f. Conclusion and Consolation, in a glance at the just and the justifier

23:1–8.

1          Wo, pastors,1 who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture,2 saith Jehovah!

2     Therefore thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, concerning the pastors,3 that pasture my people:

Ye have scattered my flock, and dispersed and not visited them.

Behold I visit4 upon you the evil of your doings, saith Jehovah.

3     And I will gather the remnant of my flock

Out of all the countries whither I have dispersed them,

And bring them back to their field;5 and they shall be fruitful and increase.

4     And I awaken over them pastors who shall pasture them.

And they shall fear no more nor be dismayed;6

Neither shall they be missing,7 saith Jehovah.

5     Behold the days are coming, saith Jehovah,

That I awake unto David a righteous scion,

Who shall reign as king and shall prosper,8

And exercise judgment and righteousness in the land.

6     In his days will Judah be saved,

And Israel dwell securely;

And this will be the name by which they will call9 him [Israel],

Jehovah our righteousness.

7     Therefore, behold, the days are coming that they shall no more say,

As Jehovah liveth, who brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,

8     But, as Jehovah liveth, who brought and led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country,

And out of all lands, whither I had dispersed them;

And they shall dwell in their own land.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

This passage is in general suitably connected with the entirety of the previous context, since in relation to the previous specifications (22:10–30), it may be regarded as a comprehensive conclusion. But originally it formed a connected whole only with 22:1–9; 13–23, since 22:10–12 must have been inserted afterwards. Going down into the house of the king, who can have been no other than Jehoiakim, Jeremiah first, in 22:1–9, addressed an alternative to him, the purport of which was such that servants and people were also obliged Proverbs rata to apply it to themselves. For in Jer 23:13–19 he turned to the king alone with an incisive speech of rebuke and menace, to which was appended a singular one addressed to 4e people (Jer 23:20–23). Finally, in a grand survey, he contrasts with the deep decline, effectuated by the wicked pastors (23:1, 2), the other extreme, the salvation to be imparted to the re-assembled people, in the distant future, by the Messiah. The remnant restored to their home shall again become a numerous people (Jer 23:3). This people shall be fed in blessing by shepherds appointed by the Lord (Jer 23:4). In particular a “ righteous scion,” sprung from the stock of David, shall rule as king with wisdom and righteousness, to the prosperity of Judah and Israel,—a king, whose deepest significance for his people is expressed in the wonderful name given to the people—Jehovah our Righteousness (Jer 23:5–6). Oaths will then no longer be taken by the name of Jehovah, who brought Israel out of Egypt, but by the name of Jehovah, who brought back Israel from the north country to his native land (Jer 23:7, 8). The same antithesis, between deepest impending ruin and highest glory to be expected in the distant future, was found also in Jer 3

Jer 23:1, 2. Wo, Pastors … saith Jehovah. As the sections 22:1–9; 13–23 ; 23:1–8 contain the discourse delivered in the house of the king, this section is immediately attached to 22:13–23. Both sections begin with הוֹי. After the alternative in 22:3–9 also the prophet pronounces a double woe: first on the shepherds, i.e. on the person of the king then reigning, then on all which may be called bad shepherding. That the kings are to be understood by the shepherds follows : 1. from the previously stated connection of the discourse of which this passage forms a part; 2. from the description of the conduct of the bad shepherds (who destroy and scatter the flock, etc., Jer 23:1, 2) which appears to produce so much effect, both extensively and intensively, that we can recognize it only as the action of those who occupy the highest, most influential positions; 3. from the antithesis of the good shepherd, Jer 23:4, and of the righteous scion of David, Jer 23:5, in particular. For that beneficial influence (Jer 23:4) can only be that of (he chief, and in Jer 23:5 the “righteous scion” is directly designated as king. They first corrupt the people morally, and thus effect the external destruction which culminates in their dispersion, comp. 2 Kings 17:21–23; 21:10–12; 23:26, 27; Jer. 15:4.

Jer 23:3, 4. And I will gather.....saith Jehovah. Comp. 29:14; 31:8–10; Mic. 2:12; Ezek. 24:12.—The remnant,etc. On this HENGSTENBERG remarks: “The gathering being promised only to the remnant (comp. Is. 10:20; Rom. 9:27) indicates that justice accompanies mercy.”—And they shall be fruitful,etc. Comp. rems. on 3:16. In the following verse it should first of all be observed that the prophet has in view two older prophecies: First the foundation-prophecy of the future glory of the Davidic house in 2 Sam. 7:12, where we read the words, “I will set thy seed after thee.” The prophet’s choice of this particular utterance here and in Jer 23:5, could not have been without the object of a double allusion to the passage above quoted, and to the name of Jehoiakim. Since this name (as well as the name יוֹיָבִין) is chosen undoubtedly with reference to the passage mentioned, it was natural that the prophet, thinking in joyful hope of that prophecy, should at the same time remember the contradiction, which prevailed between the present and the promised Jehoiakim. The second passage, to which Jeremiah more plainly alludes, is his own utterance in 3:15. He must have been reminded of this the more readily that it relates to the same future period.

Jer 23:5. Behold the days ... in the land. The connection of this verse with the previous one is formed by behold the days. This expression does not refer to the difference in time. It does not declare that what is spoken of in Jer 23:5 will take place after the events of Jer 23:4, but is antithetic only to the present.—Pastors,etc., in Jer 23:4 is a figurative expression, which is explained in Jer 23:6 in proper language. On the question as to the relation of the singulars צֶמָח, scion,מֶלֶךְking, etc., to the plural רֹעִים, pastors, there are three views. According to one רֹעִים is to be taken as a generic plural, which does not exclude the possibility of one shepherd being intended. Thus HENGSTENBERG. On the other hand it is rightly objected that elsewhere Jeremiah presents the prospect of a multiplicity of rulers of the seed of David for the time of the great restoration: 33:17, 18—

“ There shall not be wanting to David a man,

Sitting on the throne of the house of Judah …

And to the priests and levites shall not be wanting a man,

Offering burnt-offerings,” etc. Ibid. Jer 23:22. “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered

Nor the sand of the sea measured;

So will I multiply the seed of David my servant,

And the Levites that minister to me.”

Ibid. Jer 23:26. “ If I have not appointed the laws of heaven and earth;

Then also may I reject the seed of Jacob

And David my servant,

That I should not take of his seed to be rulers (משְׁלִים)

To the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

According to the second view the passages just quoted are regarded as forming the measure of this, and accordingly the singular צֶמָח, scion, is taken in a collective sense. GRAF, who adopts this view, appeals (a) to the idiom, according to which it always has a collective meaning (Gen. 19:25; Ps. 65:11 ; Ezek. 16:7; Isai. 61:11); (b) to the idiom according to which דָוֹד, David, and עַבְדִּי דָוִד as much designate the descendants of David, as יַֽעְַקֹב; Jacob, and עַבְדִּי יַֽעְַקֹב, the descendants of Jacob: Jer. 30:9; Hos. 3:5; Ezek. 24:23, 24; 37:24, 25; 45:8; 46:16, coll. Jer. 30:10; 46:27, 28; Isai. 44:1; 45:4; 48:20, etc.—To this view it may be objected that this entirely ignores the fact that the Jews expected one great deliverer and restorer of their State, the MESSIAH. Comp. the article “ Messias,” by OEHLER in HERZOG, R.-Enc, We can only treat here of two points: 1. How is this passage related to the expectation of a single great son of David? 2. If it is based on this idea, how is it to be reconciled with the other that a number of princes of David’s line will rule over Israel? As to the first question, I am of opinion that this passage declares the unity of the Messiah, notwithstanding that pastors preceding (Jer 23:4) intimates a multiplicity. I therefore propose a third view, taking רֹעִים in a plural sense, but צֶמַח, etc., notwithstanding in the sense of unity. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. If Jeremiah wished to set forth a multiplicity, why did he not continue in the plural? Why does he not say “Who shall reign as kings?” צֶמַח has, in the comparatively few passages where it occurs, a collective sense. But not necessarily. It is germen, prolos in general, and may accordingly designate as well a single individual as a number. If the prophet wished it to be taken in the latter sense, and therefore as absolutely identical with רֹעִים, he must have indicated this by the plural. 2. Ezekiel and Zechariah, who, as is acknowledged, refer to this passage, evidently understood it in the sense of unity. Ezekiel says expressly in 34:23, “ And I will set up one shepherd over them.” And Zechariah in 3:8, and 6:12, used צֶמַח as a proper name, saying (3:8): “For I bring my servant Zemach” [The Branch]—and (6:12): “ Behold a man, Zemach his name, under whom it shall sprout.” As to the second question, previously raised, the subjective conception of the prophet is to be distinguished from the objective reality of the fulfilment. To the prophets the pictures of the future, which came within the circle of their vision, contained by no means always sharply circumscribed and distinctly impressed forms (comp. 1 Pet. 1:11). These forms were as little born entirely of the future, severed from the present. Rather were they eternal ideas, which had derived their body from the present. Of this kind are most of the Messianic prophecies. In reality Christ is a different king, priest and prophet, from what the authors of Ps. 2; 110; Deut. 18 conceived, and yet His advent is the true fulfilment of those prophecies. Thus Jeremiah also sees together with the one grand form of the arch-shepherd, many others, whom he recognizes as His seed. If the prophet conceived among his offspring of a successor, in the sense in which successors of a no longer reigning prince are spoken of, this must have been a point which remained obscure to the subjective perception of the prophet,—in a similar manner, as it may have been dark to the prophet, how he could live so long, of whom it was said that He gave His soul an offering for sin (Isai. 53:10). Objectively considered, even JEROME and THEODORET understood the apostles by the many רֹעִים—an interpretation which is certainly exposed to the objection of too great limitation. It would be more appropriate, to consider, with others, that we, so far as we are ἐν χριστῶ, are not only Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:29) but also David’s. We are indeed a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9); and He has made us not only priests but kings ἐποίησας αὐτνὺς βασιλείαν καῖ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύουσιν ἐπὶ τής γῆς,Rev. 5:10, coll. 1:6). [HENDERSON: “By the better shepherds whom Jehovah promises to place over His restored people, I understand Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Maccabees, etc., under whose superintendence and rule they were re-instated in their possessions, and enjoyed protection against both internal and foreign enemies.”—S. R. A.] If now the inquiry is made, how the prophet came to choose the expression צֶמַח, it was long ago pointed out by the Comm. that he had in mind Isai. 11:2; 53:2. As there the sprouting forth of a scion, from the apparently withered root of the house of David, is announced, so here the growth of a scion in the midst of a people, gathered again after along dispersion, and thus about to enter upon a new national existence. This conception appears also to form the basis of the translation of the LXX., which translates צֶמַח here as in Zech. 3:8; 6:12, ἀναταλή. Comp. especially καὶ ὑποκάτωδεν αὐτοῦ ἀςατελεῖ, in the passage last mentioned.—Justice or righteousness is the chief quality of a good king according to the Old Testament doctrine. Comp. Ps. 45:5, 7, 8; 72:1–4, 12–14; 82:2–4; 101:1–8.—Hence righteous scion, of which the confirmation in fact is declared in shall exercise judgment. Comp. Ps. 146:7; 103:6, and the remarks on 7:5, 6; 9:23.

Jer 23:6. In his days … our righteousness. Comp. Deut. 33:28, 29,—Repetition of our passage, 33:16—Judah is fem., as in 3:7; 14:2; 33:16; Lam. 1:3; Nah. 2:1; Mal. 2:11. It is then equivalent to daughter of Judah, Lam. 2:2, 5. Comp. NAEGELSB., Gr. 60. 4.—They will call him. According to the explanation prevalent even from antiquity, this refers to righteous scion. But as Jeremiah is his own best interpreter, the name must be referred to Israel. For in the parallel passage, 33:16, where instead of “and Israel dwell securely,” we read “ Jerusalem shall dwell securely,” the word he, in the latter clause of the verse (“and this is the name by which he shall be called”) can refer to no other than Jerusalem. Jehovah our Righteousness is not then the name of the scion of David, but of the nation. It is a symbolical surname, which is distinguished from other names, in that it serves not for real use, but only for objective characterization, an ideal inscription, as it were. Hence this name is also ascribed to an object, which already has a name. For the nation is already called Israel, but nevertheless it is to be called “ Jehovah, etc.” The prophet does not mean that the old name is to be changed into a new one; for the name does not recur (except in the repetition of this passage, 33:16) and the nation appears as before under its old name, which is also a sacred, God-given name. (Gen. 32:28.) Jerusalem elsewhere receives other names which are likewise not intended for daily use: in Ezek. 48:36, the name יהוהשָֽׁמָּה (The Lord is there) is attributed to the city. In Isai. 60:14 we read “ they shall call thee The city of Jehovah, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” In a similar manner Nathan gives his pupil Solomon the name Jedi-diah, which he never bore in reality. With respect to the name Emmanuel (Isai. 7:14; 8:8–10) the case appears to be the same.—Similar in form are the names Jehovah-nissi (Exod. 17:15), Jehovah-shalom (Jud. 6:24), Jehovah-jireh (Gen. 22:14). The LXX. makes a proper name of it, Ἰωσεδἐκ. I suppose with HERMANN (Gött. Weihn. Progr. 1752, comp. J. D. MICHAELIS, Observ. S. 189) that it referred the passage to the post-exilic restoration, and understood by Ἰωσεδέκ its representative, the high-priest Joshua, the son of Jozedek, which it always pronounces ’Ιωσεδέκ (Hagg. 1:1, 12; Ezr. 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh. 12:26). In favor also of this view is the Jewish interpretation of the passage concerning Zerubbabel, combated by THEODORET and EUSEBIUS (Dem. Ev., vii. 9), which seems to be supported by the LXX. The strange expression ἐν τοῖς προφήταις (THEODORET: αὐτὸς ἐν τ. πρ., perhaps a trace of the final syllable נוּ, which is wanting in Ἰωσεδέκ: EUSEB. Ἰωσεδεκιμ) is also in its favor. It is indeed transferred from Jer 23:9, where it stands as a title, but it is not impossible that the Alexandrian translators perceived in it a reference to the post-exilic prophets, under whose co-opsration Joshua and Zerubbabel labored. The Syriac and SYM-MACHUS, moreorer, read צַדְּקֵנוּ, for they translate δικαίεσον ἡμὰς.—If it is not the name of the Messiah, but of the people, then of course all the deductions are futile, which have been drawn from it in support of the deity of the Messiah. Only one thought remains, that Israel will be a nation, that will have no other righteousness than Jehovah’s. Some would take צֶרֶק exclusively in the sense of “salvation” (GRAF). Without denying that it may have this meaning (comp. Rems. on 7:5; 9:23 ; Isa. 46:12, etc.), I do not think that here בְּרָכָה ,תְּשׁוּעָה or any similar word would have done as well. The prophet certainly chose צדק not without reason, i. e. not without regard to its specific meaning. We are therefore justified in taking it in the entire fulness of its verbal significance as expressing the thought that Jehovah is His people’s righteousness and therefore their salvation. The expression is thus one of those which contain more than the prophet himself imagines, and we may therefore find in it also an antithesis to personal righteousness, which Israel thought to obtain by the works of the law (Rom. 9:31, 32; 9:7), but did not succeed. It has been further correctly remarked (Vide HENGSTENBERG, Christology ad h. l.) that Zedekiah changed his former name into this with reference to this passage. Compelled by Nebuchadnezzar to assume mother name (2 Ki. 24:17, comp. KEIL on 23:34) he chose this, which may very well Signify “Jehovah my Righteousness,” and by which he expressed the presumptuous hope, that Jeremiah’s glorious promise would find in him the beginning of its fulfilment—in which he exdressed rather an irony than a glorification of himself.

Jer 23:7, 8. Therefore ... in their own land. These two verses are repeated with unessential alterations from 16:14, 15. They stand in both places in a suitable connection, and Jeremiah himself may here, as frequently, have reproduced his own words spoken before. The omission of these verses here by the LXX., and their supplementation at the end of tha chapter, whereas Jer 23:6 closes with the words: ’Ιωσεδὲκ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, I cannot, with HITZIG and GRAF, regard as a proof that the two verses were wanting in the Hebrew original of the Translator. The admitted capvicious arbitrariness of this translator deprives his testimony of all demonstrative force. The occasion of the transposition may have been the circumstance that the verses have in 16:14, 15 a minatory, here a friendly, meaning, which led him to think that they must be introduced in the same connection as in Jer 16. This end he attained by placing them at the close of the minatory prophecy against the prophets. It should further be remarked that both verses, in the positive part of their relative clauses, agree in part verbatim with Jer 23:3, and in so far might be regarded as superfluous in this place. But the main emphasis is to be laid on the main proposition, “they shall no more say, As Jehovah liveth, etc., but: As Jehovah liveth,” etc., and in this sense they have the significance of a concluding doxology. The reduction of Israel from the later exile will furnish a more glorious substratum to the oath by the name of Jehovah.

Footnotes:

[1]Jer 23:1.—There is nothing remarkable in the absence of the article with רֹעִים, for this is generally the case with הוֹי. It occurs with the article in seven places only: Isa. 5:20; 10:1; 29:15; 31:1; Am. 5:18; 6:1; Hab. 2:6. Of these places, the first six have the plural, one the singular, but in a collective signification.

[2]Jer 23:1.—מַרְעִית may designate both the act (Hos. 13:6) the place (Isa. 49:9), and the object (Jer. 10:21; 25:36) of the pasturing. Hence צאן־מרעיתי (comp. Ezek. 34:31; Ps. 74:1; 79:13; 100:3) may mean both: the flock which I pasture (as chief shepherd), and: the flock which feeds on my pasturage. The sense is essentially the same.

[3]Jer 23:2.—Here רֹעִים has the article, because the shepherds already mentioned (Jer 23:1) are meant.

[4]Jer 23:2.—כָּקַד is here used for the sake of a paronomasia in bonam (comp. Ps. 8:5; Exod. 3:16) and in malam partem (comp. 5:9; 25:12; 27:8; Hos. 1:4) comp. Zech. 10:3.

[5]Jer 23:3.—נויהן Sing. Comp. OLSH., § 165, f. Since it is sheep which are spoken of, נָיֶה here as in 2 Sam. 7:8; Isa. 65:10; Jer. 33:12; Ezek. 25:5 = pascuum, place of pasturage, field. The fem, suffix is remarkable. Comp. Gen. 30:39; NAEGELSB. Gr., § 60, 4.

[6]Jer 23:4.—יִהֵתּוּ Comp. 17:18.

[7]Jer 23:4.—יכּקדו. This word is frequently used of missing, scattered or robbed sheep, 1 Sam. 25:7, 15, 21; comp. 1 Sam. 20:18.

[8]Jer 23:5.—יהשׂכיל is best taken here in a double sense: rem bene, i. e., prudenter et feliciter geret. Comp. rems. on 10:21; Isa. 52:13.

[9]Jer 23:6.—The reading יִקְרְאוּ which is found in some Codd. is occasioned by the endeavor to obtain a designation of the subject, perhaps also by the rarer form of suffix. With respect to the former point the well-known idiom may be referred to, according to which the subject is usually wanting with קָרָא in the meaning “they call.” Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 101, 2, b. With respect to the latter comp. Hos. 8:3; Ps.35:8; Eccles. 4:12; OLSH., § 231, c.

2. Against the False Prophets (23:9–40.)

a. The Blind Leaders of the Blind

23:9–15

9          Against the Prophets:—

Broken is my heart in my breast, all my bones quake,10

I am become like a drunken man, and a man whom wine has overcome.

Because of Jehovah and because of his holy words.

10     For the land is full of adulterers.

(For on account of the curse11 the land mourns,

The pastures of the desert are dried up:)

And their course is become evil and their might not right.

11     For both prophet and priest are profane,

Even in my house have I found their wickedness, saith Jehovah.

12     Therefore their way shall be to them as slippery places in the dark;

They shall be driven12 that they fall therein;

For I shall bring calamity upon them in the year of their visitation,

Saith Jehovah.

13     Also in the prophets of Samaria have I seen perversity.13

They prophesied14 by Baal and led my people Israel astray.

14     But in the prophets of Jerusalem I saw what is horrible;

Adultery and dealing in falsehood,—

They strengthened the hands of the evil-doers,

That they did not turn15 every one from his wickedness.

They are all become to me like Sodom,

And their inhabitants like Gomorrah.

15     Therefore saith Jehovah Zebaoth thus concerning the prophets:

Behold, I feed them with absinthe [wormwood],

And give them poison-water to drink,

For from the prophets of Jerusalem profanation has gone out over the whole land.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The prophet begins by describing his feelings at the reception of this revelation. His sensations were those of a man of broken heart, or of a drunken man (Jer 23:9). By this introduction we obtain a standard, by which to measure the importance of the following passage. First the moral condition of the people is described as very bad, especially from the prevalence of adultery. (Punishment of this the prevalent drought) (Jer 23:10). How could it be otherwise when the spiritual leaders of the people, prophets and priests were themselves profane men, who even desecrated the sanctuary with their crimes? (Jer 23:11). Therefore in the corresponding period punishment must come upon them also (Jer 23:12). Even the prophets in Samaria had led the people of Israel astray by their scandalous behaviour (Jer 23:13). The prophets of Jerusalem, however, had in the point of popular seduction, accomplished something truly horrible. Not only had they gone before with their example of wickedness, but had actually strengthened the evil-doers in their wickedness and restrained them from conversion, so that the nation had become to the Lord like Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer 23:14). Therefore, as the profaners of the land, they must be given poison to drink and be fed with bitterness (Jer 23:15).

Jer 23:9. Against the prophets … holy words. To connect, as indicated by the accents, broken with against the prophets, is not grammatically impossible (comp. ex. gr.31:20), but not altogether appropriate in meaning. For a broken heart does not signify anger or indignation (which is the only state of mind Jeremiah could be supposed to be in towards the false prophets), but humiliation, anxiety, care. Comp. Ps. 34:19; 51:19; 60:21; Isa. 61:1. But it becomes perfectly clear that we have here a superscription before us, when we observe that evidently the whole section, 23:9–40, as relating to the prophets, is opposed to the preceding as relating to the kings, that the title consequently states the main purport, not only of the next verses, but of the whole following discourse. Such superscriptions are moreover common in the book of this prophet: 46:2; 48:1; 49:1, 7, 23, 28.—By holy words are meant the revelation contained in what follows. What shocked the prophet to such an unusual degree was doubtless a glance granted him into the depths of human depravity and on the other hand of the divine wrath. Comp. 4:19; 8:18 sqq.

Jer 23:10-12. For the land is full … visitation, saith Jehovah.—For is causal. But since the reason of the prophet’s great shock is not expressed in the next sentence only, but in the whole of what follows also, For is to be referred to the entire following discourse.—Adulterers.

That this crime prevailed most extensively is evident from 5:7, 8; 9:1; 29:23. Where, however, אֱמוּנָה in this respect is not discovered, it is difficult to find it in other respects, and especially in relation to God. Comp. rems. on 5:1.—For on account, etc. This sentence to dried up is to be regarded as a parenthesis. From the general calamity of drought may be argued the presence of a general guiltiness. Moreover, both the indication of the drought, which looks like a demonstratio ad oculos and the leading back to the false prophets (Jer 23:11), reminds us very strongly of 14:2, 13–18.—And their course is connected with “full of adulterers.” Their thought and endeavor generally (their walking and running, comp. 8:6; Prov. 1:16; Isa. 59:7; Rom. 9:16) is directed to evil, therefore itself evil; they are strong only for that which is not right. Comp. rems. on 8:6.—For both prophet, etc. This sentence states the reason why the moral corruption is so general: it cannot be otherwise, since the teachers and leaders of the people are not only themselves profane and godless, but practise their ungodliness even in the sanctuary, the most influential centre of theocratic life. Therefore the prophet says directly in Jer 23:15, From the prophets of Jerusalem is gone forth profanation over the whole land. Evidently profanation is there used with reference to profane here. On the subject comp. 32:34; Ezek. 8:3 sqq. The priests are moreover mentioned only incidentally; in the whole subsequent part of the discourse Jeremiah speaks only of the prophets. Perhaps the juxtaposition of the two is only a reminiscence from 14:18, where alone the expression occurs.—In the dark. Comp. Ps. 35:6 [THOMSON, The Land and the Book, I., p. 106].—Year of visitation. Comp. 11:23. It is apparent from this expression that the visitation is still in the indefinite future.

Jer 23:13-15. Also in the prophets of Samaria … over the whole land. In these verses it is more particularly shown how the corruption extended from the prophets over the whole country. At the same time its merited punishment is announced to them.—The ו here (Also) and at the beginning of Jer 23:14 (But) correspond, but the whole sentences are not parallel, for it could not be said: Both in the prophets of Samaria I see perversity, and in the prophets of Jerusalem what is horrible, the latter clause containing a climax. The expression is founded on a mingling of two ways of speaking, “both in the prophets of Samaria I see what is bad, and in the prophets of Jerusalem,” and “in the prophets of Samaria I see תפלה, but in the prophets of Jerusalem evenשׁערורה.” Both are confounded in the sentence: both in the prophets of Samaria I see what is bad, and in the prophets of Jerusalem what is horrible.—We cannot well render these modes of expression word for word. Comp. the parallel, equally unfavorable for Judah, in 3:6–10.—By Baal. Comp. rems. on 2:8.—Led astray. In this leading astray by moans of prophecy in the name of idols is the point of connection between Jer 23:10 and 11.—Horrible. Comp. 5:30.—Strengthened, etc. They thus not only seduced the people into wickedness by their example, but sustained them therein by the authority of their example and detained them from repentance.—The subject of are become is the prophets, while their must refer to Jerusalem—The comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah is here as in Zeph. 2:9, yet with this difference, that they are here the emblem of moral corruption, there of outward desolation.—Poison-water. Comp. 8:14; 9:14.—Profanation. Comp. 3:9. In this last causal sentence (for from the prophets of Jerusalem has profanation gone out), the fundamental though! of the strophe again comes out clearly.

Footnotes:

[10]Jer 23:9.—רחפו. kal here only. Elsewhere Piel only occurs; Gen. 1:2; Deut. 32:11. The radical meaning seems to be flaccidus, debilis, mollis fuit. Comp. the Arabic rachapha=mollis, tenuis fuit, and רחם.

[11]Jer 23:10.—The LXX., Syriac, and Arab. read אֵלָה instead of אָלָה. So also HITZIG and MEIER. אלָה, however, merely designates the effect as indirect, occasioned by the curse, with reference to Deut. 28:15–68; 29:19–28.

[12]Jer 23:12.—יִדִּהוּ from דָּחַה, comp. OLSHAUSEN, § 265 e.

[13]Jer 23:13.—תִפְלָה, insulsum, insipidum [unsavoriness]. Besides only in Job 1:22; 24:12.

[14]Jer 23:13.—הנבאו. Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 23, Anm. 9; Ezek. 37:10.

[15]Jer 23:14.—לבלתי שׁבו. This construction is found besides only in 27:18; Ezek. 13:3. In Ezek. 13:22, where these words are quoted, we read לְבִלְתִּי־שׁוּבּ, but we are not therefore to assume an error here. The finite verb is admissible, because a condition, which actually existed, is to be designated.

B. WARNING AGAINST DECEPTION BY THE PROPHETS

23:16–22

16          Thus saith Jehovah Zebaoth,

Listen not to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you;

They deceive you.16

They speak their own heart’s vision, not from the mouth of Jehovah.

17     They say continually to my despisers:

Jehovah hath spoken,17“There shall be peace to you;”

And wherever one walketh18 in the hardness of his heart,

There they say: no evil shall come upon you.

18     For he who hath stood in the counsel of Jehovah,

Let him perceive19 and hear his word,

Let him who hath marked my word20 proclaim it.21

19     Behold, a storm-wind of Jehovah!

Fury is gone forth22and whirling storm—

Upon the head of the ungodly it will be rolled.

20     The anger of Jehovah will not turn back,

Till he execute and carry out the plans of his heart.

At the end of days ye will become aware of this.

21     I sent not the prophets, yet they ran,

I spake not to them, yet they prophesied.

22     But had they stood in my counsel,

Then they would have proclaimed my words to my people,

And have brought them back from their wicked way,

And from the wickedness of their deeds.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The main thought is: warning against false prophets who deceive the people and proclaim what comes not from the mouth of the Lord but from their own heart (Jer 23:16). Thus they proclaim peace to the despisers of the Lord, and impunity to those who go about in the hardness of their heart (Jer 23:17). Thus too they betray themselves. For he to whom is granted the honor of receiving information concerning the counsel of the Lord, cannot do otherwise than proclaim the Lord’s word as he received it (Jer 23:18). But the word of the Lord never proclaims impunity to the despisers. Rather concerning these is to be expected a tempest of anger from the Lord, who will not rest till He has carried out all His plans. In the end of days this will indeed be marked (Jer 23:19, 20). Thus they are not sent or commissioned by the Lord (Jer 23:21). But even had they, without receiving any express commission, only assisted as witnesses to the counsel of the Lord they would have proclaimed the word of the Lord to the people, and have turned them from their wicked way (Jer 23:22). The warning against the false prophets is thus occasioned by the admission of the double fact, that the Lord has not sent them, and that they have not been present at the counsel of the Lord or received information thereof. That the Lord has not sent them will be proved by His doing just the contrary of what they predicted. But that they have not at all entered into the counsel of the Lord is seen from this, that what they proclaimed to the people does not agree with the genuine word of the Lord, and that they have not labored to turn the people from their wicked way.

Jer 23:18. For he who hath stood … proclaim it. There are two modes of explanation: 1. He who has stood in the counsel of God, he sees and hears my word, he who has marked my word let him proclaim it (GRAF). 2. For who has stood in the counsel of the Lord? etc. The latter explanation would however either have the meaning, that no one had stood in the counsel of the Lord, which a prophet could not say, or we must take עמד בסוד in the sense of privately, without calling, assisting in the counsel of the Lord—which would be arbitrary and require before Jer 23:18 the supplementation of the double thought: “such things have I not said to them, and they cannot have heard them in my counsel (quasi me invito).” Hence מִי can be taken in the sense of quisquis only according to the first mode of interpretation. (Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 79, 6). The connection is then as follows: Listen not to the prophets, they deceive you, for they proclaim their own thoughts, not my commissions, promising impunity to my despisers. For he who has stood in the counsel of the Lord, must proclaim the Lord’s word, which cannot possibly be favorable to His despisers. The point of the thought is therefore contained in Jer 23:17: The despisers of the service of Jehovah were well-known people. If prophets, who pretended to speak in the name of Jehovah, promised such impunity, they thus proved themselves indisputably to be deceivers.—To stand in the counsel is not to sit in the counsel (Ps. 1:1). The latter designates assistance with an advisory voice.—Such an one is called אִישׁ עֵצָהIsa. 40:13. Comp. Rom. 11:34. Standing in the counsel of the Lord, i. e. as hearers, is declared in the proper sense of prophets: Isa. 6:1–8; 1 Ki. 22:19–23.—Yet we shall not err, if we assume that Jeremiah wishes the expression here to be taken in a wider sense, in which sense Am. 3:7גָּלָה סוֹדוֹ is used. Comp. Ps. 25:14. For we cannot suppose that all the prophets received all their revelations in the form in which, according to the passages cited, Micah and Isaiah received those mentioned.—Let him perceive [see]. How can the word of the Lord be seen? A reference to 2:31; Eccles. 1:16 does not seem to me satisfactory. Certainly the divine revelation might partly be seen in vision (comp. הֲזוֹן לִבָּם Jer 23:16; 1:11, 13; 24:1), partly heard (1 Sam. 3:9, 10); it could be received by the organ of the eye or the ear.—The effect of the seeing and hearing is indicated by “mark:” he who gives heed to my word, hears it not only with the outer but the inner ear, he may, etc.

Jer 23:19, 20. Behold. a storm-wind … aware of this. In antithesis to Jer 23:17 it is here set forth, what the true intention of Jehovah is with respect to the people. Both verses are repeated 30:23, 24.—A storm-wind of Jehovah, not physical but spiritual; an outburst of divine wrath is proclaimed by the prophet.—Upon the head. Comp. 2 Sam. 3:29.—Will not turn back. The storm will produce not merely a slight passing effect but a thoroughly destructive one. It will not cease till the will of the holy and just God is completely accomplished. Comp. Isa. 45:23; Ps. 132:11.—At the end of days, etc. Comp. Gen. 49:1; Numb. 24:14; Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Isa. 2:2; Jer. 48:47; 49:39. A contrast to the present is here involved: you do not now regard it as possible; at the end of days, however, i. e. at the conclusion of this section of history in which we live, you will indeed perceive it, viz., that it can and must be thus. End of days, therefore, expresses a relative idea. Comp. Jer 23:12.

Jer 23:21, 22. I sent not … their deeds. A new and perfectly clear reason for the desolation in Jer 23:16. How could those be true prophets whom the Lord sent not, to whom He spoke not? If, however, they should allege, that if not rite officially and de jure yet actually they had received information of the divine counsel, they must at least proclaim the word of Jehovah in its severity as hostile to the wicked and urging them to repentance. But since this is not the case they are irrefutably demonstrated to be false prophets and deceivers.

Footnotes:

[16]Jer 23:16.—מהבליםמ, Hiph. here only. The Kal in 2:5; 2 Ki. 17:15; Ps. 62:11; Job 27:12. He who renders another frivolous, so that his mind is directed to what is frivolous, has led him astray, deceived him. Comp. 14:14; Ezek. 13:2, 3.

[17]Jer 23:17.—אמרים אמור ונו. On the construction comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 97, 1, a, Anm.—Instead of דִּבֶּר the LXX. and Syriac, according to the view of some, read דִּבַר. But they might have taken דִּבֵּר itself as a subst.=דָּבָר, as in Hos. 1: 2; Jer. 5:13. The LXX. also connect the word with the preceding: τοῖς ἀπωθουμένοις λόγον κυρίου, while the Syriac translates: dicunt iis, qui me exasperant; ex oraculo Domini pax erit vobis. דִּבֶּר יי׳ certainly never stands as an introductory formula (=כִּה אָמַ ר): it most prevalently stands after אשׁר or באשׁר. But as Jeremiah was quoting the words of the Pseudo-prophets he may have purposely avoided the current formula of the true prophets. As the more difficult reading then דִּבֶּךּ deserves the preference.

[18]Jer 23:17.—וכל הלך. The construction is not to be explained by the effect of the לְ before סנאצי, but the participle is used absolutely as it is frequently, especially after כֹל. Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 97, 2 b.

[19]Jer 23:18.—וירא. Jussive apodosis. On the Vau comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 111, 1 b.

[20]Jer 23:18.—דברי. The Masoretes unnecessarily alter into דברו. הקשׁיב with the accus. in Job 13:6; Ps. 17:1; 61. 2.>

[21]Jer 23:18.—If we take מִי, as we have done, as a relative pronoun, and read וַיִשְׁמָ‍ֽע, the apodosis is wanting to the second clause. From this reading it appears that the Masoretes took מִי for an interrogative. By comparison with 9:11, and with Jer 23:22 below, it is thus seen that we are to punctuate וִיִשְמָ‍ֽע (comp. Jud. 18:25), he may cause to hear, may proclaim.

[22]Jer 23:19.—הֵמָה is in explicative apposition. יָצ‍ֽאָה to be taken as a perfect: the hurricane has already burst forth.

C. THE CRIMINAL MINGLING OF MAN’S WORD AND GOD’S WORD

23:23–32

23          Am I a God at hand? saith Jehovah,

And not a God at a distance?23

24     If a man conceal himself in a hiding place,

Shall I not see him? saith Jehovah.

Am I not he, who filleth heaven and earth? saith Jehovah.

25     I have heard what the prophets say,

Who prophesy falsely in my name;

“I have dreamed, I have dreamed.”

26     How long still is the fire in the heart of the prophets,

Who prophesy falsehood,—

The prophets of the deceit of their own heart?

27     Who make the endeavor24 to cause my people

To forget25 my name by their dreams,

Which they relate one to another,

As their fathers forgot my name through Baal.

28     Let the prophet, to whom a dream came, relate the dream,

Let him to whom my word came, relate my word truly.26

What has the straw to do with the grain? saith Jehovah.

29     Is not my word just like the fire? saith Jehovah,

And like the hammer, which breaketh rocks in pieces?

30     Therefore behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah,

Who steal my words one from another!

31     Behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah,

Who take their tongue and pronounce oracles.27

32     Behold, I am against them, who prophesy false dreams, saith Jehovah,

And relate them and lead my people astray,

By their falsehood and by their boasting.28

I had not sent them nor commissioned them,

They can also be of no profit to this people, saith Jehovah.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

As though the exalted (Jer 23:23) and omniscient God, who fills heaven and earth would know nothing of it (Jer 23:24), the false prophets dared to give forth their dreams as the word of God (Jer 23:25). How long will this unreason, which is at the same time deception and self-deception, last? (Jer 23:26). How long will they seek by their dreams to bring Jehovah into oblivion among the people, as their fathers forgot Him for Baal? (Jer 23:27). With this is associated a second mischief, that they give out the dream not as their dream, but as Jehovah’s word is to be proclaimed as such, connect this with their productions, though they have no more relation than the straw has to the grain (Jer 23:28), or to the fire, or the rock-crushing hammer (Jer 23:29). Hence the prophet finally formulates a triple charge against the prophets: 1. They steal God’s words (Jer 23:31); 2. They ape the form of genuine prophecy; 3. They lead the people astray by their lying dreams.

Jer 23:23, 24. Am I a God … saith Jehovah. The audacity of the false prophets, who did not fear to cover themselves with the name of Jehovah, is founded on the delusion that He was not in a condition to perceive their presumption. They regard the Lord as a God, who is only able to behold that which is near, i.e. can overlook only a limited domain. In opposition to this the Lord calls Himself אלהי מרחק, i. e. a God who takes note of that which occurs even in the remotest distance, who from His throne in heaven overlooks also the earth, because as filling heaven and earth He is present in both. Comp. Am. 9:2–4; Job 11:8, 9; Ps. 139:7–12.

Jer 23:25. I have heard … dreamed. This is the main charge, the sin which stands first in view of the omnipresent and omniscient God. Dreams were in themselves an acknowledged and legitimate medium of divine revelation. Comp. Numb. 12:6; 1 Sam. 28:6, 15; Joel 3:1; Dan. 7:1. But they occupy a low stage among the forms of divine communication. Comp. KNOBEL, Proph. d. Hebr., I., S. 174 sqq. HERZOG, Real-Enc., XVI., S. 297 ff.; DELITZSCH, Psychologie, Kap. IV., § 14.—These false prophets always speak only of their dreams as the media of their divine illumination. Of course ! For the dream is most withdrawn from the control of other men. Nothing is easier than to say, Last night I dreamed this or that. Who can refute it? The prophets thus make an immoderate and in itself suspicious use of dreams. They are dreamers, and it is remarkable that in Deut. 13:1, 3, נָבִיא by which there a false prophet is always meant, is regularly distinguished also as הֹלֵם חֲלםֹ, a dreamer of dreams. [“Although it pleased God to reveal Himself sometimes in dreams to His faithful people of old, yet when false prophets arose, who opposed the true, such revelations were rare. We have no instance of them in Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, or other prophets who were opposed by false prophets.” WORDSWORTH.—S. R. A.]

Jer 23:26, 27. How long … through Baal. By how long the Lord makes known that the conduct of these prophets, which is more particularly described in these two verses, is intolerable to Him. Great difficulty is caused by חֲיֵשׁ. The ancient translations coolly omit the הֲ and make it otherwise convenient to themselves. Vulg. and Chald.: usque quo istud est in corde, etc. LXX.: ἕως πότε ἔσται ἐν καρδίᾳ, etc. Syr.: quousque erunt in ore falsorum prophetarum prophetic falsæ?—The interpretations which adhere to the text are three: 1. The question is asked by a double interrogative מָתַי and הֲ, which, however, amounts to this that the latter is quite superfluous. HITZIG appeals indeed to 48:27 and Mic. 6:10. But in neither of these places is there a double interrogative. Besides the subject is wanting, and the thought: How long have they still the material for dreams? is certainly strange. 2. נְבְּיאֵי and נְבִיאֵי are rendered according to the construction וַיָחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה, Gen. 9:20. Comp. EWALD, § 298 b, NAEGELSB. Gr., § 95, g, Anm. Thus EWALD and MEIER. But apart from this that both ignore the interrogative He, the construction with יֵשׁ is without a precedent, forced and feeble in sense, for it seems as though the Lord expected an alteration in these prophets, though He had previously represented them as incurably corrupt (comp. Jer 23:11, 14), and according to Jer 23:27, expects nothing from them but the endeavor to bring Him into forgetfulness among the people. Is the thought suitable in this connection: “How long do the prophets purpose to be false prophets?” (MEIER). 3. The interpretation is most satisfactory which was first offered by LUDWIG DE DIEU and adopted by SEB. SCHMIDT, CHR. B. MICHAELIS, ROSEN MUELLER, UMBREIT, GRAF and others, according to which עד מתי is to be rendered as an independent sentence (=how long still will this last?) תֲיֵשׁ בְּלֵב to be taken as = have in mind? and תַהשְׁבִים, Jer 23:27, to be regarded as a resumption of the question interrupted by the words following בלב: have in mind the prophets, who …. think they, to make my people forget? Although this interpretation gives a sense which is tolerably satisfactory, it is opposed by the grammatical difficulty, that תֵם should stand after ההשׁבים as a recapitulation of the subject, which could not be absent after the interruption and the removal thereby effected of the proper subject. If then this interpretation also is not perfectly satisfactory, it is natural to suppose that the test is faulty. Should we not read הָאֵשׁ instead of קִהֲיֵשׁ Jeremiah had above, 20:9, compared the irresistible impulse to proclaim the word of the Lord, to a fire burning in his heart. Could not he who loves to quote himself, and who knows how to wield the weapon of irony against his opponents, in order to set forth incisively the difference between the true and false prophets, ironically presuppose in the latter what, as he well knew, was possessed only by the true prophets? He, staggering under the burden of persecution, had said (20:9): “I will not speak any more in His name,” but he was obliged to do so. Those who ought not compelled themselves to prophesy in the name of Jehovah. Did then such a fire burn also in their hearts? And if so, how long will it continue? Every one is summoned by these questions to make the comparison, but every one will also be obliged to confess that the miserable little flame of human egotism is not to be compared with the high and noble flame of divine inspiration, which burned in the prophet’s breast.—The prophets of the deceit, etc. They deceive others, after and because they have deceived themselves. Comp. 14:14; Ezek. 13:2.—Cause to forget. On the subject-matter comp. 2:32; 3:21; 13:25; 18:15; 50:6.—One to another. Not every one to his colleagues, but every one to his fellow. For they have corrupted the people by their lies. Comp. ver 32; 14:13 sqq.; 23:14 sqq.; 50:6.—Through Baal. Comp. 2:8. It is apparent that these false prophets did not prophesy in the name of an idol, but in the name of Jehovah, hut they proclaimed in His name not His word but the deceit of their own heart.

Jer 23:28, 29. Let the prophet … rocks in pieces. The Lord does not object if the prophets relate their own dreams as such. But they are not to mix them with the true word of God, and on the ground of this mingling utter them as a divine revelation. As the dreams are to be related as such, so also the real revelation of God is to be handed down purely, i.e. without addition or subtraction. It is clear that the connection requires this meaning for אמת. Comp. 2:21; Prov. 11:18. A mixture of the two elements is just as unsuitable as a mingling of empty straw with grain. The straw cannot be used with the grain, nor the grain with the straw. This comparison, and the following one of the hammer and “who steal,” Jer 23:30, shows that Jeremiah here, i e. from Jer 23:25, has in view not the presentation of the products of human, subjectivity as the products of divine objectivity, but the mingling of the two elements. He censures the former in Jer 23:25–27. As merchants often sell wholly sham goods, or those which are partly sham and partly genuine, as genuine, so do these prophets. Both are certainly שׁקד.—Is not my word like a fire?etc. A point in the comparison with straw is further developed. The straw is not only false ware, when found (as chopped straw) among the bread-corn, but simply as straw it has no strength, and is useless for defence or offence. So is also the word of the false prophets. In opposition to this, God’s word is like the all-conquering fire (comp. Song of Sol. 8:6, 7), or like the hammer crushing the hardest rock (Heb. 4:12; Eccles. 12:11). How despicable does the word of the pseudo-prophets appear in these comparisons and what a disgraceful mesalliance do they cause by their mingling! I do not think that the prevalent minatory and punitive import of the genuine prophecies was meant, for the Gospel is the most intensive force (1 Cor. 1:18–24; 2:4; Rom. 1:16).

Jer 23:30-32. Therefore behold … saith Jehovah. These three similarly opening verses recapitulate the main thoughts of the section in reverse order, in such wise also, that a point latent in the foregoing context (Jer 23:31), is now plainly set forth. Jer 23:30 evidently corresponds to Jer 23:28. They steal the genuine words of God, not directly every one from his colleague (Jer 23:27), but every one from his fellow as he pleases, thus in part at first hand from true prophets, in part at second band from false prophets, or wheresoever they can find them. Unmixed falsehood betrays itself too easily and is insipid. But falsehood mingled with truth is powerful, error, and the beauty of truth serves as an ornamental covering to its deformity. The second Behold, etc., Jer 23:31, corresponds to “who prophesy falsely in my name,” Jer 23:25, 26. For thereby it is implicitly declared that they proclaimed, their lies in the same form as the true prophets, as oracles of Jehovah. But how cheaply they hold these? All they needed was to set their tongues to work. How dear on the other hand did Jeremiah account the honor of being Jehovah’s true prophet! Comp. 20:7–9.—The third Behold, etc., corresponds to vers 25–27, the import of which it plainly repeats.

Footnotes:

[23]Jer 23:23:—On the construction, comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 63, 4 e.

[24]Jer 23:27.—ההשׁבים in apposition to נבאים in Jer 23:26.

[25]Jer 23:27.—להשׁכיח, Hiphil, here only.

[26]Jer 23:28.—אֱמֶת, Accus. adverb. Comp. 10:10; NAEGELSB. Gr., § 70, k.

[27]Jer 23:31.—וַיִנְאֲמו. Of the whole verb, besides this single form, we find only נְאֻם.

[28]Jer 23:32.—פַחֲזוּת is ἃπαξ λεγ. The meaning (comp. Jud. 9:1; Zeph. 3:4; Gen. 49:4=insolentia, impudent boasting.

d. The criminal use of the word “burden.”

23:33–40

33          And when this people, or the prophets29 or priests,

Ask thee, What is the burden of Jehovah?

Thou shalt tell them what the burden of Jehovah is; 30

Namely, “I reject you,”31saith Jehovah.

34     And the prophet, the priest, or the people

That say, “Burden of Jehovah;”

On such a man and his house will I visit it.

35     Thus shall ye say, every one to his neighbour and every one to 32his brother:

What hath Jehovah answered? or What hath Jehovah spoken?

36     But “burden of Jehovah ” ye shall no more take into your mouth;

For the burden will be to each his own word;

Because ye have perverted the words of the living God,

Jehovah Zebaoth, our God.

37     Thus shalt thou say to the prophet:

What has Jehovah answered thee?

Or, What has Jehovah spoken?

38     But if ye say, “Burden of Jehovah,”

On this account saith Jehovah thus:

Because ye say this word, “Burden of Jehovah,”

And I had sent unto you a message of this purport,

“Ye shall not say, ‘Burden of Jehovah,’ ”—

39     Therefore, behold, I burden you33 and thrust you,

And this city which I gave to you and your fathers,

Away from my presence;

40     And lay upon you everlasting reproach,

And everlasting shame, that shall not be forgotten.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The word of double meaning מַשָׂא, which signifies both “saying” and “burden,” was misused by the Jews, who were accustomed to ask the prophets mockingly what sort of a מַשָּׂא they had. Jeremiah is to tell those who thus ask, what sort of a burden threatens them, viz., that they shall be rejected (Jer 23:33), and each who thus asks shall, for this derision, be subjected to a special visitation (Jer 23:34). If any wish to ask the prophets, he is to make use of the expression, What has the Lord answered or spoken? (Jer 23:35). But the expression מַשָׂא (burden and saying) is no more to be used, for this perversion of a divine word will be avenged, such insolent words falling back like a heavy burden on the head of their authors (Jer 23:36). The inquiry is to be made thus: What has the Lord answered or spoken? (Jer 23:37). If, notwithstanding, the forbidden word is used (Jer 23:38), the Lord will carry away the people like a burden (Jer 23:39), and give them up to everlasting shame (Jer 23:40).

Jer 23:33, 34. And when this people … visit it.—What burden? It appears to have been the custom, whenever the prophets made their appearance in public to ask them if they had received any new revelation. There can be no doubt that משׂא means “saying, utterance,” as well as “burden.” Comp. the thorough demonstration in GRAF, S. 315. The passages from which it evidently follows that משׂא signifies effatum, any utterance, besides those where the verb נֶשָׂא is used in the sense vocem proferre with and without קוֹל, voice (Isa. 3:7; 42:2, 11 coll. Exod. 20:7; 23:1; Numb. 23:7; Ps. 139:20, etc.), are especially the following: Isa. 14:28; Lam. 2:14; 2 Ki. 9:25; Prov. 30:1; 31:1. HENGSTENBERG and RUECKERT, following the example of JONATHAN, AQUILA, the Syriac, JEROME and LUTHER, would take the word exclusively in the sense of “burden.” We have translated “burden” above, but only because we have no expression, which without forcing unites both meanings. Of the many attempts to unite them by DE WETTE, EWALD, FUERST, MEIER, none are really satisfactory. DE WETTE’S translation is most so. [Wehsagung: utterance of woe.—S. R. A.]. At all events the opposers emphasized the idea of burden. They wished to say that every declaration of Jehovah was only a new burden, that only what was burdensome, not what was pleasing, came from this God. In so far the question was one of blasphemous derision. It is implied by the word namely that what follows is a quotation. The passage to which Jeremiah refers is doubtless 12:7, “rejected mine inheritance.” The significance of this passage is clear from the fact that it is reproduced in a comprehensive survey in 2 Ki. 21:14.—Will I visit it. Besides the judgment announced to the people generally on account of their sins, those who make use of the expression “burden” in a wicked manner, shall receive special punishment.

Jer 23:35-37. Thus shall ye say … Jehovah spoken.—For the burden will be, etc. Even the insolent words will be to him who utters them a crushing burden, though the utterance of Jehovah, with respect to which he uses the term, is not in itself a burden at all.—These words are a parenthesis, and hence because ye have perverted, etc., is connected with ye shall no more take into your mouth and declare the result of using the forbidden word.—Living God. Comp. 10:10.

Footnotes:

[29]Jer 23:33.—The article is general, and נָבִיא expresses the idea of species. Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 71, 4, a.

[30]Jer 23:33.—את־מה־משׂא. Many modern commentators follow the LXX. and Vulg. which read אַתֶּם תַמַּשָׂא, but incorrectly. In His answer the Lord purposely uses the words of the question: Verba retorquet. The arrow directed against him must, being reversed, strike those insolent questioners. It should indeed properly read אַת אֲשֶׁר מַשָׂא. But the necessity of retaining the words of the question justified this grammatical license, which moreover (Comp. NAEGELSB. Gr., § 79, 6) is not altogether without precedent. אֵת depends on וְאָמַרְתָּ Comp. 14:17, etc. The construction is therefore by no means so artificial and clumsy as EWALD supposes.

[31]Jer 23:33.—ונטשתי ו׳ is not co-ordinated with ואמרת, as is apparent from נְאֻם י׳. It rather expresses the purport of that which Jeremiah is to proclaim as the “burden,” etc. ו is therefore=and indeed. It should only be remarked that ו here in this meaning stands before a whole sentence, which, however, on account of its brevity is not thereby rendered less easily intelligible.

[32]Jer 23:35.—On the interchange of עַל and אֵל, comp, rems. on 10:1.

[33]Jer 23:39.—ונּשׁיתי נשׁא. The paronomasia requires us to read נָשׂא נָשִׂיתִי, as the LXX., Vulg., Syr., and some Codd. and editions really do. It is not necessary to assume the Piel form נִשֵׂיתִי, since forms like כַּלִאתִי Ps. 119:102; כְּלִתִנִי 1 Sam. 25:33; צָמִת Ruth 2:9, justify the assumption of י also in the Kal according to the analogy of the לה׳ verbs. Comp. OLSH., § 223, a, Anm.—The reading גָשִּׁיתִי, which does not afford any satisfactory sense, but may be translated “I forget,” or “I heard not,” is doubtless occasioned by the unusual punctuation (נשׂיתי). A proof that- the latter is the original is found in the Inf. נשֹׁא, the א of which is likewise abnormal and therefore a sure trace of the original כִּלִמּוּת .נָשׂא is ἄπ. λεγ. and perhaps to be read כְּלִמַּת, after 20:11.