Jeremiah 32:7

Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(7) Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum . . .—The teaching of the narrative that follows lies almost on the surface, and is brought out distinctly in Jeremiah 32:44. “With all the certainty of desolation, misery, exile in the immediate future, the prophet was to give a practical proof that he was as certain of the ultimate restoration. It was worth while to buy a field even for what might seem the contingency of that remote reversion. Roman history records a parallel act of patriotic faith in the purchase of land at Rome at its full market value, at the very time when the armies of Hannibal were marching to the gate of the city (Livy, xxvi. 11). Nothing more is known of the Hanameel who is here mentioned than that he was the first cousin of the prophet (Jeremiah 32:8-9). The word “uncle” in this verse therefore applies strictly to Shallum. As the lands belonging to the priests and Levites as such could not be alienated (Leviticus 25:34), we must assume either that the land in question had come into the family by marriage and was private property, or that the law had been so far relaxed as to allow of the transfer of land within the limits of the family, and up to the date of the next year of jubilee. In such a case, as in Ruth 3:12; Ruth 4:4, the option of purchase was offered in the first instance to the next of kin (the Goël, or “redeemer,” of the family), so that it might still be kept in the line of succession (Leviticus 25:24; Leviticus 25:32). The prophet naturally lays stress on the fact that he was warned beforehand of the visit of Hanameel and of its object. The coincidence was to him what the arrival of the messenger of Cornelius was to Peter (Acts 10:19-21).

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

32:1-15 Jeremiah, being in prison for his prophecy, purchased a piece of ground. This was to signify, that though Jerusalem was besieged, and the whole country likely to be laid waste, yet the time would come, when houses, and fields, and vineyards, should be again possessed. It concerns ministers to make it appear that they believe what they preach to others. And it is good to manage even our worldly affairs in faith; to do common business with reference to the providence and promise of God.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Hanameel was strictly the first-cousin of Jeremiah. In Hebrew all the terms of relationship are used in a more loose way than with us.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

7. son of Shallum thine uncle—therefore, Jeremiah's first cousin.

field … in Anathoth—a sacerdotal city: and so having one thousand cubits of suburban fields outside the wall attached to it (Nu 35:4, 5). The prohibition to sell these suburban fields (Le 25:34) applied merely to their alienating them from Levites to another tribe; so that this chapter does not contravene that prohibition. Besides, what is here meant is only the purchase of the use of the field till the year of jubilee. On the failure of the owner, the next of kin had the right of redeeming it (Le 25:25, &c.; Ru 4:3-6).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

From hence may be concluded the certainty of future contingency in God’s eye; the coming of

Hanameel was a future contingency, yet certainly known to God, so as he could tell the prophet he would come. Anathoth (as appears from Joshua 21:18) was one of the cities of the Levites; hence ariseth a question, how it could be sold to Jeremiah, who by the law might not possess it, Numbers 18:20, being a Levite.

1. Some excuse it from the command of God, who might dispense with his own law; but this seemeth not enough, because it is said afterward, the right of redemption is thine.

2. Others therefore say the Levites might have some small possessions, though no ploughed land; they might have houses, and orchards, and gardens, in cities and suburbs. But that these might be sold seemeth contrary to the law, Leviticus 25:34. It is therefore rather thought to be meant of some small estate left to Hanameel from his ancestors.

The right of redemption belonged to the next of kin, Leviticus 25:25 Ruth 4:4.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee,.... Hilkiah, the father of Jeremiah, and this Shallum, were own brothers; so that Jeremiah and Hanameel were brothers' sons, or own cousins: this coming of Hanameel to Jeremiah being a contingent event, with respect to second causes, and yet foretold as what would certainly be, shows that such events are foreknown by the Lord, and are sure to him:

saying, buy thee my field that is in Anathoth; the place from whence Jeremiah came, and was but about two or three miles from Jerusalem, and therefore must be now in the possession of the Chaldean army; wherefore it may seem very strange in Hanameel to propose it to sale, and stranger still in Jeremiah to buy it: though something of this kind was done at Rome, while Hannibal was besieging it; the field where Hannibal pitched his camp was offered to sale at Rome, and found a buyer (t); but then he that bought it was in high spirits, and in a strong belief that the city would not be taken, and that the enemy would be obliged to quit the siege; but Jeremiah knew, and firmly believed, on the other hand, that the city of Jerusalem, and all the country round it, would fall into the hands of the king of Babylon. Moreover, Anathoth was a city of the priests, and the fields adjoining to it belonged to them; as some of them did to Abiathar the priest in his time, 1 Kings 2:26; and such fields as belonged to the priests and Levites were not to be sold, according to the law in Leviticus 25:34; to which it is answered, that this was not arable land, which the Levites might not possess; but some meadow, orchard, or garden, in the suburbs of the city, which though it might not be sold to strangers, yet might be sold among themselves; though it is more probable that this was a field that came fro, in some of his ancestors by his mother's or grandmother's side, and so might be disposed of; as it seems certain to be lawfully done, not only as it was the will of God, who could indeed dispense with his own law, was that in the way, but since it was a matter of right, and incumbent on him, as follows:

for the right of redemption is thine to buy it; that is, had it been sold to another, it would have lain upon him to have redeemed it, as being next of kin, that so it might not pass to another tribe and family.

(t) Florus, l. 2. c. 6.

Geneva Study Bible

Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thy uncle shall come to thee, saying, {c} Buy for thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine {d} to buy it.

(c) By which was meant that the people would return again out of captivity and enjoy their possessions and vineyards as in Jer 32:15,44.

(d) Because he was next of the kindred, as in Ru 4:4.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

7. Hanamel the son of Shallum thine uncle] The distinct statement in Jeremiah 32:8-9 however that Hanamel was Jeremiah’s first cousin makes it necessary to refer the word uncle of this v. to Shallum, and to consider the word for son in Jeremiah 32:12 to have been accidentally omitted by a Heb. copyist.

Anathoth] See Intr. p. x.

the right of redemption is thine to buy it] According to the law, as formulated in Leviticus 25:24 f.; Ruth 4:6, if land was, or was about to be, sold, the nearest of kin, in this case Jeremiah, had a right to purchase or re-purchase it as the case might be, so that it should not pass from one family to another. For the system of land tenure (although it is doubtful whether the laws regulating it were ever reduced to practice) see HDB. IV. 325 a.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 7. - Hanameel. Another form of Hananeel; comp. Γεσάμ, in the Septuagint = Goshen, Μαδιάμ = Midian. In Jeremiah 31:38 the Authorized Version has Hananeel, and the Septuagint Ἀναμεήλ (of course, the persons referred to are different). The son of Shallum thine uncle. It is strange that Hanameel should be called at once Jeremiah's uncle's son and his uncle; and yet this is the case - the former in vers. 8, 9, the latter in ver. 12. There is, therefore, no reason why we should deviate (as most commentators do) from the ordinary Hebrew usage, and suppose "thine uncle" in this verse to refer to Shallum, and not rather to Hanameel. But how are we to explain this singular variation in phraseology? Either from the fact that the Hebrew for "uncle" is simply a word expressive of affection (it means "beloved," see e.g. Isaiah 5:1), and might, therefore, just as well be applied to a cousin as to an uncle: or else. upon the supposition that the word for "son (of)" has fallen out of the text before "mine uncle," both in this verse and in ver. 12. Jeremiah 32:7

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The purchase of the field. - In Jeremiah 32:6, the introduction, which has been interrupted by long parentheses, is resumed with the words, "And Jeremiah said," etc. The word of the Lord follows, Jeremiah 32:7. The Lord said to him: "Behold, Hanamel, the son of Shallum, thine uncle, cometh to thee, saying, 'Buy thee my field at Anathoth, for thou hast the redemption-right to purchase it.' " According to a mode of construction common elsewhere, דּדך might be taken as in apposition to חנמאל: "Hanamel, son of Shallum, thine uncle." But Jeremiah 32:8, Jeremiah 32:9, in which Jeremiah calls Hanamel בּן־דּדי, son of my uncle, show that דּדך is in apposition to שׁלּם: "son of Shallum, [who is] thine uncle." The right of redemption consisted in this, that if any one was forced through circumstances to sell his landed property, the nearest blood-relation had the right, or rather was obliged, to preserve the possession for the family, either through pre-emption, or redemption from the stranger who had bought it (Leviticus 25:25). For the land which God had given to the tribes and families of Israel for a hereditary possession could not be sold, so as to pass into the hands of strangers; and for this reason, in the year of jubilee, what had bee sold since the previous jubilee reverted, without payment of any kind, to the original possessor or his heirs. (Cf. Leviticus 25:23-28, and Keil's Bibl. Archol. ii. 141, p. 208ff.)