovah; I will not cause my wrath to fall on you, For merciful am I, saith Jehovah; I will not reserve it for ever.

That ynp, commonly rendered “face,” means sometimes wrath or anger, is evident, see Psalm 21:9; Lamentations 4:16. God is said to have his face against the wicked, Psalm 34:16, and to make his face to shine on his people, Psalm 80:3. This accounts for the word being taken sometimes, as it were, in a bad sense: He has an angry as well as a smiling face.

The rendering of the Septuagint is, “I will not set firm (στηριῶ) my face upon you,” of the Vulgate, “I will not turn away my face from you,” of the Syriac and Arabic, “I will not harden my face against you,” and of the Targum, “I will not send my wrath upon you.” The last comes nearest to the Hebrew.

Blayney’s version is a paraphrase,-

I will not look down upon you with a lowering brow; and so is his version of the last line,- I will not keep displeasure in view for ever.

Our version in both instances is much to be preferred.-Ed.

ftA83

But yet know thine iniquity, That against Jehovah thy God hast thou rebelled; For thou hast diversified thy ways for strangers, Under every green tree; And to my voice ye hearkened not, saith Jehovah.

The word ˚a is rendered by the early versions and the Targum, But, or But yet, or Nevertheless, “Verum,” “Verumtamen.” The third line is thus explained by Parkhurst, “Thou hast run after various heathen nations in their several idolatries.” And this they did, while they refused to attend to the voice of God. To attend to, rather than to obey, is what is meant. So the Vulgate and the Syriac, “My voice ye heard not,” or, as the former, “thou didst not hear.-Ed. ftA84 Nor is there an instance of such a meaning. Literally it is, “For I have been married with (or to) thee.” When this verb is followed by k, as in Jeremiah 31:32, this is its meaning; but when followed by l, as in 1 Chronicles 4:22, it means to rule, to exercise dominion. The Vulgate is, For I am thy husband.” The Targum gives the meaning,

“For I have chosen you.” The Septuagint went astray, “For I will rule over you.”-Ed.

ftA85 The word is taken sometimes in a limited sense, and means what we understand by family: but it has here evidently a more extended meaning, and signifies a tribe, a community; for it includes more than a city. Such is its meaning in Jeremiah 8:3; and in Amos 3:l, it comprehends the whole community of Israel. It is rendered “ἐκ πατριᾶς,-from a tribe,” by the Septuagint, but improperly; “kindred, “by the Vulgate and the Targum. It no doubt means sometimes kindred, but not evidently in this place.-Ed.

ftA86 Rather, “itself;” for the word often rendered soul, has sometimes this meaning. See note on Jeremaih 3:11.-Ed.

ftA87 Blayney, following the Targurn, renders pastors “rulers,” and feed, “rule:” but this is to interpret and not to translate, as the words have never strictly these meanings, though what are sometimes to be understood by pastors are rulers, and by feeding, ruling or governing. But the interpretation in this instance seems not to be correct, and for the reason here assigned by Calvin. It is indeed the opinion of Henry, Scott, Adam Clarke, and others, that both civil and ecclesiastical pastors are intended; and if so, “knowledge” may be applied to the latter, and “wisdom” to the former. The Septuagint have omitted “wisdom,” and retain only “knowledge.” The Targum has “knowledge and wisdom;” the Vulgate, “knowledge and doctrine;” the Syriac, “knowledge and prudence;” and Blayney, “knowledge and discretion.” The verb h[r means “to feed on, “as in Isaiah 44:20, or, as here, to “feed with.” It means also to “feed itself” as a beast does, Isaiah 11:7.

ftA88 The literal rendering of this verse I conceive to be the following,-

16.And it shall be, that ye shall multiply And be fruitful in the land. In those days, saith Jehovah, they shall no more say,- “ The Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah;” And it shall not come to their mind, Nor shall they mention it, nor visit it; And not made shall it be any more.

The two first lines seem connected with the former verse. There is a gradation in the three last lines,-It shall not be thought of, much less mentioned or named, as given by the Septuagint,-still less be visited,-

and much less still, be made. This gradation is destroyed by Blayney by rendering the first line, Nor shall it be the delight of their heart;

literally it is, “And it shall not ascend on the heart.” The “heart” means often in Hebrew the mind; and “to come to mind” is the idea; it would not be thought of. The phrase occurs in this book in two other places, Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 44:21; and, not to think, or, not to come to mind, is the most suitable meaning, as it is given in our version. The purpose of this kind of gradation is to render the thing more certain and indisputable, so that there might be no room for doubt.-Ed.

ftA89 This seems to be the best rendering. Blayney leaves out the word “Jerusalem;” but for no sufficient reason. The whole verse is as follows:-

In that day call shall they Jerusalem, “ The throne of Jehovah;” And gathered into it shall be all the nations, For the name of Jehovah, even to Jerusalem; Anti they shall no more walk

After the resolutions of their wicked heart.-Ed.

ftA90 “Evil” is connected with “hardness;” but it belongs properly to “their heart.” The word rendered “hardness” is twrrç a plural noun, found eight times in Jeremiah; here, and in Jeremiah 7:24; Jeremiah 9:14; Jeremiah 11:8; Jeremiah 13:10; Jeremiah 16:12; Jeremiah 18:12; Jeremiah 23:17;

and twice elsewhere, Deuteronomy 29:19; Psalm 81:12. It is so variously rendered by the Septuagint, that they evidently did not understand its specific meaning; ἐνθυμήματα, thoughts, devices; τὰ άρεστα, things pleasing or agreeable; πλάνη, wandering. These words are used for it in Jeremiah. The Vulgate ever renders it “pravitas-pravity-wickedness.” The Targum uniformly renders it “cogitatio-thought or imagination.” The latter word is used in our version, (except in Psalm 81:12, “lust,”) with a marginal reading “stubbornness.” The Syriac and Arabic vary as much as the Septuagint, “appetites, lusts, will,” etc. To “walk after” precedes it in most instances except in Jeremiah 18:12, where it is preceded by “doing.” Now to “do the hardness of the heart,” is no suitable expression; nor is “imagination” or “stubbornness” anything better. It can be derived from no verb which means to think or to imagine, or which has any connection with depravity or wickedness, or with appetites or lusts. Nor can we derive it from hrç, which those do who render it “stubbornness;” for that will suit the passage referred to in Jeremiah 18:12. It must then come from rç, to direct, to regulate, to rule, to exercise authority. It occurs three times in a reduplicate form; as a participial noun in Esther 1:22, and as a verb and a participle in Hithpael in Numbers 16:13, where it is applied in the sense of making oneself a prince or a tyrant. The literal meaning of the noun then is, in the plural number, predominances, domineerings, arbitraments; and it may be rendered determinations, resolutions, predominant influences or inclinations. “Walk shall they no more after the resolutions of their wicked heart.” It is used in Jeremiah 7:24, in apposition with “counsels,” being evidently a stronger word: it seems to mean resoluteness or resolvedness, a full determination, a willful decision. Parkhurst renders it, “the ruling principles.”-Ed.

ftA91 Calvin uses the verb “venient, “shall come, twice: but the first verb is to walk, and expresses the associating of Judah with Israel, or their union. The words are,-

In those days walk will the house of Judah with the house of Israel, And come shall they together from the land of the north, To the land which I made their fathers to inherit.

They would be first united, and then advance together to their own land.-Ed.

ftA92 Calvin takes the word in its Chaldee meaning; ybx means in Hebrew, elation, splendor, glory; but in Chaldee, desire, what is desired; and this suits the passage best, “The inheritance of desire to hosts of nations;” that is, The inheritance desired by hosts of nations;” This is the meaning preferred by Gataker. I would render the whole verse thus,-

19.But I, said have I, “How shall I put thee among the children, And give thee the land of delight, The inheritance desired by hosts of nations?” Said have I also, “My Father shalt thou call me, And from me thou wilt not turn away.”

When the pronouns are given before verbs in Hebrew, as ykna I, here, they are ever emphatical. “But I,” or, “as for me,” or, “even I have said.”-Ed.

ftA93 Blayney, contrary to all the early versions, construes the word h[rm with woman, “a wicked woman.” “Friend,” or associate, or partner, is here evidently put for husband; a thing commonly done in other languages. Our common version of this verse is by no means correct: the preposition m is not always “from,” but sometimes “with.” So here,Surely, as a woman deals perfidiously with her partner, So perfidiously against me have ye dealt,

O house of Israel, saith Jehovah.-Ed.

ftA94 The verse may be thus rendered,-

21.A voice on the high places! Heard is the weeping, the supplications Of the people of Israel; Because they had perverted their way, Had forgotten Jehovah their God.

Instead of “high places,” Blayney has “plains;” but there is no satisfactory reason for the change. As the verb in Hebrew commonly precedes its nominative, the construction adopted above is the most suitable to the character of the language.-Ed.

ftA95 The literal rendering of these two verses is the following:-

22.Return, ye apostate children, I will heal your apostasies.- Behold us! We come to thee; For thou art Jehovah our God:

23.Surely, in vain are the hills, The multitude of mountains; Surely, in (or through) Jehovah our God Is the salvation of Israel.

The word rendered “apostate,” does not mean “rebellious,” but such as turn away, i.e., from God; and the word for “apostasies” means the same, being from the same root. The m before the word for “hills,” is not a preposition, as it is commonly taken, but a formative: so it appears from all the versions. Blayney conjectures that it belongs to the former word, and makes it µyrqçl; but then he does not account for the l prefixed to it. There is no different reading. The Septuagint is,

eijv ψεῦδος h=san οἱ ζουνοὶ-for a lie were the hills. The Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic, are materially the same.-Ed.

ftA96 Rather, “And the shame,” i.e., the idol-worship, referred to in the preceding verse; the article h is prefixed to the noun. This is the view taken by Gataker and Blayney. See Jeremiah 11:13; Hosea 9:10.-Ed.

ftA97 Calvin seems to have followed the Septuagint in rendering the verb in the past tense. The Vulgate and Syriac retain the future of the original; but the Targum gives the present, and rightly so, as the future in Hebrew is often to be so taken. It is the same in Welsh, the future conveys the meaning of the present. This distich might in that language be rendered exactly according to the Hebrew, and the future would be understood as expressing what the present state of things is,-

Gorweddwn yn ein cywilydd, A gorchuddia ni ein gwarth.

But in English the present must be used, as it is the confession of the penitent when returning to God,-

We lie in our shame, And cover us does our disgrace, Because against Jehovah our God Have we sinned, we and our fathers, From our childhood even to this day; And we have not hearkened To the voice of Jehovah our God.-Ed.

ftA98 The best rendering is that which connects “to me” with the former clause: the end of the verse, as Grotius observes, proves this. If they returned to God, they were to return from captivity; and if they cast away their abominations, they were not to be vagabonds or to wander any more. This seems to be the meaning. The w before al in the last clause is left out in ten MSS., and in the Vulgate, Targum, and Syriac. The verse then would be as follows,-

1. If thou wilt return, Israel, saith Jehovah, to me, Thou shalt be restored, (that is, from captivity:) If thou wilt remove thy abominations from my sight, Thou shalt not be a wanderer.-Ed.

ftA99 This is a very lucid and satisfactory exposition. The import of the passage is very clearly given. A simpler version may be made, and such as will exhibit the meaning more plainly. When two vaus occur, they may often be rendered, when and then: so here,-

2. When thou shalt swear, “Live does Jehovah,” In truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; Then call him blessed shall nations, And in him shall they glory.

To swear is to avow Jehovah as our God. The verbs “bless” and “glory” are both in Hithpael, which has commonly a reciprocal sense, but not always. See Psalm 72:17; <19A503>Psalm 105:3. This and the preceding verse belong to the last chapter.-Ed. ftA100 Literally, “Plough for yourselves the ploughing, “or, the plough-land; or, “Fallow for yourselves the fallow.” They were not to sow a land once ploughed; but they were to plough again.-Ed. ftA101 Rather, “On account of the evil of your doings.” Their doings were evil or wrong, both as to God and man. Impiety seems to be the special evil intended, as their defection from God had been more particularly referred to.-Ed. ftA102 These two verses contain a very spirited address, in a style truly poetical,-

5. Announce ye in Judah, And in Jerusalem publish, and say,- Yea, sound the trumpet in the land, Proclaim, do it fully, and say,- “ Be assembled, and let us enter into fortified cities;

6. Raise a banner towards Sion; Hasten ye, stay not: “ For an evil am I bringing from the north, And a great destruction.

The people of Judah were summoned to enter into fortified cities, and Mount Sion was to be the resort of the inhabitants of Jerusalem: “Hasten ye, “σπεύσατε-hasten, Septuagint. This is the meaning of z[ in Hiphil. See Exodus 9:19; Isaiah 10:31. In Jeremiah 6:1, it is translated “Gather yourselves to flee;” but

“hasten,” or remove vigorously or quickly, would be the best rendering.-Ed. ftA103 The word “thicket, “in our version, correctly expresses it; a tangled wood, where trees cross and entwine with each other.-Ed. ftA104 “Laid waste” is the Chaldee sense; but the verb means in Hebrew to germinate, to produce grass, to grow over with grass as ruined cities do. The words which follow, “without an inhabitant, “shew that this meaning suits here,-

Thy cities shall grow over with grass, without an inhabitant.

The Targum is, Thy cities shall be desolate without an inhabitant.-Ed.

ftA105 Though the most common meaning of bl, heart, is what is here stated, yet it means also strength, firmness, courage. See Deuteronomy 20:2, 3; 2 Samuel 17:10; Psalm 22:14; Psalm 73:26. And this meaning is most suitable to this passage.-Ed. ftA106 The verse is as follows,-

And it shall be in that day, saith Jehovah, That perish shall the heart of the king And the heart of the princes, And confounded shall be the priests, And the prophets shall be astonished.

“Confounded,” that is, like persons at their wit’s end, not knowing what to do, or what course to take. “Astonished,” or amazed, that is, at witnessing the reverse of what they had prophesied; being filled with stunning and stupefying amazement.-Ed.

ftA107 There are various expositions of this verse: but the simpler and the plainer mode would be to take rma as a noun, word, speech, saying, with an auxiliary verb, which is commonly omitted in Hebrew. The connection with the foregoing would be obvious and natural,-

And the saying will be, “Alas! Lord Jehovah, Surely, deceiving thou hast deceived This people and Jerusalem, By saying, ‘Peace shall be to you;’ And reach does the sword even to the soul.”

This would be the language of such as believed the false prophets, and considered them as sent by God.

But Lowth, Henry, Venema, Scott, and others, take this view,-that God had permitted or suffered the people to be deceived by the false prophets. It is said that this verb in Hiphil, as the case is here, has sometimes this meaning, and Lowth refers, as instances, to Isaiah 63:17, and also to <19B910>Psalm 119:10; Proverbs 10:3. But the sentiment of the passage in this case would not be very suitable: for, according to this view, the cause of the Prophet’s grief is, that God had suffered the people to be deceived.

“It shall be said,” in the next verse, seems to be put in contrast with this “saying.” Instead of what would be commonly said of the people, God reminds them of what he would cause to be said and effected.-Ed. ftA108 The Septuagint version of these two verses is as foreign to the original as it can well be; and the Syriac and Arabic are nearly the same. The Vulgate gives a fair version; and the meaning, as given by the Targum, is nearly the same. The latter part of the 11th and 12th are thus rendered by Blayney,-

A wind that scorcheth the plains in the wilderness, [Shall χομέ toward the daughter of my people, Not to winnow, nor to cleanse;

12. A full wind for a curse shall come at my bidding; Now even I will proceed judicially with them.

Horsley differs as to the 11th verse, and renders it thus,-

The wind that scorcheth the craggy rocks of the wilderness Taketh its course against the daughter of my people, Not for winnowing or cleansing.

The reason assigned for rendering hlam for a curse, “and not “from those places, “as in our version, is, because the enemy did not come from that quarter. But this may be avoided, if we consider “as” or “like” to be understood before wind, which is no uncommon thing in Hebrew. To refer “those” or these to the winds implied in winnowing and cleansing, as Calvin does, and also Gataker and others, is not satisfactory, I would propose the following version,-

The dry wind of the cliffs in the wilderness Is advancing against the daughter of my people, Not to winnow, nor to cleanse;

12. As a full wind from these, it shall come for me: Then will I myself pronounce judgments on them.

The word ˚rd, as Horsley takes it, is a verb, or rather a participle; and it is usual in Hebrew to put a participle in the first clause, and in the second a verb, as here, in the future tense. The verb means to come

upon, so as to tread down or subdue, Judges 5:21;

Judges 20:43; Psalm 91:13. “The effect of this wind is

not only to render the air extremely hot and scorching, but to fill it with poisonous and suffocating vapors.”-Blayney.-Ed.

ftA109 Rather, “We have been wholly wasted, “or desolated. The verb is in a reduplicate form, and signifies an entire waste or desolation,-

13. Behold, like clouds will he ascend, And like a whirlwind will be his chariots, Swifter than eagles his horses: “ Woe to us! for we have been wholly wasted.”

The mixture of the tenses is intended to shew the certainty of the event. Or we may consider the last line as containing what would be said after the coming of the enemy. What they would have to say was to acknowledge their entire desolation.-Ed. ftA110 The word means also iniquity, wickedness: and this is the sense in which the Vulgate and the Targum have taken it, and also Blayney, “the devices of thine iniquity: “and this corresponds more with the former part of the verse. The whole is as follows,-

14. Wash from evil thine heart, O Jerusalem, that thou mayest be saved: How long shall lodge within thee The thoughts of thy wickedness,

Or,

Thy wicked thoughts.

The word for “wash” here, according to Parkhurst, is ever applied to express a thorough washing, the washing away of what is inherent, such as the dirt of linen and of clothes: and he says, that there is another word, ≈jr, which is used when the washing of the surface of anything is intended, such as the washing of hands. “Shall lodge,”-it is no objection that this is singular, and the “thoughts” plural. It is an idiom: the same exists in Welsh: and in no other form would this sentence be rendered in that language. The present translation is incorrect, as the verb is taken to be in the second person, and applied to Jerusalem; which cannot be, as in that case it must have been in the feminine gender. The correct rendering would be,Pa hyd y hetya o’th fewn Dy feddyliau drygionus!

If the verb had followed its nominative case, it would have been in the same number; but as it precedes it, it is singular while the noun is plural.-Ed. ftA111 The first meaning of the word is iniquity, wickedness; and as the fruit or the effect of wickedness is affliction, distress, misery, it is sometimes taken to express the latter idea. It may be rendered here, distress.-Ed.

ftA112 The verb in the first sentence followed by l is found in Amos 6:10; where it clearly means “to make mention of, “or simply, to mention. So it may be rendered here, “Make ye mention of the nations, “or, Mention the nations, that is, for the sake of frightening the Jews. He had before referred to the voice from Dan, etc.; he now commands the invading nations to be proclaimed as approaching. The meaning is not, as Blayney, as well as Calvin, renders the phrase, “Proclaim ye unto the nations, “but, “Proclaim the nations, “as approaching, according to what is afterwards stated.-Ed.

ftA113 To make this verse consistent with the context, I render it as follows,-

Mention ye the nations, (and say,) “Behold *them*!” Repeat at Jerusalem, “ The watchers are coming from a distant land, And shall raise against the cities of Judah their voice.”

It is not improbable that l[ here means “over,” and that the “voice” means a triumphant shout, as Calvin seems to have thought. Then we may give this rendering,And shall raise over the cities of Judah their shout.-Ed.

ftA114 Calvin has followed the Vulgate and the Syriac. The Septuagint and Arabic have, “thou hast neglected me, “which is very wide from the original. “Rebel” is the rendering of the Targum, which is the Hebrew, and there is no other reading. Literally it is, For against me hath she rebelled, saith Jehovah.

And this is the rendering of Blayney.-Ed.

ftA115 Blayney, contrary to all the early versions, renders hla, “a curse, “instead of “these, “but there is no sufficient reason for the change. It is difficult to see what is the precise idea intended in our version as to the latter part of the verse. The meaning given by Calvin seems to be this,-that though the visitation was bitter and reached to the heart, it was yet to be ascribed to their wickedness. Blayney’s version is this,Such is thy calamity; for it is bitterness; for it is a plague even unto thy heart.

The latter words are taken as explanatory of the calamity. The word h[r does indeed mean sometimes a calamity; but all the early versions, as well as the Targum, render it here “wickedness.” Hence the most suitable rendering would be,-

Such is thy wickedness! Though bitter, though reaching to thy heart.

That yk may be rendered “though” is evident from Joshua 17:18; and it ought to be so rendered in Exodus 34:9; and in other places. But we may take the first yk in its primary sense, surely, certainly, truly, and the second as a causative, for, because; an instance of a similar kind we meet in Exodus 13:17: the first yk precedes an adjective, and is rendered “Although;” and the second yk, a verb, and is rendered “for.” Then our version would be,-

Such is thy wickedness (that is, its effect)! Surely, bitter; for it reaches to thy heart.-*Ed*.

ftA116 Remarkably concise and striking are the words of this verse,-

My bowels! my bowels! I am in pain! O the enclosures of my heart! Turbulent is my heart within me; I will not be silent; for the sound of the trumpet Have I heard; my soul, the shout of battle.

To change the person of the verb, “I am in pain,” or in labor, as it literally means, as Blayney does, destroys the force and the vehemence of the passage; and all the early versions retain the first person. “The enclosures,” literally “the walls,” that is, what encloses or surrounds the heart, he mentions first the bowels, then what surrounds the heart, and afterwards the heart itself: and his pain was like that of a woman in

travail. Being in this state, he resolved not to be silent but to declare their danger to the people.-Ed.

ftA117 The literal reading may be thus,-

Breach upon breach has happened; For laid waste has been the whole land; Suddenly laid waste have been my tents, In a moment my curtains.

He relates what he had seen in a vision, and therefore represents the whole as past. The verb arq in Niphal as here, as well as in Kal, means sometimes to happen, to befall, to take place. The Syriac and the Targum give it here this meaning; and Blayney has adopted the same.-Ed.

ftA118 The specific meaning of the terms used in this verse is not given in our version, nor by Calvin, nor by Blayney. The following, as I apprehend, is a literal version,-

For stupid *are* my people, Me they do not know; Foolish children *are* they, And undiscerning *are* they; Wise *are* they to do evil, But how to do good they know not.

“Stupid,” lywa, is one grossly ignorant, so as to be without knowledge, and not capable of knowing how to do good, or what is the good to be done. The last line explains the two first. Then “foolish,” µylks, are the perverse, or the perverted, who are foolish through a perverted mind, who are said in the next line to be undiscerning, and who, as in the line which follows, had wisdom enough to do evil. They were stupidly ignorant, and perversely foolish. They were ignorant as to good, and wise as to evil; but this their wisdom was folly.-Ed.

ftA119 These two words are viewed as synonymous by some, and the versions render them often by the same terms. As to the first, wht, there can be no doubt as to its meaning, for it occurs about twenty times, and in all these places the idea of emptiness is chiefly conveyed: hence it is most commonly rendered in our version, vain, vanity, in vain, nought, etc., 1 Samuel 12:21; Isaiah 40:17; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 49:4. It is improperly rendered “without form, “in Genesis 1:2, and “confusion” in Isaiah 34:11. When applied to the earth, as in Genesis 1:2, it imports emptiness, as it was then unfurnished either with productions or with any inhabitants. This appears evident from Isaiah 45:18, “He created it not in vain, “rather, “not empty did he create it-harb whtAal;” “he formed it to be inhabited, “or more literally, “for a habitation he formed it.” As to the other word, wwb, it only occurs three times, Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 34:11; and here. As the former evidently means emptiness, this may be taken to mean confusion or chaos, according to Symmachus, “συγκεχυμένη,confused.” Then the right rendering here would be,-

23. I looked on the land, And behold emptiness and confusion; And towards the heavens, And they were without their light.

It is not the earth, but the land of Judea is what is meant. The whole passage being so striking, shall be here given,-

24. I looked at the mountains, And, behold, they were shaking, And all the hills made quick motions:

25. I looked, and, behold, there was no man; And every bird of heaven had fled away:

26. I looked, and, behold, Carmel a desert; And all its cities had been demolished By the presence of Jehovah, By the indignation of his wrath.

The whole is represented as already done. The Prophet speaks of what he had seen in the vision.-Ed.

ftA120 All the early versions, as well as the Targum, retain the word “Carmel.” Blayney renders it “the fruitful field.”-Ed.

ftA121 All the early versions and the Targum favor the former view, as they all render the sentence, “Yet a consummation I will not make.” Gataker mentions another explanation, “I will not yet make a full end” with you; that is, I will punish you yet farther: and reference is made to Jeremiah 5:18. This view is adopted by Blayney and Scott. But the former view is no doubt the right one; for this is the meaning of the phrase as found in other places; see Jeremiah 30:11; where it is clear that hç[ hlk is wholly to destroy. See also Nehemiah 9:31; Ezekiel 11:13; Ezekiel 20:17; Nahum 1:9. The meaning then is, “Yet I will not make an entire destruction.” Henry takes this view, and Lowth seems to prefer it. Indeed the phrase has no other meaning wherever it is used.-Ed.

ftA122 The latter part is very concise,-

Because I have said, I have purposed, And have not repented, And I will not turn from it.

The turning refers to what he had said, and repentance to the purpose. Blayney followed the Septuagint, and changed the order of the words, and thus destroyed the right connection of the passage, and the common parallelism of the language. We may also notice this passage as an instance of what is often found both in the Old Testament, and also in the New,-that when two or more things are consecutively stated, the most obvious, the most apparent, is mentioned first, and then the most hidden, or what is in order previous. Purpose is first in order, but speaking is first mentioned.-Ed.

ftA123 The verbs in this are all in the past tense, as in some former instances. The Prophet had already seen in a vision what he here states,-

At the voice (or sound) of the rider and of the handler of the bow, Flee did every city; They went into thickets, and into cliffs they climbed; Every city was forsaken, And dwell in them did no man.

The word for “thickets” means sometimes “clouds.” The verb signifies to be dense, thick, gross, bulky: but the plural noun means a thick wood, as well as a thick or dense mass of vapors, which form clouds. It is rendered “άλση,-forests, “by the Septuagint and Syriac; and “sylvas-woods,” by the Targum.-Ed.

ftA124 The words “thou wretched, “or, more commonly, “thou spoiled, “are left out in the Septuagint and Arabic, and are retained in this sense by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum. But, as Blayney justly says, it is a rendering that is not correct. “Thou, “as in the received text, is feminine, and “spoiled” is masculine. The Keri and many MSS. have ta instead of yta; and dwdç, as Blayney supposes, is not a passive participle, but a verb in the infinitive mood, used as a noun. So he gives this version,And against spoiling what wilt thou do?

The word “spoiled,” or wasted, may indeed refer to “every city,” mentioned in the former verse, and the word for city is masculine. We may then render thus,And the city being wasted, what wilt thou do?

“The city” may be deemed as the poetical singular for the plural.-Ed.

ftA125 The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum give this rendering,-

“Though thou paintest with stibium thine eyes.”

The Hebrew literally is, as it is rendered by Blayney,Though thou distendest with paint thy eyes.

The verb [rq, means first to rend, to divide, and then to divide in the sense of distending or enlarging. Large eyes were considered a beauty, and women used a sort of paint, or rather powder, for the purpose of enlarging them. See Lowth’s note on Isaiah 3:16, and Parkhurst under the word ˚p.-Ed.

ftA126 Rather,-

Rejected thee have paramours.

This is the meaning of the verb when followed as here by b. See note on Jeremiah 2:37. The word for paramours means not lovers, but lewd or mad lovers. The verb is rendered “to dote upon,” Ezekiel 23:12.-Ed. ftA127 This latter part is differently taken by most. It is considered to be the confession of the daughter of Sion. The whole verse is remarkably striking,-

For the voice as of one in travail have I heard, The distress as of one giving birth to a first-born, The voice of the daughter of Sion; *Who* pants for breath, *who* spreads her hands,- “Wo now to me, For melted has my soul because of murderers.”

It is a common thing in Hebrew to omit the relative “who, “before a verb in a future tense, especially when it means the present time. The scene is described as present. The passage might be expressed in Welsh without the relative. “Who pants for breath,” is rendered by Horsley,

“that draweth her breath short;” and he adds, “The passage is a most affecting picture of the last struggles of a woman expiring in labor.”-Ed.

ftA128 Our version is, “Run ye to and fro,” which has been taken from the Septuagint-περιδρύμετε; but this is a more correct rendering. The Vulgate is “circuite-go round;” the Syriac is the same. “Streets” were the narrow ones, the lanes; and what Calvin renders “the cross-ways, “and our version “broad places, “were the wide streets, or the squares. In the former the poor people lived, and in the latter the great people, the chief men of the city. The examination was to extend to all the inhabitants. First, it takes place as to the poor in the lanes, and afterwards among the higher orders in the wide streets. The whole verse might be thus rendered,-

1. Go ye round through the narrow streets of Jerusalem, And see, I pray, and know; Yea, seek in the broad streets; If ye can find a man, if there be any, Who doeth justice, who seeks faithfulness, Then will I spare it.

The w after µa may be often rendered “Then;” and this passage requires it to be so rendered. “That I may pardon her” is Blayney’s version; but this hardly corresponds with the former part; “If,” and “that,” form no connection.-Ed.

ftA129 There are many MSS. which have ˆka, “surely, “but ˆkl may also be so rendered; yet, as “nevertheless” is its meaning, in Jeremiah 16:14, and other places, it may be so taken here. The Septuagint must have read ˆk al, and the sentence is a question, “Do they not thus swear falsely?” But the early versions favor the present reading; and it gives a suitable meaning,-

And though “Live does Jehovah, “they say, Nevertheless falsely do they swear.

The verbs are in the future tense, but used to express present acts, as is the case often in Hebrew, and also very commonly in Welsh. The words in the latter language might be expressed exactly as in the former, and be understood as speaking of what is present,-

Ac er “Byw yw Jehova” a ddywedant, Etto yn gelwyddog y tyngant.-Ed.

ftA130 The literal rendering of this verse is as follows,-

Jehovah! thine eyes, are *they* not on faithfulness? Smitten them hast thou, but they have not grieved; Thou hast consumed them,-they have refused to receive correction; Harder have they made their faces than a rock; They have refused to return.

The “truth” here, and in the first verse, is regarded by Calvin and most commentators, as faithfulness towards men. But a right view of the context will shew that it refers to fidelity towards God. Of what does the preceding verse speak? Of unfaithfulness towards God-swearing falsely in his name; that is, making a false and hypocritical profession of him; and in this verse they are described as refusing to return to him. In the fifth and sixth verses they are represented as having “broken the yoke, “and as having apostatized from him; and in the seventh their going after other gods is expressly mentioned.

The word “judgment” has been taken in the same way, but not, in my view, agreeably to the context. To do judgment, is to do what is just and right; and “the way of Jehovah, “and “the judgment of God, “in the next verse, are the same, and hence put in apposition; the word “nor, “in our version, being improperly introduced. The way of the Lord is the way he has prescribed in his word; and it is called his judgment, because it is what he has determined and ordained, or what is just and right. God had not only revealed his law, but had also appointed and ordained it for the people of Israel. His law is called a way, because it points out the course which we are to take; and it is his judgment, because it is what God has determined, fixed, and appointed. Hence in the fifth verse they are said to have broken the yoke and burst the bonds. The yoke was the law, and the bonds were those of loyalty and obedience; or they were the bonds of justice, such as were justly ordained and imposed on them.-Ed.

ftA131 It is better to take ˚a here and in the next verse as an affirmative, Truly, surely, doubtless. Blayney, as well as Calvin, render wlawn, “have acted foolishly.” The verb occurs in three other places, Numbers 12:11; Isaiah 19:13; Jeremiah 50:36. To be, or to become, foolish, or rather stupid, sottish, or stupidly ignorant, seems to be its meaning. It is here opposed to knowledge; and evidently refers to the state of the mind, and not to the conduct. Their sottishness was their idolatry. This is the special sin referred to throughout the passage,-

Then I said, Doubtless, the poor *are* these, they have become stupid, For they have not known the way of Jehovah, The judgment of their God.-*Ed.*

ftA132 Literally it is, “I will go for myself,”-an idiomatic form of speech. The Welsh is exactly the same, af rhagof; which means, I will go forth; but it cannot be literally expressed in another language. After the verb, as in Hebrew, there is a preposition prefixed to “me.”-Ed. ftA133 The word, as found here, is never used for the evening; it ever means the desert, or uncultivated plains. The plural termination of the word, when it means the evening, is µyA-, and not twA-, as here. See Numbers 22:1; Joshua 5:10; Jeremiah 39:5. In these verses it is rendered “plains;” they were evidently uncultivated, and might properly be called deserts. The Vulgate and the Targum have led commentators astray as to this word. The Septuagint have completely misunderstood it, and have rendered the sentence, “The wolf even to the houses (e[wv τῶν οἰκιῶν) has destroyed them.” The version of Blayney is, “The wolf of the plains: “and he says in a note, that they were “unenclosed commons.” used for sheepwalks, which were commonly “infested with wolves.”-Ed. ftA134 This illative, “wherefore,” or therefore, or, for this cause, is both retrospective and anticipative. It is a reason given for what is contained in the latter part of the last verse, and for what is contained in the last words of this verse; it anticipates the particle “because” before “multiplied.”-Ed. ftA135 It is rendered “ἀσεβείας-impieties, “by the Septuagint; “prevarications” by the Vulgate; “rebellions” by the Targum. It does not mean “iniquities, “but willful violations of the law in matters connected with God’s worship and service. The other word means apostasies, defections from God, rendered by the Septuagint, “ἀποστρόφαις-turnings away, “and so by the Vulgate and the Targum. They were defections to various forms of idolatry. Their idols increased in number. The Septuagint render the last sentence thus, “They have become strong (ίσχυσας) in their turnings away.” The Vulgate and the Targum are the same. The Verb µx[ means an increase in quality or in quantity. But both verbs may be rendered here as transitives,Because they have multiplied their transgressions, They have strengthened (or increased) their apostasies.-Ed.

ftA136 This has been done by the Punctuists, and is no part of the language.- Ed. ftA137 The last line may be rendered thus,-

And the house of the harlot they crowd.

The verb for “crowd” seems here to be transitive, though it be intransitive in Micah 5:1.-Ed. ftA138 The literal rendering of this verse, and countenanced by ancient versions, is as follows,-

Horses well fed! libidinous have they become; They neigh, every one at the wife of his neighbor. Both *Venema* and *Blayney* agree in giving this meaning.

It does not seem, when the whole context is viewed, that adultery here is to be taken in its literal sense. It is spiritual adultery, that is, idolatry, that is referred to throughout the chapter. Besides, the comparison in this verse is such, that its application is more suitable to idolatrous acts than to those which are adulterous. The same may be said of what is found in the preceding verse,-that they crowded the house of the harlot. This is not so much the case in adultery as in idolatry, when people fill their idolatrous temples. A simile is sometimes carried beyond what is actually the case, in order to convey a right idea of what it is intended to illustrate. When they are said to be like well-fed stallions, and neighing at the wives of their neighbors, the purpose was to shew with what intense ardor they were devoted to idolatry: and the degrading comparison was no doubt made in order to pour contempt on their mad propensity: it was like the impetuous instinct of an animal, uncontrolled by any reason, persuasion, or remonstrance.-Ed. ftA139 See Note on Jeremiah 4:27.

ftA140 It is true the word means shoots or branches; but as the root means to spread, it evidently signifies here battlements, bulwarks, or ramparts.

It is rendered “ὑποστηρίγματα-props, pillars,” by the Septuagint; “propagines-shoots,” by the Vulgate; “foundations,” by the Syriac and Arabic; and “palaces, or towers, by the Targum. Our version has the most suitable word-”battlements.” Blayney has “branches, “and thinks that the cities of Judea are meant; but this is not suitable to the context.-Ed. ftA141 The verb dgb, when followed by b as here, means to deal deceitfully, perfidiously, or treacherously, with one. See Exodus 21:8; Judges 9:23; Lamentations 1:2. It may be rendered here to dissemble,-

For they dissembling have dissembled with me, The house of Israel and the house of Judah, saith Jehovah.

As the verb is repeated, if we render it “to act perfidiously, “instead of repeating the words, to give them their force and meaning, we must say, For they have dealt most perfidiously with me.

To “deal unfaithfully,” as rendered by Blayney, is too feeble an expression. To “prevaricate” is the word used by the Vulgate, and the same by the Septuagint and the Targum.-Ed. ftA142 According to all the instances in which the verb occurs, followed by b, its meaning is what Calvin states, though not so rendered uniformly in our version. The verb, followed by b, occurs elsewhere five times,Leviticus, 6:2, 3; Joshua 24:27; Job 8:18; Isaiah 59:13; Hosea 9:2. In Leviticus 6:3, hb çjkw, ought to be rendered, “and denieth it;” and so the verb ought to be, rendered in the previous verse, “and deny to his neighbor his deposit, etc. It is rendered here “lied to the Lord” by the Septuagint and the Targum; and “denied the Lord” by the Vulgate and the Syriac, and so also by Piscator, Venema, and Blayney. The denial seems to have been as to the Lord speaking in his prophets. Calvin appears to have gone too far in saying that they denied his existence. The expression which follows, “Not he, “means that he was not in the prophets. The import is correctly given in our version, “It is not he, “that is, who speaks in the prophets. The verse might be literally given thus,-

12. And they deny Jehovah, And say, “It is not he, And come upon us shall not evil, And the sword and the famine we shall not see.”

Then the following verse, which is a continuation of what they said, proves clearly what the meaning of this is,-

13. “And the prophets shall be wind, For the word is not in them: Thus shall it happen to them,”

or,

Thus shall it be done to them.

That is, they shall be found out to be like the wind, having spoken nothing real, such as shall be accomplished. Indeed the last line may be translated thus,-

Thus shall he do to (or, deal with) them.

The reference in this case is to God, who, they thought, would render abortive, or turn as it were into wind, what the prophets had threatened. Their blindness and presumption appear to us to have been extreme.-Ed. ftA143 This sentence is left out in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, but retained by the Vulgate,-” Haec ergo evenient illis-These things shall therefore come to them.” This meaning the original will hardly bear. The reference seems to be to the Prophets becoming wind, being so proved by the event.-Ed ftA144 The verb [mç here is not merely to hear, but to hear effectually, that is, so as to understand. It has this meaning in other places; see Deuteronomy 38:49; 2 Kings 18:26. The whole verse may be thus rendered,-

15. Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from far, O house of Israel, saith Jehovah,- A nation, strong it is, A nation, from antiquity it is, A nation, thou wilt not know its language, Nor understand what it speaks.

The third, fourth, and fifth lines, as well as the first of the next verse, are left out in the Septuagint, but retained by the Vulgate, Syriac, and

the Targum. The two first render the word for “strong, “ “robustam, “and the last by “fortis-brave.” Blayney renders it “strong, “which is no doubt its meaning.-Ed.

ftA145 The idea intended is capaciousness. The grave is represented as never satisfied, ready to receive any number. See Proverbs 27:20; 30:16; Habakkuk. 2:5. The Chaldean quiver would be so large as to contain a vast quantity of arrows, as though it was an open grave.-Ed. ftA146 According to the Hebrew, the verbs, except the second, are all in the singular number. The Septuagint have pluralized them, but the singular is retained by the Vulgate, the Targum, and the Syriac. It is the “nation” described in the 15th verse. The second verb may be rendered in a passive sense, and the meaning will be more appropriate,-

And it will devour thy harvest and thy food, Devoured shall be thy sons and thy daughters; It will devour thy sheep and thy ox, It will devour thy wine and thy fig-tree; It will wholly desolate thy fortified cities, In which thou trustest, by the sword.

The language used here, and in the 15th verse, is remarkably like that of Moses in Deuteronomy 28:48-52. The second line may be deemed parenthetic. It is better to preserve the poetic singular in sheep, ox, vine, and fig-tree. As it is a reduplicate verb, entire desolation is intended, and that by the “sword” in destroying all the occupants of fortified cities. Venema, and others, as well as Calvin, connect the “sword” with all the preceding clauses; but this is not necessary, nor is it indeed suitable.-Ed. ftA147 See note on Jeremiah 4:27. Even if the design pleaded for by Calvin be admitted, there is no necessity to give the expression a meaning different from what it has in other places,Yet even in those days, saith Jehovah, I will not make with you a completion,

that is, I will not wholly destroy you.

It depends on the context what the bearing of this may be, while the sentence itself retains the same meaning. “I will not wholly destroy

you, for I intend to preserve a Church for myself, he might also say, “I will not wholly destroy you, for I have other punishments in reserve for you: “and the latter, as Calvin maintains, seems to be the purport of the expression in this passage. Still the words themselves have the same meaning.-Ed. ftA148 The last clause has been improperly omitted in the Arabic: it is found in the other versions. The word for “strangers” is different from that connected with “gods.” They served “the gods of the alien, “or, of the heathen: they would have to serve “strangers, “or, foreigners, in a land not their own. As they had adopted the religion of heathens, they would have to submit to the dominion and tyranny of heathens: and as they did the former in their own land, they would have to do the latter in a foreign land. Thus their idolatry would expel them from their own country, and subject them to the tyranny of those from whom they derived their idolatry. Thus God often makes the tempters of his people (if they succeed) to be their tormentors.-Ed. ftA149 It is better to retain the future tense, as their obstinacy is thereby more fully expressed; the whole verse may be thus literally rendered,-

Hear, I pray, this, Ye perverse people and without understanding,- Eyes they have, but they will not see, Ears they have, but they will not hear.

The “this” which they were to hear is contained in the next verse. The two last lines are only explanatory of the preceding. They were “without understanding, “for they would not see, though they had eyes; and they were “perverse, “or perversely foolish, for they would not hear, though they had ears. When two things are mentioned and afterwards referred to, the prophets usually explain the last, and then the first, as the case is here. The two last lines may be included in a parenthesis.-Ed. ftA150 The reference seems to be to the decree or ordinance, and not to the boundary: therefore “transgress” is the most suitable word. I would render the verse thus,-

22. Should you not fear me? saith Jehovah; Ought you not at my presence to tremble? Who have set the sand a boundary to the sea.- An ordinance perpetual, and it transgresses it not;

Though toss themselves and prevail not, and roar do its waves, Yet it does not transgress it.

The future tense in Hebrew may be often rendered subjunctively or potentially, and especially in questions. The non-transgressor is the sea-the non-transgressor of the decree, notwithstanding the tumult of its waves. “An ordinance perpetual” is rendered “πρόσταγμα αἰώνιον-an everlasting command, by the Septuagint,-” praeceptum sempiternum-a sempiternal precept, “by the Vulgate and the Targum,and “lege perpetua-by a perpetual law, “by the Syriac. A perpetual ordinance is the version of Blayney.-Ed. ftA151 It is true that the idea of perverseness is conveyed by this word; but it means one bent on turning away from God. To turn away, or to apostatize, is its primary meaning, as in the latter clause of this verse; but here it is a participle in a reduplicate form, which has ever an expansive meaning. It means here either a heart continually turning away from God, or a heart resolutely determined to turn away from him. The last seems to be the meaning, as it appears to correspond with the next line,-

But in this people has been a heart, Thoroughly revolting and disobedient; They have revolted and gone away.

When they turned away from God or revolted, they were remonstrated with and exhorted to return; but they disobeyed; hence their thorough revolt and their going away.-Ed. ftA152 Blayney, following the Septuagint and the Vulgate, has rendered the latter clause thus,A sufficiency of the appointed things of harvest he secureth to us.

But the Targum agrees with our version; and Gataker, Grotius, Venema, and others, take the same view, which is more expressive and more accordant with the passage,-

The weeks, the appointed seasons of harvest, He preserves for us.

The word twqj, means what is established, fixed, ordained, or appointed, as to time, place, course, portion, or law; and it is here, not in regimine, but in apposition with “weeks.”-Ed. ftA153 There is a correspondence between the terms here used, and those in the last verse. Their iniquities had turned aside, or diverted from their right course, the appointed seasons; and their sins had restrained the good, the seasonable rain which had been given them. As it is commonly the case in the prophets, the last thing mentioned in the previous verse, is the first thing referred to here, and then what is antecedently mentioned.-Ed. ftA154 There is a grammatical difficulty connected with the word rwçy The Septuagint, and the Syriac and the Arabic, omit the word, and the Vulgate renders it in the plural number, as if it was wrwçy, which Blayney adopts. Venema renders it “upright” or just, and considers the root to be rçy and refers to Micah 7:4, when the upright is said to be” sharper than a thorn hedge, “that is, such as were counted or ought to have been “upright.” The reference here is evidently to the judge, who assumed the office of an upright one. See verse 28. The literal version would then be as follows,-

For found among my people are the unjust; The upright *is* like the setter of snares; They have set up entrapping, Men they catch.

Thus all the parts correspond, and what is said corresponds with Jeremiah 5:28. The verb rendered “set up, “means to settle, to constitute, to establish; the office of the upright, that is, of the judge, was set up as an office for entrapping, he being like a setter of snares. The “unjust” among the people, as stated here, were the judges; the word, [çr is the perverter of justice, and stands in contrast with qdx, who acts justly.-Ed. ftA155 It is so rendered in Amos 8:1, 2. This was no doubt a wickerbasket or cage for birds, to keep them, and not a trap-cage, as suggested by the Septuagint and Vulgate versions. The Targum is, “the house of feeding.” The comparison is between a cage full of birds, which had been caught by snares, nets, or traps, and houses filled with spoils, which had been procured by frauds. And were “full” rendered “filled,

“as it might be, there would be no need of the metonymy supposed to be in the word “fraud, “-

As the cage is filled with birds, So their houses *are* filled by means of fraud: Hence they have become great and grown rich.- *Ed.*

ftA156 Expounders differ as to the meaning of these words. They are partly omitted by the Septuagint and Syriac. The Vulgate is, “et praeterierunt sermones meos pessime-and they have passed by my words very haughtily.” The Targum is a loose version, “They have also transgressed the words of the law, they have done what is evil.” Such meanings do not correspond with the context. The words literally are, “They have passed over (or, by) the words of wrong;” but as the term for “words” often means things, affairs, matters, the version may be, “matters of wrong, “or wrong things. These “matters of wrong” are afterwards specified, as will be seen in the following version,-

28. They have become fat, they have shined: Moreover, they have passed by matters of wrong; The cause they have not defended- The cause of the orphan, yet have they prospered; And the right of the meek have they not pleaded.

The word “moreover, “may be rendered “though, “as Blayney does, (see Nehemiah 6:1:) but the rest of the sentence is not so well rendered,Though they have gone beyond the claims of the wicked.

He conceived that the meaning is, that they granted to the wicked man more than he claimed, while they denied justice to the orphan and the poor. But what is more accordant with the words is, that he states here what he afterward specifies. It is not properly the “poor” who are meant, but the quiet, the humble: for the poor, strictly speaking, had not much to lose; hence the judges were not bribed to allow them to become a prey to dishonest men.-Ed. ftA157 The words literally are,-

Amazement and horribleness has been done in the land.

That is, what occasioned both had been done, or what ought to have filled all with the feeling of amazement and horror.-Ed.

ftA158 The Septuagint and the Vulgate have, “And the priests have applauded with their own hands;” and the Targum, “And the priests have helped their hands.” Both mean the same thing, though the words are different: and Blayney gives the same meaning, “And the priests have concurred with them.” Horsley says that the words literally are, “And the priests go down according to their hands;” that is, he adds, “the priests go which way their bands permit; i.e., the priests are directed by them.” Though the points lead us to regard wdry as future from hdr, to bear rule; yet the context requires it to be in the past tense, as the previous verb is so, and that which follows: and therefore it must be dry, to come down, to descend. When followed by l[, as here, the preposition never means “according to, “as Horsley renders it, but ever, upon, toward or against, and mostly “upon.” See Exodus 9:19; Numbers 11:9; Psalm 7:16; Psalm 72:6. Therefore the literal rendering is this,-

And the priests have descended upon their hands.

An idiomatic expression, which seems to mean, that the priests assisted the prophets, according to what is expressed by the Targum. “Hand” signify labor, efforts; the priests joined their efforts to those of the prophets. To “concur with them” is too feeble: the line may be rendered,And the priests have aided them.-Ed. ftA159 The “it” refers rather to the “strange and horrible thing” which had been done in the land,But what will ye do at the end of it?

That is, when this dreadful thing shall come to an end, when the prophets, encouraged by the priests and approved by the people, shall be found liars, what then shall you do? The Septuagint render the last words by “μετὰ ταῦτα-after these things, “referring evidently to the particulars just mentioned, the acts of the prophets, priests, and people: but the same thing is meant. Then in the next chapter he reminds them of the approaching destruction, which the false prophets denied.-Ed. ftA160 See note on Jeremiah 4:6. The meaning of the verb is, no doubt, to haste, or to hasten. It is singular that the Septuagint render it in Jeremiah 4:6, “Haste ye,” and here, “Be ye strong.” The Targum renders it “migrate,” or, remove ye. The idea of assembling it never has. The line rightly rendered is,Hasten, ye sons of Benjamin, from the midst of Jerusalem.

Where Blayney got the phrase, “Retire in a body, “it is difficult to say.Ed. ftA161 “Raise ye a sign (σήμειον)” is the Septuagint and the Targum; “Raise ye a banner (vexillum)” is the Vulgate and the Syriac. The word has no connection with “fire, “as mentioned in our version, which has been derived from the Rabbins. Blayney’s rendering is, “light up a firebeacon;” but the words admit of no such meaning. It is a general expression, and may be rendered, “Raise ye a signal;” there is no definition as to what the signal was to be.-Ed. ftA162 Literally, “For evil is seen from the north.” So the Vulgate and the Targum. The verb in Kal, Niphal, and Hiphil, is rendered “look” in our version. See Genesis 19:28; Judges 5:28; Deuteronomy 26:15. But in Niphal, as it is found here, it may be rendered passively, “is seen;” and also in Psalm 85:12; and in Cant. 6:10, and in most other places. Blayney renders it, “is seen coming onwards, “which is a paraphrase.-Ed. ftA163 Calvin, with our version, has followed the Vulgate and the Syriac in this verse. Both the Septuagint and the Targum are widely different. The former have, “And taken away shall be thy height, daughter of Sion;” the latter, “Fair and delicate, how hast thou corrupted thy ways? Therefore confounded is the assembly of Sion.” The Arabic is the same with the Septuagint, only it has “pride” instead of “height” (tou[yov) Some have viewed the two first words as substantives, and have rendered the verse thus,- To a pasture and a delightful habitation Have I likened the daughter of Sion. Disposed to this view were Gataker and Lowth. But what Blayney has said is true, that whenever the verb here used has the sense of likeness, it is followed by a preposition. Besides, the two first words are not substantives but adjectives, as the form, especially of the last, clearly shews. The verb ytymd has in various passages the sense of thinking, counting, esteeming, regarding; as the result of comparing things together. See Judges 20:5; Esther 4:13; Psalm 48:9. There is a passage in Ezekiel 32:2, which is like the present, only the verb there is in Niphal; its literal rendering I consider to be the following: “The young lion of the nations art thou deemed, “or, thought to be. The literal rendering of this verse is as follows,-

Home-resident and delicate, Have I deemed the daughter of Sion.

She was so regarded by God. Not like other nations, migratory, she had a home allotted to her by God himself; and she was nursed and sustained with all tenderness, like a delicate person. But owing to her sins, foreigners, as stated in the next verse, would come and take possession of her house, and deprive her of her enjoyments.-Ed. ftA164 There is evidently a w or a y wanted before the second verb in this verse. The Septuagint and the Syriac read with w, and the Targum with y. The same is the case with the third verb, w[r; but there are two MSS. which have the w here, with which the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Targum agree. Then the version would be,-

To her shall come shepherds and their flocks, And pitch by her their tents around, And they shall feed, every one in his border.

“To pitch against her” seems improper: the proposition l[ means by or near, as well as against. And dy does not mean properly place, but side or border. It is indeed rendered place often in our version. See Numbers 2:17; Deuteronomy 23:12; Isaiah 56:5, 11; and in Isaiah 57:8, “quarter.” The ancient versions differ; the word seems not. to have been understood. It is rendered by the Septuagint, “by his hand;” by the Vulgate, “those under his hand; and by the Targum, “his neighbor.”-Ed. ftA165 These two verses seem to have been the language of the enemies on their march towards Jerusalem. When men go to a chief city from any quarter, it is always ascending. When on their march, they encouraged one another to ascend by mid-day, as b may be rendered, but the day declined before they reached the city; then they encouraged each other to continue their march in the night,-

Proclaim ye against her war: Rise, and let us ascend by mid- day.- Alas for us! for declined has the day, For extended have become the shadows of the evening: Arise, and let us ascend by night, And destroy her palaces.

The last word is rendered “foundations” by the Septuagint,-” houses” by the Vulgate,-and “palaces” by the Targum. This is an instance of the loose way in which the versions were often made.

To “sanctify war, “is not to prepare it, but to proclaim it, as Calvin says, by a solemn ceremony.-Ed.

ftA166 The two last lines may be thus rendered,-

She, the city, to be visited is the whole of it: Oppression is in the midst of it.

The verb dqph is an infinite Niphal. Some, not perhaps without reason, have rendered the first line, “For thus has Jehovah of hosts said.”-Ed.

ftA167 The verse, literally rendered, is as follows:-

7. As cast forth does a spring its waters, So cast forth is her wickedness: Violence and plunder are heard of in her; Before me continually are wounding and smiting.

The first verb is in Hiphil, the second is in Huphal. “Violence” was the visible act; “plunder” or spoiling was the object or the motive; “wounding” was the effect; “smiting” was the cause. Such is often found to be the way of stating things observed by the Prophets.

Blayney renders the two last words “sickness and smiting, “and adds, that the two words are a Hendiadis, and signify “sickness occasioned by blows.” The true reason for the order is what has been stated: it is according to what is commonly done in Scripture; what is found often is not the progressive, but the retrogressive order.

The Septuagint and the Targum have strangely rendered this verse in a manner wholly inconsistent with the context; nor are the other versions much better. The Hebrew is plain enough.-Ed. ftA168 Or, “Be warned, “or, “Be reformed.” The verb in Niphal is found in four other places, Leviticus 26:23; Psalm 2:10; Proverbs 29:19; Jeremiah 31:18, and rendered reformed, instructed, corrected, and chastised. It is the same as to receive correction and to become reformed.-Ed. ftA169 Or, “Lest forced shall be my soul from thee.” The verb means to drive, to thrust, to force. To “depart, “as rendered by the ancient versions, and by our version, is too weak, and is not the idea; and still worse is “alienated, “as rendered by Blayney. It intimates God’s unwillingness, as it were, to give up his chosen people, according to what Calvin observes.-Ed. ftA170 Blayney’s version is,-

Turn again thine hand, like a grape-gatherer, unto the baskets.

“That is, Take thou again into thine hand, and begin the work of gathering or gleaning anew.” He takes it as God’s address to the Chaldeans, in which they are exhorted repeatedly to return and to carry away captives the remaining inhabitants. But this does not comport with the simile of the vintager returning the hand to the baskets. It seems to be a command to put in safe custody those whom they took or gleaned, as a vintager, who, when he plucks a grape or a cluster, puts it safely in a basket to be carried away. The “hand” is put here for what the hand holds-the grapes or clusters. It is then the same as though he had said, “Lay up, as a vintager, what you glean, in baskets.” The Jews were gathered, not to be destroyed, but to be carried away into captivity. This seems to have been the intimation here,Return thine hand, like a vintager, unto the baskets.

That is, Throw not away what you gather, but let the hand, that is stretched forth to reach the grapes, bring back what it gleans into the baskets. The Vulgate is, “Turn (converte) thine hand as a vintager to his basket.” The Septuagint. Turn ye (ἐπιστρέψατε) as a vintager to his basket.” The Syriac is the same with the Vulgate, except that it has “gleaning” instead of “basket.” The Arabic corresponds with the Septuagint. The Targum has an unintelligible paraphrase.-Ed. ftA171 This is a remarkable verse, and shews, as Calvin explains, the degraded and corrupt state of the nation in a very striking manner,-

To whom shall I speak, And protest, so that they will hear? Behold, uncircumcised is their ear, So that they cannot hearken; Behold, the word of Jehovah Has become to them a reproach, They delight not in it.

“A reproach” is to be the subject of reproach: the word of God by his prophets was despised and treated with contempt. This was the visible and palpable effect, but the cause was, that they had no delight in it or love for it.

ftA172 There are two or three points in this verse differently explained. The fury or indignation of Jehovah has been viewed as the message which the Prophet had to deliver, which strongly expressed God’s displeasure. See Jeremiah 1:9, and Jeremiah 20:9. The verb for pouring forth is either in the imperative or in the infinitive mood. The Vulgate and the Syriac render it as an imperative; but the Septuagint, the Targum, and the Arabic give it, as in our version, in the future indicative, the first person. Venema follows the Vulgate: but Blayney takes it to be in the imperative mood; which seems most consistent with the whole of the passage. The view of most as to “the old” and “the full of years” is, that the first is mature old age, and that the second is the last stage of life, the age of decrepitude. The full of days is “one” as Blayney says, “who has arrived at the full period of human life;” and hence “Abraham, Isaac, David, and Job are said to have died full of years, or of days.” See Isaiah 65:20. Though the general meaning is given in our version, yet the more literal I conceive to be the following,-

But with the wrath of Jehovah have I been filled; I am weary of restraining to pour *it* forth On the child in the street, And on the assembly of young men also; Yea, both man and woman shall be taken, The aged and the full of days.

It is unusual to have two infinitives following one another: but the Welsh is capable of expressing the Hebrew literally,Blinais ymattal dywallt.

Nothing can express the original more exactly. It is better to say “man and woman, “as Gataker proposes, than “husband and wife;” for the object is to shew, that all, including every age and both sexes, were to be visited with judgment.-Ed ftA173 “From the small of them even to the great, “Septuagint; “From the less to the greater, “Vulgate; “From the least of them even to the greatest of them, “Targum, Syriac, and Arabic. The last is the best. The positive degree is often put in Hebrew for the superlative. See Jonah 3:5.-Ed.

ftA174 The words literally are “gaining gain, “rendered in Proverbs 1:19, and Proverbs 15:27, “greedy of gain.” The Septuagint give only a general idea, “performed unlawful things;” the Vulgate has, “given to avarice;” the Targum, “gape after riches.” The prevailing sin of all ranks was covetousness; and the special sin of the priests and prophets was falsehood: they taught falsely. The verse may be thus rendered,-

For from the least of them to the greatest of them, His all *is* to gain; And from the prophet to the priest, His all *is* to act falsely.

“His all” means all his object, or all that he did.-Ed.

ftA175 The words hlqn l[-” with what is worthless, “or base, or contemptible, are rendered, “ἐξουθενοῦντες-regarding as nothing,” or despising, by the Septuagint; “cum ignominia-with reproach” or contempt, by the Vulgate and Arabic; “illusione-by illusion, by the Syriac; and “with false words, “by the Targum. The same phrase occurs in Jeremiah 8:11. The whole verse is there omitted by the Septuagint; the Vulgate has ad ignominiam-to reproach; the Arabic, “in jocos-for sport; the Syriac, “nugis-with trifles;” but the Targum is the same as here. None give the same version but the last. In the Complutensian Edition, which has this verse in Jeremiah 8:11, the Greek version is evidently a version of the Vulgate.

The idea of “slightly, “or “superficially, “as rendered by Blayney, is not countenanced by any of the foregoing versions, nor can the original words bear this meaning. The word hlqn, is found as a Niphal participle, and applied to man, as a despised, contemptible, or worthless being,-1 Samuel 18:23; Proverbs 12:9; Isaiah 3:5; Isaiah 16:14. But here it refers to the means used for healing, which, according to all the versions, was something contemptible, worthless, useless, and which is afterwards named, being no more than saying, Peace, peace, when in fact there was no peace.

And healed have they the bruise Of the daughter of my people with what is worthless, Saying, “Peace, peace;” and there was no peace.-*Ed*.

ftA176 The Syriac is the only version that puts the first verb in an interrogatory form. “They have been confounded, “is the Septuagint and Vulgate; and similar is the rendering of the Arabic and the Targum. The verb, taken literally, it being in Huphal, may be rendered, “They have been put to shame, “or have been made to be ashamed; that is, they had been exposed to shame; but this shame they felt not, according to what follows. Their previous evils were enough to make them feel ashamed; but they had not that effect: hence entire ruin is denounced on them at the end of the verse. The rendering of the whole is as follows,-

15. Exposed to shame have they been, Because abomination have they wrought: Neither with shame are they ashamed, Nor how to be abashed do they know; Therefore fall shall they with the fallen; At the time when I shall visit them, They shall perish, saith Jehovah.

There is no necessity to make this verse and the 12th of chap. 8 (Jeremiah 8:12) the same in every particular, as Blayney attempts to do. Both passages are the same in meaning, with a little variety in some of the words. The particle µg, repeated, may be rendered by, either and nor. See Numbers 23:5. The verb µylkh is an infinitive Huphal. It is rendered as an infinitive by the Vulgate. “They shall perish, “which is according to the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, is literally, “They shall be made to stumble.”Ed.

ftA177 Blayney renders the word for “rest,” [wgrm, “restoration;” but his long note is not satisfactory. It is rendered, strangely enough, by the Septuagint, “purification-ἁγνισμὸν;” but by the Vulgate, “refreshment-refrigerium;” and by the Syriac and Targum, “restrequiem;” which seems to be its meaning, especially here, as it stands in contrast with the false peace promised by the false prophets.

The representation is that of travelers, who, when doubtful as to the right road, are to stand, that is, to stop, to look, and also to inquire. There were several old paths before them, but they were to inquire which was the good way, and to walk in it. This was what Jehovah by his prophets had exhorted the people to do, who had false prophets among them; but they refused to do so. It is a relation of what God had done,-

Thus has Jehovah said,- “Stand ye by the ways and look, And ask, as to the paths of old, Where that *is,* the good way; And walk ye in it, And ye shall find rest to your souls:” But they said, “We will not walk *in it.”*

There were many paths of old, or of antiquity, as there are still; but there was one good way, the way of God’s word. That the way is old is no proof that it is good. Error’s ways are as old as the way of truth.Ed.

ftA178 There are several MSS. which have w before this verb, and such no doubt was the copy of Calvin. But all the versions render the verb as an imperative, as no doubt it is-Ed.

ftA179 The version of the Septuagint is wholly inconsistent with the drift of the passage. The other ancient versions are materially according to our version. Several MSS. read w[dw for y[dw; and this renders the meaning much better. Then hd[ is “testimony” as well as “assembly, “which appears here very much without meaning. The two verses would then be as follows,-

18. Therefore hear, ye nations, And know the testimony which is against them;

19. Yea, hear thou earth,- Behold, I am bringing an evil on this people, The fruit of their own devices, Because to my words they have not hearkened; And my law, they have ever rejected it.

The preposition b is found after the verb, to testify, and is even rendered to or against; and coming after the substantive, testimony, it ought to be rendered the same.-Ed.

ftA180 It is rendered “cinnamon” by the Septuagint and Arabic, “a sweet smelling reed” by the Vulgate, and “an aromatic reed” or cane by the Syriac and Targum. The literal rendering of the verse is as follows,-

20. For what purpose is this done to me? Incense, from Sheba it comes, And the precious reed, from a distant land: Your burnt-offerings, they are not acceptable, And your sacrifices, they are not pleasing to me.

The reed or cane was dried and powdered, and formed a part of the incense. The latter is mentioned first, and then one of its ingredients. Sheba and the distant land are the same. The same order is to be observed in the burnt-offerings and sacrifices; the finished act first, and then the previous act of presenting a sacrifice.-Ed. ftA181 The ancient versions render it, “from the end, or ends, or extremities, of the earth.”-Ed.

ftA182 It is rendered “a spear, “or a lance, by the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic; but improperly “a shield” by the Vulgate and the Targum. It is not true that it ever means a shield. It was a short spear or javelin. “It is evident, “says Parkhurst, “that this word signifies neither the larger spear nor the shield, because it is distinguished from both. See 1 Samuel 17:6; 41:45; Job 39:23.”-Ed. ftA183 Literally it is, “And on horses shall they ride.” Then the following line is, referring to the nation in verse 21,-

Set in order it shall be, like a man for war, Against thee, daughter of Sion. Then the next verse refers to the same, the nation,- Heard have we the report of it; Relaxed have become our hands, Distress has laid hold on us, The pain like that of one in travail.

The effect is first stated, the relaxation of the hands; then the cause, the distress and anguish they felt.-Ed.

ftA184 This is addressed to the daughter of Sion: hence the verbs are in the singular number. There is no need for the change which Calvin, and also Blayney, adopt, though countenanced by the Keri, and some MSS., for the same is addressed in the next verse,-

Go thou not forth to the field, And in the way walk not; For the enemy has a sword, Terror is on every side.

“For the enemy, “etc., literally, “For sword is to the enemy.”-Ed.

ftA185 “Their impudence resembles brass, and their obstinacy may be compared to iron.”-Lowth.

ftA186 This verse and the preceding have been amended, and for the most part conjecturally, by Blayney, and though with the approbation of Horsley, yet with no satisfactory reasons. That the Prophet was made as it were a fortress, appears from Jeremiah 1:18: and there is here an evident allusion to that, though his being made a watchtower, or a watchman occupying such a place, was for a different purpose. The two verses I thus render,-

27. A watchtower have I given thee among my people, A fortress, that thou mightest know and try their way; Then we are told what he had found them to be,- All of them are the apostates of apostates, Companions of the slanderer; Brass and iron are all of them, Corrupted are they.

“The apostates of apostates,” mean thorough, confirmed apostates, as “servant of servants” means the basest: “companions,” etc., is literally, “Walkers with, “etc. “All of them, “clearly belong to “Brass and iron, “as “they” follows “corrupted.” The ancient versions are not satisfactory, and the Targum is paraphrastic; but they give the general meaning. “Prover” or “examiner” is what the versions give for “watchtower.” “Fortress” is omitted in the Septuagint, the Arabic, and the Targum, and is rendered “strong” by the Vulgate. “The apostates” is left out by the Septuagint and the Arabic, and is rendered “princes” by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum. For “companions of the slanderer, “the Septuagint and Arabic have “walking perverselyσκολιῶς;” the Syriac and Targum, “walking with guile-cum dolo;” and the Vulgate, “walking fraudulently-fraudulenter.” The word lykr, “slanderer” is found in five other places, Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 11:13; 20:19; Jeremiah 9:4; Ezekiel 22:9.

In the first three passages it is rendered in our version “a talebearer, “but more correctly, a slanderbearer, or, as Parkhurst renders it, “a trader in slander.” It does not mean “a sharper, “as Blayney thinks. The passages in Proverbs are inconsistent with such an idea. There is no passage where it may not be rendered “a slanderer, “except Ezekiel 22:9; where it evidently means “slander.”-Ed.

ftA187 The true reading of the third word in this verse is µt çam, according to the Keri, many MSS., the Septuagint and the Vulgate; and µt sometimes means “consumed.” Pliny says that they formerly used lead to separate the dross from the silver, as they use quicksilver now. Then the verse is to be thus rendered,-

Burnt has been the bellows by the fire, Consumed has been the lead; In vain *has been* the melting of the melted, For their evils have not been separated.

They had been in the furnace, but the lead intended to separate the dross from the silver, was consumed, and the melting did not succeed, for their evils, or their vices, were not separated from them. Hence in the next verse they are called reprobate silver.-Ed.

ftA188 The ancient versions, except the Syriac, render this in the imperative mood, “vocate-call ye them.” So also the Targum, and Blayney has adopted the same,-

Reprobate silver call ye them, For reprobated (or, rejected) them has Jehovah.-Ed.

ftA189 Though the ancient versions, except the Vulgate, render the verb to dwell, as an Hiphil, “cause to dwell, “as in our version, yet Blayney, as well as Calvin, follows the Vulgate, “And I will dwell with you in this place: “which seems more accordant with the context. Their boast was that God was dwelling with them, as the temple was his temple. Then when Shiloh, in Jeremiah 7:12, is referred to, God says that he set his name there: and no doubt the same thing is meant here.-Ed.

ftA190 The difficulty in the construction is removed by Blayney, who renders yrbd as a participle, as it is in some other places, Psalm 5:6: Psalm 38:3; Psalm 63:11. His version is,-

Trust ye not in those who speak falsehood, saying,- The Temple of Jehovah, the Temple of Jehovah, The Temple of Jehovah, are these.

The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, have “the Temple of the Lord” only twice, and the verb is in the singular number, “The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord it is.” The verb is the same in the

Vulgate, only the words, as in Hebrew, and also in the Targum, are repeated thrice. The paraphrase of the latter is rather singular,-” Trust not in the words of the prophets of falsehood, who say, Before the Temple of the Lord ye worship, before the Temple of the Lord ye sacrifice, before the Temple of the Lord ye offer praise; three times a year ye appear before him.”

“These” mean, as Gataker thinks, these places or buildings; and Lowth and Blayney think the same. The repetition seems to denote the frequency with which the Jews used the words: they continually boasted of having God’s Temple among them. “The Prophet, “says Henry, “repeats it, because they repeated it upon all occasions. It was the cant of the times. If they heard an awakening sermon, they lulled themselves asleep again with this, ‘We cannot but do well, for we have the Temple of the Lord among us.’ It is common for those that are farthest from God to boast themselves most of their being near to the Church.”-Ed.

ftA191 What is to be understood by innocent blood in not only murder, nor principally; but the offering of innocent infants to Moloch, referred to in the 31st verse of this chapter.-Ed.

ftA192 Calvin departs here from his former rendering in verse 3d. The words mean the same, “Then will I dwell with you.” So the Vulgate.-Ed. ftA193 The three foregoing verses admit of a different construction, though the general meaning continues the same. It is usual to consider the words in the ninth verse as verbs in the infinitive mood; but they are participles, and stand connected with the previous verse. The Targum render them as personal nouns, “thieves, murderers, “etc.: but they are in Hebrew in the singular number, the collective singular being often employed in that language. The passage may be thus rendered,-

8. Behold, ye trust in words of falsehood to no profit,-

9. The thief, murderer, and adulterer, And the false swearer and incense-burner to Baal, And the walker after foreign gods, Whom ye have not known;

10. And ye come and stand before me In this house, on which is called my name, And ye say, “We are freed To do all these abominations,”

Or,

And ye say, “He has made us free To do all these abominations.” *Blayney,* following the *Syriac,* has rendered the words,- And say, Deliver us, that we may practice all these abominations.

But what is most consistent with the passage is to consider the sentence as declarative, and not as a prayer. They considered themselves freed from guilt when they had offered their sacrifices. They thought themselves then at liberty to be immoral and also to be idolatrous. We might think such a state of blindness and infatuation impossible; but it has existed among those calling themselves Christians, and it exists now. Gataker mentions a common saying among ignorant Papists of the same import with what is said here, “We must sin to be shriven, and shriven to sin.” The turning of the grace of God into lasciviousness is the same thing.-Ed. ftA194 It is to be observed that one only of the vices mentioned in verse 9 is here referred to, the first in the catalogue. But as the Temple was the den of thieves, so it was also made the asylum of murderers, adulterers, and of idolaters. It seems then, that the Jews thought that by sacrifices they purchased immunity not only for theft, murder, adultery, false swearing, but also for idolatry, and that having sacrificed they were free to commit all these evils. How unaccountably strange is the conduct of deluded man!

The words “Which is called by my name, “are literally, “Which called is my name upon it, “an idiomatic mode of speaking, with which the Welsh exactly corresponds,Yr hwn y gelwir fy enw arno.

The pronoun relative without a preposition is afterwards followed by a pronoun substantive with a preposition prefixed.-Ed.

ftA195 The verb is in the past tense,-

I also, behold, seen have I, saith Jehovah.

That is, He had seen all they did. If anything be put after “seen, “it should be “these things, “and not “it;” for the reference is to the

particulars before mentioned. See Psalm 10:14; Ezekiel 8:12.-Ed. ftA196 This was in the tribe of Ephraim, between Bethel and Shechem, Judges 21:19, about twenty-five miles north of Jerusalem. The Ark had been there more than 300 years. It did not return there after it was brought forth in the war against the Philistines. The place afterwards declined, and its ruinous state became a proverb. See Joshua 18:1; Psalm 78:60; Jeremiah 26:6, 9.-Ed. ftA197 Blayney thinks that the reference is not to the ruinous condition of Shiloh, immediately subsequent to the time when the Ark was removed thence, but to the devastation occasioned by the captivity of the ten tribes, which was a recent occurrence, this reason is, because they were then directed to go and see the place. But if the place had ever continued in a ruinous state, and was so at that time, there was every propriety in saying, “Go now and see it.” Besides, the argument is not so complete, as when its dilapidated state, occasioned by the sins of the people, when the Ark was thence removed, is referred to. “It is probable, “says Henry, “that the ruins of that once flourishing city were yet remaining: however, they might read the history of it, which ought to affect them as if they saw the place.”-Ed.

ftA198 The literal rendering of the two verses is as follows:-

13. And now, as ye have done all these doings, saith Jehovah, And as I have spoken to you, rising early and speaking, And ye have not hearkened, And I have called you, and ye have not answered;

14. I will also do to the house, On which my name is called, In which ye trust, and to the place, Which I gave to you and to your fathers, According to what I did to Shiloh:

“The house” was the Temple, “the place” was the city: both are threatened with destruction. Then he says in the next verse, “And I will cast you from my presence.” The Temple and the city were to be destroyed like Shiloh; and they (“ you”) were to be dealt with as their brethren, the ten tribes, who had been driven into exile.-Ed.

ftA199 This is hardly correct. The reference is to the state of the Jews at that time. The Jews were formed of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin. They

were joined, after the captivity of Israel, by several of the remnants both of Ephraim and Manasseh, and of the other tribes. (2 Chronicles 34:9.) There is indeed mention made of some from the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, coming to worship at Jerusalem in the reign of Asa; but we do not read that they settled there.-Ed.

ftA200 There are here three things forbidden; their distinctive character is not correctly given in our version nor by Calvin. I render the verse thus,-

And thou, be not an intercessor for this people, Nor raise for them a cry and a supplication, Nor make an entreaty to me, For I will not hear thee.

That is, “Undertake not their cause as one who intercedes or mediates between a judge and a criminal, nor cry suppliantly for mercy, nor entreat me to be favorable to them.” He was not to be for them an intercessor, nor a deprecator of evils, nor a solicitor of favors. All the versions render the passage loosely.-Ed.

ftA201 The ancient versions (the Arabic excepted) and the Targum render the word, cakes-placentas. It is only found elsewhere in Jeremiah 44:19.-Ed. ftA202 The Septuagint render the words here, “the host of heaven, “and in Jeremiah 44:17 and 19, “the queen of heaven.” The Vulgate in the three places, renders them “the queen of heaven, “-the Targum, “the star of heaven, “-and the Syriac, “the army of heaven, “in the two first places, but in the last, “the queen of heaven.” There are several MSS., in the three places, which insert the a, so as to make the word “work, “or workmanship: but this change has evidently arisen from the Septuagint. But this word is never used to designate the work of the visible heavens: the word used in that case is hç[m. See Psalm 8:3; Psalm 19:1; <19A225>Psalm 102:25; Psalm 163:5. Our version and the Vulgate are no doubt right. But what is intended by the queen of heaven is not the moon; for the word commonly used for the moon is always masculine, and the word generally used for the sun is commonly feminine. This may appear strange; but so it is. In South Wales the word for sun is always feminine, but in North Wales, masculine.

In Deuteronomy 4:19, the sun, the moon, and the stars, as constituting the host of heaven, are mentioned together: these the first, as including all the rest, seems to be intended. Instead of “queen, “we should say in our language, “the king of the heavens.” We do not read that the Jews worshipped the moon; but the worship of the sun among them is specifically referred to and mentioned. See 2 Kings 23:11; Ezekiel 8:16. The Israelites adored the sun under the name of Baal, which was the Chemosh of the Moabites, and the Moloch of the Ammonites.-Ed.

ftA203 The verb rendered “provoke, “means to disturb, to disquiet, to cause an annoyance, to irritate,-

Is it I they are annoying, saith Jehovah? Is it not themselves, to the confusion of their own faces?

They were not disturbing, as it were, the repose of God, but their own. They could do no hurt or annoyance to God, but they were annoying and injuring themselves; and this would turn out to their own shame and confusion.-Ed.

ftA204 The meaning is not so plain as it might have been made: the burntofferings were all consumed by fire; but a part of the peace-offerings and of other offerings was eaten. See Leviticus 1:9; and Leviticus 7:11-16. Then God says, by way of contempt, “Add your burnt-offerings to your other offerings, and thus you will have your appetites gratified.” Some derive the verb rendered “Add, “from hps, which means to sweep together; and “collect togetherσυναγάγετε,” is the Septuagint; “heap together” is the Syriac. This comports better with the contemptuous strain of the passage,Your burnt-offerings sweep together To your sacrifices, and eat flesh.-Ed.

ftA205 This exposition is ingenious and plausible, and all that is said is perfectly true: but it may be doubted whether it be the way to account for the mode of speaking here adopted. It is usual in Scripture, when two things are mentioned, and the one is of little or no importance in comparison with the other, to state the first negatively.

“Labor *not*, “says our Savior, “for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” John 6:27.

But it may be, that the reference here is specifically to the day in which the Israelites were delivered; for on that day, or at that particular time, (for the word day is not to be taken in its strict meaning,) obedience to his voice was the only thing which God required. See Exodus 15:26.

Venema thinks that reference is here made, not to the institution of sacrifices, but to the ground of the covenant. Sacrifices were not the condition of the covenant, but obedience. God did not say, “If you sacrifice to me, I will be your God;” but, “If you obey my voice, I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” When the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, there was no mention of sacrifices.-Ed.

ftA206 The words are literally,-

And they walked in the counsels,- In the resolutions of their evil heart.

They not only devised their own ways, but resolved to walk in them. They formed their own counsels, and made resolutions to follow them, and they were the counsels and resolutions of a disordered and perverted heart. In rendering the last word “wickedness, “Calvin has followed the Vulgate; and our version, “imagination, “is the Targum. It is omitted in the Septuagint, and “desires” in Syriac. See note on Jeremiah 3:17.-Ed.

ftA207 The words are,-

And they were for behind, and not for before them;

which seem to mean, that they were bent on turning back to their own ways rather than to go on in the ways of God. The version of the Septuagint is, They were for things behind, and not for things before; the Syriac and Arabic, “They retrograded and did not advance, “or go forward. The allusion seems not to be, as Blayney thinks, to refractory oxen under the yoke; but to those travelers who, when shewn the right way, go back instead of going forward. And this was especially true of the Israelites, who, after having left Egypt, wished often to return, instead of going forward to Canaan. Hence it is said, that they were going back to their old ways, and not going forward in the way which God bad pointed out to them. The phrase in Jeremiah 2:27, is of another kind, and ought not to be confounded with this.-Ed.

ftA208 The former part of this verse would better connect with the former verse, than with this sentence. There is the copulative w, “and,” before the verb “sent.” The sending of the prophets is mentioned in addition to the first command given to them. The passage may be thus rendered,-

And they went backward and not forward,

25. From the day in which your fathers came forth From the land of Egypt, to this day: And I sent to you all my servants the prophets, Every day rising early and sending;

26. Yet they hearkened not to me, Nor inclined their ear, But hardened their neck; They have been more wicked than their fathers.

Such is the connection in all the ancient versions and in the Targum. The verb, rendered “they have been more wicked, “or “done worse, “is omitted by the Septuagint and the Syriac; but retained by the Vulgate and the Targum, and is found wanting in no MS.-Ed.

ftA209 Our version is wrong, “obeyeth not;” for the charge against them is, that they did not attend or give ear to God’s voice: they would not hear it any more than the Papists at this day. This is evident from the previous verse.-Ed.

ftA210 All the ancient versions and the Targum render hgwma by πίστις, fides-faith, fidelity or faithfulness. The first verb, “perished” or lost, is omitted by the Septuagint and Arabic, but is retained by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum. The second verb is stronger than the first; faithfulness was lost from the mouth, yea, it was completely separated from it. Lost is faithfulness, yea, wholly separated from the mouth.

ftA211 The emendations of Houbigant, adopted by Blayney, are by no means to be approved; for without the authority of any MSS. or versions, he changes the gender of these verbs in succession. It is a common thing in the prophets to call the people the daughter of Sion: and probably they are here so addressed, because the hair is an ornament to a female, and to cut it off is a token of deep distress.-Ed.

ftA212 The word means what is unclean and filthy, “their filthy things.” They were the idols which were introduced into the Temple. They did this evil “before his eyes, “or in his presence, as the Temple was his habitation. They brought idols as it were into his very presence, and thereby literally violated the first commandment, which expressly forbad them to have other gods before him or in his presence. By what means did they evade this explicit command? In the same way as the Church of Rome justifies idolatry,-that idols are helps to devotion: but God regards them as abominations.-Ed.

ftA213 This is the meaning according to all the ancient versions and the Targum. The Syriac is, “for want of place.” Gataker gives the same meaning. Our version follows Pagninus, and is substantially adopted by Blayney both here and in Jeremiah 19:11. Literally it is, “From no place, “that is, “From there being no place, “as Calvin says elsewhere.Ed.

ftA214 The poetical singular is used throughout the verse,-

And the carcase of this people shall be for meat To the bird of heaven and to the beast of the earth, And there will be no terrifier.-Ed.

ftA215 Though it be improper to render the word “consult;” yet the meaning is the same: they sought them, that is, their counsel and direction. They sought them in all emergencies. “To inquire of the Lord, “in Genesis 25:22, is literally “to seek the Lord;” and “to inquire of

God,” in Exodus 18:15, is literally “to seek God.” Indeed, to inquire of or to ask, that is, counsel, seems to be the most common meaning of the word. “Sought, “is the Vulgate and Targum,-” consulted, “is the Syriac,-and “cleaved to, “is the Septuagint and Arabic; and this is the idea of Calvin.-Ed. ftA216 It would be better to render hnwma before the verbs here as an adverb, because, as, or inasmuch as. There is a pronoun following every verb,-

2. And they shall expose them to the sun, And to the moon, and to all the host of heaven: As they had loved them, and as

they had served them, And as they had walked after them, And as they had sought them, And as they had bowed down to them, They shall not be gathered, nor buried; For dung on the face of the land shall they be.

The order here is from the principle to the action, and not the contrary, as is often the case: love-service-walking according to the rules prescribed-seeking counsel-and worshipping.-Ed. ftA217 The literal rendering of this verse is as follows,-

And chosen shall be death rather than life by all the remnant,- Who *shall* remain of this wicked family, In all the places of such as *shall* remain, Whither I shall have driven them, Saith Jehovah of hosts.

Blayney justly observes, that the participle in the second line is in apposition with “remnant, “as explanatory of it, and is not to be put in the genitive case, as in our version. A similar construction is found in Jeremiah 24:8. But there is no sufficient authority or reason for omitting the same participle after “places, “as is done by Blayney. Such repetitions are common in the prophets.-Ed.

ftA218 Most agree in this view,-Gataker, Venema, Henry, Lowth, Blayney, and Scott. All the versions favor this view, giving two different meanings to bwç, repeated in the last clause, except the Syriac, which gives this version, “Though they ought to repent, they yet do not repent.”-Ed.

ftA219 The idea of revolt or apostasy is given by the ancient versions to the verb used at the beginning of the verse, and also to the noun which follows, and not that of rebellion, as by Calvin. The same meaning is given by Gataker, Venema, and Blayney; and they consider that Jerusalem is in apposition with “this people, “in this manner,-Why has this people, Jerusalem, Revolted with perpetual revolt? As it has been already observed, the verb bwç, with all its derivations, means strictly to turn, but is used in the sense of turning to or from, that is, of returning or of departing. The context is our guide. It can hardly be supposed to have these two meanings in the same passage. All agree in giving it the idea of returning, at the end of the fourth verse, and at the end of this verse, the fifth; and in the three other instances in which it occurs here, they give it the idea of turning away or departing. I am disposed to think that it has the first meaning throughout the passage. I would render these two verses thus,-

4 Thou shalt also say to them, Thus saith Jehovah,- Do men fall and not rise again? Does any one return and not return?-

5. Why,-often have this people returned, Jerusalem is returning continually!- They hold fast deceit, they have refused to return.

The hypocrisy of the people is the subject: they pretended to return, but did not really return; they were deceitful. It is a sort of a dialogue. The beginning of the next verse is an answer to the end of this,-

6. I hearkened and heard, “No: “thus they say: Yet no man has repented of his evil,- Saying, What have I done? Every one returns to his own course, Like a horse rushing into battle. The charge of refusing to return was negatived,-Ed.

ftA220 It is curious the variety as to the names of birds in this verse, as given in the ancient versions: Vulgate; kite-turtle-swallow-stork; Septuagint, stork-turtle-swallow-sparrows; Syriac, stork-turtle-crane-swallow; Arabic, crane-turtle-swallow-birds; and the Targum is, stork-turtlecrane-swallow. The names in our versions seem to be the most correct, and are adopted by Venema and Blayney,-stork-turtle-crane-swallow; the same with the Syriac and the Targum.-Ed. ftA221 The latter part of this verse has another meaning according to the ancient versions. They are substantially to this purport,Behold, surely to deceive is what the false pen of the scribes has done.

The Vulgate, with which the rest materially agree, is as follows,Verily, falsehood has the false pen of the scribes wrought.

As a proof of this it is added in the next verse, that those who pretended to be wise were made ashamed, etc. That the reference is made to the false glosses of the scribes, the expounders of the law, is confirmed by verse 11. I render the whole verse thus,-

8. How can ye say, “Wise are we, And the law of Jehovah is with us?” Indeed!-Behold, to deceive Has the deceptive pen of the scribes served.

He ironically admits that they had the law; but he refers to the false interpretation of the teachers; and in the next verse he mentions the effect on the pretended wise, and the fact as to God’s law,-

9. Ashamed have become the wise, They have been dismayed and ensnared: Behold, the word of Jehovah have they despised; And wisdom, what have they!-Ed.

ftA222 It would be better to consider the shame in this verse as referring to the people, and the want of shame in Jeremiah 8:12, as applied to the teachers, the scribes, the false interpreters of the law, who promised peace, while there was no peace.-Ed. ftA223 The verb is here followed by b: see note on Jeremiah 2:37.

ftA224 It would be more suitable to render “for” because, as it is explanatory of ˆkl, “for this, “or, for this reason, at the beginning of the verse. This illative, and others too, are often used anticipatively,-

For this reason, give will I Their wives to strangers, their fields to inheritors; Because from the least even to the greatest, Ever one covets gain; From the prophet even to the priest, Every one practices deception.-*Ed.*

ftA225 See note on Jeremiah 6:14.

ftA226 This may be differently understood. There are here throughout the passage two parties spoken of,-the people, and the priests together with the prophets. The “wise” men, in Jeremiah 8:9, made ashamed were the people deluded by the priests and prophets. Those who felt no shame, mentioned in this verse, though their words proved false, were the priests and prophets: and hence we see the import of this expression here, that they were appointed to fall with the fallen, that punishment would reach them as well as the people.

This verse is somewhat different from the fifteenth of the sixth chapter, and may be thus rendered,-

12. Have they been ashamed, Because they have done abomination? Even with shame they are not ashamed, And how to blush they know not: Therefore fall shall they with the fallen; At the time of their visitation They shall perish, saith Jehovah.

The “abomination’ was the perversion of the law so as to justify idolatry and all kinds of wickedness.-Ed.

ftA227 The verse may be thus rendered,-

13. I will gather their ingathering, saith Jehovah: No grapes shall be on the vine, And no figs on the fig-tree, Even the leaf shalt fade away; For I will give these to those who shall pass through them.

God threatens the Jews with the deprivation of the fruits of the earth. He would gather their fruits by means of their enemies, such as would pass through them; and there would be no limits for them. As to the last line, it is a common thing in Hebrew to leave out the relative “who” before a verb in the future tense. So it is in Welsh- Canys rhoddav y rhain iddynt hwy a dramwyant trwyddynt.

The most literal and the most suitable to the context is this rendering.Ed. ftA228 The verb hmd means, to be silent, to be reduced to silence; and the silence is that of inactivity, or of weakness, or of death. The silence of inactivity seems to be the meaning in the first instance, and the silence of weakness in the second: “Let us be silent, “or, let us rest; “God hath made us silent, “or, made us feeble, or, reduced to nothing our strength:-

14. Why do we sit still? be ye assembled, And let us go into fortified cities, And let us be silent there; For Jehovah our God has reduced us to silence; And he has given us to drink the water of hemlock, Because we have sinned against Jehovah.

That çar is “hemlock, “or some poisonous herb, is evident from Hosea 10:4. “The water” seems to be the juice in this instance-”

the juice of hemlock.” It is rendered “the water of gall, u[dwr χολῆς,” by the Septuagint, and the same by the Vulgate; “bitter waters, “by the Syriac; “water of bitterness, “by the Arabic; “the cup of malediction, “by the Targum. “Water of hemlock” is the rendering of Blayney.

Horsley renders the third and the fourth line as follows:-

And let us there sit in despair, Since the Lord our God hath brought us to despair.-Ed.

ftA229 The word is hwq, hoping, or longing, rendered by all the ancient versions, as though it were in the first person plural. It may be taken as a noun,The hope was for peace, but there was no good! For a time of healing, but behold terror!-Ed.

ftA230 The ancient versions and the Targum all differ as to the meaning of this word; and it is difficult to make the original to agree with any of them. The word, as in the received text, is a verbal noun from Hiphil, with a iod affixed to it, and is either a personal noun in the feminine gender, “my consoler, “or “strengthener, “meaning his own soul,-or a common noun, “my consolation, “or “strength, “meaning God. But Schultens, regarding the verb as signifying to smile or to laugh, and thinking that it means here the laugh of misery or of contempt, renders it “O thou (i.e., the daughter of Sion) that grinnest at me for pain, “and sayest, “within me the heart is sick.” The Targum seems to favor this view, as it mentions the division of the people. Blayney, according to several copies, divides the word thus, ytyg ylbm, and considers the one as a negative, and the other a verbal noun from hhg, to heal, and renders the verse thus:Sorrow is upon me past my remedying, My heart within me is faint.

Still the simplest way, and the most suitable to the passage, is to take the word as a common noun, signifying consolation, comfort or strength, and to consider the words as addressed to God,My strength! within me is sorrow, Within me is my heart faint.

“Faint, “that is, through grief. It is rendered “grieve, “or “is sorrowful, “by all the ancient versions and the Targum.-Ed. fta231 Literally it is, “The voice of the shout of the daughter of my people,” four words in succession, and three in regimine by juxtaposition. The Welsh is exactly the same, “Llev gwaedd merch vy mhobl” — Voice shout daughter my people. — Ed.

fta232 The meaning of this verse is viewed by some differently. Their exile is considered as referred to at the beginning of the verse, “from a distant land,” — or literally, “from the land of the remote ones.” All the versions render the preposition “from,” and not “because of,” as in our version. The Prophet contemplates them as in banishment, and relates what they would say, and what answer God had for them: and they seem to have been thus contemplated to the end of the chapter, — 19.Behold the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people From the land of the remote ones, — “Was not Jehovah in Sion? Was not her king within her?” “Why! they provoked me with their carved images, With the vanities of the foreigner.”

Then follows the continuation of the cry in exile, — 20. “Passed has the harvest, Ended has the summer, And we have not been saved!”

The “King,” in verse 19, is “Jehovah” in the former line. “The vanities of the foreigner” were idols: they were vanities, because they could do nothing, neither good nor evil. What made them gods were the imaginations of the infatuated and superstitious. The gods of many now are nothing better. Every notion of God is false but what is consistent with his word. The Socinian god is not the true God; it is the fiction of a perverted mind. Nor is the god of the thorough Papists anything better, nor the god of the Pharisee. — Ed.

fta233 To keep throughout the metaphorical character of this verse, it ought to be rendered thus, — For the bruising of the daughter of my people I was bruised, I became black; Desolation possessed me.

But taking the words as applied to the mind, divested of metaphor, we must render them thus, — For the sorrow of the daughter of my people I sorrowed, I mourned; Astonishment possessed me.

And this “astonishment” he explains in the next verse: there were means of restoration, and yet the people were not restored; at this he was astonished. — Ed.

fta234 As the whole passage, from the 19th verse, is anticipative, and represents the ease of the Jews in captivity, this verse is to be viewed in the same light, and rendered in the past tense, — 22.Was there not balm in Gilead? Was there not a healer there? Why then has not succeeded The recovery of the daughter of my people?

Whether balm or rosin be meant, it makes no great difference; its healing virtues had become proverbial; and in this sense it is to be taken here. Kimchi held that it was balm or balsam, which Josephus reports was first brought to Judea by the Queen of Sheba. But the tree which produced yrx, was not an exotic, but indigenous in Judea, as it appears from Genesis 37:25, and 43:10; and it grew especially in Gilead, as it appears from this passage and from chap. 46:11. Bochart maintained that rosin is meant by the word, the gum drawn from the Terebinthus or the turpentine tree, which possesses strong healing virtues. It is rendered, “ρητίνη — rosin,” by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic; and “cera — wax,” by the Syriac. “Healer,” or physician, is rendered “ἰατρὸς — healer,” by the Septuagint, and “medicus,” by the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic. It appears that Gilead was not only celebrated for its healing gum, but also for its medical men.

The balm was the word of God, and the healer who applied it was the prophet or the teacher.

Perhaps the most literal rendering of the first two lines is the following, and the most suitable to express astonishment, —

*The balm, not in Gilead!:* *Verily, a healer, not there! — Ed.*

ftB1 This verse is connected by some with the last chapter: and it seems to belong to it. It forms in all the Hebrew MSS. the 23d verse of the preceding chapter (Jeremiah 8:23). The phrase, ˆtyAym, “who will give,” means a wish, “O that my head,” etc., or “May my head,” etc. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Arabic, and the Targum express it literally, “Who will give;” but the Syriac has, “O, I wish my head were turned into water.” — Ed. ftB2 This verse may be rendered thus, —

O that I, had in the desert the lodging of travellers, Then I would go away from them; For all of them are adulterers, A company of hypocrites.

He preferred living in the temporary sheds of travellers, erected in the desert, rather than to live among his own people. How intolerably wicked they must have been! A company, or an assembly, a multitude: the word need not be deemed as retaining its primary idea. The meaning is, that the whole community, the whole people, were hypocrites; they pretended to worship and serve God, and at the same time were idolaters and treacherous and immoral in their conduct. The word for “hypocrites” is derived from one that means a garment, a cloak, a covering; and the verb means to act under a cover, to act deceitfully, or falsely, or hypocritically, or perfidiously. It is rendered “deceivers” by the Septuagint, “prevaricators” by the Vulgate, “liars” by the Syriac, “falsifiers” by the Targum, and “perfidious dealers” by Blayney. — Ed. ftB3 The ancient versions differ in rendering the first clauses of this verse: “They have bent their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has prevailed over the land,” Septuagint; — “And they have stretched their tongue like a bow of falsehood, and not of truth; they have become strong in the land,” Vulgate; — “Their tongue as with their own bow have they shot; by falsity and perfidiousness they have become great in the land,” Syriac; — “Their tongues for falselhood have they bent, as a bow; and prevailed has perfidy over the land,” Arabic. Blayney makes a conjectural emendation, and Houbigant and Horsley make another; but neither is necessary. The literal version is as follows, — And they bend their tongue, their lying bow; And not for truth are they strong in the land.

“Their lying bow,” or “their bow of falsehood;” it was a bow by which they shot lies; they employed their tongues for this purpose. — Ed.

ftB4 The whole verse may he thus rendered, —

And they deceive, every one his neighbor, And the truth they speak not; They have taught their tongue the word of falsehood; *With* perverting have they wearied themselves.

The verb for “deceive” means to mock, to trifle with, to play the fool with. Their object was to befool their neighbors by cheating and deceiving them. “The word,” or the matter, “of falsehood,” is falsehood itself, or sheer falsehood. The Vulgate and the Syriac’s version is, “They have taught their tongue to speak falsehood.” To teach the tongue false-hood, was to habituate it to tell lies. The last line is differently rendered. The Septuagint deviates far from the original. The version of the Vulgate is, “They have labored to act unjustly;” and this comes near the meaning; only “to act unjustly” is rather to act pervertingly: they wrested and turned everything from its right course and meaning; and they labored in perverting things, until they wearied themselves. Falsehood requires more labor than truth. — Ed.

ftB5 Houbigant, Horsley, and Venema have suggested emendations as to this verse, derived in some measure from the Septuagint. A part of the first word, ˚tbç, is connected by the Septuagint with the former verse; for it is divided into bçand ˚t As to this division the preceding authors agree; but they differ as to the construction, though mainly the same in sense. The most probable is that of Venema, for he only divides the word, and gives this version, Burst forth does robbery upon robbery, deceit, on deceit; They refuse to know me, saith Jehovah.

Burst forth, or boil — exoestuat, is certainly not the meaning of bç which signifies to return, to turn, to restore, etc. Then the rendering would be, Return does guile for guile, deceit for deceit.

The first word is rendered “usury — τόκος” by the Septuagint, but ˚t means guile or fraud. See Psalm 10:7; Psalm 55:12; Psalm 72:14. The meaning is, that their dishonest dealings were reciprocal: the cheats cheated one another.

Our version agrees with the Vulgate and the Syriac, and is adopted by Blayney: and he concludes from the end of this verse, that the speaker from the 2d verse is not the Prophet, but God; who, adopting the language of man, intimates his wish to leave a people so wicked. But this conclusion is not necessary; for the prophets often introduce sentences of this kind. — Ed.

ftB6 All the ancient versions (except the Vulgate) and the Targum read, as though tb “daughter,” were t[r “wickedness,” as in Jeremiah 7:12. Both Houbigant and Horsley adopt this reading; and the first gives the meaning of “thus” to ˚ya, and not “how.” Then the verse would be, Therefore thus saith Jehovah of hosts, — Behold I will melt them that I may try them; For thus will I do because of the wickedness of my people.

The rendering of the last line, according; to the received text, might be this, which is nearly the Vulgate, — For how should I deal otherwise with the daughter of my people?

The passage runs better in this way, than according to the proposed emendation. — Ed.

ftB7 The word, fjwç, means “killing” or slaying; see Genesis 22:10;

Genesis 37:31; Exodus 12:6. Its primary meaning, as

Parkhurst thinks, is to shed, or to drain off, either blood from animals, or juice from grapes, or gold from dross. But it is used in the sense of slaying. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render it here, wounding,” — A killing arrow is their tongue; Deceit it speaks; With his mouth does one speak peace to his neighbor, But in his heart he sets an ambush for him.

Literally, “his ambush,” that is, the ambush of which he is the object. This form of speech is often in Hebrew. See Job 28:10. “Penit ei insidias” is the Vulgate. Blayney gives a paraphrase, not a version, — But inwardly will he resolve to fall upon him by surprise.

The future tense here, as in many other instances, is used as a present tense, and designed to shew the habitual practice of the people. The same is done in the Welsh language: the future tense is continually used to express a present action. — Ed.

ftB8 It is not from this root, but from hwa, to desire, in Niphal, hwan to be desirable. The noun means desirable or pleasant places or spots. See Psalm 23:2; Jeremiah 25:37; Joel 1:19. — Ed. ftB9 The whole verse is as follows, —

10. For the mountains will I raise weeping and wailing, And for the pleasant places of the desert, a lamentation; For they are desolate, without any one passing through, And they hear not the voice of cattle; From the bird of heaven even to the beast, They have migrated, they have gone away.

The “pleasant places” were “desolate;” and “in the mountains” no “voice of cattle” was heard. No one “passing through” explains the desolation. The word is improperly rendered, “burnt up,” in our version and by Blayney. It was used before in the sense of desolation, Jeremiah 4:7; and it ought to be so rendered in Jeremiah 2:15. In the last line, the migration refers to birds, and the going away to the beasts. In none of the ancient versions is this distinction intimated. — Ed.

ftB10 Somewhat a different view may be taken of this verse, as it will appear from the following version, — Who is the man that is wise, And he will understand this, — And to whom the mouth of Jehovah has spoken, And he will declare it, — Even why destroyed is the land, Made waste like the desert, without a traveler.

The wise man is the same with him to whom God had spoken: and what he had to understand and to declare was the reason why the land was destroyed. Then in the next verse God himself, by the mouth of his prophet, makes this known. “Made waste” is rendered “burnt up” by theSeptuagint and the Vulgate, but desolated, or desolate, by the Targum, Syriac, and Arabic; and no doubt rightly, as “without a traveler,” or one passing through, explains what is meant: in like manner, “without an inhabitant,” in the preceding verse, is an explanation of “the cities of Judah” being made “desolate,” or rather, entirely desolate. — Ed.

ftB11 “Voice” is for God’s word; and so the Targum renders it: they did not walk in, or according to, his word. — Ed. ftB12 See Note on Jeremiah 3:17, 18.

ftB13 It is supposed that the Israelites made a difference between this word and God: they allowed but one God, but introduced Baalim, or inferior gods, and worshipped them. They tried to evade the charge of idolatry, by alleging that Baalim were mediators. But no excuse of this kind was admitted, as God everywhere imputed idolatry to them. Notwithstanding this example, and the distinct declaration of Scripture, that there is but one God and one Mediator, (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6; 1 Timothy 2:5,) the error, the awful error of praying to saints, etc., as mediators, has prevailed in the Christian Church! — Ed. ftB14 It makes no difference as to the meaning, but the true construction of this clause is as follows, — Which their fathers have taught them.

The verb “to teach,” in Hebrew as well as in some other languages, admits of two objective cases. — Ed.

ftB15 But the reason why this herb is mentioned is its bitterness, — and not its wholesome effects. It was hence chosen to designate what is afflictive and distressing. This appears from. Proverbs 5:4, “bitter as wormwood.” — Ed. ftB16 See note on Jeremiah 8:14.

ftB17 I render the verses thus, —

17.Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, bethink yourselves; And call for mourning women, that they may come; *Yea,* for the skillful send, that they may come,

18.And hasten, and raise for us a wailing, That our eyes may pour forth tears, And our eyelids drop down waters. — Ed.

ftB18 The true version is that given by Blaney and approved by Horsley, —

Because they have thrown down our habitations.

The ancient versions differ, but none give the meaning of our version, which is that of Junius and Tremelius. The whole verse is in the past tense: things are represented as having already taken place: — For the voice of wailing has been heard from Sion,– “How have we been plundered! We have been put to great shame; For we have left the land, For they have thrown down our habitations.”

The people are set forth as assembled in Jerusalem, having been made to quit the land, their dwellings having been pulled down. — Ed.

ftB19 The objection, that there is an inconsisteney in saying that death entered through the windows to cut off children from the street, disappears, when we consider that the Jews thought themselves safe because their gates were dosed and their city fortified. Be it so, says the Prophet, yet death will enter, if not through the gates, yet through the windows, and through our towers, and it will destroy the children who play in our streets, and our young men assembled in the squares and the wide places of our city. That those collected at Jerusalem are here meant, is evident from the nineteenth verse. Then, in the next verse, he refers to those who still continued in the country. And this accounts for the change made in the sentence, which has puzzled some expounders, and induced them to propose emendations. The verse may be thus rendered, — For climbed has death through our windows, It has come through our towers, To cut off the child from the street, The young men from the broad streets.

Though the gates were closed, yet death came in, not only through windows, or any openings there might have been, but also through strong towers. — Ed.

ftB20 Blayney and some others connect rbd with the former verse, and, on the authority of the Septuagint, leave out “thus saith Jehovah.” The Vulgate and the Targum retain the text as we have it, and the Syriac omits only the first word; and there is no MS. in favor of what has been proposed; and the meaning, as here represented by Calvin, is so evident, that no change is at all necessary, — 22. Speak, Thus saith Jehovah, Fall also shall the carcase of man, Like dung on the face of the field, Or like an handful of corn after the reaper, And without any to gather it.

This would be the fate of such as remained in the country, whilst the greatest part had fled into Jerusalem. It is by keeping this distinction in view that the whole passage, from verse the seventeenth, may be rightly understood. — Ed.

ftB21 The next sentence is, “the valiant in his valor:” so the Vulate; but by the Septuagint “the strong (ἰσχυρὸς) in his strength;” by the Syriac, “the giant in his strength.” The Targum gives this paraphrase of the verse, “Thus saith the Lord, Let not Solomon, the wise son of David, delight in his wisdom; nor Sampson, the valiant son of Manoah, delight in his valor; nor Ahab, the rich son of Omri, delight in his riches.” It is military valor that is probably meant. They thought that they had wisdom in counsel, valor in defense, and wealth to procure aid, or to carry on war. — Ed.

ftB22 Blayney and Venema agree with Calvin in thinking that “these” refer to such men as knew God and trusted in him, and not to “these” things, the mercy, judgment, and justice before mentioned. The versions and the Targum are ambiguous, like the Hebrew, except the Vulgate, in which “these” is in the neuter gender, referring to things, and not to men. I would render the verse thus, — But in this let him glory who glories, That he understands, and that he knows me, — That I am Jehovah, Who doeth mercy, judgment, and justice in the land; For in these have I delighted, saith Jehovah.

“Me” is left out in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic. “That he knows me” is only a more clear enunciation of the previous words, “that he understands:” what he understands or knows is then stated, “That I am,” etc. “Judgment,” when connected with justice, seems to refer to what the law forbids; and “justice,” to what the law enjoins. See Isaiah 56:1, where the command is, to “keep” or observe “judgment,” and to “do” or execute “justice.” God doeth judgment in that he doeth nothing wrong, contrary to what is right and just; and he doeth justice in the defence of what is right and just, and in making good what he hath promised. Judgment regards the negative part of the law, and justice the active part. In Jeremiah 22:3, we find both words, “judgment and justice,” or righteousness. Then, as it is usual with the prophets, the last is described first, “delivered is the spoiled:” afterwards judgment is set forth, it does “no wrong,” etc. But it is only when the two words occur together that they have these specific meanings; for both, occurring separately, have a much wider import. They are used together more than twenty times. — Ed.

ftB23 The exposition of the phrase given in this section is inconsistent with all the ancient versions and the Targum: it is what has been given by modern rabbins. “The shaven around the face,” is the Septuagint; “the shaven as to the hair,” the Vulqate and the Targum; and to the same purpose is the Syriac and Arabic. The word hap is used in Leviticus 19:27, with distinct reference to the side or corner of the head, and of the beard; and the Israelites were forbidden to imitate the nations who shaved off those parts. Parkhurst renders the phrase (which occurs also in Jeremiah 25:23, and in Jeremiah 49:32) “trimmed on the sides,” that is, of the head; more literally, “the shaven on the side,” that is, of the head, or, “on the corner,” that is, of the beard. It was a phrase, though defective, yet no doubt well understood, as it is the case in other languages. The design of mentioning these seems to have been to class together such as had been expressly separated. I propose the following as the version of the two verses, — 25. Behold the days are coming, saith Jehovah, That I will visit every one circumcised, Who is in uncircumcision, —

26.The Egyptians and Judah, Edom also and the children of Ammon and Moab, And all the shawm on the side *of the head,* Who dwell in the desert; For all these nations are uncircumcised; And all the house of Israel, — *They are* uncircumcised in heart.

It is justly remarked by Horsley that the nations here mentioned practiced circumcision. They were hence circumcised, and yet in uncircumcision; and the Jews were like them: and the last line explains this apparent contradiction: they had the outward but not the inward circumcision. — Ed. ftB24 Here the preceding lecture ends in the original; but in order to keep the chapters distinct, this section has been transferred to the present lecture. A similar arrangement is adopted as to the last lecture in this volume. — Ed.

ftB25 The Sept. and Vulg. render it “according” — κατὰ — juxta. It is omitted in the Sur. Blayney renders the line thus: — “Unto the way of the heathen conform ye not.”

We may view it as a negative, thus: — “No, the way of the heathen learn not.”

But it is most probable a typographical error for ta as Jeremiah so writes at least in two other instances, Jeremiah 2:23, and

Jeremiah 12:16. — Ed.

ftB26 Blayney gives a similar explanation — “The sun, moon, and stars are said indeed to have been created and set in the firmament for ‘signs.’ (Genesis 1:14) But hereby is meant, that they should serve as natural marks, serving to distinguish, by their periodical revolutions and appearances, the various times and seasons; which, however, is a very different use from that of prognosticating future events, or causing any alteration in the fortunes of men.” — Ed.

ftB27 This is not correct, the verb is plural, and there is no different reading. The Vulgate has led Calvin and our translators astray here. The other versions never changed the form of the sentence. The verse may be thus rendered, — 3.Verily, the customs of the nations are very vanity; For a tree from the forest they cut down, — The work of the hands of the worker with the ax!

Then verbs in the plural number follow in the next verse, — 4 With silver and with gold they beautify, With nails and with hammers they fasten them, So that none may move them.

The verb for “move” is in Hiphil; it means in Kal to totter, “that none may cause them to totter.”

But the Septuagint have rendered the verb “cut down” as a passive participle, twrk, transposing the w; and Venema takes this as the proper reading, — “For a tree from the forest is cut down.” But this does not run well with the following verse. The nations or heathens, is the nominative to all the verbs.

Venema renders the last line of the fourth verse, — That nothing may make them to reel.

He considers that al means often “nothing;” but it means also sometimes, “none,” or no one. — Ed.

ftB27A Cum faber incertus scanmum faceretne Priapm, Maluit esse Demu.” — Hor. Lib. 1, Sat. 8.

ftB28 The word is, ˆyam: the m here is not a preposition, but a formative, and the word means none. So all the versions and the Targum render it. The proper rendering of the verse is — None is like thee, Jehovah; Great art thou, And great is thy name, in strength. — Ed.

ftB29 This verse is omitted in the Septuagint. The sentence, “To thee it belongs, is in the Vulgate and Syriac, “Thine is the honor;” and in theTargum and Arabic, “Thine is the kingdom.” Blayney gives this version, — “When he shall approach unto thee.”

But this has hardly a meaning here, and far less has the rendering of Horsley, — “Surely unto thee shall be the coming;”

i.e.,” The general coming, the universal resort.” The bishop saw predictions everywhere. The explanation of Calvin is the most satisfactory. The act mentioned in the preceding clause, “fear,” is to be understood as the nominative case. — Ed.

ftB30 All the versions and the Targum, as in the former instance, do not regard the m as a preposition, but render the word by “none,” or no one. — Ed.

ftB31 The word tjab is rendered by the Versions and the Targum, alike, equally or together. Literally, “in one,” that is, altogether.Calvin rather refines here. The verse may be thus rendered, — But they are together brutish and stupid; The teaehing of vanities the wood is.

Literally, “the wood it,” but as Gataker says, the pronoun is often used in Hebrew for the substantive verb. The phrase is elliptical, no unusual thing in Hebrew. It may be thus, rendering in full, — The teaching of vanities, is the teaching of the wood, or respecting the wood.

What they taught respeering the wooden idols was “vanities,” that is, very or extremely vain; for so the plural often means. The version ofBlayney, after Castellio, and approved by Horsley, is the following, — “The very wood itself being a rebuker of vanities.”

But it is a sentiment not suitable to this place. The most strict meaning of rswm is restraint, and not rebuke; it often means teaching or instruction. — Ed.

ftB32 The verse is literally thus, —

9.Silver extended, from Tarsis it is brought, And gold from Uphaz, — The work of the artizan And of the hands of the founder; Blue and purple their garments, — The work of the wise, all of them.

The Septuagint and Arabic have “Mophaz;” the Vulgate, “ Ophaz;” the Syriac and the Targum, “Ophir.” Probably the same country is meant, and that it had two names. “Blue” is rendered “hyacinth,” violet-color, by all the versions and the Targum.

“Uphaz,” according to Bochart, was a country near the Ganges in India, and the same with Ophir. — Ed.

ftB33 The verse, literally rendered, is as follows: —

“But Jehovah, God the truth he, God the life and King eternal; At his wrath tremble will the earth, And not bear will the nations his indignation.”

It is usual in Hebrew to put nouns for adjectives; divested of this peculiarity, and the future being taken for the present, the verse would run thus: “But Jehovah, the true God is he, The living God and King eternal; At his wrath tremble does the earth, And the nations cannot bear his indignation.”

“The true God,” and “the living God,” is the version of the Vulgate and of the Targum; but that of the Syriac and Arab., “the God of truth,” and “the God of the living,” but no doubt incorrect. — Ed. ftB34 Critics have unnecessarily suggested a doubt as to the genuineness of this verse, written in Chaldee. They have nothing but conjecture, and even for that conjecture there is no solid reason. It is not omitted in any MS. but one, nor by any of the early versions, nor by the Targum, though paraphrased more than what is commonly done. As to the context, it seems to be wholly necessary; for the meaning of the two following verses cannot be well understood without it, provided they are rendered correctly. I shall first give the three verses, and then point out the connection: — 11. Thus shall ye say to them, “The gods, who have not made the heaven and the earth, Perish from the earth, even from under heaven, shall they:

12. He who made the earth through his power, Who has set in order the world by his wisdom, And through his understanding expanded the heavens, —

13. At his voice when given, Abundance of waters is in the heavens, For he brings clouds from the extremity of the earth; Lightnings for rain he makes, And sends forth the wind from his treasures.”

The Prophet’s object was to shew that the Creator of the world is its ruler. As false gods did not create the world, they do not rule it. The name of the true God is not given in these verses, nor are the gods of the Chaldeans specially named. The gods who were no creators are alone mentioned, and contrasted with them is he who made all things; and of him he says, that “at his voice when given,” or literally, “at the voice of his giving,” abundance of waters appear, which he brings from the extremity of the earth. He states things as they appear; clouds arise from the horizon, said here to be the extremity of the earth. Then he mentions the most terrific things in nature, thunders, lightnings, and storms, (for that is what is meant here by wind,) as being under the entire control of him who made the heaven and the earth. Thus we see that when the passage is rightly understood, the eleventh verse is necessary as a portion of the context. “He who made,” etc. He is put as a sort of nominative absolute, as”gods” is in the former verse. This kind of phraseology is often to be met with in Hebrew. — Ed.

ftB35 The first, clause of this verse is rendered by the Sept. and Vulg., “Foolish has become every man by knowledge;” by the Sp., “Foolish have all men become without knowledge;” the Arab. and the Targ. convey the same idea with the last. Gataker takes this view and gives this version, “Every man is become brutish for want of knowledge.” But as the framers of idols were called, in Jeremiah 10:9, “wise” or cunning men, it is more probable that their boasted knowledge is what is meant here. The verse may be thus rendered — 14. Brutish has every man become by his knowledge; Disgracefully has every founder done as to the graven image, For deception is his cunning; And no spirit is in them.

To render the different parts of this verse correspondent, it is necessary to take çybwh as a Hiphil. The connection is between the first and last line, and between the two middle lines. Eyery man, both the carver and the founder, or melter, were brutish, in employing their knowledge and skill in making idols or images, because there was, after all their toil, no spirit, no life in them. Then the founder acted shamefully in taking the carved thing or image, to cover it with gold or silver, because what he melted was a mere deception.

This verse is no prediction, but a representation of the extreme folly and stupidity of idol — makers. This is confirmed by the following terse. — Ed.

ftB36 So, substantially, is the version of the ,Sept., Vulg., Syr., and — Arab., — “ridiculous — worthy of laughter — foolish — ludicrous.” But the word means no such thing. The verb h[t means to wander, to err, to go astray; in Niphal, to be led astray, ‘to be deceived; and Hiphil, to lead astray, to seduce, to deceive; and it is a Hiphil participle in Genesis 27:12. It is here a reduplicate noun; and Blayney takes it as referring to persons, and not as an abstract noun — those who greatly err; and this is the best view, as the Prophet has been throughout describing the idol — makers — Vanity are they (i.e., the idols,) The work of the grossly deluded: At the time of their visitation they shall perish;

that is, the grossly deluded.

He had before threatened ruin to idols; but he now threatens their makers. — Ed.

ftB37 Scott quotes a sermon of Mede, in which he says, “Ye have heard the state of the times, wherein this prophecy is commanded; now let us consider the event. We have heard of the admired oracles of the Gentiles, of Apollo at Delphos, of Jupiter Ammon in Egypt, etc.; but all of them are long since perished. Where is now Bel, the god of Babylon, Nisroch, the god of Assyria, Baal and Astaroth, the gods of Zidonians, Milcom of the Ammonites, Chemosh of Moab, and Tammuz of the Egyptians? Even these also are perished with their names.” The partial fulfillment of this prophecy is an evidence of its complete fulfillment, when “the spirit of evil,” as Scott says, “whom all idolaters worship, shall be confined to the bottomless pit.” — Ed.

ftB38 This clause is left out in the Septuagint, but retained by the Vulgate, the Targum, and the Syriac, though “rod’ is rendered “tribe” in the last; and so it may be rendered, for fbç means a tribe as well as a rod or scepter: and this meaning is the most suitable. God was the portion of Israel, and Israel was the tribe or nation whom God inherited or possessed as his inheritance, there being no other nation so favored. — Ed. ftB39 As to these two verses the early versions all differ from one another, as well as from our version and that of Calvin. The Targum comes the nighest to our version. I offer the following rendering, — 17.Gather from the land thy gains, Thou who dwellest in a fortress!

18.For thus saith Jehovah, — Behold I will sling out The inhabitants of the land at this time, And will fortress them, that they may be taken.

The first verse is spoken ironically, recommending what they were doing. Then the Lord says what he would do: They were gathering their goods into fortresses in order to secure them, and the Lord says that he would violently fortress (as the word means literally) or drive into fortresses all the inhabitants of the land, and would do so, that they might be found or taken, that is, captives; there would be no need of collecting the people, for they would be driven into fortified cities, where the enemies would find them. This seems to be the meaning of this verse, which Horsley deemed “very obscure,” and elucidated “by no expositor.” — Ed. ftB40 Our translation, as to this verse, is nearly the Syriac. The Septuagint and Arabic have wandered much from the original; and so have the

Vulgate and the Targum in some degree. The most literal is the version of Calvin. The terms here used, bruising, smiting, are commonly employed to designate great trouble and affliction, or distress; and this distress he describes in the verse that follows; and in the twenty-first verse the cause of it is set forth. And the distress corresponds with what he says in the eighteenth verse, where he says that the inhabitants would be driven from the land into fortresses, so that he would have none to set up his tent. All these verses seem connected. The literal rendering of this verse is as follows, — 19.Woe is to me, because of my bruising, (distress;) Grievous is my stroke; I have said, — Surely, this is grief! but I must bear it.

Then he proceeds to state his distress: he had none even to assist him to pitch his tent, the people having all been driven to fortified cities. — Ed.

ftB41 I should render the verse as follows —

My tent, it is laid waste, And all my curtains, they are broken; My sons, they have left me, and there are none of them; No one extends any more my tent, and sets up my curtains.

When the noun precedes its, verb in Hebrew, I consider that it ought commonly to be rendered as above. “There are none of them,” that is, with me; not that they “were not,” that is, that they were dead. — Ed.

ftB42 The meaning of the verb lkç here is determined by the verb r[b at the beginning of the verse: it is what is the reverse of that. Now r[b is a verb derived from the name, which means a beast. To be like the beast is to be ignorant, stupid, void of reason and understanding: then lkç means here to act with knowledge, like one who possesses mind and reason. But then the shepherds did not act but like beasts who have no understanding. Then the verse may be thus rendered, — 20. For stupidly-ignorant have become the shepherds, And Jehovah they have not sought; Therefore wisely have they not acted, And every one from their pastures is scattered.

The “scattering” was from the land or country to the fortified towns, referred to in Jeremiah 10:18. They left the country, like sheep quiting their shepherds’ pastures, and visited towns. Then, in the next verse, the Prophet says, that even the towns also would be destroyed. In the first instance God would terrify them, and fling them, as it were, from the land, so that they would take shelter in fortresses: this would be owing to the foolish conduct or their shepherds. They would be driven, then, that their enemies might more easily find or take them: and in the following verse he announces the approach of their enemies who were coming to lay waste their towns.

All the versions give the idea of knowledge or wisdom to lkç here; but the Targum, that of prosperity. To act foolishly is what they all render the verb r[b — Ed.

ftB43 The verse may be thus rendered, —

A sound is heard! — behold it comes, Even a great commotion, from the land of the North, To make the cities of Judah a desolation, The habitation of dragons.

Blayney is right in taking the first words by themselves, but, “Hark, a voice!” is not a true version, h[wmç is here a passive participle. — Ed.

ftB44 Literally rendered the verse is as follows: —

I know, Jehovah, That not to a mortal is his way; Nor is it for man to walk And to stablish his steps.

Such substantially is the meaning of the Targum, and of all the versions, except the Syriac, which Blayney has followed thus: I know Jehovah, that his way is not like that of men, Nor like a human being doth he proceed and order his going.

This construction is wholly inadmissible. Had Jehovah been in the objective case, it would have ta before it. See 1 Samuel 3:7. Then the rest of the verse is a paraphrase and not a version; and such a paraphrase as the original will not bear. To “walk” and to “stablish” are in the same predicament, both infinitives; and so they are rendered in all the versions and the Targum.

The design of the passage seems to be more correctly intimated by Gataker than by Calvin: — “Lord, we know well, that this army cannot come in but by thy permission; but since thou art resolved to chastise us, we beseech thee, in wrath remember mercy.” So in the next verse the Prophet says, “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment.” — Ed.

ftB45 Or, as the French version has it, “does not reach the burden and knot of the subject.”

ftB46 James 4:13.

ftB47 Proverbs 16:1.

ftB48 Epist. 107, ad Vitalem.

ftB49 The word judgment, though usually given as the version of the original word, does not convey its meaning here. Of the twelve senses mentioned by Johnson as belonging to the word judgment, not one of them is applicable to this place. There is perhaps not a word in any language which includes all the ideas conveyed by a word of a similar general import in another. The word fpçm is rendered in our version, “judgment,” Exodus 23:6, — “manner,” 1 Samuel 27:11, — “custom,” 1 Samuel 2:13, — “ordinance,” Isaiah 58:2, — “due,” Deuteronomy 18:3, — “right,” Deuteronomy 21:17, — “measure,” Jeremiah 30:11; the last is in the sense of moderation; and this is its meaning here; or, it may be rendered, “due measure.” Chastise me, Jehovah, but yet in moderation; Not in thy wrath, lest thou diminish me,

or, render me small. — Ed.

ftB50 The Septuagint and Arabic render this verse as though spoken by the people, “chastise us,” etc., and the last clause, “lest thou make us few.” The Targum has, “chastise them,” and, “lest they be diminished.” These are interpretations and not versions. The Vulgate and the Syriac render the Hebrew literally, “chastise me,” and the last clause, “lest thou reduce me to nothing,” or, according to the Syriac, “to a small nmnber,” which is literally the original; and this verb clearly shews that this verse was spoken, as Calvin observes, in the name of the people: but diminution, and not destruction, is meant, as the verb has never the latter meaning. Hence our version is wrong, and also Blayney’s, “lest thou crush me to atoms.” Diminution, and not annihilation, is what the word means; and this diminution was one of the judgments that would come upon them in case of disobedience, as mentioned by Moses, Leviticus 26:22. — Ed. ftB51 Blayney for no good reason has omitted the verb “consumed,” following the Septuagint and one MS. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum, retain the two verbs. So far is the last verb from being without meaning, as this author says, that it has an especial emphasis, it being stronger than the preceding verb, — 24.Pour forth thine indignation on the nations, Who know not thee, and on the families, Who on thy name have not called; For they have devoured Jacob, Yea, they have devoured him and consumed him, And his habitation have they made desolate. — Ed.

ftC1 So the Vulgate and the Targum, but the Septuagint, the Syriac, and Arabic, have the verb in the singular number, “and thou shalt say.”

The µ at the end of the verb may be rendered “them;” so Blayney regards it. We may consider the end of this verse and the following as parenthetic; otherwise the particle “this” seems singular. It will thus appear to be “this covenant which I commanded your fathers.” Still the whole passage seems not to run well. I am disposed to render tazh, “even these,” and to put a part in a parenthesis, thus, — 2. Hear ye the words of the covenant, even these, (and thou shalt speak them to every man of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,

3. and thou shalt say to them, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel,)

4. “Cursed is the man who hearkens not to the words of the covenant, even these, which I commanded your fathers in the day I brought them up from the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, “Hearken to my voice, and do ye according to all that I shall command thee; and ye shall be to me a people,

5. and I shall be to you a God; that I may confirm the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day.” — And I answered and said, Amen, O Jehovah — Ed.

ftC2 Gataker says, “It is not unlikely that the Prophet held out the book or volume of the law, wherein the covenant was engrossed and recorded, then in his hand.” — Ed.

ftC3 There is no need of any alteration in the text, as proposed by some: the literal rendering is, “Hearken to my voice, and do ye according to all that I shall command you.” The µta “ye,” after “do,” seems to bc placed there instead of with “heaarken.” Some MSS. have µtwa, which is evidently wrong. It is only the Targum that countenances this reading: all the versions read according to the meaning given above. — Ed. ftC4 “Establish — στήσω,” is the Septuagint; “awaken — suscitem,” is the Vulgate; “perform,” is the Syriac; “confirm,” is the Targum. “To make to stand” is the literal meaning of the verb. Hence the most correct word is “confirm.” The connection of this verse is not with the immediately preceding words, but with “Hearken” and “do,” etc., at the middle of the former verse. Hearken and do, that I may confirm the oath, etc. — Ed. ftC5 On the meaning of these words, see a note in vol. 1.

ftC6 There is certainly an incongruity in taking the expression, “the words of the covenant,” in two different senses. The verse is omitted in the Septuagint, but retained in the other versions and the Targum. This clause, in the Vulgate and Syriac, is thus given: “I have brought on them the words of this covenant.” The Targum is, “I have brought vengeance on them, because they undertook not the words of this covenant.” To bring words on one, seems to mean to enforce, to enjoin them. I cannot find the phrase anywhere else. Taken in this sense, the expressions will be wholly suitable to the rest of the passage, which I render thus: 6. Then said Jehovah to me, Proclain these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, — Hear the words of the covenant, Even these, and do them:

7. Verily, testifying I testified to your fathers In the day I brought them from the land of Egypt; And to this day, early-rising and testifying, Saying, “Hearken to my voice:”

8. Yet they hearkened not, nor bent their ear, But walked, every one, according to the resolutions Of their own wicked heart; Yea, I urged on them all the words of the covenant., Even these, which I commanded them to do; But they did them not.

To “testify,” rather than to “protest,:’ is the meaning of the verb, when followed by b, as here. To this testifying was added that of urging or pressing on them the duty of attending to all the words of the covenant; but all was to no purpose. To introduce punishment here comports not with the passage. — Ed. ftC7 Rendered “σύνδεσμος, binding together,” by the Sept., — ““conjuratio, confederacy, or conspiracy,” by the Vulg.. and Arab., — “rebellion,” by the Syr. and Targ., — “combination,” as given by Gataker and Blayney, would express better the meaning of the original word. — Ed.

ftC8 There is here an oversight. “Israel” is not mentioned here, but the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. “Israel” is mentioned at the end of the next verse, as having with “Judah” annulled the covenant.Ed.

ftC9 The Sept. have “τῶν πρότερον — who were before:” the Vulg. improperly joins it with “iniquities,” — “ the former iniquities of the fathers;” the Syriac renders it “ancient,” and the Targum, “former,” both connecting it with “fathers.” The word means the “first,” rather than the “former.” If we take it as connected with “fathers,” then the first fathers with whom the covenant, after they came out of Egypt, was made, are meant; but it may be taken as in apposition with “fathers;” then the first who refused to hear God, are referred to. Taking this view, we may render the verse thus — 10. They have turned to the iniquities of their fathers — The first who refused to hearken to my words; And they have walked after alien gods to serve them: Annulled have the house of Israel and the house of Judah My covenant, which I made with their fathers.

The word for “iniquities” means perversions, distortions, the turning of things to purposes not intended. These are the kinds of iniquities which are meant. Perverting the truth rather than denying or renouncing it, had ever been the sin of the Jews. Instead of worshipping God

himself, they worshipped him by means of idols, and through the mediation of inferior gods. This was the perversion. Alien gods were mediators; hence they never renounced God’s worship. But God deemed this as an annulment of his covenant, by which they were required to worship him alone. — Ed.

ftC10 The literal rendering is as follows: —

11. Therefore thus saith Jehovah,- Behold, I will cause to come on them an evil, From which they shall not be able to go forth: And they shall loudly cry to me, But I will not hearken to them.

The third line in Welsh is literally the Hebrew, — Yr hwn his gallant vyned allan ohono. Which they will not be able to go forth from it.

The verb q[z is not merely to cry, but to cry loudly, or vehemently, or clamorously; the effect of great distress impatiently endured.Our version and Blayney are wrong in rendering w And thought It is not what may have been, is meant, but what would be. It is expressly foretold what they would do; and corresponding with this are all the versions and the Targum. — Ed.

ftC11 But the most obvious meaning of the passage is, that the Jews would first cry to God, and that being not heard, they would then cry to alien gods. Hence our version renders the w at the beginning of this verse, “Then,” and rightly too: so does the Syriac, though the other versions render it “And,” as Blayney does: and if so rendered, the connection would appear the same, — And go shall the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, And they shall loudly cry to the gods, To whom they burn incense; But saving they will not save them At the time of their calamity. — Ed.

ftC12 The word is tçb. “Bosheth, shame,” says Lowth, “was a nickname for Baal. (See Hosea 9:10.) So Jerubbaal is called Jerubbosheth in 2 Samuel 11:21.” The word is left out in the Septuagint; the other versions and the Targum render it differently; its meaning was evidently not understood. It may be rendered here “baseness,” or a base thing; the last clause is explanatory of this, —

Ye have set up altars for a base thing — Altars to burn incense to a Baal.

By putting the indefinite article we avoid the contrariety which Calvin refers to. It is given in the singular number in all the versions except the Vulgate, which has Baalim. — Ed.

ftC13 The connection of this verse has not been pointed out by Calvin. It begins with “For,” or because; so that a reason is given for what has been said previously, and that is not found in it he immediately preceding verse, but at the end of the 11th, “I will not hearken unto them;” then what is said here is given as a reason. But if we render yk “though,” as it is often done, and not “For,” the connection is with the next preceding verse; their gods would not save them, “though” they were as many as their cities, etc. This seems to be the most natural connection. — Ed.

ftC14 See a note in vol. 1. — Ed.

ftC15 “Holy fleshes,” κρέα a[gia, carnes sanctae, is the version of the Septuagint and Vulgate, and “holy flesh” is the Syriac; but the Targum has “the worship of my sanctuary.” Blayney renders it “holy flesh.” The word çdq means holy, or holiness, and çdqm is the sanctuary. — Ed.

ftC16 This verse has been varicously rendered and explained. The versions all differ, and the Targum too; and none of them seem to render the original correctly. Blayney, following the Septuagint, has introduced corrections, but not authorized by any MSS. There is no different reading of any consequence. The literal rendering I consider to be as follows: — 15.What, as to my beloved, is in my house her doing? Is not her plotting with many?- Yea, the holy flesh do they take away from thee; When thou doest evil against me, then thou exultest.

The word for “plotting” does not mean “lewdness,” or “abomination,” as rendered by all the versions, but devising, contriving, scheming, machinating; the reference is to the scheme of uniting the worship of God with the worship of idols. The Targum gives the idea, “they have taken counsel to sin greatly.” All the versions agree in giving a Hiphil meaning to wrb[y, cause to pass from — to remove or take away. The “many” who advocated the worship of idols took away the holy flesh — the sacrifices, and took them away from her, “the beloved,” as, when given to idols, they would be of no benefit. The words, ykt[r yk, are literally, “when thy evil is against me.” It is a similar mode of expression with ymq, “those who rise up against me,” (2 Samuel 22:40.) Though it was an evil against God, yet they exulted in what they did. — Ed.

ftC17 This clause is difficult. The versions give no assistance. The word hlwmh, or rather hlmh, is rendered “circumcision” by the Septuagint, “speech’ by the Vulgate, “decree” by the Syriac, “tumult” by our version, and clamor by Blayney. It occurs only in one other place, Ezekiel l:24; where it stands in apposition with the “voice of the Almighty,” which means there, and often elsewhere, “ thunder:” and its meaning there is evidently the breaking of thunder or the thunderclap. It comes from lm, to cut, to break, to shiver. Then the noun is literally breaking, or crashing; it is the bursting noise of thunder. The other difficulty is hyl[, rendered “upon it” in our version as well as in the early versions: but “it” is feminine in Hebrew, and “of it” after branches is masculine, the same gender with “olive.” None have accounted for this anomaly. Blayney has indeed made the word a participle to agree with fire, — “a fire mounting upwards;” but this can hardly be admitted. I would render the verse thus, — An olive, flourishing, beautiful in fruit, in form, Hath Jehovah called thy name: At the sound of a great thunderclap, — Kindled hath he a fire by it,; And shivered have been its branches.

The verb for “kindled” is in Hiphil, and “by it” is the “thunderclap,” which is feminine, and “its” is the “olive,” which is masculine. Houbigant refers this passage to thunder.

The past tense is used for the future. He compares the nation to a flourishing tree, and then he speaks of its destraction by a fire kindled by the breaking of a thunder: the fire is the lightning. — Ed.

ftC18 It is literally “evil.” There is here a striking instance of the same word used in two different senses — the evil of punishment and the evil of sin. The verse is thus, —

And Jehovah of hosts, who hath planted thee, Hath spoken against thee an evil, For the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah · Which they have done for themselves, By provoking me in burning incense to Baal.

“For the evil,” etc., is unintelligibly rendered by Blayney, “In prosecution of the evil,” etc.; llgb is a preposition, and is so rendered in all the early versions and the Targum: it is also so found in many other parts of Scripture. “Which they have done? etc., may be rendered, Which they have procured for themselves; for the verb hç[ may sometimes be thus rendered. See Genesis 12:5; Genesis 31:1. But “which” refers to the first “evil,” of which

God had spoken, the evil of punishment — Ed. ftC19 Calvin connects this verse with the foregoing, but most with what follows. The first verb in the Septuagint is a prayer, “Lord, make known to me, and I shall know.” The Syriac and Arabic are the same. The Vulgate takes the verb in the second person, “O Lord, thou hast made known,” etc. Venema seems to agree in part with Calvin; he connects the first clause with the foregoing, and the second with the following verse; and this appears to be the best construction. Then the w is “when,” as it may be rendered when followed as here by za, “then,” — When Jehovah made me to know, so that I knew these things; Then thou didst shew me their doings.

That is, when Jehovah made known to him what he had previously related, he then shewed to him also the doings, or the purposes, of the men of Anathoth, which he afterwards more particularly mentions. — Ed.

ftC20 All the early versions, and the Targum render ãwla as a participle or an adjective, — “άκακον, innocent,” by the Septuagint; “mansuetus, meek,” by the Vulgate; simple, by the Syriac; and choice or chosen by the Targum. The word used as a verb means to teach, to train, to guide; and it seems here to be a passive participle, taught, trained, and may be rendered here docile, meek or innocent, — But I — as a meek lamb led to be killed was I And I knew not, that against me they had devised devices.

The Septuagint render the last words “they have thought an evil thought,” and, “I knew not,” is connected with the former line thus, — But I, as an innocent lamb led to be slain, I knew not: Against me have they thought an evil thought.

But the construction in the other versions, and in the Targum, is according to the former rendering. — Ed.

ftC21 But the best meaning is that given by the Syriac, and has been adopted in our version, and by Gataker, Venema, Henry, Horsley, Scott, and Adam Clarke, — “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit;” that is, the Prophet and his prophecy. “In this case,” says Horsley, “the man is the tree; his doctrine the fruit.” But there seems to be an allusion in the words to “the olive” mentioned in Jeremiah 11:16, which was threatened with destruction: and Jeremiah’s enemies, adopting his simile, by way of irony apply it to himself: “Well, thou comparest us to an olive devoted to ruin; we shall now deal with thee accordingly: thou art a tree, and we shall cut thee down and destroy thee and all the fruit thou bearest.”

The whole verse I would render as follows, — 19. And I — as a meek lamb led to be killed was I And I knew not that against me they had devised these devices: — “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, Yea, let us cut him down from the land of the living; And his name, let it be remembered no more.” — Ed.

ftC22 The beginning of the verse is differently rendered: “O Lord,” in the vocative case, by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac; “The Lord,” by the Arabic and Targum. All the versions agree as to the imprecation, “May I see — ίδοιμι — videam:” but the Targum has, “I shall see;” and so it is rendered by Gataker, Venema, Scott, and Adam Clarke. The verb is future, but the future in Hebrew has sometimes the meaning of the optative or the subjunctive, as well as of the imperative. But the future is the most suitable here; for the W before “Jehovah” will not allow it to be in the vocative case. The verse then would be as follows, — 20.But Jehovah of hosts, who art a righteous judge, The trier of the reins and of the heart, I shall see thy vengeance on them; For on thee have I devolved my cause.

“Jehovah of hosts” is a nominative absolute — a form of expression very common in the Prophets. — Ed.

ftC23 “Emboldened,” says Blayney, “as it should seem, by the success of his prayers against the men of Anathoth, the Prophet ventures freely, though with professions of confidence in the divine justice, to expostulate with God concerning the prosperity of wicked men in general, whose punishment he solicits, attesting the mischiefs that were continually brought on the land by their unrestrained wickedness.”

I would render the verse thus, — Righteous art thou, Jehovah; Though I should dispute with thee; Yet of judgments will I speak to thee, — How is it.? the way of the wicked, it prospers; Secure are all the dissemblers of dissimulation.

Perhaps the fourth line might be rendered thus, — Why; the way of the wicked, it prospers.

The order of the words will not admit it to be rendered otherwise. Blayney renders the last line as follows: — At ease are all they who deal very perfidiously.

The last words literally are, “all the cloakers of cloaking,” or, “all the coverers of covering.” But according to the secondary meaning of the word dgb the phrase would be, “all the dissemblers of dissimulation.” The version of the Septuagint is, “all who prevaricate prevarications.” What is meant evidently is, that they were hypocrites, and that by hypocrisy they covered their hypocrisy, — a true and a striking representation. — Ed.

ftC24 Ovid, Eleg. 8.

ftC25 Ovid, Eleg. 8.

ftC26 The verb is wkly rendered “proficiunt — proeeed or advance,” by the Vulgate and Syriac. The Septuagint must have read wdly, as the version is, they have brought forth children, which is wholly inconsistent with the simile of a tree. To “advance in growth,” as Blayney renders it, is what is clearly meant. The Targum is a paraphrase, and the simile is wholly left out. To “become rich” is the corresponding expression, which gives the meaning. The µg, which

occurs twice, would be better rendered “yea,” as in our version, than “also,” as by Blaney, — Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root; They thrive, yea, they have produced fruit: Nigh art thou to their mouth, But far from their reins.

“They thrive,” is literally “they go on,” that is, after having rooted, or taken root. The “reins” stand for the affections — fear, reverence, love,etc. — Ed. ftC27 This verse, according to the tenses of the verbs, is as follows: —

But thou, Jehovah, thou hast known me; Thou seest me, and triest my heart towards thee: Pull them out as sheep for the sacrifice, And set them apart for the day of slaughter.

It is evident that “seest,” which is here in the future tense, is to be taken as expressing a present act. It would be so rendered in Welsh, — Ond ti Jehova, adwaenaist vi; Gweli vi, a phrovi, vy nghalon tuag atat.

God had known him, he was still seeing him, and approved of his heart before him, as the Septuagint express the words. To prove here, or to “try,” means a trial by which a thing is found to be genuine. Blayney gives the meaning by a paraphrase, — Thou canst discern by trial my heart to be with thee. — Ed.

ftC28 Both Gataker and Venema regard the meaning of the last clause differently. Here ends the expostulation of Jeremiah; and they consider that he mentions here what his persecutors said of him, that he would not see their end, or their ruin, which he had foretold. Were yk, as in the first verse, rendered “though,” the connnection would be more natural, — How long shall mourn the land And the grass of every field wither? For the evil of those who dwell in it, Swept away has been the beast and the bird, Though they have said, “Hewill not see our end.”

The third line connects better with what follows than with what precedes it; and it is so rendered in the Syriac. The word for “beast,”

though in a plural form, is used elsewhere as a singular, Psalm 73:22; and so it is here, and so rendered by the Vulgate and the Targum. — Ed.

ftC29 The author of the Targum — the Chaldee Paraphrase. — Ed.

ftC30 Most commentators agree in the previous exposition, — that a comparison is made between the persecution which Jeremiah experienced from his countrymen at Anathoth, and the persecution he was to expect at Jerusalem. So thought the Jewish commentators, Grotius, Venema, Gataker, Henry, Scott, Adam Clarke, and Blayney. It must. however, be added, that Jerome and Horsley were of the same opinion with Calvin: but the most obvious and natural meaning seems to be the former.

The rendering of Blayney is as follows, — If thou hast run with footmen, and they have wearied thee, Then how wilt thou chafe thyself with horses?

More literally, — If with footmen thou hast run, and they have tired thee, Then how wilt thou heat thyself with horses?

“Horses” may indeed be rendered horsemen, as “feet” in the previous line is rendered footmen. As to the verb “heat thyself,” the versions and the Targum differ, but the word in Hebrew is plain enough; it is hrj to heat, to burn, or to be warm or hot, in Hithpael. To “contend” has been taken from the Vulgate. — Ed.. ftC31 As in the previous clause, so in this, most interpreters are opposed to Calvin. The contrast here is between a quiet state and great troubles. If Jeremiah complained, when among his connections at Anathoth, what could he do when troubles, like the swelling of Jordan, overflowed the land? And this view is confirmed by the verse which follows, —

Blayney, following the Vulgate, renders the passage thus, — And though in the land of peace thou mayest have confidence, Yet how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

But rather as follows, —

And in the land of peace thou art secure; But how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?

That is, “Thou complainest though living secure in a land which enjoys peace and is not harassed with war: what then wilt thou do when the troubles of war shall come over the land like the overflowings of Jordan?” or, according to some, “Thou complainest though living in retirement among thine own people, where thou didst expect rest and peace, what wilt thou do when exposed to the violent persecutions of the great and powerful?” the swelling of Jordan being considered a proverbial expression, designating great and overwhelming troubles. — Ed.

ftC32 It is necessary to understand yrja here as meaning “behind,” that is, “behind his back,” as we commonly say; for his friends and relations acted perfidiously, they cried against him in his absence, while they spoke friendly to himself. The verse is as follows, — For even thy brethren and thy father’s house, Even they have dissembled with thee; Yea, they have cried behind thee vehemently Believe them not when they speak to thee kind things.

“Vehemently,” or more literally, “fully;” alm is used here adverbially. The versions, except the Vulgate, which renders it, “with a full voice,” have not given its meaning, nor the Targum. The “multitude” of our version is evidently wrong, distantly derived from the Septuagint. — Ed. ftC33 “My beloved soul” is the version of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic, but very improperly; the Syriac is “the beloved of my soul.” The three first versions betoken an ignorance of the construction of the Hebrew language. To express their idea, “beloved” must have followed “soul,” and not preceded it. Besides, the word for “beloved” is in the plural number, but used as delitice in Latin, to express great affection; and it ought to be rendered, the very dear, or the very beloved, of my soul. — Ed.

ftC12 The most literal rendering of the verse is as follows, —

9.Is not my heritage to me a stripped bird of prey? Is there not a bird of prey around against it? Come, assemble, every beast of the field; Hasten ye to devour.

The versions and the Targum all differ, and are wholly unsatisfactory. Some, as Venema, agreeably with our version, retain not the questionary form in the two first lines, and render them thus, — A stripped bird of prey is my heritage to me; A bird of prey is around against it.

The meaning is the same; but the h before “bird of prey,” or rapacious bird, seems to favor the interrogation. The [wbx, stripped or speckled, is a participle, and not the name of a ravenous bird,” as Blayney thinks, is evident from its location, for it follows the word fy[, a rapacious bird: it would have otherwise preceded it. The Vulgate renders it. “discolored — diversely colored,” and the Syriac is the same. — Ed.

ftC35 The Septuagint and Arabic render the verb as passive in the singular number, “It has been set a desolation.” We may take hmç as a passive participle, the w being omitted, with h, it, affixed. Then the verse would run thus, — 11. Set it is an utter desolation; It has mourned before me (or, to me) being utterly desolate: Desolate has been the whole land, Though no man lays it to heart.

“Utter desolation” is the meaning, for it is a reduplicate noun. Both the Vulgate and the Targum connect “being utterly desolate” with the next line, though not rightly: but both, as well as the Syriac, render the first verb, as though it were hwmç “They have set it.” Venema and Houbigant render yl[, in the second line, a preposition, and render the line thus, — It has mourned on account of desolation. — Ed.

ftC36 The versions and the Targum render the first verb in the past tense, but the second, incorrectly, in the future. The verse is as follows, — 12. On all heights in the wilderness have wasters come, For the sword has for Jehovah devoured; From one end of the land to the other end of the land No peace has been to any flesh.

The third line reads better with the last. No doubt, the past, as Calvin says, is used for the future. The same is the case in the next verse. — Ed.

ftC37 The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, render all the verbs in the second person plural, and in the present tense, “Ye sow,” etc.; but the Vulgate and Targum retain the Hebrew third person and the past tense, except in the third line, “Ye (not they) are ashamed,” etc., which seems to be the correct reading, though not found in any MS., for it is what “your fruits,” or produce, require.

The meaning of being.”wearied,” or sick with labor, is given only by the Syriac to the verb wljn; all the other versions, as well as the Targum, give it the idea of “inheriting,” or possessing as an heritage. So Blayney renders it, “They have possessed,” etc. The verse then is as follows, — 13.They have sown wheats, but thorns have they reaped; They have got an heritage, but have not succeeded: Yea, ashamed have you been of your produce, Through the burnlung of the wrath of Jehovah.

A conversive vau before “succeeded” is supplied by many MSS., and by the Vulgate and Syriac. The way in which Calvin accounts for the change of person in the third line is ingenious; but an instance of what he says can hardly be found in one and the same clause. All the versions and the Targum regard the verb as wçbtw, the tau only being supplied.

Venema takes the verb to be an imperative in the second person plural, and gives this version, — Therefore be ye ashamed of your fruits, By reason of the heat of the wrath of Jehovah.

But what the early versions warrant is more consistent with the context, and gives a better meaning. — Ed.

ftC38 No doubt the people of Israel were often called the heritage of God; but the word heritage means here evidently the land. The version of Calvin cannot be admitted; the verb is in Hiphil and must be rendered, “I have caused to inherit;” and so it is rendered in all the versions and Targum. The verse runs thus, — 14. Thus saith Jehovah, — As to all my neighbors, Who have done evil, who have touched the heritage, Which I have caused my

people Israel to inherit, — Behold, I will root them up from their land, And the house of Judah will I root up from the midst of them.

There is here a promise of two removals, — that of heathens from the Iand of Canaan, — and that of the Jews from the land of heathens. — Ed. ftC39 Rather, “I will turn,” i.e., from the course he had pursued. This is often the meaning of bwç . It is rendered here adverbially by Blayney and others; though it may at times be so rendered, yet not suitably in this place. It means here a change in God’s proceedings: he had plucked them up; but now he will deal differently with them. — Ed.

ftC40 The verb dml, to learn, in this verse, has evidently two meanings, as “learn” has in old English. In the first instance, — “If they will learn the ways of my people,” it means what is commonly understood by the term; but, in the second instance, — “As they have learned my people,” it signifies to teaJeremiah Though in English the word is not now used in this sense, yet in Welsh the word still continues to have this double meaning; and the same word, “dysgu,” is used in these two clauses, according to what is done in Hebrew.

There is here a clear instance of w being rendered “then,” and it cannot be rendered othersise, — “If learning they will learn, etc., then shall they be built up,” etc. In the first clause there is also a striking correspondence between the Welsh and the µa, — “Os gan ddysgu y dysgant.” — Ed.

ftC41 It is rendered “περίζωμα – a girdle,” by the Septuagint; — “lumbare – a garment for the loins,” by the Vulgate; — “sudarium – a napkin,” by the Syriac; — “cingulum – a girdle,” by the Targum and Arabic. The Hebrew word never means anything but a girdle or belt, as the verb signifies to surround, to bind.

Calvin makes no remark on the command, not to put it in water before he wore it. Various has been the explanation. The view the Rabbins give is inconsistent with the passage, — that it was to be left dirty after wearing, that it might rot the sooner; for the Prophet is bidden, when commanded to wear it, not to wash it. Grotius and others think that he was to wear it as made, in its rough state, in order to shew the rude condition of the Jews when God adopted them. Venema is of the opinion that in order to shew that is was newly made, and had not been worn by another, nor polluted. Gataker says that the purpose was to shew that nothing was to be done by the Prophet to cause the girdle to rot, as wet might have done so, in order to prove that the rottenness proceeded only from the Jews themselves. Lowth regards it as intended to teach the Jews their corrupt state by nature, so that it was through favor or grace only that God adopted them; and he refers to Ezekiel 16:4. The last, which is nearly the same with the view of Grotius, seems the most suitable. – Ed.

ftC42 Many agree with Calvin that this was a vision and not an actual transaction, such as Gataker, Lowth, Blayney, Adara Clarke, &c. Henry hesitates, but Scott seems to be strongly in favor of a real transaction. Bochart and Venema hold also the latter opinion, only they think that trp here does not mean “Euphrates,” but Ephrata, that is, Bethlehem, in Judea; but this cannot be maintained. Lowth refers to an instance where a vision is related as a fact, without any mention being made that it was a vision, that is, Genesis 15:5: God brought Abraham forth and shewed to him the stars; and yet it appears from Jeremiah 13:12 that the sun was not set. Blayney remarks, that “the same supposition of a vision must be admitted in other cases, particularly Jeremiah 25:15-29.” Gataker refers to similar instances in Ezekiel 8:3; Ezekiel 11:24. It was most probably a vision; and the Prophet related to the people what God had in a supernatural way exhibited to him. — Ed. ftC43 It is strangely rendered “reproach — u[zrin,” by the Septuagint, but “pride” by the Vulgate, — “the haughty ones,” by the Syriac, — “insolence” by the Arabic, and “strength” by the Targum. Blayney agrees with Calvin and renders it “excellency,” and Horsley, “glory.” — Ed. ftC44 These words are in the Septuagint and the Vulgate put in apposition with the last words of the preceding verse; but in the Syriac and Targum they form the nominative case to the verb “shall be,” as in our version, near the end of the verse, the w before it being omitted; but the simpler mode of construction is to consider the substantive verb, is, to be understood in the first clause; then the whole verse would run thus, —

This is a wicked people, Who refuse to hear my words, Who walk in the resolutions of their own heart, And walk after foreign gods, To serve them and to bow down to them; And they shall be as this girdle, Which will not be good for anything.

On “the resolutions,” see vol. 1. “For anything,” the lk here evidently means “anything,” as it means in some other places “any,” or any one. — Ed. ftC45 “Name” means here renown; “praise,” celebrity or commendation; and “glory,” ornament, decoration, or beauty. The three words are found together, though not in exactly the same order, in Deuteronomy 26:19. There the order is, praise, name, and honor, which is rendered here “glory.” See Isaiah 43:21; Isaiah 61:11; Isaiah 63:12. — Ed.

ftC46 It is not true that the word ever means a bladder, though so rendered by the Septuagint and the Targum. The Vulgate has “laguncula — a little flagon,” and Syriac “dolium, — a tub.” It means a jug or jar. Blayney has “vessel.” — Ed.

ftC47 With regard to this comparison, Gataker says, “A type taken from what they much loved, liked, and looked after; for they loved and looked after the flagons of wine, Hosea 3:1; and those prophets best pleased them who prophesied of wine and strong drink, Micah 2:11. God therefore sendeth his prophet to them with a prophecy of wine, but of other wine than they expected.”

ftC48 The clause, literally rendered, would convey this meaning, —

And the kings who sit for David on his throne.

“For David,” that is, as his representatives. “In David’s stead,” is the rendering of Gataker and Blayney. The word “even” before “the kings” in our version, is improper; for what follows is not a specification of what is gone before, as “the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” at the end of the verse, is in contrast with “all the inhabitants of this land,” that is, the people of the country. — Ed. ftC49 The word seems to mean shattering or breaking in pieces, and in a secondary sense, scattering, as the effect. The early versions give the latter meaning, scattering, but, as Calvin says, inconsistently with the rest of the clause. The Targum gives in effect the first sense, “I will cause them to rush, each on his brother.” The word “dash” is the most suitable, or dash to pieces, — And I will dash them to pieces, each against his brother, Both the fathers and the sons together, saith Jehovah.

The allusion is to the bottles: they would be broken like brittle vessels, when thrown one against another. — Ed.

ftC50 The verbs are different, and so Calvin renders them in the text; but not here. There is no unanimity in the versions as to these verbs and the one which follows. The first means to be tender so as to relent; the second, to spare so as not to inflict punishment, to connive; and the third, to feel pity or compassion. They may be rendered thus, — I will not relent, nor will I spare; Nor will I pity, so as not to destroy them.

The two lines announce the same thing, only the last is stronger and more specific. Pitying or commiserating is stronger than relenting, and not destroying describes the act, while sparing is a general term. — Ed.

ftC51 The sentence literally is, “From consuming,” or destroying, “them.” The preposition m, mem, here has the force of a negative. It is a sort of an elliptic phrase, which, though understood in the original, yet requires a supplement in a translation, — “I will not pity, so as to abstain from consuming them.” But a literal rendering in Welsh would be understood, — Ae ni resynav rhag eu difetha.

The preposition “rhag,” which ordinarily means from, signifies here from not, which is exactly the Hebrew. — Ed.

ftC52 This may be rendered more consistently with the context, “For Jehovah speaks,” or is speaking: for the reference evidently is to what was now addressed to them. — Ed.

ftC53 So all the versions and the Targum. Gataker renders it, “Be ye not haughty,” which is no doubt the meaning. The verb means to be high, lofty, or elevated, and so to be elevated as to be haughty, proud. See Isaiah 3:16. Men, creatures of the dust, too high and elevated to hear what God said to them! This is the case still. What a monstrous thing! — Ed. ftC54 All the versions and the Targum render the first verb intransitively, “Before it grows dark :” but Montanus, Pagninus, Piscator and Junius and Tremellius, give it a transitive meaning, as Calvin does, and no doubt correctly, for it is in Hiphil, “Before he causes or brings darkness;” or it may be rendered, “Before he makes it dark.” Blayney follows the early versions, but Gataker, Lowth, and Venema, the latter versions; and the conclusion of the verse confirms, as Calvin says, this meaning. — Ed.

ftC55 This is a mistake, the preposition is l[ which means on, upon, etc..

Our version of this sentence is in accordance with the early versions: it is indeed literally the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Yet it is not the original. The verb is in Hithpael, and means to strike or smite together, or against one another. The literal rendering is the following, — Before your feet smite one against the other, On the mountains of gloominess (i.e. gloomy mountains.)

It is true the word for “gloominess” means sometimes the twilight; but here it seems to signify a state somewhat dark or obscure. To wander and to stumble on gloomy mountains betokens the miserable condition of fugitives: and this is what is meant here. See Jeremiah 16:16; Ezekiel 7:16. Then what follows might be thus rendered, —

When ye shall look anxiously for light, Then will he make it the shadow of death, He will turn it to thick darkness.

When two vaus occur in a sentence, they may often be rendered when and then. The change proposed as to the last verb is not at all necessary. Literally it is, “He will set it (to be) for thick darkness.” — Ed.

ftC56 The whole verse may be thus rendered, —

But if ye will not hear, weep in secret places Will my soul, on account of your haughtiness; Yea, bewailing it will bewail, And pour down will mine eye the tear, When taken captive is the flock of Jehovah.

The word for “haughtiness,” hwg, is rendered “insolence” by the Septuagint and Arabic; “pride” by the Vulgate, and “affliction” by the Syriac. The word is commonly derived from hag, to swell, to be high, to be elated. It is found in this sense in two other places, Job 33:17, and Daniel 4:37; and in a good sense, elevation, in Job 22:29. It seems to be a contraction, in full hwag. See Psalm 36:12; Proverbs 29:23. This being the meaning of the word, the view of Calvin cannot be admitted. There is an evident reference to what is said in Jeremiah 13:15, “Be ye not lifted up,” or, “be ye not haughty.” The cause of his weeping was their haughtiness in not hearing God speaking to them.- Ed.

ftC57 So Gataker and Lowth; and they refer to 2 Kings 24:12, and to

Jeremiah 22:26. From this circumstance it is gathered that this prophecy was delivered in the short reign of that king, which lasted only three months.

The word “queen,” in our version, is rendered “mistress or lady — domina,” by Calvin, but “potentates” by the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic; “governess — dominatrix,” by the Vulgate; and “queen” by the Targum. The word means governess; it is rendered “mistress” in Genesis 16:4, 8; “lady” in Isaiah 47:5, 7; and “queen” in 2 Kings 10:13. — Ed. ftC58 There is an oversight here; the passage referred to is in Micah 6:1; nor is it a right view of it. See vol. 3 on the Minor Prophets, p. 328. — .Ed.

ftC59 All the early versions render the words, “Fallen from your head has the crown of your glory.” Our version is that of Montanus. If m be a formative, then the word, in every instance in which it occurs, means bolsters or pillows, things for the head to rest on. The word for head has commonly a masculine termination in the plural number; but here it is feminine. The most literal rendering is the following: — For bring down from your heads will he the crown of your glory.

The latter words mean “your glorious crown,” the expression being an Hebraism.

Our common version, as Blayney observes, violates grammar; for the gender of the verb dry, (which, the same author thinks, ought to be drwy, future in Hiphil) is masculine, while the noun made its nominative is feminine. — Ed.

ftC60 The ancient versions render these last words of the verse in the same way with our version and that of Calvin; but the Hebrew, as Blayney remarks, is not rightly rendered, though he unnecessarily makes hlk a verb, and according to his construction it ought to be htlk; and he does not satisfactorily account for the last word, µymwlç. The literal version I regard to be the following: — The transmigration of Judah has been entire, — The transmigration of retributions.

The past time, as in the beginning of the verse, is to be used, though it is used for the future. The word µymwlç, is never found in an adverbial sense; and indeed it is found only once elsewhere as here, in the plural number, Isaiah 34:8; but thrice in this sense in the singular number, Deuteronomy 32:35; Hosea 9:7; Micah 7:3. The Targum favors this rendering, as it retains the idea of retribution. — Ed. ftC61 May not the queen regent, or governess, mentioned with the king in Jeremiah 13:18, be here meant? Sovereigns are called shepherds, and hence “flock” and “sheep” are here mentioned. — Ed.

ftC62 The best rendering of this clause is as follows: —

For thou hast taught them to be over the leaders in chief.

It is the feminine gender that is still used; and the queen or governess may be addressed as the representative of the ruling power in the land. — Ed.

ftC63 The verb is here in the singular, and is followed by a nominative in the plural; the very same anomaly exists in Welsh. The line would be literally the same in that language, — Pam y digwyddodd i mi y pethau hyn?

But if “these things” preceded the verb, it would be in the plural. — Ed.

ftC64 The three last lines are as follows: —

For the number of thine iniquity Discovered have been thy skirts, Violently stripped off have been thy heels.

“Skirts” here stand for the parts covered by them, and “heels” for the sandals which were worn. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate mention the parts, and not skirts — “the hinder parts,” “the uncomely parts,” but they retain the word “heels.” The metonomy exists, no doubt, as to both. The Syriac has “skirts” and “ankles.” The Targum gives the meaning, “confusion” and “ignominy.” The past time is used for the future. — Ed. ftC65 The word in Hebrew is “Cushite;” and many learned men contend that the “Ethiopian” is not meant, though all the early versions so render it except the Syriac, which has “Indian.” Blayney agrees with Bochart and others in thinking that the Cushites were the inhabitants of Arabia, on the borders of the Red Sea, and he refers in proof of this to 2 Chronicles 21:16. The skin is not said here to be black, but it was no doubt of a particular color, different from that of the Jews. — Ed.

ftC66”Panther,” πάρδαλις — pardus, is the rendering of the Septuagint and the other versions. The word rendered “spots,” found only here, is translated “varieties” by the Septuagint and Vulgate, but “spots” by the Syriac and Targum. — Ed. ftC67 Neither this sentence nor the preceding is put interrogatively in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, but in this way, — “ If the Ethiopian,” etc.; “Even so can ye,” etc. The Arabic and the Targum have both sentences in an interrogative form, and more consistently with the Hebrew. Blayney renders the first part interrogatively, as in our version, but not the second, and he gives a meaning to the second part which the original will not bear, and which is not countenanced by any of the versions. The most literal version is as follows, — Can the Cushite change his skin, Or the panther his spots ? — Also ye, can ye do good, Who have learned evil?

The future tense in Hebrew ought often to be rendered potentially, and sometimes subjunctively. — Ed.

ftC68 Our version begins with “therefore,” giving this meaning to w, vau, but Gataker considers this verse as connected with the 22d, and regards the 23d as parenthetic; and then he renders the vau “and.” The literal rendering of the latter part is, “Passing to the wind of the desert,” that is, the stubble which is exposed to that violent wind. The meaning may be thus given, — And I will scatter them like the stubble That is subject to the wind of the desert.

To pass over to a thing is to become within its range, or to its possession. The sense would be given by the following version, — That is carried away by the wind of the desert.

The meaning is not what the Septuagint give, “carried by the wind to the desert;” nor what the Vulgate presents, “carried by the wind in the desert;” but what is meant is, “the wind of the desert,” or, as Calvin says, the south wind. When the stubble was exposed to that, it is carried away with the greatest violence: such would be the scattering of the Jews. — Ed. ftC69 It may be thus rendered, —

This thy lot *is* the share of thy measures From me, saith Jehovah.

The “lot” was the scattering threatened in the previous verse. “The share of thy measures,” is a Hebrew idiom for “a measured share,” or “a measured portion,” as rendered by Blayney. Some say that “measures” are mentioned, because the length and breadth were included. — Ed.

ftC70 It is better to render rça here “because” or for, according to all the versions and the Targum, than “who,” as by Blayney. — Ed. ftC71 This is no doubt the meaning. See Nahum 3:5. The verb means to strip off, so as to make bare. The threatening is, to strip off the skirts and throw them over the face; and this is the rendering of the Syriac. Probably the most literal rendering would be the following, — And I also will strip (or roll) up thy skirts over thy face.

The versions all differ, but the Septuagint convey this idea. Blayney’s uncovering “thy skirts before thee,” imparts no meaning. — Ed.

ftC72 In all the versions, as well as in the Targum, the words in the beginning of this verse, as far as “whoredom,” are read in apposition with “shame” in the preceding verse, and what follows as connected with the verb “I have seen,” in this manner, —

On hills in the field have I seen thy abominations.

Another arrangement, suggested by Gataker, is more consonant with the Hebrew style, by considering the substantive verb to be understood in the first clause, as follows, — 27. Thy adulteries and thy neighings, The scheming of thy fornication, Have been on hills in the field; I have seen thine abominations.

The word tmz, which I render “scheming,” is from a verb which means to devise, to contrive, to scheme, to plot. It is rendered “wickedness” by the Vulgate, “alienation” by the Septuagint, “fornication” by the Syriac, and “design” or counsel by the Targum. It never means “lewdness.” It seems to mean here the contrivances and devices formed by those given to fornication. Blayney considers it a verb in the second person: he connects the first line with the preceding verse, and renders thus what follows, — Thou hast devised thy whoredom upon the hills, In the fields I have seen thine abominations.

The simplicity of this order recommends it, but the former seems preferable. — Ed.

ftC73 The meaning seems to be right, but it is better to construe yrja, “after,” with these words, — Woe to thee, Jerusalem! thou wilt not be cleansed After what time wilt it yet be?

Literally it may be rendered, “After when yet ?” — Ed.

ftC74 The Septuagint express it in one,word, “ἀζροχία — the want of rain;” the Vulgate, by words of dryness, or drought: and the Syriac, by “defect of rain.” We may take “words” here in the sense of effects; so we may render the Hebrew, “concerning the effects of restraints;” and the last word is put in the plural number because there was a twofold restraint, — that of the heavens from rain, and that of the earth from producing fruit. The “effects” of these restraints are described in the following verses. — Ed.

ftC75 There is a little inadvertence here: “iron,” in this text, is applied to heaven, and “brass” to the earth, — Ed.

ftC76 The versions connect the two verbs with gates: and if we take “gates” metonymically for those who attended them, the meaning will be evident. We may then render the verse thus, — Mourned hath Judah, And her gates, they have languished; Grieved have they for the land; And the cry of Jerusalem hath ascended.

In the gates was the court of justice; there the chief men or governors assembled. The languishing belonged, not to the gates, but to those who attended them, and so the grief or lamentation. The first meaning of the verb is to be dark, to be black, but it is used to signify extreme grief or lamentation. See Psalms 35:14; 38:6; Jeremiah 8:21. As light denotes joy, so darkness is a symbol of grief or mourning. We use a similar kind of metonymy, when we say, “The court is in mourning.” The Septuagint render the verse thus, — Mourned hath Judah, And her gates have been emptied, And have become dark for the land; And the shout of Jerusalem hath ascended.

Blayney’s version of the third line is as follows, — They are in deep mourning for the land.

The Targum paraphrases the verb thus, — “Their faces are covered with blackness.” — Ed.

ftC77 The persons here mentioned are called by the Septuagint “chieftains – μεγιστᾶνες,” and “young men — touv νεωτέρους;” by the Vulqate, “the elder ones — majores,” and “the younger ones — minores;” by the Syriac, “the chiefs,” and “the common sort;” and by the Targum, “chief men,” and “subjects.” The first word is well expressed in our version, “nobles,” — the illustrious; and the most suitable word for the others is “menials;” they were the servants. — Ed.

ftC78 would render the verse thus, —

3.When their nobles sent their menials for water, They came to the reservoirs, they found no water; They brought back their vessels empty: They were ashamed and confounded, And they covered their heads.

The word I render “reservoirs” means literally arches or vaults. They were places arched over to preserve water. Parkhurst thinks that the reservoirs made by King Hezekiah are intended, 2 Chronicles 32:30. That the verb bç has the meaning of bringing back is evident from Isaiah 52:8; and this is according to the Vulgate and the Septuagint in this place. Gataker and Venema think that the shame and confusion refer to the nobles, and not to the servants. This verse speaks of Jerusalem, the last mentioned in the former verse; and what follows refers to Judea, spoken of in the former part according to the usual manner of the prophets. — Ed.

ftC79 The three foregoing verses I render as follows, —

4.On account of the ground being cracked, As there has been no rain in the land, Ashamed were the husbandmen, They covered their heads:

5. When also the hind was in the field, It brought forth young, and it was forsaken, Because there was no grass: 6. And the wild asses, they stood on the cliffs; They drew in the wind like serpents; Fail did their eyes, Because there was no herbage — Ed.

ftC80 All the versions connect “Jehovah” with the next words; and so do Veema, Gataker, and Blayney. The particle µa if, or though, is omitted by the Septuagint and the Arabic; but is retained by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum. It may be rendered verily, or truly, — Verily, our perversities, they have responded against us.

The word ˆw[ means perverse or headstrong wickedness. There is an allusion in responding to a trial. “They have stood against us,” is the Septuagint. See Job 15:6. — Ed.

ftC81 The latter part may be thus rendered, —

Jehovah! deal with us for thy name’s sake: For many have been our defections, Against thee have we sinned.

The Syriac renders fitly the first line, — O Lord, spare us on account of thy name. — Ed.

ftC82 The word µhdn, rendered “astonished,” is only found here; it is evidently a Niphal participle, and rendered, by the Septuagint “sleeping — ὑπνῶ,” — by the Vulgate, “wandering — vagus,” — by the Siyriac, “weak — imbceillis,” — by Montanus and Paginius, “astonished.” Parkhurst, after Grotius, derives it from an Arabic verb, which means to “come upon one unexpectedly,” or to overwhelm, and renders it overwhelmed, astonied. It may then be rendered, surprised. Grotius says, that it means a precipitant person, coming to the aid of one in danger, and not capable of delivering him.

As in the former instance, “the sojourner” and “the traveler” are the same, only what is said of the latter is more specific; so it seems to be here: the man, taken by surprise, is only farther described as one who is not able on that account to save. The two verses may be thus rendered — 8.The hope of Israel! his Savior in time of distress! Why art thou like a sojourner in the land? Or like a traveler turning aside to pass the night? 9.Why art thou like one taken by surprise — Like a man who is not able to save? Yet thou art in the midst of us, Jehovah; And thy name, on us is it called: Do not forsake us. — Ed. ftC83 The ˆk so, before “loved,” is not well accounted for, nor is it given in any of the versions. The previous complaint was that God was like a “traveler” in the land, who made no stay: the answer given is, “so have ye been; ye have loved to wander here and there.” It is an ironical retort. The verse may be thus rendered, — Thus saith Jehovah of this people, — “So have they loved to wander, Their feet have they not restrained.” And Jehovah has not been pleased with them; He will now remember their iniquity, And he will visit their sin. — Ed.

ftC84 As it is a participle in Hiphil, preceded by a pronoun, it ought to be rendered causatively, — But with the sword, and with famine, and with pestilence, Will I cause them to be condemned. — Ed.

ftC85 “Alas!” is commonly the meaning of this exclamation, being an expression of grief rather than of astonishment. “Ah!” is the Vulgate, — “Oh!” the Septuagint. It is rendered “Alas!” by Blayney. — Ed. ftC86 Or, “constant peace — pacem firmam.” It rather means “true or real peace,” literally, “the peace of truth.” The version of the Septuagint is “truth and peace,” — of the Vulate and Targum, “true peace,” and of the Syriac, “peace and security.” — Ed.

ftC87 I render the verse as follows, —

14. And Jehovah said to me, — Falsehood do the prophets prophesy in my name; I have not sent them, nor given them a command, Nor have I spoken to them: A vision of the fidsehood and divination, And vanity and delusion of their own heart, Do these of themselves prophesy to you.

God had not sent them, the final act; he had given them no command or commission, the preceding act; he had not spoken to them, the first act. God first speaks, then gives a commission, and afterwards sends forth his servants. The vision the false prophets had was that of the falsehood of their own heart, of the divination, of the vanity, and of the delusion of their own heart. Such seems to be the meaning given by the Septuagint and the Vulgate. It was the lying vision of their own heart, it was the divination or the presage, the vanity, and the delusion of their own heart. The word for “prophesy” in the last line is in Hitthpael; and hence “of themselves” is added.

Blayney gives a different view; his version is, — A false vision, and divination, and vanity, And the guile of their own heart, do these prophesy unto you.

He considers “a false vision” to be an imaginary revelation; “divination,” to be something discovered by that art; “vanity,” to be the oracular response of an idol; and “guile,” to be the fraudulent suggestion of their own heart.

But the simplest exposition is what I have stated: The vision, being that of their own heart, was false; it was their own divination or prognostication; it was worthless, vain, and empty; it was the effect of their own delusion. This was the character of what they prophesied. We may render the words thus, —

The false vision and the divination And the vanity and the delusion of their own heart, Do these of themselves prophesy to you. — Ed.

ftC88 These two verses are differently connected by some: the words, “these prophets,” at the end of the fifteenth verse, are joined with the “the people” in the next verse; and this construction is evidently the best, — 15. Therefore, thus saith Jehovah, — As to the prophets who prophesy in my name, (Though I have not sent them, yet they say, — The sword and the famine shall not be in this land) By the sword and by the famine shall they perish:

16. These prophets, and the people, to whom they prophesy, Shall be cast out into the streets of Jerusalem, On account of the famine and the sword; And there will be none to bury them — Neither them, nor their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters; Thus will I pour upon them their own wickedness.

The preceding connection is favored by the Septuagint and the Arabic, but the other versions do not join the “prophets” and the “people” together. “Their own wickedness” is “their own evils” in the Septuagint, — “their own evil” in the Vulgate, — and “their own wickedness” in the Syriac. If rendered “wickedness,” then it is a metonymy for the fruit or effect of wickedness; if “evil” then the meaning is, the evil due to them. — Ed.

ftC89 More consistent with the character of the tiebrew is to render the verse thus, — 17. And thou shalt say to them this word, — Pour down shall my eyes the tear Night and day, and shall not cease; For great has been the breach, Broken has been the virgin of the daughter of my people; The smiting has been very grievous.

The event, though future, is represented as having past; for he relates a vision. The “daughter” is not in apposition but in construction with “virgin.” Vitringa says, that a state, or a kingdom, is often called a virgin in the prophets. It is rendered here “kingdom” by the Targum. See Isaiah 37:22; 47:1; Jeremiah 31:21; 46:11.

“Those cities,” says Lowth, “are called virgins, which never came into a conqueror’s hands.” Jerusalem was in this sense a virgin. He says further, “The dissolution of the body politic is called a breach, in allusion to the breaking of the limbs of the human body.” The “smiting,” or the stroke, was “very grievous,” because the body politic, or the state, was shattered into pieces.” — Ed. ftC90 I take the words before “sword” and “famine” to be nouns substantive, — “the piercings of the sword,” and “the wastings of the famine,” — If I go out to the field, Then behold the piercings of the sword; And if I enter the city, Then behold the wastings of the famine. — Ed.

ftC91 Venema agrees with Calvin as to the meaning of the latter part of the verse: it is indeed the only one that comports with the context; the other explanations are quite foreign to it. Our version is according to the Septuagint and Vulgate; but it is no doubt wrong. Blayney, in some measure, following the Targum, gives the following version, — Yet both the prophet and also the priest Go trafficking about the city and take no knowledge.

Meaning, that they went about with their false predictions, like pedlars, for gain, and paid no regard to the miseries of the country. This sense suits the passage, but the other is the most obvious and natural. — Ed.

ftC92 The first verb means to reject with contempt, and the second, to reject with abhorrence, — Despising, hast thou despised Judah? Has thy soul abhorred Sion?

Had he despised Judah as a worthless thing, and had he abhorred Sion as a filthy thing? — Ed. ftC93 The proper construction of these lines, and of the preceding, is not commonly given. The “why” before “smitten” is to be understood here, — Why hast thou smitten us, and there is for us no healing? Why has there been hope for peace, and there is no good? And for the time of healing, and behold terror?

The word for “hope,” or longing, or looking for, is a participial noun, but rendered by the versions as though it were a verb in the first person plural. As “smitten” is in the past tense, so has been is to be understood before “hope.” — Ed. ftC94 There is no and in Hebrew, nor in the Septuagint, nor in the Vulgate, between “wickedness” and “iniquity;” it is found in the Syriac and the Targum. In case it be excluded, Blayney proposes to render the passage thus, “We acknowledge, O Jehovah, that we have wrought wickedly the iniquity of our fathers;” that is, as he adds, “We have practiced over again the same wickedness, of which our fathers set the example.” But a meaning is given to [çr which it never has; nor is this rendering necessary in order to convey this idea, which is probably what is intended. They confessed their wickedness, which was the iniquity of their fathers; it was the same: the latter is in apposition with the former, — We acknowledge, Jehovah, our wickedness, — The iniquity of our fathers; For we have sinned against thee.

Their wickedness, the same with the wickedness or iniquity of the fathers, was, that they sinned against God. — Ed.

ftC95 The versions differ as to the two verbs: “Cease for thy name’s sake, and destroy not,” etc., is the Septuagint and the Arabic; “Reproach us not, etc., nor dishonor,” etc., is the Vulgate; “Be not angry, etc., nor dishonor,” etc., is the Syriac; “Cast us not away, etc., nor make vile,” etc., is the Targum. Neither of these renderings is correct. The two verbs here used have a similar meaning, though they are different, with those in the 19th verse (Jeremiah 14:19); the first signifies the rejection of a thing as worthless, and the second as vile, or filthy. They may be thus rendered, — Scorn not, for thy name’s sake, Abominate not, the throne of thy glory.

The same form is adopted in what follows; two verbs are used, which have the same objective case, — Remember, break not, thy covenant with us.

Which means, Remember thy covenant, and break it not, or annul it not. Blayney renders the first two lines thus, — Spurn us not for thy name’s sake. Dishonor not the throne of thy glory.

But “us” is not in the original, nor do the versions give it, except the Vulgate; and dishonor has also been borrowed from that version, and is not the meaning of the verb. No doubt the two verbs refer to the throne. – Ed.

ftC96 It is better to regard this line as declaring that God is the giver of rain and showers, — 22. Are there any among the vanities of the nations who bring rain? And do the heavens give showers? Art thou not he who givest them, Jehova, our God? So we will look to thee, For thou makest all these.

To introduce the word “can,” borrowed from the Vulgate, into the first questions, obscures the passage. “All these” refer, as it appears, to the rain and showers. The perfect tense in Hebrew often includes the past and the present, “For thou hast made and makest all these,” etc. So Gataker regards the meaning. The Syriac has “For thou makest,” etc. Calvin as far as I can find, stands alone in the sense he attaches to these words. If we take the verb strictly in the past tense, the meaning commonly given is, that God made the heavens, rain, and showers, and that, as he has made them, they are still under his control. But the other meaning is more suitable to the passage, — that God makes the rain and the showers. – Ed.

ftC97 Noticed here may be an identity of idiom in Hebrew and Welsh: The verb “stand” is in the singular number, though followed by two nominative cases. So it is in Welsh: and were the nominative cases before it, the verb would be in the plural number. Pe savai Moses a Samuel o’m blaen.

This is the Hebrew, word for word. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate retain the singular number of the verb; but they are not grammatically correct. – Ed.

ftC98 Venema, referring to this notion of the Papists, says, “The words are not that they stood, but that if they stood; he speaks not of them as dead, but as living, intimating, that if they were alive and interceded for the people, they would not succeed in delivering them.” We shall add an observation of Scott –

“This passage fully proves that departed saints do not intercede for us; for it evidently implies that Moses and Samuel did not then stand before the Lord in behalf of Israel or of any in Israel.” – Ed.

ftC99 The verb means more properly to send; he was to send them from God’s presence by his doctrine, intimating that God disowned and rejected them: and they were to go forth or to go out, that is, from his presence. The allusion is to the sending away a divorced woman, — Send them from my presence, and let them go forth:

2. And it shall be, when they say to thee, “Where shall we go forth?” that thou shalt say to them – Thus saith Jehova, — “Those for death, to death; And those for the sword, to the sword; And those for the famine, to the famine; And those for captivity, to captivity.”

It is observed by Venema and Blaney, that “death” was that by pestilence. See Jeremiah 14:12, Jeremiah 18:21. Some were destined for death by pestilence, to this they were to go forth: and so as to the other evils.

The Rabbins say that there are gradations in the evils mentioned here: death by pestilence is the less grievous than the sword; the sword thatn the famine; the famine than captivity; the last being more grievous than all the other evils. See 2 Samuel 24:13, 14; Lamentations 4:9; and Leviticus 26:39. The “sword”

being the principal weapon, is put here for any violent death inflicted by enemies. – Ed.

ftC100 Our version ascribes tearing to dogs, but the verb means to draw or drag about, as rendered by Calvin. It is more descriptive of what is done by dogs, and conveys a more horrid idea, and intended doubtless to terrify the Jews. Blayney renders it “to drag about,” and no doubt correctly. Our version is the Vulgate: the Syriac is to draw or drag about. – Ed.

ftC101 So Gataker, “I will set over them, etc., as in Leviticus 26:16; a borrowed speech from officers set over people.” The Syriac expresses the idea, “I will punish them with four scourges.” Blayney’s version is – And I will commission against them four species.

But the best rendering is that of Calvin, which is also adopted by Venema. I give the following version – And I set over them four kinds, saith Jehovah, — The sword to kill, and dogs to drag about, And the bird of heaven and the beast of the earth To devour, and to pull to pieces.

The “devouring” refers to “the beast of the earth,” and the “pulling to pieces” to the bird of heaven, according to the usual style of the Prophets, the order being reversed. – Ed.

ftC102 Blayney rightly observes that the word rendered “to be removed,” in our version, has no such meaning. The verb means to move, to agitate, to disquiet, but not to move from one place to another. The noun as found here is rendered “vexation” in Isaiah 28:19, and “trouble” in 2 Chronicles 29:8. The idea of removing is not given in any of the versions, nor in the Targum. It is used in two other places by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 24:9; Jeremiah 29:18). In both places “vexation, trouble, or disquietude,” would be the best rendering. This sentence may be thus translated – And I will render them a vexation to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Literally it is, “I will give them for a vexation,” etc. And so they became, they were a trouble and a disquietudewherever they were; and hence they became, as it is said in Jeremiah 29:18, a curse, a hissing, and a reproach among all nations.

Venema gives this rendering – And I will give them for a shaking to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Which he understands to mean, that they would be given to be shaken, agitated, and disquieted in all the kingdoms of the earth.

Blayney’s version is –

And I will give them up to vexation in all kingdoms of the earth. But this is what the original will hardly bear; the preposition before “kingdoms” is not in, but to. Ed.

ftC103 There is a general agreement as to the two first clauses of this verse, but not as to the last. The Syriac and the Targum give the meaning advocated by Calvin, with whom Gataker, Grotius, and Blayney agree. But the Septuagint and the Vulgate seem to take the other view, that to “pray for peace” is whatn is meant; and this has been adopted by Montanus, Castalio, and Venema. But the former is no doubt substantially the right view, though the phrase used, “to salute,” or “to enquire of one’s welfare,” or “how thou doest,” is too general. In 1 Samuel 25:5 (see also 1 Samuel 10:4) we have the same form of words too loosely rendered, “greet him in my name,” in our version. The following verse shews that the rendering ought to be, “wish (or bid) him peace in my name.” Literally it is, “Ask for him in my name for peace.” So here the literal rendering is, — Or who will turn aside to ask for peace for thee?

or, in our language, “to bid thee peace.”

The word “turn aside” seems clearly to favor this meaning. In the other case its import does not appear. The intimation is, that no one would deem it worth his while to turn out of his way to express a good wish in behalf of Jerusalem. – Ed.

ftC104 The verse may be thus rendered, —

6. Thou hast broken loose from me, saith Jehovah; Backward dost thou walk; But I will stretch my hand over thee and destroy thee; I have become wearied with repenting.

The verb here used, commonly rendered “forsake,” means to loose oneself from restraints: the Jews were bound, as it were, to God by covenant; they broke loose from this bond, they freed themselves from this tie, and went back to idolatry. “Walk,” though future, is to be taken here as present. The last line in the Septaugint is as follows – “I will no longer release them;” and in the Syriac, “I will no longer spare them.” The verb µjnh seems to have been taken as coming from jn with an µ affixed, and put here in Hiphil – “I m wearied with causing them to rest,” or, “with forbearing,” as rendered by Blayney. But our version, which is that of Calvin, seems preferable, and is adopted by Piscator, Grotius, and Venema. The last indeed proposes the joining of this line with the next verse, which Blayney has adopted, and in that case he prefers the reading of the Septuagint and Syriac. Then the passage would be, — I am wearied with forbearing them, or, with suffering them to rest; 7. And I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land.

He truly says that there is a kind of contrast between the suffering of them to rest quietly, and the fanning of them in the gates of land for the purpose of dispersing them. – Ed.

ftC105 Though Calvin has many on his side in his view as to “the gates,” yet the most suitable meaning is that presented in our version. God is represented as a fanner, standing in “the gates of the land,” that is, in the gates of the cities of the land, and thence fanning or scattering the inhabitants to all parts of the world. – Ed.

ftC106 This rendering is the Targum; “the mother (and) the youths,” is the Septuagint; “the mother of a youth,” the Vulgate; “both mother and youths,” the Syriac; “the mother and the youths,” the Arabic, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, and Gataker take the “mother” for the chief city, the metropolis, and consider the “youth,” or “the chosen one,” to be the “waster,” signifying Nebuchadnezzar, — “And I will bring to them, against the mother-city, a chosen one, a waster at mid-day.” So Blayney substantially, only he renders the verb in the past tense. – Ed.

ftC107 Trembling and haste, (spoudhn,)” is the version of the Septuagint; “tumult and trembling,” of the Syriac; “terror and trembling,” of the Arabic; the Vulgate retains only the word “terror.” Various have been the explanations of the word ry[, which Calvin renders “tumult,” consistently with the general tenor of the ancient versions. Gataker renders it “watcher;” Blayney, “enemy;” and others “city;” but the most suitable to the passage is “tumult,” or commotion. – Ed.

ftC108 The whole passage, including the 7th, 8th, and 9th verses (Jeremiah 15:7-9) presents difficulties as to the time intended. The verbs, from the middle of the 7th to the last clause in verse the 9th, are all in the past tense, and are so given in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and the Targum; but in the Syriac in the future tense. Our version is not uniform. It is better to give the tenses as they are, for the reference

seems to be to God’s past judgments; and at the end of the 9th verse, God speaks of what he would do, — 7. And I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land. I have bereaved, I have destroyed my people; From their ways have they not turned:

8. Increased to me have their (people) widows More than the sand of the sea; I brought on them, on the mother of they youth, A disaster at mid-day; I caused to come upon her suddenly Tumult and terrors:

9. Languish did she who gave birth to seven, Pant for breath did her soul, Set did her sun during the day time, Ashamed has she been and confounded: And the remainder of them to the sword will I give, In the presence of their enemies, saith Jehova.

As he speaks of bereavement, of widows, and of giving birth to seven, it seems evident, that “the mother of the youths,” or of young men. Whether mother is to be taken here metaphorically for Jerusalem, is another question; but I think otherwise. The loss of mothers as to their children is what is spoken of. And from having mentioned the case of mothers in their bereavement, the Prophet in the next verse refers to his own mother, and to his own unhappy condition, — Ed.

ftC109 Not one of the versions, except the Vulgate, mentions “usury,” and Parkhurst says that the verb does not include the idea. Then the rendering ought to be, I have not lent, nor have they lent to me.

There had been no money transactions between them, which are commonly the causes of disputes and contentions. – Ed.

ftC110 Literally it is –

The whole of it (the land) is reviling (or cursing) me.

As there is something anomalous in the form of the participle, Blayney proposes an emendation, and thinks the right reading to be wnwllq µhlk, “All of them curse me.” The versions and the Targum favor this reading, which is also adopted by the commonly too venturous

Houbigant, and approved by Horsley, one equally venturous and bold. By dropping the w, as in many copies, the anomoly is removed. – Ed.

ftC111 This verse, and the three which follow, have caused considerable variety of opinion. Some, like Calvin, Grotius, Henry, and Scott, apply this to the Prophet and the rest to the people; but others, as Blayney, consider the whole as addressed to the people. But what appears the most probable is, that the Prophet is addressed, and in the 11th and 12th (Jeremiah 15:11-12) verses personally, and then as identified with the people in verses the 13th and 14th (Jeremiah 15:13-14). There is no change of person, and this makes it difficult to regard two parties as addressed.

This verse, the 11th, is in the past tense and not in the future, and may be thus rendered, — Jehovah said, — Has not thy ministry been for good? Have I not interposed for thee in the time of evil, And in the time of distress, with the enemy?

There are various readings for the word I render “ministry,” which Parkhurst thinks comes from trç, to serve. Very few readings favor the word which means a remnant,” and of the versions the Vulgate alone. The reading mostly countenanced (19 MSS.) is ˚ytwrç, derived from hrç, to loose, or to let go, “Have I not happily let thee go?” In this case bwfl must be rendered adverbially, happily, or fully. Blayney’s version is, — Have I not brought thee off advantageously?

But the most natural meaning is what Parkhurst proposes, which is approved by Horsley, only he renders the sentence in the past tense, “Is not thy ministry for good?” while the only verb in the verse is in the past tense, and so ought this clause to be. – Ed.

ftC112 If we consider what is said to the Prophet in Jeremiah 1:18, and in the twentieth verse of this chapter (Jeremiah 15:20), we shall see the meaning of this verse: he was no doubt the iron and the brass: and the opinion of Blayney is probable, that the “enemy” in the previous verse (which is a poetical singular for the plural enemies) is the nominative case to the verb “break.” God, having before refered to what he had done for the Prophet, now says, — Can he break the iron, The iron from the north and the brass?

God had made him an “iron pillar, and a wall of brass:” and he asks now, was it possible for his enemies to destroy him whom God had thus made. The hardest iron came from the north of Judea. The future tense is to be read here potentially. – Ed.

ftC113 Est aliquid quo tendis et in quod dirigis arcum. – Per. Sat. iii. 60. ftC114 This verse and the following are said by Horsley to be “very obscure:” and there seems to be no way of understanding them, except we regard the Prophet as classed with the people; and the conclusion of verse fourteenth (Jeremiah 15:14) favors the idea, “On you, µkyl[, it shall burn.” The Prophet himself did not wholly escape the evils which came on the people. Then this verse and the following I would render thus, — 13. Thy wealth and thy treasures for spoil will I give, Not for a price, but for all thy sins, Even in all thy borders;

14. And I will make thine enemies to pass To a land thou knowest not; For a fire has been kindled in my wrath, On you it shall burn.

The “enemy” before is now “enemies.” The verb “make to pass,” has various readings, owing evidently to the similarity of two letters. The versions, except the Vulgate, have “I will make thee to serve thine enemies;” but the received text is the most suitable to the passage. Blayney’s rendering is, — I will cause them to pass with thine enemies –

By “them” he understands “thy wealth and thy treasures;” but this sort of construction can hardly be admitted; and it seems incrongruous. – Ed.

ftC115 There are distinctions here made not allowed by the passage. To pray for vengeance on enemies was in accordance with the covenant made with Abraham, “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee,” Genesis 12:3. See also Genesis 27:29; Numbers 24:9. As they were the enemies of God’s servant for delivering his word, they were the enemies of God himself; and they had already been wholly repudiated by God, and given up to judgment. – Ed.

ftC116 The versions favor another view. The Septuagint omit the verb, and connect “long-suffering” with the previous clause, “Defend me from me persecutors, not in thy long-suffering;” that is, without delay, as the Targum literally expresses it. The Vulgate is, “Do not in thy patience take me;” the Syriac, “Do not according to thy long-suffering bring me out;” the Arabic, “Without delay;” it omits the verb, and connects the words with the former sentence like the Septuagint. The words may be thus literally rendered, — Not in (or, according to) thy long-suffering receive me;

that is, under they care and protection: he deprecated delay. This is the purport of all the versions, and also of the Targum.

Venema divides the clause, — Let there be no lengthening of thy wrath; receive me; Know that for thee I have borne reproach.

Blayney’s version is hardly intelligible, — Within the length of thine anger comprehend me not.

The meaning of which he says is, “Lengthen not thy resentment as to comprehend me within its limits.”

Probably the rendering of Cocceius is the best, — Do not through thy long-suffering take me away;

that is, “Do not bear long with my persecutors, and thus allow them to destroy me.”

The verb here used seems simply to take; but it signifies sometimes to take away, and sometimes to take into favor, to take under protection. The most intelligent rendering seems to be as follows: — 15. Thou knowest, Jehova; Remember me, and visit me, And take vengeance for me on my persecutors; Through thy long-suffering towards them take me not away; Know that I have for thee borne reproach.

“Take me not away” means “Suffer me not to be taken away.” He feared for his life if the vengeance he denounced on the people was not soon executed. See Jeremiah 15:18. – Ed.

ftC117 The received text has “thy words.” Calvin has followed the Keri and the ancient versions, as well as our version; but “words” being mentioned in the previous line, the same thing being meant. It is more proper to use “words” here, — And thy words were to me for exultation, And (or, even) for the joy of my heart.

It is no objection that the verb, which precedes in Hebrew the noun “words,” is in the singular number; it is the idiom of the language, which is exactly the same in Welsh. “Exultation” is the visible effect; “the joy of the heart” is the inward feeling, the hidden cause. It is common in Scripture to mention the effect first, and to go back to the cause. – Ed.

ftC118 The connection of this clasue is variously understood. It cannot be considered as a reason for the previous clasue. Gataker, Grotius, and others render yk, that, — “that thy name was called upon me,” regarding it as the cause of his joy, that he was called God’s prophet. Venema renders it when, which seems more suitable. But on viewing the whole passage, we may justly consider this as a reason for the prayer he offers in the previous verse, so that the latter part of that and the beginning of this verse are parenthetic. I would give this version, — 15. Thou knowest, Jehonah; Remember me and visit me, And take vengeance for me on my persecutors; Through thy long suffering towards them take me not away; (Know that I have been for thee borne reproach;

16. Found have been thy words and I did eat them; And thy words were to me for exultation, Even for the joy of my heart;) Because called on my has been thy name, Jehovah thou God of hosts. – Ed.

ftC119 Gataker, and after him Blayney, consider the word, rendered “mockers” by Calvin and our version, as meaning “those who make merry;” and the word is so rendered in our version in Jeremiah 30:19, and Jeremiah 31:4. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the

Targum, favor this rendering; the Syriac and the Arabic, have “mockers.” Then the next line is, — Nor did I exult on account of thy hand.

So all the versions connect the words. The “hand” means, as Blayney says, the impulse of the prophetic spirit. See 1 Kings 18:46; Ezekiel 1:3. He did not inconsiderately rejoice on account of his office, because he was made a prophet. – Ed.

ftC120 “Because all the prophecies thou hast given me are minatory.” – Grotius.

The meaning may be, “Thou hast filled me with indignant messages.” – Ed.

ftC121 It is better to retain throughout the figurative language, —

Why has my sore become perpetual, And my stroke incurable, refusing to be healed?

He mentions “sore” first, the effect; then the “stroke” which casued it. He refers doubtless to the state of his mind: therefor “the sore” and “the stroke” were the sorrow and the grief which he experienced. – Ed.

ftC122 The Septuagint and the Vulgate strangely refer to this stroke or the wound in the previous clause, “It has become like the deception of inconstant water:” but the gender of the infinitive added to the verb will not admit of this rendering. It is literally as follows, — Becoming thou hast become like a deceiveer, Like waters which are not constant.

The word kzka is not substantive, but an adjective, formed like rzka, violent. The quotation from Chardin, made by Blayney, respecting an illusion in the deserts of Arabia, occasioned by the sun’s rays on the sand, by which a vast lake appears, is here out of place, as unfaithful or inconstant waters, not unreal, is what is expressed. Calvin’s view is no doubt correct. – Ed.

ftC123 It is extraordinary what shades of difference appear in the expositions of this verse: but a literal rendering would, I conceive, dissipate them, —

19. Therefore thus said Jehovah, — If thou returnest and I restore thee, Before me shalt thou stand; And if thou bringest forth the precious from the worthless, As my mouth shalt thou be; Return shall they to thee, But thou wilt not return to them.

The return at the beginning of the verse was from the state of mind in which he was, to an entire submission to God. The future is here used in the sense of the present. The “Precious” was the godly, and the “worthless” the ungodly. The three last lines are promises. See Jeremiah 42:2.

Houbigant’s explanation of the fourth line is too refined, though approved by Horsley. He considers that there is an allusion to Judges 14:14. Jeremiah himself was “the worthless” or the mean, being so regarded by the Jews, and “the precious” was the prophetic word. And Horsley renders the line thus, — And if thou wilt bring forth the precious from the mean.

He also approves of Blayney’s version of the second line, and considers it as expressive of a prompt execution of what is commanded, — If thou wilt turn as I shall turn thee.

But the first verb is in Kal, and the second in Hiphil, and therefore cannot be rendered the same. – Ed.

ftC124 All the ancient versions are in favor of the common reading, and there are no MSS. favorable to the proposed emendation. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum, render it “strong;” and the Arabic “fortified.” “A strong wall of brass,” is the version of Blayney. – Ed.

ftC125 The words here used are remarkably precise and significant. I render the verse thus, — 20. And I will make thee to this people A wall of brass, fortified; And they will fight against thee, But they shall not prevail over thee; For with thee will I be, To save thee and to rescue thee, Saith Jehovah.

To “save” was to preserve him from the hands of his enemies; but if he fell into their hands, he would rescue him. And this latter idea is more fully expressed in the following verse, — Yea, I will rescue thee from the hand of the malignant, And free thee from the grasp of the terrible. – Ed.

ftC126 More literally, “By the deaths of wastings.” The reference is to the famine and also to the sword. Calvin has followed the Vulgate; “by a pestilential death” is the Septuagint by the death of those who languish by famine” the Syriac; and “by a dreadful death” the Arabic. The “mortal diseases” of Blayney is not proper, for they were not “diseases” but wastings or devastations by the famine and the sword, as stated afterwards. — Ed. ftC127 I would render the fourth verse thus, —

By deaths of wastings shall they die; They shall not be lamented, nor buried; As dung on the face of the ground shall they be: Yea, by the sword and by the famine shall they be consumed, And their carcase shall be for meat To the bird of heaven and to the beast of the earth.

The latter part is a fuller explanation of what was to take place. “As dung,” so the Syriac; they were scattered like dung. They were to be cast here and there, to be devoured by rapacious birds and beasts. — Ed.

ftC128 The word is of a general import, to cry aloud or to shout, either for grief or for joy: it is here for grief, and in Amos 6:7, for joy. The literal rendering here is, “Enter not the house of shouting.” The version of the Septuagint is wide of the mark, “Enter not into their bacchanalian assembly, (θίασον.)” The Syriac omits the word, and the Vulgate and Targum have “feast.” — Ed. ftC129 The verb means to move, or to nod, either in contempt or in sympathy. The latter is the meaning here: hence to condole is the sense. He was not to go for the purpose of lamenting the dead, or of condoling with the living. To “mourn” is the Septuagint, a word of a similar meaning with the preceding; more correct is to “console,” as given by the Vulqate and the Targum. — Ed. ftC130 These words are omitted by the Septuagint , but given by the other versions, and are left out in no copies. The “and” before “kindness” is found in two MSS., and in the Syriac, but not in the Vulgate: it seems necessary. The passage I thus render, — For withdrawn have I my peace From this people, saith Jehovah, My mercy also and my compassions.

There is here a reason given for the preceding prohibitions: the Prophet was to shew no favor, no kindness to the people, and no sympathy with them: for God had withdrawn from them his “peace,” which means here his favor, and also his mercy or his benignity, as some render the word, and his compassions. — Ed. ftC131 The first clause of the verse, as well as the last of the preceding, is omitted in the Septuagint. , but retained in the Vulgate, Syriac, and the.Targum. The verbs in the next clause ought to be rendered as transitives, — They shall not bury them nor lament for them.

Then the two concluding verbs are to he rendered as impersonals, — And there shall be no cutting nor making bald for them.

The Welsh is a literal version of the Hebrew, — Ac nid ymdorrir ac nid ymfoelir drostynt.

Nothing can be much more literal. The first verb is in Hithpael, and so the Welsh is; for like Hebrew it has a reciprocal form for its verbs. The last verb is also in Welsh in this form; but it needs not be so, for it might be, ac ni foelir. — Ed. ftC132 Calvin, having in his version explained the beginning of this verse, passes it by here. His rendering is, “And they shall not beat their hands together for them, to console any one for the dead.” He omits one word, rendered, “in mourning” in our version. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Arabic and the Targum give another meaning. They must have read µjl “bread,” instead of µhl “for them.” The difference is so small that we are inclined to think it the true readIng, though there be but two MSS. in its favor. The passage itself seems to require this reading, — the verb which precedes it, and the correspondence between the former and latter part of the verse — bread and drink. The verse then would read thus, — 7. And they shall not divide bread to the mourner, To console him for the dead: Nor shall they give them to drink the cup of consolations, Each one for his father and for his mother.

Blayney quotes Jerome, who says, “It was usual to carry provisions to mourners, and to make an entertainment, which sort of feasts the Greeks call perideipna, and the Latin parentalia.” — Ed. ftC133 Rather, “The voice of exultation and the voice of joy;” the most manifest display first — exultation; and then the most hidden feeling — joy. — Ed. ftC134 The division of these verses, the 11th and the 12th (Jeremiah 16:11-12), seems incorrect. Were the latter part of the 11th connected with the 12th, the repetition which now appears would not be perceived. I render the verses thus — 11. Then say to them, Because your fathers forsook me, saith Jehovah, And walked after foreign gods, And served them and bowed down to them: Yea, me they forsook and my law kept not,

12. And ye have become evil by doing worse than your fathers; For lo, ye are walking, every man, After the resolutions of his own evil heart, So as not to hearken to me.

In the first part their fathers’ conduct is set forth; in the second their fathers’ conduct and their own. And their “worse” conduct was in not hearkening to the voice of God by his Prophets. — Ed.

ftC135 The Targum and the versions, except the Syriac, apply this clause to their enemies, “who will not shew you favor,” or mercy; and no doubt this reads better; and the verb in that case would be wnty but there is no MS. in its favor. The relative may be regarded in the same way as at the second verse of the first chapter, (To whom the word, etc.,) “To whom I will not shew favor.” This kind of idiom evidently exists in Hebrew. However the sense is the same as given in the ancient versions, only according to the Hebrew reading the original cause of the favor is expressly mentioned. The denial of favor proceeded from

God’s providence, though it was through the instrumentality of their enemies. — Ed.

ftC136 No particular notice is taken of ˆkl rendered “therefore,” at the beginning of the verse. Gataker renders it “notwithstanding;” Lowth, “nevertheless,” and Blayney, “after this.” What suits the passage best is “nevertheless.” The verse appears to be parenthetic, introduced for the purpose of keeping the people from despair under their sufferings. — Ed. ftC137 The Septuagint omit this word, and give this rendering, “And I will recompense their twofold iniquities,” etc., so does the Vulgate, only it retains this word, and renders it “first.” But the Hebrew will not admit the connection of “two-fold” with “iniquities.”

Venema gives the best exposition of this passage, from Jeremiah 16:14 to the end. he considers it a prophecy of the restoration of the people from Babylon. The “fishers” and “the hunters,” in Jeremiah 16:16, he regards as the indibviduals employed by

God to gather them from the countries to which they had been dispersed, suych as Zerubbabel, Joshuah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. He connects this verse more especially with the latter part of Jeremiah 16:17. Having stated that their ways would not be hid from God in their dispersion, the Prophet refers to their previous iniquity as having not been hid from them, and then says in God’s name, “And I will first recompense doubly their iniquity,” etc., that is before I restore them. These two verses may be thus rendered, the first line being connected with the previous verse, — 17. For mine eyes shall be on all their ways. Concealed have they not been from me, Nor hid has been their iniquity from my eyes;

18. And I will first doubly recompense Their iniquity and their sin, Because they have polluted my land With the vileness of their detestable things, And with their abominations have fined mine inheritance.

As the previous verse is in the future tense, so the first line in Jeremiah 16:17. The “detestable things” were their idols. The version of the Septuagint is, “with the dead bodies (θνησιμαίοις) of their abominations;” of the Vulgate, “with the carrions (morticinis) of their idols;” and of the Syriac, “with the sacrifices of their idols.” Blayney’s rendering is, “by the vileness of their odious practices.” The word “carcases” is derived from the Targum. Idolatrous practices are evidently the things referred to. — Ed.

ftC138 Though the word rendered here “Gentiles” may be often so translated, yet it does not necessarily mean the heathens. It signifies a people associated together; and it may mean here the Jewish people in their dispersion, formed into companies or tribes, as Grotius thinks; and a due consideration of the context will lead us to this opinion. They are spoken of in Jeremiah 16:15 as “brought from all the lands” whither God had driven them; and as the idolatry of their fathers is continually mentioned in connection with their own, the confession in this verse seems appropriate to them; and the last verse, Jeremiah 16:21, clearly refers to the people of Israel. There is nothing in the whole passage (except it be this clause) that has any reference to the conversion of the heathens. I am aware that commentators take the same view of this clause with Calvin, yet I fully believe that the “nations” here were the Jews, scattered here and there, as distinct portions of the community, in various parts of the heathen world. The prophet, after having received an assurance of a restoration, makes a thankful acknowledgment to God, and tells us what would be the confession of the returned exiles, which includes the next verse. Then God assures him in the last verse, that such would be the effect of exile as to make them ever afterwards to acknowledge his power and his majesty, which has been remarkably fulfilled; for the Jews have never been guilty — of idolatry since their return from Babylon. — Ed. ftC139 Calvin in this instance follows the Syriac version, which is different from all the other ancient versions, and also the Targum. Blayney gives the same meaning with Calvin, whiich Horsley wholly disapproves, and which the Hebrew can hardly admit. The literal rendering is, — Shall man make for himself gods? But they are no gods.

As the future may often be rendered potentially, the better version would be this, — Can man make for himself gods When they are no gods?

That is, can he make gods of those who are not gods? This is, in my view, a continuation of the confession in the previous verse, which I render as follows, — “Truly, falsehood have our fathers inherited — vanity, And they had nothing that profited: Can man make for himself gods, When they are no gods?”

“Falsehood” was false religion, the character of which was “vanity,” an empty and useless thing: and this is more fully asserted in the next line, which is literally, “And nothing in them,” or with them, i.e., the fathers, “that was profitable.” — Ed. ftC140 As the captivity and the restoration of the people are expressly referred to in the previous verses, it seems necessary to connect here the display of God’s power with both these events. The restoration was as remarkable an instance of divine interposition as the captivity, if not more so. And the future effect on the people’s mind, their preservation from idolatry, is to be ascribed to the power manifested in their restoration as well as in their captivity. “Therefore,” at the beginning of the verse, seems to be an inference from what has been said of the captivity and the restoration; and this accounts for the repetition of making known to them his power: God first made known his power in driving them to captivity, and, secondly, in restoring them, — Therefore, behold I make known to them, at this time, And I will make known to them My hand and my power; And they shall know that my name is Jehovah.

The Septuagint is as follows, — Therefore, behold I will manifest to them at this time my hand, And I will make known to them my power; And they shall know that my name is the Lord.

To remove the word “hand” to the first line has no MS. in its favor; but it shews that they thought that the two verbs had a similar objective case, and the conjunction “and” is supplied before the second verb, as it is also in the Syriac and Arabic.

It is probable that by the “hand” is meant the infliction of punishment, and is rendered “vengeance” in the Targum; and that by “power” or strength is intended what God manifested in the restoration of the people. The combined influence of both was to make them to know that God was really Jehovah, the only supreme, ever the same, true and faithful, without any change. How remarkably has this prophecy been accom plished! The Jews have ever since acknowledged Jehovah as the only true God. — Ed. ftD1 The word rendered “groves,” means also idols. See 2 Kings 23:6, where “grove” in our version must mean an idol. What follows here, “near the green tree,” shews clearly that “idols,” or images, are the things meant; and such is the version given by Venema and Horsley. — Ed. ftD2 The whole of this passage, from the first to the end of the fourth verse, is wanting in the Septuagint and Arabic, but is found in the other versions and the Targum. The many emendations of Houbigant and Horsley are quite unwarrantable; the first makes his mostly from the Syriac; and the second from various readings, and those of no value, except in one or two instances, as “their” instead of “your altars” in the first verse, countenanced by very many MSS.; the other nine emendations have, for the most part, nothing of any weight in their favor. The transpositions of Houbigant are quite irreconcilable with any thing like errors incidentally committed by scribes. The same objection does not lie against the emendations of Horsley; but that ten mistakes should occur in the space of four verses is not credible; nor are most of the emendations at all necessary.

The received text is no doubt materially correct, there being no different readings of any weight or suitable, except the one noticed above. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and Targum, differ from one another as much as they do from the Hebrew. They indeed all agree materially as to the beginning of the third verse, in regarding “the mountain” and “the field” as places where the people worshipped idols; and the Vulgate and the Syriac connect the words with the former verse; and this, I believe, is what ought to be done. Then the passage will read as follows: —

1. The sin of Judah is written by a pen of iron, By the point of adamant it is graven, On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of their altars:

2. As a memorial to their children Are their altars and their idols, Near the green tree, on the high hills, On the mountains, in the field. —

3. Thy substance, all thy treasures For a plunder will I give, Thy high places also for sin in all thy borders;

4. And thou shalt be removed, even for thyself, From thine inheritance which I gave thee; And I will make thee to serve thine enemies In a land which thou knowest not; For a fire have ye kindled in mine anger, Perpetually shall it burn.

According to the frequent manner of the prophets, the last line in the first verse is connected with the first line, and the third with the second. The sin of Judah was “written” on “the horns of the altars;” it was “graven” on “the tablet of their heart.” The services at the altars were visible; the impressions within were seen only by God. They left their altars and their idols to their children. The genitive case in Hebrew may often be rendered by a dative, as here, “A memorial to their children.” All emendations as to the beginning of the third verse are unsatisfactory: it will bear the rendering above; “for thyself,” that is, for thine own fault. — Ed. ftD3 Like the Hebrew, there is no need of the verb is, or be, after “cursed,” inWelsh: the sentence is more emphatieal without it. In that language, too, the future tense of “trust” is understood as the present, — Melldigedig y gwr yr hwn a hydero mewn dyn.

It is a denunciation, not an imprecation; therefore “be,”, introduced into the English version, is not proper. — Ed.

ftD4 It is rendered “a wild tamarisk — ἀγριομυρίκη,” by the Septuagint; “a tamarisk,” by the Vulgate and the Targum; and “a log,” or “a trunk,” by the Syriac. Gataker considers that no particular tree is meant, but that it means a “solitary” or a “barren” tree, agreeably, in his view, with what is contrasted with it in the 8th verse. Blayney renders it, “a blasted tree.” of which Horsley approves. The word is a reduplicate of a verb, which means to be bare; and the wild tamarisk may suitably be thus designated, as it bears a very few leaves. The idea of being “blasted” is foreign to the word.

But Venema contends that the reference is not to any tree, but to a person dwelling in solitude; and he renders the passage thus, — And he shall be like the naked in solitude, Nor shall he see when good cometh; And is like him who inhabits parched spots in the desert, A land of salt and not inhabited.

The words “see” and “inhabit,” appear doubtless more suitable when the passage is thus rendered; yet what is said of the “tree” in verse 8 is equally metaphorical. What seems most agreeable to the whole context is such a rendering as follows: — And he shall be like a bare tree in the desert, Which perceives not when good cometh; For it inhabits parched spots in the wilderness, The land of salt and not inhabited.

It is sometimes the case that it is proper in our language to render the copulative w by “which;” not that it properly means that, but the meaning cannot be otherwise seen. The connection here is with the “bare” tree; it is bare, and perceives or knows not widen good comes, for it inhabits parched places. This seems to be the meaning. — Ed. ftD5 The verbs here are all futures, but ought to be rendered in our language, as they are in Syriac, in the present tense, — And he shall be like a tree which is planted by waters, And nigh the stream sends forth its roots, Which perceives not when heat comes; And its leaf is flourishing, And in the year of drought it suffers not, And never ceases from bringing forth fruit.

The verb gad, when applied to the mind, means agitation, commotion, trouble, disturbance: but here, as applied to a tree, it must mean a withering effect, a disturbance as to the process of growing. Joined with a negative, it may therefore be rendered, “it suffers not,” or, it withers not, according to the Targum, which applies it to the leaf, but not correctly. “It will not fear” is the rendering of the Septuagint; of the Vulgate, “it will not be careful,” as in our version; and of Blayney,

“it is without concern.” None of these give the secondary meaning of the verb, which it evidently has here. — Ed.

ftD6 The early versions and the Targum are neither consistent nor satisfactory as to the beginning of this verse: “Deep is the heart above all things, and it is man,” Septuagint; “Depraved is the heart of all, and inscrutable,” Fulgate; “Hard in heart is man above all things,” Syriac; “The heart, deeper than anything, is human,” Arabic; “Deceitful is the heart above all things, and it is strong.” Targum. Correct, no doubt, is the first clause in the Targum, but not the last. Critics agree as to the first word, “deceitful,” but not as to the word rendered in our version “desperately wicked.” It occurs in all nine times, and four times in other parts of Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 15:18; Jeremiah 17:16; Jeremiah 30:12, 15) and it is rendered “incurable,” except in Jeremiah 17:16. It means to be so bad as to be past endurance or past remedy. Blayney renders it here, “past all hope;” and Horsely, “incurable,” which is perhaps the best word, — Deceitful the heart above every thing, And incurable it is, who can know it?

The meaning is, that it is incurably deceitful; hence the question,” Who can know it?” — Ed.

ftD7 The beginning of this verse is an answer to the previous question,

“Who can know it?” The best rendering would be this, — I Jehovah, — who search the heart and try the reins, And that in order to give to every man According to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. — Ed.

ftD8 It is evident from 1 Samuel 26:20, that the partridge is meant;

and it appears from a quotation which Parkhurst makes from Buffon, under the word arq, that the red partridge is referred to here; for the male of the red kind in eastern countries sits on eggs as well as the female. This explains what appears intricate in this passage; for the word is masculine, and the verbs are in the same gender. What is here stated respecting the partridge is what often happens, the nest being often disturbed; and then the eggs become useless. It is a case of this kind that is here referred to, —

A partridge sitting and not hatching, Is he who gets wealth, and not by right; In the midst of his day shall he leave it, And at his end shall be a fool.

The reason why the partridge sits and hatches not, is intimated in the second clause, when it is said that the getter of wealth leaves it in the midst of his day: various things often compel the partridge to leave its eggs, such as dogs, cattle, etc.: and then nothing is brought forth. So the rich man is constrained to quit his wealth before he derives any benefit from it. This seems to be the comparison. — Ed. ftD8A There are many MSS. and the marginal reading, in favor of “days” for “day:” but the latter is more poetical: man’s day is his life. “A fool,” — so the versions, and more suitable here than any other word: he will then appear to all to have acted foolishly and not wisely; and he will find himself to have so acted, though he thought himself before to be very wise.

Some consider the word to be a proper name, Nabal, whose history we have in 1 Samuel 25:10-39; and they render the line thus, — And at his end shall be a Nabal. — Ed. ftD9 If we connect “from the beginning” with the following words, and not with “high,” which seems to give a better meaning, we shall get rid of the Rabbinical figment; and it seems also right to join with this verse the first words in the next, as it has been done by the Septuagint, — A throne of glory on high, Is from the beginning the place of our sanctuary, — The hope of Israel.

Or we may render the first line thus, — The glorious throne of the most high.

For so we find µwrm rendered in Psalm 56:2. — Ed. ftD10 The reading of the Keri and of many MSS. is no doubt to be adopted, and the final µ as is sometimes the case, is dropped. It would then be, according to the Septuagint, µyrwsw Our version is the Vulgate. I would connect “earth” or land with this word, — And apostates in the land shall they be recorded.

This would be their designation; they were to be handed down to posterity as apostates in the very land which God gave them. The reason why the µ is dropped is the connection of the word with “land,” though preceded by b. — Ed.

ftD11 Both the object and the ground of praise: Thou art he whom I praise or glorify; or, Thou art he who givest me an occasion to praise. “Thou art my boasting (καύχημα,”) is the Septuagint. — Ed. ftD12 The Targum thus paraphrases the verse, —

Behold they say to me “Where is what thou hast prophesied in the name of the Lord? let it be now confirmed.”

Their language was similar to that of those mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4. — Ed.

ftD13 It is singular how variously the early versions and the Targum have rendered the first half of this verse. Various, too, have been the opinions of critics. The first verb means to hasten, in a transitive, and in an intransitive sense, to urge, and to be urgent, forward, or hasty. It is used here evidently intransitively. Then the literal rendering seems to be this, — But I have not been more forward than a pastor after thee, or following thee.

The meaning seems to be, that he did not exceed his commission; and this is confirmed by the latter part of the verse. The preposition m has often the meaning of “more than,” or above.

The word “woeful” is the same with what is rendered “desperately wicked” in Jeremaih 17:9. Its meaning is, to be bad beyond recovery; and when applied to day, it may be properly rendered “irretrievable.” I thus render the two lines, — But I — I have not been forwarder than a pastor following thee, And the irretrievable day have I ncot desired.

This day was the day of exile which he had foretold. Then the words, “thou knowest,” stand connected with what follows. — Ed. ftD14 The Targum connects “thou knowest” with what follows; and such is the version of Blayney, and more suitable it is to the passage, —

Thou knowest what has gone forth from my lips, Before thy face has it been. *— Ed.*

ftD15 I would render Jeremiah 17:18 thus, —

18. Ashamed let my persecutors be, That I may not be ashamed; Dismayed let them be, That I may not be dismayed; Bring on them the day of evil, And doubly with breaking break them.

There was a contest between the Prophet and his enemies; the shame and dismay of his enemies would deliver him from shame and dismay. The copulative w may often be rendered that, ut. The two last lines refer to the two preceding couplets in an inverted order. “The day of evil” was to dismay his enemies, and “the breaking” was to make them ashamed. The breaking was that of the spirit or of the heart; it means sorrow, trouble, such as brings men to a state of helplessness; it does not mean destruction. The line may be thus rendered, — And doubly with depression depress them.

The word doubly, means what is extreme. — Ed. ftD16 There is a peculiarity in the phraseology of the original as to the relative “which,” after “the gate of the city;” literally it is, “which they enter through it the kings of Judah, and which they go out through it.” In Welsh there is exactly the same form of expression, — Yr hwn yr a trwyddo frenhinoedd Iwda, etc. Had this been the Welsh version, it would have been literally the Hebrew, and more consonant than the present version with the idiom of the language. — Ed. ftD17 “Guard ye your souls” is the version of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and the Targum; but that of the Syriac is, “Take heed to yourselves;” which is no doubt the meaning, as the word soul, çpn, is often used for one’s self. — Ed. ftD18 Our version, “they obeyed not,” is the Targum. The Septuagint and the Vulgate have the same rendering with that of Calvin. The verb is [mç which is to hear, to hearken, to listen. The charge of not hearing God’s word, was often brought by the prophets against the Jews. They would not hear or attend to what was said to them, not that they did not obey it. This is the case still with all who are perverted by superstition and tradition; they will not hear the word of God, and its authority is wholly disregarded. Anything about tradition and the Church will be attended to; but God’s word is neglected; they will not hear it. — Ed.

ftD19 The verse may be thus rendered, —

And they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear; But hardened their neck, So as not to hear, and not to receive correction.

They were reproved and warned; but they refused to be corrected. — Ed. ftD20 It is more consistent with the rest of the passage to regard this word as meaning “sacrifice of praise,” or thanksgiving, or confession. There were sacrifices of this kind especially prescribed; see Leviticus 7:12-15, and the word is often taken in this sense, without the word “sacrifice” being connected with it. Offerings according to the Law are the things which are here mentioned: and the same verb “bring,” precedes hdwt as in the previous instances, when “burnt-offering, sacrifice,” etc., are named.

The Septuagint, as in many other instances, give only a verbal translation, “praise;” “oblation,” is the Vulgate; “thanksgiving,” the Syriac; and “sacrifice of confession,” the Targum.

All the words are singular in Hebrew — burnt-offering — sacrifice — oblation, (or meat-offering) — incense — thanksgiving. It would be well to retain the singular in a version. — Ed. ftD21 Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate improperly render the verb “thou shalt hear;” but the Targum retains the causative sense, “I will cause thee to hear.” — Ed. ftD22 The proper rendering of the former part of this verse, according to Gataker and Venema, is as follows, — “And marred was the vessel which he made, at the clay was in the hand of the potter.”

Though there be readings, and many, which have b instead of k before “clay,” yet the received text is the most suitable. The word “clay” is omitted in the Septuagint. The meaning is, that the vessel was marred, while it was yet as a soft clay in the hand of the potter, after he had formed it on the stones. As to “potter,” the noun here is used instead of the pronoun, “in his hand,” which is often the case in Hebrew. The pronoun “his” is what is given by the Septuagint and the Vulgate. — Ed.

ftD23 “On the stones,” is the Septuagint; “on the wheel,” the Vulgate and the Targum; “on the anvil,” the Syriac.

“There can be no doubt,” says Blayney, “that the machine is intended on which the potters formed their earthen vessels; and the appellation οἱ λίθοι, “the stones,” will appear very proper if we consider this machine as consisting of a pair of circular stones, placed upon one another like millstones, of which the lower was immovable, but the upper one turned upon the foot of a spindle or axis, and had motion communicated to it by the feet of the potter sitting at his work, as may be learned from Ecclesiastes 38:29. Upon the top of this upper stone, which was flat, the clay was placed, which the potter, having given the stone the due velocity, formed into shape with his hands.”

ftD24 “At length,” or finally — πέρας, is the Septuagint; “suddeny,” theVulgate; but the Targum renders the word here, “At one time,” and in ver. 9, “At another time;” and this seems to be the meaning of [gr, when repeated, as it is here. Let it be so rendered, and let the future verb which comes after it be viewed as present, which is often the case in Hebrew, and the whole passage may be literally rendered, without giving an unusual meaning to the copulative, w, —

7. At one time I speak of a nation and of a kingdom, In order to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy

8. And that nation returns from its evil, Against which I had spoken, And I repent of the evil Which I had thought of doing to it:

9. And at another time I speak of a nation and of a kingdom, In order to build and to plant; And it doeth evil in mine eyes, So as not to hear my voice; And I repent of the good Which I had spoken of doing to it, or of making good to it.

The whole is a striking narrative of God’s dealings with nations and kingdoms. — Ed.

ftD25 More is meant by this word than expressed, which is often the case in all languages. “I contrive with respect to you a contrivance.” is perhaps the most literal rendering. “Device” is taken commonly in a bad sense. — Ed.

ftD26 The variety of the versions is remarkable as to the word çawn; “We shall be men, or act manly,” is the Septuagint; “We have despaired,” the Vulgate; “We shall perish,” the Syriac. It is a participle, and may be rendered “Hopeless.” Blayney’s version is, “It is a thing not to be hoped.” — Ed.

ftD27 More literally, —

For after our own contrivances shall we go; And we shall do, each, the resolutions of his evil heart. — Ed.

ftD28 It is rendered in the Septuagint and Vulgate as a noun in the plural number, and more suitably in this place, — 13. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, Enquire I pray among the nations, Who hath heard such things as these — The horrible things which she hath fully done, The virgin of Israel.

The particle dam, much, very much, etc., must from its position be construed with the verb, and not with “horrible.” It may be rendered, “which she hath done excessively.” — Ed.

ftD29 The general drift of this verse is no doubt given here, though the version seems not to be correct. The early versions and the Targum are all different, and hardly present any meaning at all. The versions of Blayney and Horsley are not much better. Venema appears to have given the most satisfactory version, which is as follows, — Will any one forsake for a rock A field irrigated by the snow of Libanus? Shall for strange waters Be abandoned cold streams?

To make the two clauses alike, the preposition m is put before “waters,” which is found before “rock.” “Strange waters” were those conducted to a place by artificial means. But to give m the meaning which it often has, rather than, the verse may be thus rendered, — Shall it be forsaken, rather than the rock, The field watered by the snow of Libanus? Shall they be abandoned rather than strange waters, The cooling streams (or rills)?

The change proposed in the last verb is unnecessary, as both verbs are nearly of the same meaning. The second line literally rendered is, “The field of the snow of Libanus;” so called as being irrigated by the melted snow from that mountain. To prefer a rocky dry ground for such a field, symbolized the conduct of the Jews, as well as to prefer waters brought by pipes from a distance to refreshing streams. — Ed.

ftD30 So the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum, but the Syriac and Arabic are like our version, “to vanity,” the idol being often so called: and this is the most suitable rendering here, as it shews the object of their worship when they forsook Jehovah. The word may be rendered “to a lie,” or, what is meant, “to a false god.” See Romans 1:25. — Ed.

ftD31 I propose the following rendering of the verse, —

For forsaken me have my people; To vanity they burn incense, And make them stumble in their ways, The paths of ages; So that they walk in the tracks Of a way not prepared; *literally*, not cast up or raised.

That “they” were the false priests is evident, because to burn incense was the office of the priests. To stumble in God’s ways is to transgress his law; and these “ways” were “the paths of ages,” or, of antiquity, or, “ancient paths,” as they had for ages been made known to the people.-Ed.

ftD32 More literally, “And shall nod with his head.” — Ed.

ftD33 Many copies read b, though all the versions retain the k; “As a burning wind will I scatter them,” is the version of the Septuagint and the Vulgate; “As a hot wind,” etc, is the Syriac. — Ed.

ftD34 It would be better to render this, “The law cannot perish,” etc.; for the future with a negative may often be thus rendered: yk, translated, “For,” often means certainly, truly, surely, doubtless, and might be so translated here, — Surely, not perish can the law from the priests, Or counsel from the wise, Or the word from the Prophet.

These things they thought were impossibilities. How like are errors and the delusions of men in every age! “The word” was what the

prophets taught and preached: hence “the word” in the New Testament often means the preaching of the gospel — Ed.

ftD35 This phrase, “Let us smite him with the tongue,” is thus literally rendered by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic; but by the Syriac, “Let us smite his tongue,” and paraphrased by the Targum, “Let us testify against him false testimonies.” “With our tongue,” is Piscator’s; that is, by accusations to the king; “For his tongue,” is Junius’s; that is, for his denunciations; “On the tongue,” is Blaney’s; that is, on the offending part, an allusion to a mode of punishment that was practiced; or, as Gataker suggests, in order to stop his mouth.

The most probable meaning is, that they meant to accuse him before the authorities; therefore “with the tongue,” as countenanced by the best versions, is the best rendering.

“Let us accuse him, let us speak so ill of him, that no man may attend to him, but that all may flee from him,” Cocceius. — Ed.

ftD36 The voice of my justification,” is the Septuagint, “the voice of my adversaries,” the Vulgate; “the voice of my oppression,” “the Syriac : “the voice of my strife,” the Arabic. But the best is our version and that of Calvin. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac are wholly wrong: for the verb byr never means any one of the ideas which they convey. — Ed. ftD37 It is better to render these lines like the Septuagint and Vulgate, —

Is not evil rendered for good? For they have dug a pit for my soul.

Or thus, — Should evil be rendered for good? — For they have dug a pit for me.

So should “soul” be rendered here and in many other places. There is here an allusion to the practice of digging pits to take wild beasts. — Ed.

ftD38 The rendering of this line is various: our version, “pour out,” etc., cannot be sustained; nor “drain them,” etc., by Blayney. The idea generally given by the versions and the Targum to the verb, is that of giving up, delivering, committing. The Syriac seems to give the original correctly, “deliver them into the hands of the sword;” only the verb hdg, signifies to draw or drive rather than to deliver. Perhaps the literal rendering would be, “drive them on the hands of the sword,” as though the sword was a person with hands stretched cut to receive what might come in its way: but “hands” in this instance mean power; so that the best version would be, And deliver them into the power of the sword.

ftD39 Literally, “the slain of death,” as in the next line, “the smitten of the sword.” The two lines are literally thus, — And let their men be the slain of death; Their youths the smitten of the sword in battle.

“Death” here, notwithstanding what Horsley has said, evidently means pestilence. See Jeremiah 15:2. The “men” were those past the time of ervice, and “youths” or young men were those fit for war. — Ed.

ftD40 The last line in the Syriac is, —

In the time of thine indignation act against them.

“Take vengeance on them,” is the paraphrase of the Targum. Horsley would have it,” deal with them,” leaving out “thus” in our version. It is no doubt an expression which includes more than what is stated. It may be rendered “do for them,” that is, wholly destroy them; — Ed.

ftD41 The literal rendering of this verse I conceive to be the following, —

“Thus saith Jehovah, go and get;. bottle from the maker of earthenware, and some of the elders of the people and of the elders of the priests.”

The m, of, or from, before elders, implies a part; and it is the idiom of the language not to put in “some,” — “get (or take) from the elders,” etc. He was first to get the bottle, and then some of the elders. The Vulgate very strangely represents the Prophet as taking the bottle from the elders, omitting the w, and as taking it from both elders! — Ed.

ftD42 It appears that the valley of Hinnom was not to the east, but to the south of Jerusalem. See Joshua 15:8. The Keri and several copies read tysrjh and it is given untranslated by the Septuagint the

Syriac, and the Arabic. It is rendered “earthen” by the Vulgate, as though the s, as Calvin mentions, is substituted for ç. In this case it might be rendered “the potsherd” — “at the entrance of the gate, The potsherd.” It was the gate, before which did lie all the broken vessels, and the dirt and filth from the Temple. For this reason it may be that the Targum renders it here, “the gate of the dunghill.”

Parkhurst, however, takes the word as it is in the text, and gives this version, “the gate of the burnings,” so called because of the practice of burning children in the valley opposite the gate. See Jeremiah 7:31. All these names would properly designate the south gate. — Ed.

ftD43 Perhaps the idea would be better expressed, if we were to say, “They had alienized the place,” or heathenized it, made it a heathen place. To alienate is to transfer a right or property from one to another. This was indeed true, for they separated as it were the place from God and transferred it to heathen deities. But the idea here seems to be, that they made the place heathenish: “and have heathenized this place.” “Alienated” is the Septuagint; “made it alien,” the Vulgate; “polluted,” the Syriac; and “defiled,” the Targum. — Ed.

ftD44 The plain meaning is, I will frustrate all your plots and projects, whereby you think to escape and to secure yourselves, and make them as vain and empty as this earthen bottle is. — Gataker. ftD45 The words are in the singular number — “The bird of heaven and the beast of the field.” — Ed.

ftD46Blayney gives the same meaning, —

“And I will make this city an object of astonishment and of hissing.”

The Vulgate and the Syriac are the same; but the Septuagint and the Targum have “desolation” instead of “astonishment.” The word hmç signifies both, as in Hebrew the same word often expresses the cause and the effect: desolation is the cause, astonishment is the effect. The primary meaning is what is given mostly by the Septuagint and very seldom the secondary. The literal rendering of the sentence is, — “And I will set this city for an astonishment and for a hissing.” — Ed.

ftD47 Plagam; the original word is considered to be in the plural number, and means strokes, stripes, scourges, but not plagues in the usual sense of the word — pestilences: it may be rendered smitings, or more properly, inflictions. It occurs three times in Deuteronomy 28:59, and is rendered plagues, but it ought to be smitings or inflictions; and so here, “on account of all her infiictions.” — Ed. ftD48 The expression, according to the Hebrew, is, “I will cause them to eat.” What a punishment! Those who sacrificed their children to their idols were judicially brought to such straits as to be driven to eat their own children! God often punishes men in a way that corresponds with their sin. Through superstitious madness the Jews willingly offered their children in sacrifice to demons; and through the extreme cravings of hunger they were constrained to eat their own children! — Ed.

ftD49 The word is rwxm, which means a siege, as well as tribulation or distress; and the former is the most suitable word here; and so it is rendered by the Targum and the early versions, except the Syriac. — Ed.

ftD50 This is evidently the meaning, and not that given in our version. See note in vol. 1. — Ed.

ftD51 The ellipsis in the last clause is what often occurs in Hebrew; it may be supplied in our language by that, — “Thus will I do to this place, saith Jehovah, and to its inhabitants, and that to make this city like Tophet.”

The full sentence is, “and thus will I do to make,” etc. — Ed.

fD52 On account of all the houses,” is the Septuagint and the Targum; “all the houses,” is the Vulgate and the Syriac, being put in apposition with “the houses of Jerusalem,” etc.

The words which follow are literally, — “which they have burned incense on their roofs,” which we properly render in our language, “on whose roofs they have burned incense;” but the Welsh is literally the Hebrew, Y rhai yr arogldarthasant ar eu pennau, — “which they incensed on their roofs;” but “incensed” in this sense is not used. — Ed.

FOOTNOTES TO TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE OF CALVIN’S COMMENTARIES ON THE PROPHET JEREMIAH

ftE1A There is another peculiarity as to rça which may be mentioned, that is, when connected with a noun and rendered “whose,” in the genitive case in our language. “Whose land the rivers have spoiled;” literally, “whom the rivers have spoiled her land.” (Isaiah 18:2.) “Whose merchants are princes;” literally, “who-her merchants are princes.” (Isaiah 23:8.) Here, again, the Welsh is exactly the Hebrew, and in the first of these verses, the very order of the words is the same, — “Yr hon yr yspeiliodd yr avonydd ei thir.” “Whose mouth speaketh vanity;” literally, “who — their mouth speaketh vanity.” (<19E408>Psalm 144:8.) The Welsh is literally the same, — “Y rhai y llevara en genan wagedd;” the “who” is in apposition with “their,” both being in Hebrew the same in every case. See also Deuteronomy 8:9; Psalm 95:4, 5; <19E415>Psalm 144:15; <19E605>Psalm 146:5.

The following are similar instances: — “Whose seed was in itself;” literally, which — its seed was in itself. (Genesis 1:12.) “In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; literally, which — in it is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;” (Genesis 1:29.) “Wherein is the breath of life;” literally, “which — in it is the breath of life.” (Genesis 6:17.) “Of beasts that are not clean;” literally, “of the beast which — not it was clean.” (Genesis 7:8.) “That hath statutes;” literally, “which to it are statutes.” (Deuteronomy 4:8.) See Deuteronomy 19:1; Ruth 3:2.

ftE2B A few passages shall be referred to, and they shall be arranged in lines that the order may be more clearly seen, — But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, But ye are justified, In the name of the Lord Jesus, And by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11.)

He mentions sanctification first, and then justification; the next line refers to justification, and the last to sanctification. That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, And shalt believe in thine heart, etc., etc.; For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, And with the mouth confession is made, etc. (Romans 10:9, 10.)

Confession and faith, and then faith and confession. This inversion seems to shew their inseparable connection, as in the former case as to sanctification and justification; and it is to be observed that in both instances the right order is given last; but the case is different in the following example: — And he gave some apostles, And some prophets, and some evangelists, And some pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, For the work of the ministry, For the edifying (or building) of the body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11, 12.)

The work of building the Church, which included especially the laying of the foundation, belonged to the Apostles; the ministerial work generally was performed by those called prophets and evangelists, who were the assistants of the Apostles; but the perfecting work, that of furthering the continual progress of the saints in a religious life, was carried on by stationary pastors and teachers. See similar instances in Matthew 7:6, and 1 Corinthians 1:24, 25.

ftE3A As to rça, I may here state the result of a minute examination as to the Book of Psalm. It is found there as a relative, and as an adverb, about a hundred and seven times; about forty times as a nominative to verbs; nearly thirty times as an adverb or conjunction, for, because, that, whom, how, whose, etc.; in a few instances, in construction with nouns to which are affixed pronouns in the same case, as exemplified in a previous note; in twenty-six instances governed by verbs in the objective case, without any pronouns affixed to the verbs; and five times, according to our version, accompanied by pronouns when thus circumstanced. But in these five instances our version seems to me to be incorrect, the construction being inconsistent with what appears to be the common usage of the language. The passages are the following, Psalm 1:5; Psalm 8:3; Psalm 88:5; Psalm 94:12; and 107:2; rça should be when in the first, how in the second, where in the third, when in the fourth, and that in the fifth, or how. as it is sometimes rendered in our version. In the first twelve chapters of Deuteronomy, there are at least a hundred instances of rça being governed in a transitive sense; and in no case it has a corresponding pronoun after the verb, but there are several instances of this, when governed by an intransitive verb — such as the following, “A land

wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness,” literally, “A land which without scarceness thou shalt in it eat bread.”

ftE1 The account which Blayney gives is the most probable: that he was the first of his order. There were twenty-four courses of priests, as appointed by David, 1 Chronicles 24; and the head of each course was for the time the ruler or governor of the Temple. These heads of the courses were no doubt the “chief priests” mentioned in the New Testament, for in fact there was only one chief priest. They were also called the “captains” of the Temple. “The chief overseer in the house of Jehovah” is the most suitable rendering. The whole verse might be rendered as follows, — “When Pashur, the son of Immer, the priest, while he was the chief overseer in the house of Jehovah, heard Jeremiah prophesying these words, then Pashur smote Jeremiah,” etc. So the Syriac, and so does Blayney connect the first with the second verse. The family of “Immer” formed the sixteenth course. See 1 Chronicles 24:14. “The priest” refers to Pashur, and not to “Immer;” and it is so rendered by the Sept., Vulg., and the Arab., though not by the Syr. Immer was the name of the family. — Ed.

ftE2 The versions differ — “dungeon” is the Sept.; “stocks-nervum” is the Vulg.; and “circle,” or “circuit,” is the Syr.; but the Targ. has “prison.” The word occurs in two other places, in 1 Chronicles 29:26, and in 2 Chronicles 16:10, and is rendered “prison.” Venema renders it “the torturing prison,” taking the verb from which the word comes in a bad sense, as signifying to distort, and hence to torture. Symmachus favors this view, for he renders it “a place of torment — ζασανιστήριον,” and “a rack — στρεζλωτήριον.” The form of the expression is in favor of this idea, “and set him in the stocks,” or on the rack. And so in Jeremiah 29:26, the rendering ought to be — “that thou shouldest set him on the stocks (or rack) and in prison” Of what kind was this instrument of torture it is not known. Prisons had especially three names — “the house of roundness (rhsh);” “the house of confinement (alkh);” and “the house of the rack, or stocks, (tkphmh).” See Genesis 39:20; 1 Kings 22:27; and 2 Chronicles 16:10. But “the house” is not here torture itself.

Had the prison been intended, the word “house,” as in 2 Chronicles 16:10, would have been placed before it. It is at the same time probable that the prison was the place where the rack or the stocks were. — Ed.

ftE3 I would render the verse thus: —

3. And it happened on the morrow that Pashur brought out Jeremiah from the stocks; and Jeremiah said to him, — Not Pashur does Jehovah call thy name, But, Terror on every side.

I take arq to be a participle, and not a verb in the past tense. — Ed.

ftE4 The word is not spelt with h, but with j; it is “Pashchur.” Therefore, the former derivation cannot be admitted. Venema derives it from çwp, to be proud, or ferocious, and rwj, which means “white,” or splendid; then the meaning is, “splendid prince.” Gataker seems to prefer the opinion of those who derive the word from çp, diffusion, and rwj, paleness, because he diffused, or spread fear, which produces paleness to all around. Instead of this, a terror, the cause of paleness, would be to him and to all his friends, as stated in the following verse. — Ed.

ftE5 The Vulg. alone gives this meaning to the phrase; the Sept. has “μέτοικον — emigrant,” and the Syr. “stranger and wanderer.” And then in the fourth verse both these versions give a correspondent meaning. “I will deliver thee into emigration (or captivity) with all thy friends.” That this word, rendered “terror,” may be derived from rwg, which means to sojourn, to peregrinate, is undeniable; as a participle noun from Hiphil, it may mean a sojourner, or an emigrant. The word in this sense is found often in the plural number. See Genesis 47:9; Exodus 6:4. But the phrase, as found here, occurs four times in this book, where it can have no other meaning than “terror (or fear) on every side,” Jeremiah 6:25; Jeremiah 20:10; Jeremiah 46:5; Jeremiah 49:29; and it occurs once elsewhere, in Psalm 32:13; where also its meaning is evident from the context. — Ed.

ftE6 What Calvin and our version render “strength” is rendered the same by the Sept., ἰσχὺν, — by the Vulg., “substance,” — by the Syr., “citadels,” — and by the Targ., riches. The primary meaning of the word is to be strong, or firm; and then what is strongly, or firmly secured — store, or treasure, here, and the two things which follow are explanatory of this store, — the labor, or the fruit of labor, — their garments; and precious things, — their gold, silver, and precious stones and furniture: — 5. And I will give the whole store of this city, Even all the fruit of its labor, And every precious thing in it, — Yea, all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give, Into the hand of their enemies: And they shall plunder them and take them, And bring them into Babylon.

All the versions refer “them” in the two last lines to the people, but the Targum to the things mentioned in the preceding lines; but the former view is the right one. To render the last verb to “carry,” as in our version, is not correct; for it means to cause to come, and hence to bring; and this clearly supports the versions.

The exposition of Blayney is, that by “strength’” is meant the military, by “labor” the workmen, and by “the precious” the respectable part of society. Then he ought to have gone on and said, that by “the treasures” were meant the kings of Judah! But all this is fancy, and wholly inconsistent with the tenor of the passage. They were to “plunder” them; and if their stores were not referred to, how could this be said of what their enemies would do? And then, according to this view, the treasures of the kings were to become a spoil, and not the stores of the city. To spoil the people of their property was one of the most common threatenings of the Prophets. — Ed.

ftE7 This verse ought to be thus arranged, —

6. And thou, Pashur, and all who dwell in thine house, Go shall ye into captivity: Yea, to Babylon shalt thou go, And there shalt thou die, and there be buried — Thou and all thy friends, To whom thou hast prophesied falsely.

There is here an instance of the free and unmodified manner in which statements are often made in Scripture. It is said in Jeremiah 20:4, that “his friends” would fall by the sword; but here, that they would be carried into Babylon, die, and be buried there. The hearers of Jeremiah, no doubt, understood him, though a captious hearer could have made out a contradiction against him. But the meaning is, that many of them would be slain by the sword, and that many of them, or most of such as remained, would be led into captivity. A great number were to be slain, and a great number would be taken captives. — Ed.

ftE8 I find none agreeing with Calvin in his view of this verse; nor many with our version in rendering the first verb “deceived.” So is the Septuagint, but the Vulgate, Syriac, and Targum have “enticed.” In other parts it is rendered in our version “enticed,” “allured,” and “persuaded.” Blayney has “allured,” but Gataker and Lowth prefer “persuaded;” and this wholly comports with the view the Prophet gives of his calling in the first chapter, to which he evidently refers, and also with what follows in this verse. He was unwilling to undertake the office, but he was induced to do so by what God said to him. There was nothing like deception in the case; for God had previously told him of the difficulties he would have to encounter. And then he adds, that he was “constrained,” which I consider to be the meaning of the next verb. He had been persuaded by reasons and promises, and constrained by authority. I would render the verse thus, — 7. Thou didst persuade me, O Jehovah, and I was persuaded; Thou didst constrain me, and didst prevail: I am become a derision every day; The whole of it are jeering me.

The “it” refers to the city where he was, and of which he speaks at the end of the last chapter; for this chapter is but a continuation of the narrative. What he relates there of the fate of the city drew the attention and excited the rage of Pashur. After having spoken of what Pashur did, Jeremiah gives utterance here to his complaints.

Blayney renders the last line thus, and is approved by Horsley, — Ridicule hath spent its whole force upon me.

All the versions and the Targum regard hlk, not as a verb, but as signifying “all,” or every one; and the proposed rendering is too refined. — Ed.

ftE9 The beginning of the eighth verse seems to be connected with the end of the seventh. Such appears to be the Syriac version. Then the remaining part of the eighth will coalesce with the ninth. This gives a consistency to the whole passage. I am become a derision every day; The whole of it are jeering me,

8. Whenever I speak, cry against violence, Or, proclaim a devastation. Because the word of Jehovah was to me A reproach and a scoff every day,

9. Therefore I said, “I will not mention it, Nor will I speak any more in his name;” But it became in my heart Like a burning fire, confined in my bones; And I was wearied with restraining and I could not — Ed.

ftE10 There is not much agreement in the early versions on this verse, nor in the Targum; and modern expounders somewhat differ, though the general meaning is obvious, and is given very lucidly by Calvin. I shall give what I consider to be the most literal rendering, — Truly I have heard the babbling of many, — “Terror on every side, publish ye, We also shall publish it:” All the men who are at peace with me, Watch for my halting, — “He may perhaps be enticed; Then we shall prevail over him, And shall take on him our revenge.”

Both Grotins and Blayney render yk, “truly,” or verily, and consider this verse connected with the following. There is evidently in the second line an allusion to the name given to Pashur: the multitude, by the way of ridicule, repeated the name. Cocceius and Blayney render the line according to this meaning. “All the men,” etc., literally, “Every man of my peace,” that is, who is at peace with him; they were those who seemed to be his friends, though really his enemies, and plotting for his downfall, and that by trying to entice him out of his course. — Ed.

ftE11 Except in the first line, the Sept. and the Vulg. differ from the text as well as from one another; both are exceedingly confused. Few expounders have kept the proper tenses of the verbs. The Prophet states not only what would happen to his enemies, but also what had already in part happened to them, — 11. But Jehovah is with me as a terrible warrior; Therefore my persecutors shall stumble, And shall not prevail: They have become exceedingly ashamed, Because they have not succeeded; A perpetual shame! It shall not be forgotten.

The last two lines are according to what Horsley suggests. “A terrible warrior” is rendered by the Sept., “a strong combatant, μαχητὴς ἰσχύων;” by the Vulg., “a brave warrior, bellato fortis, by the Syr., “the strongest giant;” and by the Arab., “the strongest help.” — Ed.

ftE12 There is but little difference between this verse and the 20th of the 11th chapter (Jeremiah 11:20); the variety is in the first two lines. While here we have — But Jehovah of hosts, who art the trier of the righteous, The seer of the reins and of the heart;

we have as follows in Jeremiah 11:20, — But Jehovah of hosts, who art a righteous judge, The trier of the reins and of the heart.

As in the former instance, the Versions render what follows as an imprecation, — “May I see,” etc., while the Targum does as Calvin, “I shall see,” etc.; and this better comports with the passage. The Prophet first mentions God as a righteous judge, and then he concludes that he should see God’s vengeance on his enemies, because he had devolved his cause on him, or revealed it to him. He had referred his cause to a righteous judge, and hence he felt assured that vengeance would overtake his enemies. — Ed.

ftE13 The “poor” here does not mean him who is in low circumstances, but him who is helpless or defenseless; and this is the meaning of the word often in other parts, especially in the Psalm. The word “soul,” too, here and in other places, means life, — Sing ye to Jehovah, praise Jehovah, For he hath rescued the life of the helpless From the hand of malignants. — Ed.

ftE14 The greatest difficulty in this passage is the connection. That Jeremiah should have cursed his birth-day is what can be accounted for, as in the case of Job. Nature, even in the best of men, sometimes utters its own voice. But how he came to do this immediately after having thanked God for his deliverance, seems singular. The explanation of Calvin, that he relates what had passed in his mind, while he was confined by Pashur, is plausible, and has been adopted by Grotius, Gataker, Cocceius, and Henry. Grotius considered, “I had said,” to be understood at the beginning of the fourteenth verse. Adam Clarke thought that the words have been transposed, and that the five last verses ought to come in between the eighth and the ninth verse: and he says what is true, that there are many transpositions in this book. Houbigant, approved by Horsley, thought the right place for these verses is between the sixth and the seventh verse. But these transpositions are not satisfactory. Venema’s notion is, that Jeremiah does not speak in his own name, but in the name of Pashur. Having described in the previous verse his own ease, the protection he found from God, he describes in these verses the wretchedness and misery of his persecutor, and introduces him as cursing his birth-day, etc. But this is very far-fetched and fanciful. Scott acknowledges the transition to be very extraordinary, but yet thinks that the Prophet describes what had passed through his own mind, and says that the experience of good men proves that such sudden changes occur. “An experimental acquaintance with our hearts,” he says, “and the variations of our passions, under sharp trials, as encouraging or discouraging thoughts occur to our minds, will best enable us to understand it.” This is probably the right view of the subject. The Prophet, indeed, acknowledged God’s kindness in saving his life, and invited others to join him in praising him: yet when he considered his circumstances, he gave way to his own natural feelings. — Ed.

ftE15 Our version seems right in rendering the w in this sentence or; and so it ought to be rendered in the previous verse, otherwise there is an inconsistency in representing a man destroyed, and hearing an outcry, etc. The two verses may be thus rendered, — 16. And let that man be like the cities Which Jehovah overturned and repented not; Or a hearer of an outcry in the morning And of tumult at noon-tide.

17. Why not slay me did he from the womb? Or become to me did my mother my grave, And her womb a perpetual conception?

The last words are, literally, “a conception of perpetuity,” — the Vulg. has, “an eternal conception,” — the Syr., “a perpetual conception.” Then the next verse is as follows, — 18. For what purpose has this been? From the womb I came forth To see labor and sorrow, And spent in shame are my days. — Ed.

ftE16 The “if” may better be rendered “it may be,” ylwa; it is so rendered by the Vulg., Syr., and the Targ. — Ed.

ftE17 The Syr. Renders the verb “ascend” as a Hiphil; and more consistently with the passage, “and drive him away from us.” With the exception of the Arab., the Versions and the Targ. Render the first verb in the verse, not “inquire,” but “ask,” or “pray the Lord for us.” Then the verse would be as follows: — 2. Pray now for us to Jehovah; for Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, is warring against us: it may be that Jehovah will deal with us according to all his wondrous works, and make him to depart from us.

The verb çrd, transitively as here, means to seek: see Psalm 34:5. And to seek the favor of Jehovah, or to pray to him, seems most consistent with the latter part of the verse. Blayney’s rendering is, “Intreat, we pray thee, Jehovah for us;” and this is the meaning taken by Venema and Gataker. — Ed.

ftE18 The verb ks means to turn, to turn aside, to turn round, to change; it seems to mean here to turn to a contrary purpose, to turn from the right use, to divert, to revert, or to reverse, “Behold, I will reverse the instruments of war which are in your hands; μετάστρεφω — I change,” that is, to what is opposite, is the Sept.; Blayney reads, “Behold, I will turn aside,” etc. — Ed.

ftE19 There seems to be a gradation in these terms, — “in wrath, and in hot displeasure, and in great foaming indignation.” The first word means simply wrath or anger; the second, heated wrath; and the third, foaming wrath, and “great” is added to it. None of the Versions, except the Arab., presents this climax; the Sept. and Syr. have only two, “anger and great wrath;” the Vulg., “fury, indignation, and great wrath;” and the Arab., “wrath, indignation, and the greatest fury.” The Targ. has the same with the Vulg. These terms refer evidently to the provocations which had been given by the Jews. Their conduct had been such as to excite wrath, and heated wrath, and even great foaming wrath. — Ed.

ftE20 The Versions and the Targum all differ as to these three verbs, and their distinct meaning is not given by any of them. The first is to spare, the second is to relent, and the third is to feel compassion or pity. The last act, sparing, is mentioned first, then the previous one relenting, and in the third place, what occasions relenting, pity, or compassion. The same verbs occur together in chapter 13:14, but in a different order, relent, spare, pity. — Ed.

ftE21 “Shall go to,” is the Sept.; “shall fly to,” the Vulg.; “shall obey,” the Targ.; it is omitted in Syr. Blayney is, “surrendereth himself.” The verb, followed by l[, as here, means to fall away to, or to join. See 2 Kings 25:11. “But he who goeth out and joins the Chaldeans, who besiege you, shall live,” etc. — Ed.

ftE22 The phrase is not, “against this city,” but “upon this city;” and such is the rendering of the Sept. and Vulg., though the Syr. has “against.” How could his face be set against it, not for good? God is said to set or fix his face on the city, and it was for doing it evil, and not for doing it good. — Ed.

ftE23 The verb “thou shalt say,” or “say,” at the beginning of verse 8, is to be understood here, “say also to the house,” etc. So the Vulg. connects the sentence, and also the Targ. But the Sept., Syr., and the Arab. put the word “house” in the vocative case — “O house of the king of Judah, hear the word of the Lord.” More consistent with the original is the former construction. — Ed.

ftE24 The correct rendering is, “The right defend ye in the morning.” The common meaning of ˆwd is to defend, to vindicate, to plead for, or contend for: it means, also, to rule with authority. It is rendered often in our version to judge, while it ought to be to defend. See Genesis 30:6; Psalm 1:4; <19D514>Psalm 135:14. “In the morning” may be taken literally or figuratively. The morning was the time observed by good judges to decide matters of judgment: in corrupt times the judges or princes spent the morning in drinking. See Ecclesiastes 10:16. Thus the judges are here required to reassume the ancient practice of deciding causes in the morning. See Exodus 18:13. The phrase, “in the morning,” means also to do a thing, promptly, fully, and diligently. The very same words are used in <19A108>Psalm 101:8, and rendered in our version “early,” only the word for morning is in the plural number — “in the mornings,” literally. Then, if taken figuratively, the phrase means — promptly, carefully, diligently — “Defend carefully the right.” The version of Blayney is singular, but inadmissible — “Judge ye, searching out right.” There is no instance of the verb ˆwd being used intransitively, and “in the morning” is given by all the Versions and the Targ. — Ed.

ftE25 This sentence is as follows, — “And rescue the plundered from the hand of the violent,” or him who uses violence. The Vulg. alone has “calumniator” for the last word, which is wholly improper; “who wrongs him” is the Sept.; “who oppresses him” is the Syr. and Arab. The word means to oppress by force or violence. — Ed.

ftE26 Of all explanations of this passage, this is the most satisfactory. Mount Sion was surrounded by a valley, and that valley by contiguous mountains. The city, therefore, was a valley with a rock or a mountain in the midst, called here the rock of the level ground. The sentence may, indeed, be thus rendered, “The inhabitant of the valley of the rock of the level ground.” “The valley of the rock” means, in this case, the valley around the rock or the mountain; then the valley is farther designated as the level ground.

The Versions vary; that of Sept. is, “who inhabitest the valley of Sor, the plain;” the Vulg., “the inhabitress of the solid valley and of the plain;” the Syr., “who dwellest in valleys, who hast a large plain;” and the Targ., “who dwellest in strength, in fortified cities.” The nearest to the original is the Sept. version; which has been followed by Venema, who thought that there was a valley called Sor in Jerusalem, which, from its situation, was the most secure part of the city: hence the word “descend,” in the following sentence.

Blayney’s version is, “O thou inhabitant of the levelled hollow of a rock.” He considered that Mount Sion is meant, the residence of the house of David, and so called, because the top was levelled. Then he rendered the following sentence, “Who shall make a breach on us?” But the difficulty is to understand “the levelled hollow,” and how to make the original to bear such a rendering. Doubtless, the version of Calvin or that of Venema, which is not very different, is the best. — Ed.

ftE27 The Sept. and Arab. are, “Who will alarm us?” the Vulg., “Who will smite us?” Syr., “Who can come against us?” and the Targ., “Who will descend against us?” The verb ttj, is intransitive, and if it be here in Hiphil, it will not admit of the preposition l[, which comes here after it. This sufficiently proves that it is tjn, to come down, to descend, which requires this very preposition. See Psalm 38:2. This being clearly the case, the view of Blayney, as to “the levelled hollow of a rock,” must be wrong, for to “descend” into Mount Sion, would be no suitable expression. — Ed.

ftE28 “The Word ‘forest’ is often metaphorically taken for a city in the prophetical writings, because its stately buildings, or its principal inhabitants, resemble tall cedars standing in their several ranks. See Jeremiah 22:7; Isaiah 27:24; Ezekiel 20:46;

Zecheriah. 11:1.” — Lowth.

ftE29 Or “descend;” it appears that Jeremiah was in the Temple when he had this commission. And it would be better to render the first words, “Thus said Jehovah,” as it is a narrative of what had taken place. In Jeremiah 18:1, it is said the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, and then he was commanded to go down to the potter’s house; which intimates that he was at the time in the Temple, officiating probably in his course as a priest. — Ed.

ftE30 The verb here is different from that in Jeremiah 21:12, though rendered in our version the same — “execute.” It is hç[, to do, to act, but is used in a wide sense, like facio in Latin. To do judgment is to judge or condemn, that is, the guilty; to do justice is to justify or acquit, that is, the innocent. Perhaps the best rendering would be, “Administer judgment and justice;” the former to the guilty, and the latter to the innocent.

Blayney’s version can by no means be approved, “Do right and justice,” as the distinctive character of the two acts is not expressed. “Do judgment and justice,” are all the Versions and the Targum. — Ed.

ftE31 So it is rendered by Blayney; by the Vulg. and Targ., “Make not sad;” by the Sept., “Tyrannize not over;” and by the, Syr., “Wrong not.” The verb means to press down, to depress, and hence to oppress. With this the next verb is connected by w in many copies, and by all the Versions except the Arab., and by the Targum; and it means to do wrong by force or violence, outrageously to injure, or to deal unjustly with, to plunder. They were not to press them down by denying them their rights, nor violently to take their things away from them, or to plunder them.

We may render the passage as Gataker does, “And the stranger, the orphan, and the widow oppress not, wrong not,” or plunder not. A similar passage is in Jeremiah 7:6. The word rendered there “oppress” is different, qç[, and more general in its meaning, including the two ideas here — oppression by denying them their rights, and by plundering them. — Ed.

ftE32 There is first in this passage a general direction, “Administer ye judgment and justice;” and then there is a specification which refers first to justice and then to judgment, the order, as is commonly the case, being reversed. It was an act of “justice” to rescue the plundered from the hands of the plunderer. Then they were forbidden to administer wrong, “judgment,” so as to depress and plunder the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, and to shed innocent blood. See Psalm 94:6. It shews a bad state of society when the wicked and the guilty are not punished; but it is still worse when the helpless are oppressed, and the innocent are condemned. — Ed.

ftE33 Poor Peter never had any throne, therefore the Pope’s throne cannot be apostolic. The Pope’s throne is a heathen throne, both materially and spiritually. The seat itself is a chair of some heathen hero or deity, and the power claimed to be exercised was never claimed nor possessed by Peter. The Pope is quite as much an impostor as Mahomet, only his blasphemy is greater and more detestable. — Ed.

ftE34 The Vulg., the Syr., and the Targum omit the w before “enter:” but it has often the meaning of then, especially when preceded, as here, by the conditional particle if. — Ed.

ftE35 The verse may be rendered thus, —

4. For if doing ye shall do this word, Then come through the gates of this house Shall kings, sitting for David on his throne, Who shall ride in a chariot and on horses, He, and his servant, and his people.

The “sitting” belongs to the kings, but “riding” to the king, his servant, and his people. As “he” is in the singular number, so “the servant” is, though both are pluralized by the Sept., the Vulg., and the Arab., and indeed, the “servant” by the Syr. And the Targ. But the Hebrew is as rendered above, as to the word “chariot,” and “servant;” it is the idiom of the language. — Ed.

ftE36 “These words” include the “word” of message contained in the second verse, and the “word” of precept in the third verse; and “this word” or thing, at the beginning of the fourth verse, is the latter — the word of precept. — Ed.

ftE37 That “the top (or head) of Lebanon,” means Jerusalem, or the city of David, the residence of the royal family, is evident from the seventh verse, “they shall cast down thy choice cedars.” This point being settled, there can be hardly a doubt respecting the correctness of Calvin’s view. All the Versions give this rendering, “Gilead, thou art to me the head of Lebanon;” the meaning of which does not appear. The Targum is a paraphrase not more intelligible. It would be better to use the future tense, as that is used at the end of the verse, — Gilead shalt thou be to me, O top of Lebanon! Surely I will make thee a wilderness, Like cities not inhabited.

It was to be dealt with by him as Gilead had been, which was now wholly depopulated. — Ed

ftE38 The verb is çdq, to sanctify, or rather to separate or to set apart for a holy purpose, to consecrate. It is rendered by the Septuagint, “I will bring;” by the Vulgate, “I will sanctify;” by the, Syriac, “I will prepare:” but by Blayney, “I will commission.” It intimates a setting apart or selecting for a holy purpose, such as the execution of the just judgment of God. Perhaps the best rendering would be, “I will consecrate for thee.”

The next words are “destroyers, each man and his instrument,” rendered by the Septuagint, “a destroying man and his hatchet;” by the Vulgate, “a slaying man and his weapons;” by the Syriac, “wasters, each with a hatchet in his hand;” and by the Arabic, “a destroying man with his hatchet.”

The word ylk, does not mean specifically a weapon of war, but generally an instrument of any kind; and “hatchet” is the most suitable term for it here. We might then give this version, — 7. And I will consecrate for thee destroys, Every man and his hatchet; And they shall cut down thy choisest cedars, And shall cast them into the fire. — Ed.

ftE39 So the Versions, “through,” and not, “by,” as in our version; it is “nigh” in the Targ. The preposition is l[, upon, over, most commonly. It may mean the passing over the city when in ruins. — Ed.

ftE40 Literally, “nor nod for him.” They were not to shake the head for him in sign of sorrow. There was a shaking of the head in scorn or derision as well as in condolence or sympathy. See Jeremiah 18:16. — Ed.

ftE41 The Versions and the Targum seem to favor this view of Calvin, as they render the participle, “going away,” in the present tense, as in our version. The verse, then, is as follows, — Weep ye not for the dead, nor bewail him; Weep, weep for him who goeth away; For he will not return any more, And see the land of his nativity.

The repetition of the verb “weep” is emphatical. Our version, “weep sore,” is the Arab. The Sept. and the Targ. take it as an instance of what often occurs in Hebrew, a participle joined to a verb to enhance its force; but it is not so here, the two verbs are in the imperative mood. But it may be that there is here, as many think, a direct allusion to Josiah, who was dead, and was much lamented, and to Shallum, who was taken captive and carried into Egypt, where he died. In that case we ought to render the second line thus, — Weep, weep for him who has gone away.

The Hebrew participle may often be rendered in the past tense; and so it is rendered here by Gataker, Venema, and Blayney. — Ed.

ftE42 Most commentators agree that Shallum was another name for Jehoahaz, who succeeded his father Josiah. See 2 Kings 23:30; and 2 Chronicles 36:1. He reigned only three months, and was succeeded by his elder brother Jehoiakim. Compare 2 Chronicles 36:2, with Jeremiah 22:5. The only difficulty arises from 1 Chronicles 3:15, where we have the sons of Josiah arranged in this order, — Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. Johanan no doubt died young, and he could not be Jehoahaz, for he is said to be the first-born; and Jehoahaz, as it appears from 2 Chronicles 36:2 and 5, was younger than Jehoiakim, and older by many years than Zedekiah. The only solution of the difficulty seems to be that there is, as Blayney, Horsley, and others thought, a typographical mistake in 1 Chronicles 3:15, that Shallum ought to be before Zedekiah, instead of being after him. His two brothers had two names as well as Shallum. There is a mistake of the same kind (that of transcribers at an early period, as there are no different readings) in 2 Chronicles 36:9, where Jehoiachin is said to have been eight years old when he began to reign, instead of eighteen, as we find it stated in 2 Kings 24:8. And this age alone comports with the language of Jeremiah in this chapter, for he would not have denounced such a judgment on a child eight years of age.

As to Matthew 1:11, the true reading no doubt is, “And Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah,” etc., as found in some copies, though not of great authority.

Some, with Calvin, think Shallum to be Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not Shallum the son of Josiah. The objection to this is, that the Prophet here proceeds from Shallum to Jehoiakim, and then to his son Jeconiah. And from what he says of Jehoiakim, it appears that he delivered this prophecy in his reign, except we think, as some do, that the Prophet relates here in the reign of Zedekiah what he had previously prophesied. But the probability is, as Blayney and others think, that this prophecy was delivered in the reign of Jehoiakim. — Ed.

ftE43 There is no doubt but rça is sometimes an adverb of time, when; but all the Versions and the Targum render it here who, “who has gone forth,” etc. Shallum, whoever he was, had no doubt been led captive, as it is said in the next verse; for the verb, which Calvin renders in the second future, is in the past tense, and is so rendered by all the Versions. — Ed.

ftE44 This verse is not correctly rendered by Calvin nor by any of the early versions. The two last clauses are made by them all in a great measure tantological, while they are perfectly distinct in their meaning. I render the verse thus, — Wo to him who builds his house by means of injustice, And his chambers by means of wrong judgment: Of his neighbor he makes a slave for no reason, And for his work he gives nothing to him.

The verb rb[ when followed by b, means to enslave, or to make a slave. See Jeremiah 25:14. We hence see the force of the word, snj gratuitously, for no reason, because the Jews might under certain circumstances be reduced to a state of slavery; but Jehoiakim did this when there was no cause. This was the “wrong judgment” And then he gave them no support, nothing for their work; this was the “injustice.” He reduced them to slavery, and did not maintain them. The real import of the passage is completely lost in the loose rendering of the Versions; but the Targ. rightly expresses the meaning of the third line, “To slavery he reduces for no cause his neighbor.” — Ed.

ftE44 The word is µyjwrm, rendered “fanned — ριπιστὰ,” by the Sept., and “spacious” by the other Versions and the Targ. The rendering may be “chambers of ventilations,” meaning “airy chambers.” Parkhurst considers it a Huphal participle, and renders it “airy.” But Blayney objects to this, as it is in a different gender from “chambers;” but it may be viewed as in construction; for in Hebrew two nouns are often used for a noun and a participle, or an adjective. — Ed.

ftE45 The Vulg., the Syr., and Targ., read, “And he opens for himself windows.” The verb is [rq, to rend, to divide, and also to distend, to enlarge, to dilate. See Jeremiah 4:30. The line may be rendered, — And he makes large his windows. — Ed.

ftE46 Calvin is quite right in applying the latter part to the house generally, and not to the chambers, as it is done by the Sept. and the Arab.; and guided by them, Houbigant proposed emendations of the Text. The arrangement of the verse is according to the common practice of the Prophets, — 14. Who says, “I will build me a spacious house, And airy upper apartments:” And he makes large his windows; And covered it is with cedar, And painted with vermilion.

There are two things mentioned, — house and apartments. Of the latter he speaks first, as it is usually the case, that he made large windows in them; and then he speaks of the house in general, that it was covered (not ceiled) with cedar, as the Temple was, (1 Kings 6:15,) and painted with vermilion. Here we see an instance how emendations have been proposed through ignorance as to the Hebrew style. The Syriac version makes the sense more distinct, though it be not literal, and is as follows, — Who says, “I will build me large houses, And spacious chambers:” For these he opens windows; Those he covers with cedars, And adorns with paintings.

“Vermilion,” rçç, rendered, “μίλτω — ochre,” or ruddle, by the Sept.; “sinopide — a red stone,” by the Vulg. and Targ. Parkhurst quotes Pliny, who says that μίλτος was found in silver mines, and was a sort of reddish sand, and used as a paint. Something of this kind was what is here mentioned, though it is not known now specifically what it was, nor is it of much consequence. It occurs only here, and in Ezekiel 23:14. — Ed.

ftE47 The general sense is given, but not a literal rendering. The last verb is variously rendered; “because thou betakest thyself to cedar,” is the Vulg.; “wilt thou delight thyself in cedars?” the Syr.; the Targ. is a loose paraphrase, and the Sept. and Arab. wholly depart from our present text, “because thou art stimulated by Ahaz thy father.” Then what follows is widely different, but wholly inconsistent with the original. The verb is the Hithpael of hrj, to burn, to be hot; and it means to be hot or warm with anger, exertion, grief, or delight. In the second sense it is used in Jeremiah 12:5; but here in the last sense, “because thou art inflamed with cedar,” or greatly delightest thyself in cedar; and this meaning is countenanced both by the Vulg. and Syr. Blayney takes the third sense — “hot with grief,” and gives this version, which is approved by Horsley, though its meaning is not very evident, — Shalt thou reign because thou frettest thyself in cedar?

Venema is more to the point, — Shalt thou reign, because thou art in great heat for cedar? — Ed.

ftE48 The whole verse would read better thus, —

15. Shalt thou reign, because thou art enamored with cedar? Thy father — did he not eat and drink? When he administered judgment and justice, Then it was well with him.

To eat and to drink, as Calvin, observes, means a happy life; his father enjoyed life, though he took no delight in cedars; but his happiness arose from governing justly his people. The Syr. connects the two last lines as above, — He executed judgment and justice, I therefore did him good. — Ed.

ftE49 Venema considers that there is here no repetition, but takes this verse as addressed to Jehoiakim, and gives this version, — By judging judge the afflicted and poor, Then it will be well with thee: Is not this the knowledge of me, saith Jehovah?

But the words will not admit of this rendering. The verb is in the past tense, followed by a noun derived from the same verb, a thing not unusual in Hebrew. Literally the verse is, — He defended the defense (the cause) of the needy and poor, Then well it was with him: Was not that to know me, saith Jehovah?

The pronoun awh, is not this, but that, when used as a demonstrative pronoun. See Genesis 2:19. We may indeed render the last line thus, — Was not that the knowledge of me, saith Jehovah? That is, Was it not the fruit or the effect of that knowledge? — Ed.

ftE50 The Vulg. is, “Was it not so, because he knew me, saith Jehovah?” the Syr., “He who doeth such things knoweth me, saith the Lord;” and the Targ., “Is not that the knowledge which I desire, saith the Lord?” The Vulg. is the most correct. “They are said to know God,” says Grotius, “who shew by their deeds that they know what pleases Him.” — Ed.

ftE51 The most literal version of this verse is the following, —

For on nothing are thine eyes and thine heart, Except on thy gain, And on innocent blood, that it may be shed, And on oppression and on violence, That they may be done.

“That it may be shed,” is literally, “for being shed,” it is a passive participle; and such is the case as to the last verb. — Ed.

ftE52 It is “to” in the Sept. and Vulg., and “concerning” in the Syr., Arab., and Targ. The latter is most adopted by commentators. — Ed.

ftE53 The original is not “his,” but “her glory.” The lamentation is such as was used for kings, when there was also a condolence expressed for the queens. Ah, my brother! and, Ah, lord! was a lamentation for the king when dead, (Jeremiah 34:5; ) and, Ah, sister! and, Ah, her glory! was sympathy for the surviving queen. Her glory had departed with her husband. This is Blayney’s view.

The Versions and the Targum are all different, and not one of them renders the original correctly.

The verse may be thus rendered, — 18. Therefore thus saith Jehovah of Jehoiakim, The son of Josiah, the king of Judah — They shall not lament for him — . “Ah, my brother, and, Ah, sister. They shall not lament for him — “Ah, Lord! and, Ah, her glory!”

To render the w disjunctively “or,” as in our version, seems not suitable. The lamentation and the condolence are to be connected together. The “Ah” might be rendered “Alas;” and so it is in many places. See 1 Kings 13:30. — Ed.

ftE54 The verb, or rather participle, rendered “drawn,” means to be dragged along, and not carried. See 2 Samuel 17:13. He was to be dragged out of the city and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. It is said in 2 Chronicles 36:6, that Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.” The probability is (for we have no express account) that he died while in fetters at Jerusalem, before he was removed, and that Nebuchadnezzar, from indignation at his rebellion, had him dragged as a dead ass out of the city and exposed as food for rapacious birds and beasts. We find it said in 2 Kings 24:6, that “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers;” but this only means that he died, or that he died a natural death and was not killed; for we find this phrase used, when burial is afterwards mentioned. See 2 Chronicles 12:16; 16:13, l4. — Ed.

ftE55 “All around,” µyrb[m, is rendered “beyond the sea” by the Sept.; “to those who pass by,” by the Vulg.; “from the farther shores of the sea, by the Syr.; “at the fords,” by the Targ.; “beyond the fords,” that is, of the Nile, by Grotius and Piscator; and “from the borders,” by Blayney. But the most suitable rendering here is what has been adopted by Gataker and Venema, “from Abarim,” a mountain in the confines of Moab. See Numbers 27:12. There are here two mountains previously mentioned, lying to the north; and here is another to the east. Jerusalem (for that is here addressed) is commanded, by way of taunt, to ascend these mountains to cry for aid and to utter its lamentation; for all its lovers from these quarters were destroyed; the king of Babylon had subdued them. — Ed.

ftE56 The word for tranquillity is in the plural number, “tranquillities,” meaning tranquil, or quiet times or seasons. It is rendered “fall,” very unaccountably, by the Sept.; “abundance,” by the Vulg.; “affluence,” by the Syr.; “when thou didst sit tranquil,” by the Targ. But the word clearly means a tranquil, quiet, or peaceable state. Blayney rightly renders the expression, “in the times of thy tranquillity.” — Ed.

ftE57 The yk is omitted in the Sept., and the clause is given as in apposition with the former, which seems to be the meaning; “the way” was not to hear God’s voice. Blayney, very unsuitably, connects the last line with the following verse. I render the verse thus, — 21. I spoke to thee in thy quiet times; Thou didst say, “I will not hear:” This has been thy way from thy childhood; For thou didst not hear my voice.

It has been usual with many to render “hear,” “obey;” but not rightly. The complaint against the people was, that they would not “hear” the voice of God, much less obey it. The answer here was that they would not “hear.” The complaint, or the charge against them is the same, and the verb ought to be so rendered. — Ed.

ftE58 The wind sometimes means what is empty; and in this sense the Sept., the Vulg., and the Arab. take it here, “All thy pastors the wind shall feed;” but the Syr. and the Targ. take the “wind” as meaning a blasting or a stormy wind: “All thy pastors the wind shall feed on,” or eat up, is the Syr.; and the Targ. gives this paraphrase, “All thy pastors shall be scattered unto every wind.” The verb, no doubt, means to feed, and to feed on, or eat up, or consume, but not to scatter or disperse. Therefore the meaning here is, either that the pastors would have nothing but what was empty to support them, or that they would be consumed as by a blast. The first is most consonant to the tenor of the passage; for the aid of their lovers is previously referred to; but they would find this aid to be “wind,” and then it is added, that these lovers as well as themselves would be driven into captivity. There is a striking paronomasia in the words. The word for pastors is derived from the verb to feed. We may give this version, “All thy feeders shall the wind feed.” The feeders had fed the people with winds, with empty expectations, and they, in their turn, would have nothing but wind, what was empty, to live upon or to support them. — Ed.

ftE59 Our version is better as to the two verbs here used, “ashamed and confounded.” The latter is stronger than the former. The Vulg. and the Targ. invert the order, “confounded and ashamed.” The Sept. and Arab. have “ashamed and dishonored,” or despised. The first verb means simply to be ashamed, and the other to turn aside as it were from a sense of shame, as one not able to look on others. — Ed.

ftE60 The former part of this passage is differently rendered by all the early versions: the Sept., “thou wilt groan;” the Vulg., “how thou hast groaned;” the Syr., “how much wilt thou groan.” The reading adopted was tnhn, from hhn, instead of tnjn, for the y is not found in many copies, nor in the Keri, nor in connection with the two participles at the beginning of the verse. The Targ. has “what wilt thou do.” Most of modern expounders take the text as we have it, and there are no different readings. Then the whole verse would read as follows, — 23. Inhabitress of Lebanon! nestler in the cedars! How graceful (or favored) shalt thou be, When come on thee shall throes, A pain like that of childbearing!

The gender is feminine, and either Jerusalem or the house or family of David is meant. The word for “throes” means girding pains or pangs. The verse is the language of irony. The people were so hardened, that nothing else would have touched them. — Ed.

ftE61 The early Versions throughout this passage give his name as Jeconiah; but the Targ., Coniah, according to the Hebrew. The Rabbins give various reasons for the change, and others too, which are frivolous. The reason given by Calvin and adopted by Gataker, Lowth, and others, is confirmed by the contemptuous language used in the 28th verse. — Ed.

ftE62 There is here a striking contrast: God would pluck off Jeconiah, were he like a signet on his right hand, and would deliver him into the hand of his enemies. From being as it were on the divine hand, he would be given up into the hand of those who sought his life. — Ed.

ftE63 The word is strong; it means to toss, to hurl, violently to cast forth, to throw with force, as one throws a missile weapon. See 1 Samuel 28:11. The “mittam” of the Vulg. is too weak; the “ἀπορρίψω” of the Sept. is more suitable. — Ed.

ftE64 The phrase, “to raise or lift up the mind,” or the soul, is to set the heart on a thing. The Vulg. has adopted the Hebrew idiom, “to which they lift up their soul.” The Sept. leaves out “return,” and have only, “which they wish in their souls.” Our version retains the true idea, though it be not literal, “whereunto they desire to return;” literally, “where they are lifting up their soul to return there:” the two adverbs of place are given, the relative adverb and the pronoun adverb, if we may so call them. It is the same sort of idiom as when a relative and a pronoun are used, one before and the other after the verb, as in Jeremiah 22:25, “whom thou fearest (or dreadest) their face,”

rightly rendered in our version, “whose face thou fearest:” but the Welsh is literally the Hebrew; the idiom is exactly the same. — Ed.

ftE65 The verb means to loose, to set free; and it is here in a passive sense, to be loosed or set free. It seems to refer to the setting free the idol or statue from its fastenings; therefore, “broken down” would be its best rendering. — Ed.

ftE66 It is singular that all the early versions soften down the strong terms used in this verse; not one of them give a faithful translation. The Sept., the Syr., and the Arab. give hardly the half of the verse, and what they give is divested of the tone and spirit of the original. The Vulg. leaves out the word “idol” or statue, and puts “an earthen vessel” in its place. The whole verse I render as follows, — 28. A contemptible, broken down idol! Is this the man Coniah? Is he a vessel in which there is no delight? Why are they cast out, he and his seed, And sent into a land which they have not known?

There is the relative which understood after “vessel” in the third line. The Welsh, which in this kind of idiom is exactly the same with the Hebrew, admits of the same sort of ellipsis, — Ai llester yw heb hoffder ynddo?

Which is verbally the Hebrew, “Is he a vessel without delight in it?” The “casting out” was from the land of Canaan, and the “sending” was into the unknown land. — Ed.

ftE67 It does not appear whether Calvin meant the earth generally or the land of Judea. But the latter most probably is what is intended. The version, then, ought to be, “Land, land, land!” The Sept. and the Arab. have “land” only twice, but the other versions have it three times as in Hebrew. The paraphrase of the Targ. is singular, “From their own land they have made them to migrate to another land; land of Israel! hear the words of the Lord.”

“Land” means often the inhabitants; and what follows proves that it has this meaning here; for it is added, “Write ye,” etc. — Ed.

ftE68 The word rendered “childless”” properly means “wholly stripped,” or destitute, or “quite naked.” It is rendered “banished” by the Sept., but “childless” by the Vulg., the Syr., and the Targ. He was “childless” as a king, having had no son as a successor on the throne of David; but he had children, see 1 Chronicles 3:17, 18. And that this is the meaning appears evident from the end of the verse.

Scott thinks that Zedekiah, the uncle of Jeconiah, is the person spoken of in these two last verses. He considers that the contents of this chapter were repeated in Zedekiah’s reign as a warning to him. But this view is not consistent with the general tenor of the chapter. See especially Jeremiah 22:13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19; these shew evidently that the prophecy was delivered in the time, probably in the latter time of Jehoiakim; then the Prophet proceeds, in Jeremiah 22:24 to the end of the chapter, prophetically to describe the late of his son Jeconiah. And having said that he would be childless as a king, that none of his seed would sit on the throne of David, he introduces in the next chapter, which is connected with this, the “righteous branch,” the Messiah, the King of Zion. The proper division of the chapter is at the ninth verse. According to this view there is a perfect consistency, — Jeconiah was the last reigning prince in the right line (Zedekiah, his uncle, was not in the right line) on the throne of David, as a temporal sovereign; then he, of whom David was a type, came, not to sit and to rule on the visible throne of David, but on that which it represented. — Ed.

ftE69 It is an exclamation in the Sept. and Syr.; “Oh! the Pastors,” etc., but a denunciation in the Vulg. and the Targ., “Wo to the Pastors,” etc. The original may be rendered in either way; the latter is the most suitable here. — Ed.

ftE70 The word is singular in Hebrew, “pasture,” or feeding. — Ed ftE71 The meaning seems to be that they had caused the flock to be scattered and driven away through their bad conduct, because they did not take care of them, as the last verb means. The two first verbs are indeed in Hiphil, and may be rendered causatively thus, — Ye have caused my sheep to be scattered, And have caused them to be driven away; And ye have not cared for them.

The last verb is not in Hiphil, and states the reason why the sheep had been dispersed. It means to oversee, to take care of, to attend to. The dispersion was owing to the neglect of the pastors in taking care of the sheep. The scattering or dispersion was their exile; which God states in the third verse was his act as a punishment for their wickedness, but the cause of dispersion was the conduct of the pastors.

We see here an instance of the order in which ideas are often stated by the Prophets. Scattering, though mentioned first, is the last act, the most ostensible; the driving out of the land was the previous act, and the first in order, though the last stated, was the neglect of the pastors in taking an oversight of them. It is to begin with the effect and to go back to the cause. “You have caused them to be scattered to all lands, you have made them to be driven out of their own land, and you have neglected to take care of them.” These are the three points of accusation, but stated in an inverted order. There are constant instances of this kind of arrangement. — Ed.

ftE72 “To their own pasture,” is the Sept. and Arab.; “to their own country,” the Vulg.; “to their own fold,” the Syr.; “to their own places,” the Targ. The Hebrew is, “to their own folds;” the word is plural, and means generally “habitations,” either for men, or cattle, or beasts. As sheep are mentioned, “folds” no doubt is the proper word. — Ed.

ftE73 This verb is omitted by the Sept. and Arab., and rendered, “no one of their number shall be sought,” by the Vulg.; “nor wander,” by the Syr.; “nor be moved,” by the Targ. Our version has followed that of Montanus, “neither shall they be lacking.” Venema and Gataker render it, “nor shall they be missing;” and Blayney, “nor shall they be visited,” that is, with judgment. But the verb is used in the sense of being wanting or missing, see Numbers 31:49; 1 Samuel 25:7; 15:21; and this is the meaning most suitable to this passage, — And I will set over them pastors, And they will feed them; And they shall fear no more, nor be terrified, Nor be missing, saith Jehovah. — Ed.

ftE74 The Sept. and Arab. give, “a righteous sun-rising — ἀνατολὴν δίκαιαν;” the Vulg., “a righteous branch;” the Syr., “a ray of righteousness.” The Vulg. is alone correct, as there can be no doubt as to the original words. — Ed.

ftE75 We cannot express the words in our language without changing the terms as follows, “And a ruler shall rule,” or, “a reigner shall reign.”

Bochart says that this double use of the same word, as a substantive and a verb, imports in Hebrew what is enhancive, according to what Calvin says here. The king was to be a king indeed, with full power and dignity, and with a large extent of empire. The Welsh will express the words literally, — A breniniaetha brenin.

And so it is rendered in Greek, —

Καὶ βασιλεύσει βασιλεὺς. — Ed.

ftE76 The verb lkç first means to be wise or prudent, and in Hiphil, as here, to understand, to act wisely or prudently; and secondly, as the natural effect of wisdom, it means sometimes to prosper. But the first sense is given to it here by all the Versions: “and shall understand,” is the Septuagint; “and shall be wise,” the Vulgate; “and shall act prudently,” the Syriac. Our version is the Targum, Blayney gives the same idea with Calvin, “and shall act wisely;” which is no doubt the correct one. — Ed.

ftE77 See the Preface to this volume.

ftE78 “This king,” says Venema, “is the true God, the meritorious cause and pledge of our righteousness, and also the efficient cause and exemplar of all holiness, piety, and virtue.” He holds that Messiah alone is spoken of here, and blames Grotius for applying the passage in the first place to Zerubbabel, and maintains that what is said here cannot be applied to any but to the Messiah. He mentions, as a proof of this, his name — “a righteous Branch;” his royal dignity — “a king shall reign;” his title — “Jehovah our righteousness,” his prosperity and the security of his kingdom. All these things comport with the character of no one, but with that of our Lord Jesus Christ. — Ed.

ftE79 These two verses are omitted here in the Sept. and Arab., but are given at the end of the chapter. — Ed.

ftE80 It is a fact worthy of being observed, that what God effected in the course of his providence was more remarkable, and is represented as more astonishing, than what he did by means of many and wonderful miracles: the secret working of his providence on the minds of men is more wonderful and effects greater things than his power when put forth to reverse the course of nature. Though he performs no miracles now, yet he works in a way more wonderful than if he did. We cannot but see this if we notice the course of events with enlightened eyes. — Ed.

ftE81 The verse begins with ˆkl, rendered “therefore,” or, “on this account,” by the Vulg., the Syr., and by our own version; but, “after this,” by Blayney, and “moreover,” by Gataker. It might be rendered “surely,” or doubtless, as it is by Venema, — Surely, behold the days are coming, saith Jehovah, When they shall no more say, Jehovah lives, etc.

It is better to render the w, “when,” than “that,” as in our version. The Sept. and Vulg, render it “and,” which gives no meaning in either language. Calvin follows the Syr., and gives the sense, “in which.” — Ed.

ftE82 These words are connected with the former verse in the Sept. where they seem to have no meaning. The Vulg. puts them as a heading to what follows, and Blayney has done the same, “concerning the prophets.” The Syr. connects them with the following words, as Calvin does, and our version, and also the Arab. and Targ. The most suitable rendering would be, — For the prophets broken is my heart within me.

The sentence is otherwise hardly complete. It may be rendered “with regard to the prophets,” etc. — Ed.

ftE83 The idea of shaking or trembling is commonly given here to the verb: “are shaken,” Sept.; “have trembled,” Vulg., Syr., and Targ. The word “tremble” is the most suitable. — Ed.

ftE84 The early Versions and the Targum differ as to this word: the Sept., the Syr., and the Arab. have “on account of these,” that is, adulterers; the Vulg.,” on account of a curse,” that is of God; the Targ., “on account of false swearing.” Blayney says, that there is nothing here about swearing, and renders the words “because of these:” but the 14th verse (Jeremiah 23:14) decides the question, where we have “adultery” and “walking in lies,” ascribed to the same persons, the prophets. That, hla means sometimes “false swearing,” is evident from Hosea 4:2; and in Hosea 10:4, we have the word “falsely” added to it. Their false swearing was their unfaithfulness to God’s covenant, their apostasy in worshipping idols. And the charge of being “adulterers” seems to refer to their spiritual adultery — their idolatry, and not as Calvin and others think, to that which is natural. Everything in the context favors this view; their wickedness was found in God’s house, verse 11 (Jeremiah 23:11); and a comparison is made between them and the Samaritan prophets, verse 14 (Jeremiah 23:14). The construction of this verse leads us to the same conclusion: when two yk occur in succession, as here, they may be rendered as and so, — As the land has been filled with adulterers, So for false swearing has the land mourned, Withered have the pastures of the wilderness; And their course has become calamitous, And their strength not firm, (that is, to run their course.)

Houbigant and Horsley have re-arranged the whole verse, and made several transpositions. Had these learned men for a moment reflected how such delocations of words, as they suppose, could have taken place, they would have, no doubt, restrained their innovating propensities. — Ed.

ftE85 That the word means “course,” is evident from Jeremiah 8:6, where it can have no other meaning. So it is rendered by the Sept. and the Vulg. Blayney gives it another meaning.

Their will also hath been wickedness, And their might without right.

He derives it from hxr, to choose, and not from ≈yr, run: but the sense of the last line is hardly discernible. — Ed.

ftE86 This verb is used three times in Jeremiah 3:1, 2, and 9, and in every instance in the sense of defiling the land with adultery, and in the two last verses, with spiritual adultery — idolatry. It is rendered here passively by the Sept. and the Vulg., “have become defiled;” but it is most commonly used in a transitive sense; and so Jun. and Trem. render it here, and consider it, the land, as understood after it; and this is most consistent with the context, — For both prophet and priest have defiled it: Also in my house have I found Their wickedness, saith Jehovah.

The “house” of God is here put in contrast with the land or the country; and in Jeremiah 23:15, it is expressly said that from Jerusalem pollution had gone forth throughout all the land. Idolatry is evidently what is meant throughout this passage, from verse 9 to 15 (Jeremiah 23:9-15). Calvin as to this verb has followed the Syriac version. — Ed.

ftE87 Such is the word literally; but there is here an ellipsis, not uncommon in Hebrew; the word way is left out before “lubricities” or slipperinesses. The word being plural, and a reduplicate, expresses what is extreme — “most slippery,” or, wholly slippery, — 12. Therefore their way shall be to them, As a way wholly slippery in thick darkness; They shall drive on and fall in it; For I will bring on them an evil — The year of their visitation, saith Jehovah.

It is not darkness, but thick darkness is what the word means; and it is connected with the previous words by the Targ. and by all the versions, except the Syr.; which Blayney has thus followed, — Into darkness shall they be thrust and shall fall therein.

But this spoils the whole force of the passage: their way was to be altogether slippery, and also in thick darkness; along which they would

be hurried on, or slide, or drive on, and the inevitable effect would be falling. — Ed.

ftE88 Rendered “iniquities” by the Sept.; “fatuity” by the Vulg.; “falsehood” by the Syr.; and “impiety by the Targ. Blayney has, “that which was disgusting.” The word, as here, is found only in two other places, Job 1:22; Job 24:12. It means, not what is “disgusting,” but what is crude, insipid, untempered, and hence figuratively, what is unreasonable, absurd, fatuitous, foolish. It is rendered “folly” in Job. The Vulg., which is followed by Calvin, gives its best meaning here — “fatuity.” To prophesy by Baal was the effect of infatuation: it was an absurd and fatuitous thing. This was the character of the thing in itself; and the evil which this fatuity produced was to lead the people astray. — Ed.

ftE89 Or “wickedness — pravitatem,” rendered “horrible things” by the Sept., and “folly” by the Syr. The Vulg. and the Targ. go altogether astray. The word means properly horridness, hideousness, or a horrid thing, and may be rendered enormity. The difference found in the Targ. and the Versions, as to the word and the manner of rendering the words which follow, seems to shew that the passage was not understood. I offer the following version, — 14. But among the prophets of Jerusalem Have I seen a horrid thing — The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they have strengthened the hand of the wicked, That they might not turn, each from his wickedness: They are all of them become to me like Sodom, And its inhabitants like those of Gomorrah.

The verb I render “the committing of adultery,” is an infinitive without a preposition; it cannot be otherwise rendered in our language, but in Welsh it can be rendered literally, as an infinitive without a preposition, though commonly in that language, as in Hebrew, the infinitive mood has a preposition before it. The “horrid thing” was adultery, that is, idolatry, combined with “walking in falsehood,” that is, with a false profession of prophesying in God’s name, which is afterwards more distinctly specified. Here was the difference between the prophets: those of Samaria were idolaters, and consistently they prophesied in the name of Baal; but the prophets of Jerusalem were not only idolaters, but added to this sin the enormity of defending all they did by alleging that they were the Lord’s prophets. This was the horrid thing. It is a great sin to advocate error, but to do this in the name of the Lord, or by perverting his word, is a horrid thing. The last line presents an instance of that ellipsis mentioned in a Note on the 12th verse. The word “inhabitants” is to be understood before Gomorrah. — Ed.

ftE90 This is the Syr., but it is not the meaning; it is properly rendered “pollution,” or defilement, by the Sept., the Vulg., and Arab., but improperly flattery, by the Targ. The verb from which it comes is commonly rendered to defile; see Isaiah 24:5; Micah 4:11. The “profaneness” of our version, and “the perverseness” of Blayney, seem incorrect; the word is used in neither sense. The pollution here was by idolatry — the adultery beforementioned. This pollution had spread from Jerusalem through the whole land. — Ed.

ftE91 The Sept. gives this version, “for they make a vain vision for themselves; from their heart they speak, and not from the mouth of the Lord.” Though the sense is given, yet it is not a correct version. The Vulg. and Syr. keep nearer to the original, and render the first clause “and they deceive you.” The words literally are, “Infatuating you are they.” The whole verse is as follows, — 16. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not to the words of the prophets, Who prophesy unto you; Infatuating you are they; The vision of their own heart do they speak, And not from the mouth of Jehovah.

The “And” in the last line is supplied in several copies, is given by the Sept. and the Syr. To render “from,” as Blayney does, “after the mouth,” etc., is no improvement. To speak “from the mouth of the Lord” is very striking. All the Versions retain the preposition “from,” and the Targ. gives “word” for “mouth.” — Ed.

ftE92 Some, as Venema and Blayney, think that µyrma belongs to the preceding verse; but this would not consist with the Hebrew idiom, where a participle often precedes a verb in the future tense, but never follows it; nor is this countenanced by any of the Versions or the Targ. The words as they stand are indeed unusual; the probability is that rwma should be wrma, and all the Versions give it as such, “they say.”

Then it would be, “Saying they say;” which imports the boldness and the confidence of the false prophets; that is, “They boldly say.” — Ed.

ftE93 There is a difference in the early versions as to this clause; it is connected in the Sept. and Arab. with the preceding, “They say to those who reject the word of the Lord,” etc., and Blayney has followed this arrangement. The Vulg., the Syr., and the Targ., take it as a separate clause, and render it as here. The Hebrew no doubt admits of either constructions, but the Lord appears to be the speaker, and therefore the latter construction ought to have the preference, — 17. They boldly say to those who despise me, Spoken hath Jehovah, “Peace shall be to you;”

And to every one who walks in the resolutions of his own heart, They say, “Not come upon you shall evil.” This rendering also corresponds more with what is said in Jeremiah 23:25, that the prophets prophesied lies in God’s name. — Ed.

ftE94 What seems to militate against this view is the fact, that these false prophets themselves pretended to a divine revelation; they announced their message as coming from God. Hence these questions seem to deny their pretensions. He seems to say, “Who of you have been in the council of Jehovah?” The tautology may be avoided without having recourse to the emendations which Blayney proposes, — But who (of you) has stood in the secret council of Jehovah? And saw and understood his business? Who has listened to his word and heard it?

We know that rbd means not only a word, but also a thing, affair, business, matter, any thing represented or imagined. The verb to “see,” which implies a vision, proves that it means the latter here. Then in the last line it means a message, because it was what was listened to and heard. But the verb [mç, in the first clause, comports with seeing, and understanding is what it sometimes signifies; and in the last clause it comports with listening, which is that of hearing. The Prophet refers to a vision and to a message, or to an affair as set before one admitted into the council chamber of his sovereign, (for this is the representation,) and to a message given to him who is commissioned to transact the business. It is not an unusual thing in Scripture to use a word in two

different senses in the same passage; but the surrounding context is always sufficient to make the subject clear. — Ed.

ftE95 “Storm,” or tempest, is the most suitable here. The word hmj, after Jehovah, seems to belong to it — “ hot tempest;” the reference is to the burning winds of the south. See Jeremiah 4:11, 12. The verse may be thus rendered, — Behold the burning tempest of Jehovah! It shall go forth, yea, a pregnant tempest; On the head of the wicked shall it burst.

The tempest or storm would be “burning,” and also “pregnant,” or in travail, as the word means; and being as it were in labor, it would “burst,” or literally bring forth on the head of the wicked. The verb is not from ljy, but from lwj, which means not only to be in labor but also to bring forth. “It shall come,” is the Sept. and the Vulg.; our version is the Targum. — Ed.

ftE96 Literally, “at the posteriority of days,” meaning, at a future time, without designating any particular period; it is the same as “hereafter.” The words which follow can hardly be rendered literally in our language — “ye shall discern it with discernment.” What is the antecedent to “it,” which is, h, a feminine gender? Venema says that it is to be taken as a neuter; but if so, what does it refer to? It appears to me that there is nothing in the passage to which it can be referred, except to the “tempest,” which is feminine, in the former verse; they would understand at a future time the meaning of that tempest, that it was from the Lord as a punishment for their sins. This they did not understand at the time. These two verses are found nearly in the same words at the end of Jeremiah 23:30: The last word is omitted there, — “At the posteriority of days ye shall discern it,” or understand it, or consider it.

The Vulg. here is, “at the last days ye shall understand his counsel;” the Sept., “at the last of days ye shall understand it;” and the Targ., “at the end of days ye shall by understanding understand this.”

ftE97 The order here is according to the usual style of the prophets; the most visible act is mentioned first — the prophets ran without being sent; then the previous act is referred to, — God never spoke to them, and yet they prophesied. They ran as though God had communicated something to them; but God neither spoke to them nor sent them. They had neither a mission nor a message from God. In the following verse, consistently still with the style of Scripture, the order is reversed. The message is first referred to, and then the mission. They had no message, because they never “stood” or were present in God’s council; and then they did not go forth for the purpose of turning the people from their evil way. — Ed.

ftE98 In the Sept. there is no corresponding clause to the “if” at the beginning of the verse. The Vulg. and the Targ., as in our version, make the “turning” to be such a clause, but strangely render it in the first person singular, “then would I have turned them,” etc. The rendering of Calvin, is the most suitable, only the w after µa, might better be rendered “then” than “surely,” — But if they had stood in my council, Then would they have caused my people to hear my words, And turned them from their wicked way, And from the wickedness of their doings.

Blayney renders the verse in the same way, making the corresponding clause to begin at the second line. — Ed.

ftE99 Their “evil way” was their idolatry, and “the wickedness of their doings” was their injustice and immoral conduct. — Ed.

ftE100 “Am I not a God here upon earth, that seems farther from me, as well as in heaven, that seemeth nearer to me, as being the place of my special residence? do you think that because my palace is in heaven I take no notice of what is done upon earth?” — Gataker. This appears to be the meaning; for he says afterwards, “Do not I fill heaven and earth?”

The words seem literally to be, — 21. Am I a God of nearness, saith Jehovah? And not a God of distance? — Ed.

ftE101 “The Scripture,” says Venema, “often brings to light and condemns, not what men profess, but what may be inferred from their doings.” — Ed.

ftE102 The future here ought to be rendered potentially, —

Can a man hide in hiding-places, That I should not see him, saith Jehovah? Do not I fill the heavens and the earth, saith Jehovah? The first line may be thus rendered more literally, — Can a man secrete himself in secrecies?

In Welsh, — A lecha dyn mewn llechveydd?

“The heavens,” and not “heaven,” ought to be the word in the last line; and so does Blayney render it. The visible and the invisible heaven are intended. — Ed.

ftE103 The more literal rendering is as follows, —

25. I have heard what the prophets have said, Who have prophesied in my name falsely, saying. — “I have dreamed, I have dreamed.” — Ed.

ftE104 Emendators have been very busy in correcting the first words in this verse, without the authority of any MSS., or of the early versions. When there is a meaning and a striking one, emendations, merely conjectural, are surely to be repudiated. Houbigant, Blayney, and Horsley, have their corrections, but we can do without them. What seems to have prompted conjectural emendations has been the h prefixed to çy; but Gataker removed this difficulty; his version is substantially as follows, — How long! — Is it in the heart of these prophets, To be prophesying falsehood, And prophesying the deceit of their own hearts?

To be “in the heart” is to be resolved, to form a purpose or determination. See Isaiah 63:4. It is the same, as though it was said, “Are these prophets resolved?” To be “in the heart” means also to delight in a thing. See Psalm 40:8. The meaning then may be, “Is it the delight of these prophets?” etc. But the first sense is the most suitable. “How long!” is an exclamation of wonder at their perseverance in their wicked course. They had been often warned, and yet they continued. Then follows a question, whether it was their settled purpose to persevere in prophesying falsely? — Ed.

ftE105 Calvin begins this verse as our version, “Who think,” etc. So the Sept.; the Vulg. is, “who seek (or wish), volunt.” Blayney has, “who study.” The verb means sometimes to contrive or to purpose a thing after counting the reasons for and against. It may be rendered here, “who design.” The Syriac is, “whose counsel is.” It was their design and intended object to make the people to forget God’s name through their dreams. But how to forget his name? for they professed to announce their dreams in his name. God’s name here evidently means his revealed name, himself as revealed in his word. — Ed ftE106 All the early versions and the Targ. render the last verb in the imperative mood, “Let him speak,” etc. And so most of modern expounders. — Ed ftE107 The difference between the chaff and the wheat is what the Sept. and Vulg. intimate, “What is the chaff to the wheat?” But the Syr. has another idea, “Why mingle ye the chaff with the wheat?” The literal rendering of the Hebrew is, “Why to the chaff the wheat?” The mixture is what seems to be intended. So thought Gataker and Blayney, who rendered it, “What has the chaff to do with the wheat?” that is, why do you mix them together? And so does Adam Clarke view the phrase. Venema, Henry, Scott, and Lowth take the first meaning, which is also that of our version; but the other is more agreeable to the original. — Ed ftE108 The particle hk at the beginning of this verse, rendered ut by Calvin, seems to be without meaning. It is omitted by the Vulg., and rendered “behold” by the Sept. and Syr., as though it was hnj. Venema regarded it either as a noun, burning, from hwk, to burn, or a misprint for jk, strength, vigor, power. The last is adopted by Blayney, and approved by Horsley, and is countenanced by the Targ., “Are not all my words strong as fire?” Blayney’s version is, — Is not the power of my word like fire?

This is the most probable meaning; though there is no different reading, yet the difference between the two letters is very small. — Ed.

ftE109 Various have been the expositions of this sentence: they adopted the manner of the true prophets, as some say, and used their words, an instance of which is found in Jeremiah 28:1-4; and this is the view of Scott; others hold that the imitation in saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” is what is referred to. It has also been suggested that they are intended — who, knowing the truth, withheld it from the people; and that to withhold what they knew, is represented here as stealing. But none of these views sufficiently account for the words here used, “who steal my words every one from his neighbor.” They were God’s words committed to the people, and these prophets stole them, that is, by rendering them void by their falsehoods and vain dreams, as Satan is said to steal the seed sown in the heart of the way-side hearer. This is the view taken by Grotius, Venema, and Gataker. — Ed.

ftE110 There are those who, with Houbigant, suppose a transposition in the word, the j being put last instead of being first; and then it would mean to render smooth. But this does not suit the passage. The probable idea is what is given paraphrastically by the Sept., “who send forth the prophecies of the tongue;” they derived their prophecies from their own hearts and their own tongues, and said that they came from God. They took or used their tongues only, and at the same time professed to speak God’s words. Or we may consider the taking or using the tongue as meaning only profession, as though it was said, “who profess and say, ‘He saith.’”

The Syr. is, “who pervert their own tongues,” which means that they used them falsely; and the Targ., “who prophesy according to the will of their own heart.” — Ed.

ftE111 The word is rendered “errors,” by the Sept.; “miracles,” by the Vulg.; “lasciviousness,” by the Syr.; and “rashness,” by the Targ. It comes from a verb which means to swell, to overflow. As a feminine noun it is only found here, and as a participial noun in two places, Judges 9:4, and Zephaniah 30:4, in which places it evidently means licentious persons; and I once thought that as used here it means licentiousness; see Note on Zephaniah 30:4, in vol. 4 on the Minor Prophets: but I now think that the meaning most suitable here is excess or overflowing in words — vaunting boasting. The false prophets boasted that they were prophesying in God’s name; they were telling lies, and boasting that they were sent by God. In this way they succeeded in leading astray the people, Venema renders it “vain boasting.”

Behold, I am against those who prophesy Lying dreams, saith Jehovah; And who declare them, that they may lead astray My people by their lies and by their vauntings.

Then follows a virtual denial of their vauntings, for God had “not sent’ nor “commanded” them; and the conclusion of the verse refers to their lies, for what they said would “not profit” the people. Thus we see a perfect correspondence between what is said in this and in the following verse, and the order is according to the usual style of the Prophets, it being reversed in the latter instance; their vauntings were false, because God did not send them; and their lies were vain, for they would not profit the people. — Ed.

ftE112 The latter part of the verse is rendered by the Septuagint, “Ye are the assumption. (λῆμμα,) I will dash you to pieces, saith the Lord;” by the Vulgate, “Ye are the burden, I will surely cast you away, saith the Lord;” by the Syriac, “This is the word of the Lord; I will pluck you up, saith the Lord;” and by the Targum, “Such is the prophecy; I will cast you away, saith the Lord.”

Blayney considers that these words açm jmAta ought to be thus arranged açmh µta, consistently with all the Versions and the Targum; the letters are the same, only differently connected. This, doubtless, is the right reading, though not found in any MS.; both the Versions and the sense being in its favor. Then as to the verb, the most suitable meaning here is to cast off, as Blayney renders it. The verse then would read as follows, — 33. And when ask thee shall this people, Or a prophet or a priest, saying, “What is the burden of Jehovah?” Then say to them, “Ye are the burden;” And I will cast you off; saith Jehovah.

It was a suitable answer to mockers, who made, as it were, a sport of the true Prophets. — Ed.

ftE113 The beginning of this verse will read better in connection with the last, in apposition with “you” whom the Lord threatened to cast off, — Then say to them, “Ye are the burden;” And I will cast you off, saith Jehovah —

34. Even the prophet and the priest and the people: Who will say, “The burden of Jehovah,” Yea, I will punish that man and his house.

Notice here the change of order in the words; in the preceding verse we find “the people and the prophet and the priest;” but here, “the prophet and the priest and the people.” Whoever he might be, whether a prophet or a priest or one of the people,” that man was to be punished. — Ed.

ftE114 This sentence, as given by the Sept. and Vulg., bears the meaning first mentioned by Calvin, but another, as given by the Syr., “for the word, let it be to man his prophecy,” that is, the Lord’s prophecy. The meaning of which seems to be, that the burden, or prophecy, ought to be deemed by every man as the word of God, or ought to be called his word; it was no longer to be called burden, but God’s word. According to Calvin and many others, the meaning is, “the word, or the phrase,” the burden of the Lord, “which ye use in derision, shall really be a burden to you.” The yk in this case must be rendered else or otherwise. But the following words do not well connect; and as punishment in case of disregarding the injunction here given is afterwards especially specified, to mention it here seems improper. I am therefore inclined to regard the two last clauses as including reasons for the prohibition; and I give this version, 36. And “the burden of Jehovah” ye shall no more mention; For the burden, it is become to every one his word; And ye have perverted the words of the living God, Of Jehovah of hosts, our God.

The word burden was used by all, it had become a common word; and by using it in derision, they turned the words of the living God into contempt, instead of receiving them as his words and obeying them. This was the process, they first ridiculed them, and then despised and neglected them. Hence God prohibited the use of the expression, “the burden of Jehovah.” The only objection to the rendering above is, that hyh, a future, is rendered as a present, “it is become;” but this is what is often done. Besides, yk is sometimes conversive as well as the w. — Ed.

ftE115 “Thus shalt thou say to the Prophet,” that is, every one of you. The singular is used, as is the case often, instead of the plural. The Syr. indeed adopts the plural, “Thus shall ye say,” etc. They are here directed how to address a Prophet. — Ed.

ftE116 The variety in the Versions as to this clause, and the different constructions given of it by expositors, seem to intimate some derangement in the text, and the text itself as it now exists, (and there are no different readings,) is not according to the Hebrew idiom; for ynnh, “behold me,” is commonly, if not uniformly, followed by a participle and then by a verb, preceded by w conversive in the past tense. See Jeremiah 9:7; Jeremiah 10:18; Jeremiah 16:16. This is not the case here. Besides, when a verb, and the same verb as a gerund are put together, which is no uncommon thing, the gerund in general, if not always, precedes the verb; not so here, if we take ytyçn, as most do, to be from açn. These anomalies are evident in the text as it now stands. Suppose the misplacing of one word, and put açn after ynnh, and the sentence will be perfectly grammatical, and the version would be as follows, — Therefore, behold, I will carry off and let you go; Yea, I will dismiss you and the city, Which I gave to you and to your fathers, From my presence.

Alluding to burden, he says that he would carry them off as one carries a burden, and then let them go, or throw them down: the verb hçn means to loosen, to disengage one’s self from a thing, to remit, to let go. Then çmn has a similar meaning, to set loose, to relax, to set free, to dismiss, to cast off; which intimates that he would not suffer them to continue as it were in his presence. It is the same verb as in Jeremiah 23:33 — Ed.

ftE117 It is singular in three MSS., and in all the early Versions, and the Targum; and the verb which follows requires it to be so, — 40. And I will bring on you a perpetual reproach, And a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.

The word for “shame” is stronger than that for “reproach,” as Parkhurst tells us; but shame is the feeling, and is rendered sometimes confusion, and reproach is what is outwardly disgraceful. The Sept.

and Vulg. have reproach and disgrace, by which the distinction is not marked. The reproach or disgrace was to be such as to create such a shame as would never be forgotten. The outward reproach is mentioned first, and then the shame that it would occasion. — Ed

ftE118 What this word exactly means it is difficult to know; it is rendered differently in the Versions and in the Targ. It is rendered here by the Sept. “prisoners,” and in 2 Kings 24:14 and 16, “encloser, or joiner — συγκλείς;” by the Vulg. in three places, “clausor,” and “inclusor — closer and incloser,” and also in Jeremiah 29:2. The word is not found elsewhere. The Targ. renders it “porters,” and the Syr. “soldiers.” As the word “artificer,” or mechanic, includes workers in wood and iron, that is, carpenters and smiths, it is probable that rgsm means workers in embroidery, sculpture, and jewellery, Parkhurst was disposed to render it a setter, or incloser of precious stones; but Blayney renders it an armourer, who made the coats of mail which inclosed the body, as the word from which it comes means to inclose. It probably includes all engaged in the curious works of art, especially the three branches before mentioned. Perhaps the best modern word for it would be, the artist, —

“after Nebuchadrezar, the king of Babylon, removed Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, and the mechanic and the artist, from Jerusalem, and brought them to Babylon.” — Ed.

ftE119 Blayney’s rendering is “offered according to law before the temple.” See Deuteronomy 26:2. — Ed.

ftE120 The word “acknowledge,” or own, would lead us to attach rather a different meaning to this expression: God would own them “good,” as the good figs. The next verse refers to God’s purpose to do them good. — Ed.