Jeremiah 31:15

Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(15) A voice was heard in Ramah.—The sharp contrast between this and the exulting joy of the previous verse shows that we are entering on a new section which repeats in altered form the substance of the foregoing, presenting in succession the same pictures of present woe and future gladness. The prophet sees first the desolation of the captivity. Rachel, as the mother of Joseph, and therefore of Ephraim, becomes the ideal representative of the northern kingdom. Her voice is heard in Ramah (possibly, as in 1Samuel 22:6, Ezekiel 16:24, and in the Vulgate here, not as the name of a locality, but in its general meaning, from a mountain height) weeping for the children who have been slain or carried into exile. When used elsewhere as a proper name, the noun always has the article. Here it stands without it. If Ramah be definitely one of the places of that name, known fully as Ramathaim-zophim (1Samuel 1:1; 1Samuel 1:19), it is probably that within the borders of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25), not far from Rachel’s sepulchre (1Samuel 10:2). She, even in her grave, weeps for her children. The mention of Ramah in Isaiah 10:29 seems to indicate that it was the scene of some special massacre in the progress of the Assyrian invader, in the reign of Hezekiah; and Jeremiah may possibly refer to it, as well as to some later atrocity, in connection with that of the Chaldæans (comp. Jeremiah 40:1), over which Rachel, in her sepulchre near Bethlehem, is supposed to weep. Possibly also the meaning of the name Rachel (= ewe) may have added something to the force of the prophet’s description. He hears the cry of the ewe on the hill-top bleating for her lambs. The passage has gained a special significance as being cited by St. Matthew (Matthew 2:18), as fulfilled in Herod’s massacre of the infants of Bethlehem. On the nature of this fulfilment see Note on Matthew 2:18.

Benson Commentary

Jeremiah 31:15-17. Thus saith the Lord; A voice, &c. — Here “the scene of this prophecy changes, and two new personages are successively introduced, in order to diversify the subject, and to impress it more strongly on the mind of the reader. The first is Rachel, who in these verses is represented as just rising from the grave, and bitterly bewailing the loss of her children, for whom she looks about in vain, but none are to be seen. Her tears are dried up, and she is consoled with the assurance that they are not lost for ever, but shall in time be brought back to their ancient borders.” The passage is strongly figurative, but not difficult of interpretation, as the reader will perceive by what follows: A voice was heard in Ramah — Ramah was a city of Benjamin, (see Jdg 19:13,) near which Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, was buried. She is here, in a beautiful figure of poetry, represented as come forth out of her grave, and, as chief mourner on so sad an occasion, lamenting bitterly for the loss of her children, none of whom presented themselves to her view, being all either slain or gone into exile. In this way the prophet sets forth the lamentations, in and about Jerusalem, at the time of the several captivities mentioned Jeremiah 52:15; Jeremiah 52:28-30. The evangelist indeed applies these words to Herod’s massacre of the infants at Bethlehem and its environs, Matthew 2:17-18. But the context here plainly shows, that this massacre could not have been the direct and immediate object of the prophecy, (see the following note,) but the prophet’s words so well suited the occasion that the evangelist, with great propriety, observes their congruity therewith. He must however be understood just as if he had said, The circumstances of this affair were such that the words of Jeremiah, though spoken with a different view, may well be accommodated to this event. And this is as much as can be allowed with respect to several passages of the New Testament, where the words of the Old Testament were said to be fulfilled. See Matthew 2:16; Acts 1:16-20, &c.; and Blaney. It is observable, that the Vulgate and Chaldee understand the word, רמה, ramah, not as a proper name, but as an appellative, and translate it, in excelso, on high, or, aloud; according to which the sense will be, A voice is heard on high, or aloud, lamentations, weepings; of Rachel bewailing her children, and refusing to be comforted concerning them, because they are not. Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears — Set bounds to thy sorrow, repress and moderate thy inordinate and excessive grief; for thy work shall be rewarded — That is, it will appear thou hast not brought forth children in vain, nor shalt thou be deprived of the satisfaction of seeing the welfare of thy children, which is the parent’s reward for her pain in bringing them into the world, and her care and attention in providing for their support and education; for they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Thus the text interprets itself. But if the massacre at Bethlehem had been primarily designed here, with what propriety could it have been said, how could it have been affirmed, that they should return fromthe land of the enemy, or, as in the next verse, should come again to their own border? The words ישׁ תקוה לאחריתךְ, rendered here, There is hope in thine end, may be translated, There is hope, or expectation, to thy posterity; that is, though these of the present age do not experience a return from captivity, yet their posterity shall enjoy that blessing. This promise was particularly fulfilled with respect to the tribe of Benjamin, as well as that of Judah, in their return under Cyrus. See Ezra 1:5.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

31:10-17 He that scattered Israel, knows where to find them. It is comfortable to observe the goodness of the Lord in the gifts of providence. But our souls are never valuable as gardens, unless watered with the dews of God's Spirit and grace. A precious promise follows, which will not have full accomplishment except in the heavenly Zion. Let them be satisfied of God's loving-kindness, and they will be satisfied with it, and desire no more to make them happy. Rachel is represented as rising from her grave, and refusing to be comforted, supposing her offspring rooted out. The murder of the children at Bethlehem, by Herod, Mt 2:16-18, in some degree fulfilled this prediction, but could not be its full meaning. If we have hope in the end, concerning an eternal inheritance, for ourselves and those belonging to us, all temporal afflictions may be borne, and will be for our good.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The religious character of the restoration of the ten tribes. Chastisement brought repentance, and with it forgiveness; therefore God decrees their restoration.

Jeremiah 31:15

Ramah, mentioned because of its nearness to Jerusalem, from which it was distant about five miles. As the mother of three tribes, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, Rachel is regarded as the mother of the whole ten. This passage is quoted by Matthew (marginal reference) as a type. In Jeremiah it is a poetical figure representing in a dramatic form the miserable condition of the kingdom of Ephraim devastated by the sword of the Assyrians.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

15. Ramah—In Benjamin, east of the great northern road, two hours' journey from Jerusalem. Rachel, who all her life had pined for children (Ge 30:1), and who died with "sorrow" in giving birth to Benjamin (Ge 35:18, 19, Margin; 1Sa 10:2), and was buried at Ramah, near Beth-lehem, is represented as raising her head from the tomb, and as breaking forth into "weeping" at seeing the whole land depopulated of her sons, the Ephraimites. Ramah was the place where Nebuzara-dan collected all the Jews in chains, previous to their removal to Babylon (Jer 40:1). God therefore consoles her with the promise of their restoration. Mt 2:17, 18 quotes this as fulfilled in the massacre of the innocents under Herod. "A lesser and a greater event, of different times, may answer to the single sense of one passage of Scripture, until the prophecy is exhausted" [Bengel]. Besides the temporary reference to the exiles in Babylon, the Holy Spirit foreshadowed ultimately Messiah's exile in Egypt, and the desolation caused in the neighborhood of Rachel's tomb by Herod's massacre of the children, whose mothers had "sons of sorrow" (Ben-oni), just as Rachel had. The return of Messiah (the representative of Israel) from Egypt, and the future restoration of Israel, both the literal and the spiritual (including the innocents), at the Lord's second advent, are antitypical of the restoration of Israel from Babylon, which is the ground of consolation held out here by Jeremiah. The clause, "They were not," that is, were dead (Ge 42:13), does not apply so strictly to the exiles in Babylon as it does to the history of Messiah and His people—past, present, and future. So the words, "There is hope in thine end," are to be fulfilled ultimately, when Rachel shall meet her murdered children at the resurrection, at the same time that literal Israel is to be restored. "They were not," in Hebrew, is singular; each was not: each mother at the Beth-lehem massacre had but one child to lament, as the limitation of age in Herod's order, "two years and under," implies; this use of the singular distributively (the mothers weeping severally, each for her own child), is a coincidence between the prophecy of the Beth-lehem massacre and the event, the more remarkable as not being obvious: the singular, too, is appropriate as to Messiah in His Egyptian exile, who was to be a leading object of Rachel's lamentation.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Interpreters are much divided in the sense of these words, whether they should refer to the slaughter of the Jews belonging to the ten tribes, upon their being captivated by the Assyrians, or to the slaughter of the Jews, upon the siege and taking of the city by the king of Babylon, or to Herod’s killing the infants in Bethlehem. Certain it is, the evangelist, Matthew 2:18, applieth them unto the latter; but whether the evangelist’s application of it be as a literal fulfilling of the prophecy, or by way of allusion, or no, is the question. Those that think that it is primarily to be understood of the slaughter of the infants, urge,

1. That Matthew 2:18, so applies it.

2. That women’s mourning for children seems rather to be for the loss of infants, (as was there,) than expressive of the mourning of all sorts of people, in a general desolation.

3. That the place of the mourning seems to hint it; for Ramah was near to Bethlehem, and contained under the coasts about Bethlehem, mentioned by the evangelist.

4. The words

because they were not they think make for them; for by being carried into captivity, they did not cease to be, though they ceased to be in that happy estate they were in before.

5. Because they think that this is here propounded as a sign of his coming, upon whose coming these promises of felicity to the Jews should be fulfilled. These reasons are not unanswerable; for,

1. Matthew may apply it only by way of allusion, speaking of such a providence, when such a thing should happen as happened before; in which sense particular texts of Scripture are in Scripture often said to be fulfilled, though they had their fulfilling before.

2. Rachel here doth not signify a single person, no, nor a particular sex, but is brought in as a common parent, lamenting the loss of her offspring.

3. Ramah was indeed near Bethlehem, but it was a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:25 1 Kings 15:17. Rachel was, buried betwixt it and Bethlehem, Genesis 35:19 1 Samuel 10:2; and it was also the place where Nebuzaradan, after he had taken Jerusalem, disposed of his prisoners, as we read, Jeremiah 40:14. Though the greater part of the Jews were not slain, but carried into captivity; yet doubtless many were slain, and those left alive were not as to her, being now carried out of Canaan into a strange land.

5. Although the promises in this chapter made to the Jews were more eminently and fully made good under the kingdom of Christ; yet it may be doubted whether any of these promises were primarily and solely fulfilled to them under the kingdom of Christ, but literally before that time, though more fully and largely then. In Ramah therefore a voice was heard, that is, in Canaan, and particularly in Ramah, where Nebuzaradan, Jeremiah 40:1, disposed of the prisoners he had taken, setting some at liberty, (as Jeremiah in particular,) ordering others to death, and carrying the rest away to Babylon, which caused a bitter weeping and lamentation.

Rachel weeping for her children: Rachel is here brought in, having been buried near that place, as if she were risen up from the grave, and lamented the Jewish nation, which came out of her loins, (for so Benjamin did, which was one of the two tribes that made the kingdom of Judah,) all the people of which tribe are properly enough called her children. Rachel here signifieth all the Benjamitish women who descended from Rachel.

Refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not; and, like a passionate woman, she refused all arguments of comfort, because her children either were not absolutely, being slain by the pestilence, the famine, and the sword of the king of Babylon, or were no longer her children, being transplanted and removed into Babylon. So as I take this text literally and primarily to refer to the lamentation for the miseries the people suffered, upon the king of Babylon’s taking the city; to which mourning Matthew alludeth, there being a lamentation like this when Herod caused the infants of two years old to be slain in Bethlehem, and in the coasts about Bethlehem, of which Ramah was one.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Thus saith the Lord, a voice was heard in Ramah,.... Which signifies a high place; hence the Targum paraphrases it,

"in the high place of the world;''

and so the Vulgate Latin version,

"in a high place;''

but it is here the proper name of a place, of a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:25; and this voice heard was not a voice of joy and gladness as before, but of

lamentation and bitter weeping; signifying great sorrow and distress upon some very extraordinary occasion; and is as follows:

Rachel weeping for her children; not really and in person, but by a figurative way of speaking. Rachel is introduced as representing the Jewish women in those parts mourning for their slaughtered infants, even those that were slaughtered some time after the birth of Christ; for to this barbarous fact are the words applied by the Evangelist Matthew, as a fulfilment of them, Matthew 2:16; and with great propriety and pertinence is Rachel brought in as the chief, yea, sole mourner, representing all the sorrowful mothers; since Ramah was in the tribe of Benjamin, a child of hers, as far as which, it seems, the bloody massacre referred to reached, from Bethlehem, where it began; and since Rachel's grave was between these two places, Genesis 35:18; she is represented as rising out of her grave to act this part; or it signifies, that could she have been sensible of this inhuman affair, and could have come out of her grave, she would have done what she is here represented to do; and the rather is she mentioned, since she was so affectionately fond and desirous of children, Genesis 30:1;

refused to be comforted for her children; by any of her friends, the loss was so great, the affliction so heavy:

because they were not; or, "because he was not" (q); the Messiah was not, but was slain among the rest of the children, as the Jewish mothers, whom Rachel represented, imagined; and this heightened their distress, and filled them with more grief and trouble than the loss of their own children: but as Matthew has the plural number, the Targum, and all the Oriental versions, it is best to understand it of the children who "were not"; that is, they were dead; they were not in the land of the living, as this phrase is used in Genesis 37:30; which shows that this is not to be understood of the Babylonish captivity, and of the mourning of the Jewish women on that account; since the cause of this was death, and not captivity; besides, mourning for so general a calamity as captivity would not have been confined to mothers, and to some only, and to one particular place; though so the Jewish writers interpret it; and the Targum, which is,

"a voice was heard in the high place of the world, the house of Israel weeping and mourning after Jeremiah the prophet, whom Nabuzaradan the chief of those that slew, sent from Ramah; lamentation and weeping with bitterness, Jerusalem weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they were gone into captivity.''

(q) "quia non ipse", Vatablus; "vel non ille" i.e. "non sit ullus", Schmidt.

Geneva Study Bible

Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; {t} Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

(t) To declare the greatness of God's mercy in delivering the Jews, he shows them that they were like the Benjamites of the Israelites, that is, utterly destroyed and carried away, so much so that if Rachel the mother of Benjamin could have risen again to seek her children she would have found none remaining.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

15. This v. is specially familiar to us through St Matt. (Jeremiah 2:17 f.), who quotes it after relating the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlehem. The prophecy is quoted as an illustration or type. The mourning at Ramah is a forecast of that bitter wailing which shall be raised by the mothers of the slaughtered babes. The geographical connexion of Ramah and Bethlehem cannot be maintained, and depends upon a statement which is probably a gloss in Genesis 35:19; Genesis 48:7, “Ephrath (the same is Bethlehem).” Ramah is mentioned first in Joshua 18:25, between Gibeon and Beeroth, five miles north of Jerusalem, and is very possibly identical with the birth-place, home, and place of burial of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Samuel 25:1). It was much too far from Bethlehem to be in any way immediately connected with the subject in illustration of which St Matt. quotes the passage. It was at Ramah that the exiles were assembled before departing for Babylon, as described ch. Jeremiah 40:1. The appropriateness of calling upon Rachel to weep in Ramah consists in this, that her tomb (1 Samuel 10:2 f.) was on the N. border of Benjamin, not far from Bethel which was ten miles N. of Jerusalem, and thus apparently in the neighbourhood of Ramah as well. See the whole question discussed, with views of the probable site, in Pal. Explor. Fund Quart. Statement, April 1912, pp. 74 ff. (Clermont-Ganneau and R. A. S. Macalister).

15–17. Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is heard weeping for her lost sons. She is bidden to dry her tears, for there is hope.

15–22. See introd. summary to the section. These striking vv. may be confidently considered as stamped with Jeremiah’s personality.

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 15-22. - From this glorious prospect Jeremiah's eye turns to the melancholy present. The land of Ephraim is orphaned and desolate. The prophet seems to hear Rachel weeping for her banished children, and comforts her with the assurance that they shall yet be restored. For Ephraim has come to repentance, and longs for reconciliation with his God, and God, who has overheard his soliloquy, relents, and comes to meet him with gracious promises. Then another voice is heard summoning Ephraim to prepare for his journey home. This verse is quoted by St. Matthew (Matthew 2:17) with reference to the massacre of the innocents, with τότε ἐπληρώθη prefixed. The latter formula of itself suggests that there was a previous fulfilment of the prophecy, but that the analogy of the circumstances of the innocents justifies - nay, requires - the admission of a second fulfilment. In fact, the promise of the Messianic age seemed in as much danger of being rendered void when Herod wreaked his fury on the children of Bethlehem, as when the tribes of Israel were scattered in exile. Dean Stanley finds a geographical inconsistency in the two passages. "The context of Jeremiah 31:15 implies that the Ramah of the prophet was in the northern kingdom, probably Ramah of Benjamin. The context of Matthew 2:18, on the other hand, implies that the Ramah of the evangelist was within sight of Bethlehem" ('Sinai and Palestine,' p. 225). But this remark involves the assumption that the quotation was not intended merely as an application. Verse 15. - A voice was heard; rather, is heard. It is a participle, indicating the continuance of the action. In Ramah. In the neighbourhood of which town Rachel was buried, according to 1 Samuel 10:2 ("the city" where Samuel and Saul were - 1 Samuel 9:25 - appears to have been Ramah). Rachel weeping for her children. Rachel ("Rahel" is only a Germanizing way of writing the name), being the ancestress of the three tribes, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, is represented as feeling like a mother for all the tribes connected with those three. Her "weeping" is no mere figure of speech. Jeremiah believes that the patriarchs and holy men of old continue to feel an interest in the fortunes of their descendants (comp. Isaiah 63:16). Jeremiah 31:15

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Changing of sorrow into joy, because Ephraim will turn to the Lord, and the Lord will lead him back. - Jeremiah 31:15. "Thus saith Jahveh: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not. Jeremiah 31:16. Thus saith Jahveh: Restrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for there is a reward for thy work, saith Jahveh, and they shall return from the land of the enemy. Jeremiah 31:17. And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jahveh, that children shall return to thy border. Jeremiah 31:18. I have certainly heard Ephraim complaining, Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf not tamed. Turn me that I may turn, for Thou, O Jahveh, art my God. Jeremiah 31:19. For, after I return I repent, and after I have been taught I smite upon [my] thigh; I am ashamed, yea, and confounded, because I bear the reproach of my youth. Jeremiah 31:20. Is Ephraim a son dear to me, or a child of delight, that, as often as I speak against him, I do yet certainly remember him? Therefore my bowels move for him; I shall surely pity him, saith Jahveh. Jeremiah 31:21. Set thee up way-marks, put up posts for thyself; set thine heart to the highway, the road [by which] thou camest: return, O virgin of Israel, return to these cities of thine. Jeremiah 31:22. How long wilt thou wander about, O backsliding daughter? For Jahveh hath created a new [thing] in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man."

In this strophe the promise is further confirmed by carrying out the thought, that Israel's release from his captivity shall certainly take place, however little prospect there is of it at present. For Israel will come to an acknowledgment of his sins, and the Lord will then once more show him His love. The hopeless condition of Israel is dramatically set forth in Jeremiah 31:15.: Rachel, the mother of Joseph, and thus the ancestress of Ephraim, the chief tribe of the Israelites who had revolted from the royal house of David, weeps bitterly over the loss of her children, the ten tribes who have been carried away into exile; and the Lord addresses consolation to her, with the promise that they shall return out of the land of the enemy. "A voice is heard" (נשׁמע, participle, to show duration). The "voice" is more fully treated of in the second part of the verse: loud lamentation and bitter weeping. There is a difficulty connected with בּרמה. The lxx took it to be the name of the city Ramah, now called er-Râm, in the tribe of Benjamin, five English miles north from Jerusalem, on the borders of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (1 Kings 15:17), although this city is elsewhere written with the article (הרמה), not only in the historical notices found in Jeremiah 40:1, Joshua 18:25; Judges 4:5, etc., but also in prophetical addresses, as in Hosea 6:8; Isaiah 10:29. In this passage it cannot be a mere appellative ("on a height"), as in 1 Samuel 22:6; Ezekiel 16:24; nor can we think of Ramah in Naphtali (Joshua 19:36, also הרמה), for this latter city never figures in history like the Ramah of Samuel, not far from Gibeah; see on Joshua 18:25 and 1 Samuel 1:1. But why is the lamentation of Rachel heard at Ramah? Most expositors reply, because the tomb of Rachel was in the divinity of Ramah; in support of this they cite 1 Samuel 10:2. Ngelsbach, who is one of these, still maintains this view with the utmost confidence. But this assumption is opposed to Genesis 35:16 and Genesis 35:19, where it is stated that Rachel died and was buried on the way to Bethlehem, and not far from the town (see on Genesis, l.c.), which is about five miles south from Jerusalem, and thus far from Ramah. Nor is any support for this view to be got from 1 Samuel 10:2, except by making the groundless assumption, that Saul, while seeking for the asses of his father, came to Samuel in his native town; whereas, in the account given in that chapter, he is merely said to have sought for Samuel in a certain town, of which nothing more is stated, and to have inquired at him; see on 1 Samuel 10:2. We must therefore reject, as arbitrary and groundless, all attempts to fix the locality of Rachel's sepulchre in the neighbourhood of Ramah (Ngelsbach); in the same way we must treat the assertion of Thenius, Knobel, Graf, etc., that the Ephratah of Genesis 35:16, Genesis 35:19, is the same as the Ephron of 2 Chronicles 13:19, which was situated near Bethel; so, too, must we deal with the statements, that Ephratah, i.e., Bethlehem, is to be expunged from the text of Genesis 35:9 and 48 as a false gloss, and that the tradition, attested in Matthew 2:18, as to the situation of Rachel's sepulchre in the vicinity of Bethlehem, is incorrect. Nor does the passage of Jeremiah now before us imply that Rachel's sepulchre was near Ramah. Rachel does not weep at Ramah over her lost children, either because she had been buried there, or because it was in Ramah of Benjamin that the exiles were assembled, according to Jeremiah 40:1 (Hitzig, and also Delitzsch on Genesis 35:20). For it was the Jews who were to be carried away captive that were gathered together at Ramah, whereas it was over Israelites or Ephraimites that had been carried into exile that Rachel weeps. The lamentation of Rachel is heard at Ramah, as the most loftily situated border-town of the two kingdoms, whence the wailing that had arisen sounded far and near, and could be heard in Judah. Nor does she weep because she has learned something in her tomb of the carrying away of the people, but as their common mother, as the beloved spouse of Jacob, who in her married life so earnestly desired children. Just as the people are often included under the notion of the "daughter of Zion," as their ideal representative, so the great ancestress of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh is here named as the representative of the maternal love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people are lost. The sing. כּי איננּוּ signifies, "for not one of them is left." - This verse is quoted by Matthew (Matthew 2:18), after relating the story of the murder of the children at Bethlehem, with the introductory formula, τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ ̓Ιερεμίου: from this the older theologians (cf. Calovii Bibl. illustr. ad Jer. l.c.) conclude that Jeremiah directly prophesied that massacre of the children committed by Herod. But this inference cannot be allowed; it will not fit in with the context of the prophecy. The expression ἐπληρώθη, used by Matthew, only shows that the prophecy of Jeremiah received a new fulfilment through that act of Herod. Of course, we must not reduce the typical reference of the prophecy to that event at Bethlehem simply to this, that the wailing of the mothers of Bethlehem over their murdered children was as great as the lamentation made when the people were carried into exile. Typology rather assumes a causal connection between the two events. The destruction of the people of Israel by the Assyrians and Chaldeans is a type of the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, in so far as the sin which brought the children of Israel into exile laid a foundation for the fact that Herod the Idumean became king over the Jews, and wished to destroy the true King and Saviour of Israel that he might strengthen his own dominion. Cf. Fr. Kleinschmidt, die typolog. Citate der vier Evangelien, 1861, S. 10ff.; Fairbairn's Typology, fifth edition, vol. i. pp. 452-3.]

The Lord will put an end to this wailing. "Cease thy weeping," He cries to the sorrowing ones, "for there is a reward for thy labour" (almost identical with 2 Chronicles 15:7). פּעלּה is the maternal labour of birth and rearing of children. The reward consists in this, that the children shall return out of the land of the enemy into their own land. Jeremiah 31:17 states the same thing in parallel clauses, to confirm the promise. On the expression "hope for thy latter end," cf. Jeremiah 29:11. בּנים without the article, as in Hosea 11:10, etc.; cf. Ewald, 277, b. This hope is grounded on the circumstance that Israel will become aware, through suffering, that he is punished for his sins, and, repenting of these sins, will beseech his God for favour. The Lord already perceives this repentant spirit and acknowledgment of sin. ואוּסר does not mean "I had myself chastised," or "I learned chastisement" (Hitzig), but "I was chastised," like an untamed calf, i.e., one not trained to bear the yoke and to endure labour. On this figure, cf. Hosea 10:11. The recognition of suffering as chastisement by God excites a desire after amelioration and amendment. But since man cannot accomplish these through his own powers, Israel prays, "Lead me back," sc. from my evil way, i.e., turn me. He finds himself constrained to this request, because he feels regret for his apostasy from God. אחרי שׁוּבי in this connection can only mean, "after I turned," sc. from Thee, O Lord my God; on this meaning of שׁוּב, cf. Jeremiah 8:4. הוּדע, to be brought to understanding through punishment, i.e., to become wise. To smite the thighs is a token of terror and horror; cf. Ezekiel 21:17. On בּשׁתּי וגם נכלמתּי cf. Isaiah 45:16. "The shame of my youth" is that which I brought on myself in my youth through the sins I then committed. On this confession generally, cf. the similar one in Jeremiah 3:21. - Thereafter the Lord replies, Jeremiah 31:20, with the question, whether Ephraim is so dear a son to Him that, as often as He has spoken against him, i.e., uttered hard words of condemnation, He still, or again, thinks of him. ילד שׁעשׁעים, "a child of delight," whom one fondles; cf. Isaiah 5:7. The clause explanatory of the question, "for as often as," etc., is taken in different ways. דּבּר may signify, "to speak about one," or "to speak against one," or "to pay addresses to one," i.e., to court him: 1 Samuel 25:39; Sol 8:8. Hitzig applies the last meaning to the expression, and translates, "as often as I have paid my suit to him;" according to this view, the basis of the representation of Jahveh's relation to the people is that of a husband to his wife. But this meaning of the verb does not by any means suit the present context, well established though it is by the passages that have been adduced. Ephraim is here represented as a son, not a virgin to whom Jahveh could pay suit. Hence we must take the expression in the sense of "speaking against" some one. But what Jahveh says against Ephraim is no mere threatening by words, but a reprimand by deeds of judgment. The answer to the question is to be inferred from the context: If the Lord, whenever He is constrained to punish Ephraim, still thinks of him, then Ephraim must be a son dear to Him. But this is not because of his conduct, as if he caused Him joy by obedience and faithful attachment, but in consequence of the unchangeable love of God, who cannot leave His son, however much grief he causes his Father. "Therefore," i.e., because he is a son to whom Jahveh shows the fulness of His paternal love, all His kindly feelings towards him are now excited, and He desires to show compassion on him. On המוּ מעי cf. Isaiah 16:11 and Isaiah 63:15. Under "bowels" are included especially the heart, liver, reins, the noblest organs of the soul. The expression is strongly anthropopathic, and denotes the most heartfelt sympathy. This fellow-feeling manifests itself in the form of pity, and actually as deliverance from misery.

The Lord desires to execute this purpose of His everlasting love. Jeremiah 31:21. Israel is required to prepare himself for return, and to go home again into his own cities. "Set thee up way marks." ציּוּן, in 2 Kings 23:17 and Ezekiel 39:15, "a tombstone," probably a stone pillar, which could also serve as a way-mark. תּמרוּרים is not from מרר as in Jeremiah 31:15, but from תּמר, and has the same meaning as תּימרה, Joel 3:3, Talm. תּמּוּר, a pillar, Arab. t̀âmîrun, pl., cippi, signa in desertis. "Set thy heart," i.e., turn thy mind to the road, the way you have gone (on הלכתּי see Jeremiah 2:20), not, that you may not miss it, but because it leads thee home. "Return to these cities of thine." "These" implies that the summons issues from Palestine. Moreover, the separate clauses of this verse are merely a poetic individualization of the thought that Israel is to think seriously of returning; and, inasmuch as this return to Palestine presupposes return to the Lord, Israel must first turn with the heart to his God. Then, in Jeremiah 31:22, follows the exhortation not to delay. The meaning of התחמּק is educed from Sol 5:6, where חמק signifies to turn one's self round; hence the Hithpael means to wander about here and there, uncertain what to do. This exhortation is finally enforced by the statement, "Jahveh creates a new thing on earth" (cf. Isaiah 43:19). This novelty is, "a woman will encompass a man." With regard to the meaning of these words, about which there is great dispute, this much is evident from the context, that they indicate a transformation of things, a new arrangement of the relations of life. This new arrangement of things which Jahveh brings about is mentioned as a motive which should rouse Ephraim ( equals Israel) to return without delay to the Lord and to his cities. If we keep this in mind, we shall at once set aside as untenable such interpretations as that of Luther in his first translation of 1532-38, "those who formerly behaved like women shall be men," which Ewald has revived in his rendering, "a woman changing into a man," or that of Schnurrer, Rosenmller, Gesenius, Maurer, "the woman shall protect the man," or that of Ngelsbach, "the woman shall turn the man to herself." The above-mentioned general consideration, we repeat, is sufficient to set aside these explanations, quite apart from the fact that none of them can be lexically substantiated; for סובב neither means to "turn one's self, vertere," nor to "protect," nor to "cause to return" (as if סובב were used for שׁובב). Deuteronomy 32:10 is adduced to prove the meaning of protection; but the word there means to go about fondling and cherishing. Neither the transmutation of the female into a male, or of a weak woman into a strong man, nor the protection of the man by a woman, nor the notion that the strong succumbs to the weak, forms an effectual motive for the summons to Israel to return; nor can we call any of them a new creative act effected by Jahveh, or a new arrangement of things. But we must utterly reject the meaning of the words given by Castle, le Clerc, and Hitzig, who apply them to the unnatural circumstance, that a woman makes her suit to a man, even where by the woman is understood the virgin of Israel, and by the man, Jahveh. Luther gave the correct rendering in his editions of 1543 and 1545, "the woman shall encompass the man," - only, "embrace" (Ger. umfangen) might express the sense better than "encompass" (Ger. umgeben). נקבה is nomen sexus, "femella, a female;" גּבר, a "man," also "proles mascula," not according to the sexual relation ( equals זכר), but with the idea of strength. Both in the choice of these words and by the omission of the article, the relation is set forth in its widest generality; the attention is thereby steadily directed to its fundamental nature. The woman, the weak and tender being, shall lovingly embrace the man, the strong one. Hengstenberg reverses the meaning of the words when he renders them, "the strong one shall again take the weak into his closest intercourse, under his protection, loving care." Many expositors, including Hengstenberg and Hitzig of moderns, have rightly perceived that the general idea has been set forth with special reference to the relation between the woman, Israel, and the man, Jahveh.

Starting with this view, which is suggested by the context, the older expositors explained the words of the conception and birth of Christ by a virgin; cf. Corn. a Lapide, Calovii Bibl. ill., Cocceius, and Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 758ff. Thus, for example, the Berleburger Bibel gives the following explanation: "A woman or virgin - not a married woman - will encompass, i.e., carry and contain in her body, the man who is to be a vanquisher of all and to surpass all in strength." This explanation cannot be set aside by the simple remark, "that here there would be set forth the very feature in the birth of Christ by a virgin which is not peculiar to it as compared with others;" for this "superficial remark" does not in the least touch the real point to be explained. But it may very properly be objected, that סובב has not the special meaning of conceiving in a mother's womb. On this ground we can also set down as incorrect the other explanation of the words in the Berleburger Bibel, that the text rather speaks of "the woman who is the Jewish Church, and who, in the spirit of faith, is to bear Christ as the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6, in the likeness of a man, Revelation 12:1-2." However, these explanations are nearer the truth than any that have been offered since. The general statement, "a woman shall encompass (the) man," i.e., lovingly embrace him - this new relation which Jahveh will bring about in place of the old, that the man encompasses the wife, loving, providing for, protecting her - can only be referred, agreeably to the context, to change of relation between Israel and the Lord. סובב, "to encompass," is used tropically, not merely of the mode of dealing on the part of the Lord to His people, the faithful, - of the protection, the grace, and the aid which He grants to the pious ones, as in Psalm 32:7, Psalm 32:10; Deuteronomy 32:10, - but also of the dealings of men with divine things. אסובבה מזבּחך, Psalm 26:6, does not mean, "I will go round Thine altar," in a circle or semicircle as it were, but, "I will keep to Thine altar," instead of keeping company with the wicked; or more correctly, "I will surround Thine altar," making it the object of my care, of all my dealings, - I will make mine own the favours shown to the faithful at Thine altar. In the verse now before us, סובב signifies to encompass with love and care, to surround lovingly and carefully, - the natural and fitting dealing on the part of the stronger to the weak and those who need assistance. And the new thing that God creates consists in this, that the woman, the weaker nature that needs help, will lovingly and solicitously surround the man, the stronger. Herein is expressed a new relation of Israel to the Lord, a reference to a new covenant which the Lord, Jeremiah 31:31., will conclude with His people, and in which He deals so condescendingly towards them that they can lovingly embrace Him. This is the substance of the Messianic meaning in the words. The conception of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary is not expressed in them either directly or indirectly, even though we were allowed to take סובב in the meaning of "embrace." This new creation of the Lord is intended to be, and can be, for Israel, a powerful motive to their immediate return to their God.