¹tn These words are not in the text, but since the words at the end are obviously those of the Lord, they are supplied in the translation here to mark the shift in speaker from 4:29-31 where Jeremiah is the obvious speaker.
²tn It is not clear who is being addressed here. The verbs are plural so they are not addressed to Jeremiah per se. Since the passage is talking about the people of Jerusalem, it is unlikely they are addressed here except perhaps rhetorically. Some have suggested that the heavenly court is being addressed here as in Job 1:6-8; 2:1-3. It is clear from Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7 that the prophets had access to this heavenly counsel through visions (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19-23), so Jeremiah could have been privy to this speech through that means. Though these are the most likely addressee, it is too presumptuous to supply such an explicit addressee without clearer indication in the text. The translation will just have to run the risk of the probable erroneous assumption by most English readers that the addressee is Jeremiah.
³map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.
⁴tn Heb “who does justice and seeks faithfulness.”
⁵tn Heb “squares. If you can find…if there is one person…then I will…”
⁶tn Heb “forgive [or pardon] it.”
⁷tn Heb “Though they say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives.” The idea of “swear on oath” comes from the second line.
⁸tc The translation follows many Hebrew mss and the Syriac version in reading “surely” (/k@a*) instead of “therefore” (/k@l*) in the Masoretic text.
tn Heb “Surely.”
⁹tn Heb “they swear falsely.”
¹⁰tn Heb “O Lord, are your eyes not to faithfulness?” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer.
¹¹tn Commentaries and lexicons debate the meaning of the verb here. The Masoretic text is pointed as though from a verb meaning “to writhe in anguish or contrition” (lWj, see, e.g., BDB 297 s.v. lWj 2.c) but some commentaries and lexicons repoint the text as though from a verb meaning “to be sick,” thus “to feel pain” (hl*j*; see, e.g., HAL 304 s.v. hl*j* 3). The former appears more appropriate to the context.
¹²tn Heb “They made their faces as hard as a rock.”
¹³tn Or “to repent”; Heb “to turn back.”
¹⁴tn Heb “Surely they are poor.” The translation is intended to make clear the explicit contrasts and qualifications drawn in this verse and the next.
¹⁵tn Heb “the way of the Lord.”
¹⁶tn Heb “the judgment [or ordinance] of their God.”
¹⁷tn Or “people in power”; Heb “the great ones.”
¹⁸tn Heb “the way of the Lord.”
¹⁹tn Heb “the judgment [or ordinance] of their God.”
²⁰tn Heb “have broken the yoke and torn off the yoke ropes.” Compare Jer 2:20 and the note there.
²¹tn Heb “So a lion from the thicket will kill them. A wolf from the desert will destroy them. A leopard will watch outside their cities. Anyone who goes out from them will be torn in pieces.” However, it is unlikely that, in the context of judgment that Jeremiah has previously been describing, literal lions are meant. The animals are metaphorical for their enemies. Compare Jer 4:7.
²²tn Heb “their rebellions are so many and their unfaithful acts so numerous.”
²³tn These words are not in the text, but are supplied in the translation to make clear who is speaking.
²⁴tn Heb “How can I forgive [or pardon] you.” The pronoun “you” is second feminine singular, referring to the city. See v. 1.
²⁵tn Heb “your children.”
²⁶tn Heb “by not gods.”
²⁷tn Heb “I satisfied them to the full.”
²⁸tn Heb “they committed adultery.” It is difficult to decide whether literal adultery with other women or spiritual adultery with other gods is meant. The word for adultery is used for both in the book of Jeremiah. For examples of its use for spiritual adultery see 3:8, 9; 9:2. For examples of its use for literal adultery see 7:9; 23:14. The context here could argue for either. The swearing by other gods and the implicit contradiction in their actions in contrast to the expected gratitude for supplying their needs argues for spiritual adultery. However, the reference to prostitution in the next line and the reference to chasing after their neighbor’s wives argues for literal adultery. The translation opts for spiritual adultery because of the contrast implicit in the concessive clause.
²⁹tn There is a great deal of debate about the meaning of this word. Most of the modern translations follow the lead of lexicographers who relate this word to a noun meaning “troop” and understand it to mean “they trooped together” (cf. BDB 151 s.v. dd~G` Hithpo.2 and compare the usage in Mic 5:1 [4:14 HT]). A few of the modern translations and commentaries follow the reading of the Greek and read a word meaning “they lodged” (reading Wrr+oGt=y] instead of Wdd`G{t=y] from I rWG [cf. HAL 177 s.v. Hithpo. and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 17:20]). Holladay, Jeremiah, p. 180 sees a reference here to the cultic practice of cutting oneself in supplication to pagan gods (cf. BDB 151 s.v. dd~G` Hithpo.1 and compare the usage in 1 Kgs 18:28). The houses of prostitutes would then be a reference to ritual prostitutes at the pagan shrines. The translation follows BDB and the majority of modern translations.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “to a house of a prostitute.”
sn This could be a reference to cultic temple prostitution connected with the pagan shrines. For allusion to this in the OT, see, e.g., Deut 23:17 and 2 Kgs 23:7.
<sup>31</sup>tn The meanings of these two adjectives are uncertain. The translation of the first adjective is based on assuming that the word is a defectively written participle related to the noun “testicle” (a Hiphil participle <yk!v!a&m^, from a verb related to Ev#a#, “testicle” (cf. Lev 21:20) and hence “having testicles” (cf. HAL 1379 s.v. hk*v*) instead of the Masoretic form <yK!v=m^ from a root hk*v* which is otherwise unattested in either verbal or nominal forms). The second adjective is best derived from a verb root meaning “to feed” (a Hophal participle <yn]z`Wm (the Kethib) from a root /Wz (cf. BDB 266 s.v. /Wz) for which there is the cognate noun /ozm* [cf. 2 Chr 11:23]). This is more likely than the derivation from a root /z~y` (reading <yn]Z`y%m=, a Pual participle with the Qere) which is otherwise unattested in verbal or nominal forms and whose meaning is dependent only on a supposed Arabic cognate (cf. HAL 387 s.v. /z~y`).
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “neighs after.”
<sup>33</sup>tn Literally, “through her vine rows and destroy.” No object is given but “vines” must be implicit. The word for “vineyards” (or “vine rows”) is a hapax legomenon and its derivation is debated. BDB 1004 s.v. hr`WV repoints h*yt#orv* to h*yt#orv% and relates it to a Mishnaic Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic word meaning “row.” HAL 1348 s.v. hr`WV also repoint to h*yt#orv% and relate it to a noun meaning “wall,” preferring to see the reference here to the walled terraces on which the vineyards were planted. The difference in meaning is minimal.
<sup>34</sup>tn In the light of the context and Jeremiah’s identification of Israel as a vine (cf., e.g., 2:21) and a vineyard (cf., e.g., 12:10), it is likely that this verse has a totally metaphorical significance. The enemy is to go through the vineyard that is Israel and Judah and destroy all those who have been unfaithful to the Lord. It is not impossible, however, that the verse has a double meaning, a literal one and a figurative one: the enemy is not only to destroy Israel and Judah’s vines but to destroy Israel and Judah, lopping off the wicked Israelites who, because of their covenant unfaithfulness, the Lord has disowned. If the verse is totally metaphorical one might translate: “Pass through my vineyard, Israel and Judah, wreaking destruction. But do not destroy all of the people. Cut down like branches those unfaithful people because they no longer belong to the Lord.”
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “have denied the Lord.” The words “What…says” are implicit in what follows.
<sup>36</sup>tn Or “he will do nothing”; Heb “Not he [or it]!”
<sup>37</sup>tn Heb “we will not see the sword and famine.”
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “will be wind.”
sn There is a wordplay on the Hebrew word translated “wind” (j^Wr, rW^j) which also means “spirit.” The prophets spoke by inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord (cf. e.g., 2 Chr 20:14); hence the prophet was sometimes called “the man of the spirit,” (cf. Hos 9:7). The people were claiming that the prophets were speaking lies and hence were full of wind, not the Spirit.
<sup>39</sup>tc Heb “the word is not in them.” The MT has a highly unusual form here, the Piel perfect with the definite article (rB@D]h^). It is undoubtedly best to read with the LXX (Greek version) and one Hebrew ms the article on the noun (rb*D`h^).
⁴⁰tn Heb “Therefore.”
⁴¹tn Heb “The Lord God of armies.” See the translator’s note at 2:19.
sn Here the emphasis appears to be on the fact that the Lord is in charge of the enemy armies whom he will use to punish Israel for their denial of his prior warnings through the prophets.
⁴²tn The words, “to me” are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are supplied in the translation for clarification.
⁴³tn The text here <k#r+B#D~ “you have spoken” is either a case of a scribal error for <r`B#D~ “they have spoken” or another example of the rapid shift in addressee which has been common in Jeremiah.
⁴⁴tn Heb “this word.”
⁴⁵tn Literally “like wood and it [i.e., the fire I put in your mouth] will consume them.”
⁴⁶tn Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
⁴⁷tn Heb “Behold!”
⁴⁸tn Heb “All of them are mighty warriors.”
⁴⁹tn Heb “his quiver is/will be an open grave.” The order of the lines has been reversed to make the transition from “nation” to “their arrows” easier.
⁵⁰tn Heb “eat up.”
⁵¹tn Or “eat up your grapes and figs”; Heb “eat up your vines and your fig trees.”
sn It was typical for an army in time of war in the ancient Near East not only to eat up the crops but to destroy the means of further production.
⁵²tn Heb “with the sword.” However, the sword is only one weapon of many that they will use.
⁵³tn Heb “in those days.”
⁵⁴tn The word, “Jeremiah,” is not in the text but the second person address in the second half of the verse is obviously to him. The word is supplied in the translation here for clarity.
⁵⁵tn The MT reads the second masculine plural here; this is probably a case of attraction to the second masculine plural pronoun in the preceding line. An alternative would be to understand a shift from speaking first to the people in the first half of the verse and then speaking to Jeremiah in the second half where the verb is second masculine singular. E.g., “When you [people] say, “Why…?” then you, Jeremiah, tell them…” This is not impossible, but it is awkward in English.
⁵⁶tn Heb “As you left me and…, so you will….” The translation was chosen so as to break up a rather long and complex sentence.
⁵⁷sn This is probably a case of deliberate ambiguity (double entendre). The adjective “strangers” is used for both foreign people (so Jer 30:8; 51:51) and foreign gods (so Jer 2:25; 3:13). See also Jer 16:13 for the idea of having to serve other gods in the lands of exile.
⁵⁸sn The verbs are second plural here. Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, addresses his people, calling on them to make the message further known.
⁵⁹tn Literally “in the house of Jacob.”
⁶⁰tn Heb “it.” The referent is made explicit to avoid any possible confusion.
⁶¹tn The words, “their own way” are not in the text but are implicit and are supplied in the translation for clarity.
⁶²tn Heb “say in their hearts.”
⁶³tn Heb “who keeps for us the weeks appointed for harvest.”
⁶⁴tn Heb “have turned these things away.”
⁶⁵tn Heb “have withheld the good from you.”
⁶⁶tn The meaning of the last three words is somewhat uncertain. The pointing and meaning of the Hebrew word rendered here “hiding in ambush” is greatly debated. BDB relate the form here (Ev^K=) to a root Ek^v* which elsewhere means “decrease, abate” (cf. BDB 1013 s.v. Ek^v*) and say this is usually understood to mean “like the crouching of fowlers”; but they say this meaning is dubious. HAL questions the validity of the text and offers three proposals, the second of which appears to create the least textual modification, i.e. reading Ec^K= “as in the hiding place of (bird catchers)” (cf. HAL 1345 s.v. I rov; for the word Ec see HAL 1236 s.v. Ec 4 and compare Lam 2:6 for usage). The versions do not help here. The Greek does not translate the first two words of the line. The proposal given in HAL is accepted here with some hesitancy.
⁶⁷tn Literally “a destroying thing.”
⁶⁸tn The words, “that have been caught” are not in the text but are implicit in the comparison.
⁶⁹tn Heb “are filled with deceit.” The translation assumes that a figure of speech is being used where the cause is put for the effect. Compare the use of the same word in the same figure in Zeph 1:9.
⁷⁰tn Heb “therefore they have gotten great and rich.”
⁷¹tn These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation to show that this line is parallel with the preceding.
⁷²tn The meaning of this final word is uncertain. This verb occurs only here. The lexicons generally relate it to the word which is translated “plate” in Song 5:14 and see it as meaning “smooth, shiny” (so BDB 799 s.v. I tv#u#) or “fat” (so HAL 850 s.v. II tv#u#). The word in Song 5:14 more likely means “smooth” than “plate” (so TEV). So the idea of “sleek” would appear most likely. However, since both words only occur once there can be little certainty.
⁷³tn Heb “they cross over/transgress with respect to matters of evil.”
sn There is undoubtedly a wordplay here in the use of this word which has twice been applied in v. 22 to the sea not crossing the boundary set for it by God.
⁷⁴sn These words are repeated from 5:9 to give a kind of refrain justifying again the necessity of punishment in the light of such sins.
⁷⁵tn There is a good deal of disagreement about the meaning of this line. The Hebrew text reads, “they shall rule at their hands.” Since the word “hand” can be used figuratively for authority or mean “side” and the pronoun “them” can refer to the priests themselves or the prophets, the following translations have also been suggested: “the priests rule under their [the prophets’] directions,” or “the priests rule in league with them [the prophets].” From the information in the rest of the book it would appear that the prophets did not exercise authority over the priests nor did they exercise the same authority over the people that the priests did. Hence it probably mean “by their own hand/power/authority.”