Jeremiah xx.

The prophet has now to endure something more than a scornful rejection of his message. And Pashchur ben Immer the priest (he was chief officer in the house of Iahvah) heard Jeremiah prophesying these words. And Pashchur smote Jeremiah the prophet and put him in the stocks, which were in the upper gate of Benjamin in the house of Iahvah. Like the priest of Bethel, who abruptly put an end to the preaching of Amos in the royal sanctuary, Pashchur suddenly interferes, apparently before Jeremiah has finished his address to the people; and enraged at the tenour of his words, he causes him—"Jeremiah the prophet," as it is significantly added, to indicate the sacrilege of the act—to be beaten in the cruel Eastern manner on the soles of the feet, inflicting probably the full number of forty blows permitted by the Law (Deut.), and then leaving him, in his agony of mind and body, fast bound in "the stocks." For the remainder of that day and all night long the prophet sat there in the gate, at first exposed to the taunts and jeers of his adversaries and the rabble of their followers, and as the weary hours slowly crept on, becoming painfully cramped in his limbs by the barbarous machine which held his hands and feet near together, and bent his body double. This cruel punishment seems to have been the customary mode of dealing with such as were accounted false prophets by the authorities. It was the treatment which Hanani endured in return for his warning to king Asa (2 Chron. xvi. 10), some three centuries earlier than Jeremiah's time; and a few years later in our prophet's history, an attempt was made to enforce it again in his case (Jer. xxix. 26). Thus, like the holy apostles of our Lord, was Jeremiah "counted worthy to suffer shame" for the Name in which he spoke (Acts v. 40, 41); and like Paul and Silas at Philippi, after enduring "many stripes" his feet were "made fast in the stocks" (Acts xvi. 23, 24). The message of Jeremiah was a message of judgment, that of the apostles was a message of forgiveness; and both met with the same response from a world whose heart was estranged from God. The heart that loves its own way, is only at ease when it can forget God. Any reminder of His Presence, of His perpetual activity in mercy and judgment, is unwelcome, and makes its authors odious. From the outset, transgressors of the Divine law have sought to hide among the trees of the garden—in the engrossing pursuits and pleasures of life—from the Presence of God.

Pashchur's object was not to destroy Jeremiah, but to break his spirit, and discredit him with the multitude, and so silence him for ever. But in this expectation he was as signally disappointed as his successor was in the case of St. Peter (Acts v. 24, 29). Now as then, God's messenger could not be turned from his conviction that we ought to obey God rather than men. And as he sat alone in his intolerable anguish, brooding over his shameful wrongs, and despairing of redress, a Divine Word came in the stillness of night to this victim of human tyranny. For it came to pass on the morrow that Pashchur brought Jeremiah forth out of the stocks; and Jeremiah said unto him, Not Pashchur[82]—as if "Glad and free"—but Magor-missabib—"Fear on every side"—hath Iahvah called thy name! Sharpened with misery, the seer's eye pierces through the shows of life, and discerns the grim contrast of truth and appearance. Before him stands this great man, clothed with all the dignity of high office, and able to destroy him with a word; but Iahvah's prophet does not quail before abused authority. He sees the sword suspended by a hair over the head of this haughty and supercilious official; and he realizes the solemn irony of circumstance, which has connected a name suggestive of gladness and freedom with a man destined to become the thrall of perpetual terrors. For thus hath Iahvah said: Lo, I am about to make thee a Fear to thyself and to all thy lovers; and they will fall by the sword of their foes, while thine eyes look on! This "glad and free" persecutor, wantoning in the abuse of power, blindly fearless of the future, is not doomed to be slain out of hand; a heavier fate is in store for him, a fate prefigured and foreshadowed by his present sins. His proud confidence is to give place to a haunting sense of danger and insecurity; he is to see his followers perish one after another, and evermore to be expecting the same end for himself: while the freedom which he has enjoyed and abused so long, is to be exchanged for a lifelong captivity in a foreign land. And all Judah will I give into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will transport them to Babylon, and smite them with the sword. And I will give all the store of this city—the hoarded wealth of all sorts, which constitutes its strength and reserve force—and all the gain thereof—the produce of labour—and all the value thereof—things rare and precious of every kind, works of the carver's and the goldsmith's and the potter's and the weaver's art;—and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their foes, that they may spoil them and take them and bring them to Babylon.

And for thyself, Pashchur, and all that dwell in thine house, ye shall depart among the captives; and to Babylon thou shall come, and there thou shalt die, and there be buried, thyself and all thy lovers, to whom thou hast prophesied with untruth, or rather by the Lie, i.e., by the Baal (ii. 8, xxiii. 13, cf. xii. 16).

The play on the name of Pashchur is like that on Perath (ch. xiii.), and the change to Magor-missabib is like the change of Tophet into "Valley of Slaughter" (ch. xix.). Like Amos (vii. 16), Jeremiah repeats his obnoxious prophecy, with a special application to his cruel persecutor, and with the added detail that all the wealth of Jerusalem will be carried as spoil to Babylon; a detail in which there may lie an oblique reference to the covetous worldliness and the interested opposition of such men as Pashchur. Riches and ease and popularity were the things for which he and those like him had bargained away their integrity, prophesying with conscious falsehood to the deluded people. His "lovers" are his partisans, who eagerly welcomed his presages of peace and prosperity, and doubtless actively opposed Jeremiah with ridicule and threats. The last detail is remarkable, for we do not otherwise know that Pashchur affected to prophesy. If it be not meant simply that Pashchur accepted and lent the weight of his official sanction to the false prophets, and especially those who uttered their divinations in the name of "the Baal," that is to say, either Molech, or the popular and delusive conception of the God of Israel, we see in this man one who combined a steady professional opposition to Jeremiah with power to enforce his hostility by legalized acts of violence. The conduct of Hananiah on a later occasion (xxviii. 10), clearly proves that, where the power was present, the will for such acts was not wanting in Jeremiah's professional adversaries.

It is generally taken for granted that the name of "Pashchur" has been substituted for that of "Malchijah" in the list of the priestly families which returned with Zerubbabel from the Babylonian captivity (Ezra ii. 38; Neh. vii. 41; cf. 1 Chron. xxiv. 9); but it seems quite possible that "the sons of Pashchur" were a subdivision of the family of Immer, which had increased largely during the Exile. In that case, the list affords evidence of the fulfilment of Jeremiah's prediction to Pashchur. The prophet elsewhere mentions another Pashchur, who was also a priest, of the course or guild of Malchijah (xxi. 1, xxxviii. 1), which was the designation of the fifth class of the priests, as "Immer" was that of the sixteenth (1 Chron. xxiv. 9, 14). The prince Gedaliah, who was hostile to Jeremiah, was apparently a son of the present Pashchur (Jer. xxxviii. 1).

It is not easy to determine the relation of the lyrical section which immediately follows the doom of Pashchur, to the preceding account (vv. 7-8). If the seventh verse be in its original place, it would seem that the prophet's word had failed of accomplishment, with the result of intensifying the unbelief and the ridicule which his teachings encountered. There is also something very strange in the sequence of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, where, as the text now stands, the prophet passes at once, in the most abrupt fashion imaginable, from a fervid ascription of praise, a heartfelt cry of thanksgiving for deliverance either actual or contemplated as such, to utterances of unrelieved despair. I do not think that this is in the manner of Jeremiah; nor do I see how the violent contrast of the two sections (7-13 and 14-18) can fairly be accounted for, except by supposing either that we have here two unconnected fragments, placed in juxtaposition with each other because they belong to the same general period of the prophet's ministry; or that the two passages have by some accident of transcription been transposed, which is by no means an uncommon occurrence in the MSS. of the Biblical writers. Assuming this latter as the more probable alternative, we see in the entire passage a powerful representation of the mental conflict into which Jeremiah was thrown by Pashchur's high-handed violence and the seeming triumph of his enemies. Smarting with the sense of utter injustice, humiliated in his inmost soul by shameful indignities, crushed to the earth with the bitter consciousness of defeat and failure, the prophet like Job opens his mouth and curses his day.

These five triplets afford a glimpse of the lively grief, the passionate despair, which agitated the prophet's heart as the first effect of the shame and the torture to which he had been so wickedly and wantonly subjected. The elegy, of which they constitute the proem, or opening strophe, is not introduced by any formula ascribing it to Divine inspiration; it is simply written down as a faithful record of Jeremiah's own feelings and reflexions and self-communings, at this painful crisis in his career. The poet of the book of Job has apparently taken the hint supplied by these opening verses, and has elaborated the idea of cursing the day of birth through seven highly wrought and imaginative stanzas. The higher finish and somewhat artificial expansion of that passage leave little doubt that it was modelled upon the one before us. But the point to remember here is that both are lyrical effusions, expressed in language conditioned by Oriental rather than European standards of taste and usage. As the prophets were not inspired to express their thoughts and feelings in a modern English dress, it is superfluous to inquire whether Jeremiah was morally justified in using these poetic formulas of imprecation. To insist on applying the doctrine of verbal inspiration to such a passage is to evince an utter want of literary tact and insight, as well as adhesion to an exploded and pernicious relic of sectarian theology. The prophet's curses are simply a highly effective form of poetical rhetoric, and are in perfect harmony with the immemorial modes of Oriental expression; and the underlying thought, so equivocally expressed, according to our ways of looking at things, is simply that his life has been a failure, and therefore it would have been better not to have been born. Who that is at all earnest for God's truth, nay, for far lower objects of human interest and pursuit, has not in moments of despondency and discouragement been overwhelmed for a time by the like feeling? Can we blame Jeremiah for allowing us to see in this faithful transcript of his inner life how intensely human, how entirely natural the spiritual experience of the prophets really was? Besides, the revelation does not end with this initial outburst of instinctive astonishment, indignation and despair. The proem is succeeded by a psalm in seven stanzas of regular poetical form—six quatrains rounded off with a final couplet—in which the prophet's thought rises above the level of nature, and finds in an overruling Providence both the source and the justification of the enigma of his life.

The cause was of God. Thou didst lure me, Iahvah, and I let myself be lured; Thou urgedst me and wert victorious. He had not rashly and presumptuously taken upon himself this office of prophet; he had been called, and had resisted the call, until his scruples and his pleadings were overcome, as was only natural, by a Will more powerful than his own (chap. i. 6). In speaking of the inward persuasions which determined the course of his life, he uses the very terms which are used by the author of Kings in connexion with the spirit that misled the prophets of Arab before the fatal expedition to Ramoth Gilead. And he said, Thou shalt entice, and also be victorious (1 Kings xxii. 22). Iahvah, therefore, has treated him as an enemy rather than a friend, for He has lured him to his own destruction. Half in irony, half in bitter complaint, the prophet declares that Iahvah has succeeded only too well in His malign purpose: I am become a derision all the day long; Every one mocketh at me.

In the second stanza, the thought appears to be continued thus: Thou overcamest me; for as often as I speak, I am a prophet of evil, I cry alarm (`ez'aq; cf. ze`aqah, vers. 16); I proclaim the imminence of invasion, the violence and havoc of a ruthless conqueror. Thou overcamest me also, in Thy purpose of making me a laughing-stock to my adversaries; for Iahvah's word is become to me a reproach, and a scoff all the day long (the relation between the two halves of the stanza is that of coordination; each gives the reason of the corresponding couplet in the first stanza). His continual threats of a judgment that was still delayed, brought upon him the merciless ridicule of his opponents.

Or the prophet may mean to complain that the monotony of his message, his ever-recurring denunciation of prevalent injustice, is made a reproach against him. For as often as I speak I make an outcry of indignation at foul wrongdoing (Gen. iv. 10, xviii. 21, xix. 13); wrong and robbery do I proclaim (Hab. i. 2, 3)—the oppression of the poor by the covetous and luxurious ruling classes. A third view is that Jeremiah complains of the frequent attacks upon himself: For as often as I speak I have to exclaim; Of assault and violence do I cry; but the first suggestion appears to suit best, as giving a reason for the ridicule which the prophet finds so intolerable (cf. xvii. 15).

The third stanza carries this plea for justice a step further. Not only was the prophet's overwhelming trouble due to his having yielded to the persuasions and promises of Iahvah; not only has he been rewarded with scorn and the scourge and the stocks for his compliance with a Divine call. He has been in a manner forced and driven into his intolerable position by the coercive power of Iahvah, which left him no choice but to utter the word that burnt like a fire within him. Sometimes his fears of perfidy and betrayal suggested the thought of succumbing to the insuperable obstacles which seemed to block his path; of giving up once for all a thankless and fruitless and dangerous enterprise: but then the inward flame burnt so fiercely, that he could find no relief for his anguish but by giving it vent in words (cf. Ps. xxxix. 1-3).

The verse finely illustrates that vivid sense of a Divine constraint which distinguishes the true prophet from pretenders to the office. Jeremiah does not protest the purity of his motives; indirectly and unconsciously he expresses it with a simplicity and a strength which leave no room for suspicion. He has himself no doubt at all that what he speaks is "Iahvah's word." The inward impulse is overpowering; he has striven in vain against its urgency; like Jacob at Peniel, he has wrestled with One stronger than himself. He is no vulgar fanatic or enthusiast, in whom rooted prejudices and irrational frenzies overbalance the judgment, making him incapable of estimating the hazards and the chances of his enterprise; he is as well aware of the perils that beset his path as the coolest and craftiest of his worldly adversaries. Thanks to his natural quickness of perception, his developed faculty of reflexion, he is fully alive to the probable consequences of perpetually thwarting the popular will, of taking up a position of permanent resistance to the policy and the aims and the interests of the ruling classes. But while he has his mortal hopes and fears, his human capacity for anxiety and pain; while his heart bleeds at the sight of suffering, and aches for the woes that thickly crowd the field of his prophetic vision; his speech and his behaviour are dominated, upon the whole, by an altogether higher consciousness. His emotions may have their moments of mastery; at times they may overpower his fortitude, and lay him prostrate in an agony of lamentation and mourning and woe; at times they may even interpose clouds and darkness between the prophet and his vision of the Eternal; but these effects of mortality do not last: they shake but cannot loosen his grasp of spiritual realities; they cannot free him from the constraining influence of the Word of Iahvah. That word possesses, leads him captive, "triumphs over him," over all the natural resistance of flesh and blood; for he is "not as the many"—the false prophets—"who corrupt the Word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, he speaks" (2 Cor. ii. 14, 17).

And still, unless a man be thus impelled by the Spirit; unless he have counted the cost and is prepared to risk all for God; unless he be ready to face unpopularity and social contempt and persecution; unless he knows what it is to suffer for and with Jesus Christ; I doubt if he has any moral right to speak in that most holy Name. For if the all-mastering motive be absent, if the love of Christ constrain him not, how can his desires and his doings be such as the Unseen Judge will either approve or bless?

The fourth stanza explains why the prophet laboured, though vainly, to keep silence. It was because of the malicious reports of his utterances, which were carefully circulated by his watchful antagonists. They beset him on every side; like Pashchur, they were to him a "magor-missabib," an environing terror (cf. vi. 25), as they listened to his harangues, and eagerly invited each other to inform against him as a traitor (The words "Inform ye, and let us inform against him!" or "Denounce ye, and let us denounce him!" may be an ancient gloss upon the term dibbah, "ill report," "calumny;" Gen. xxxvii. 2; Num. xiii. 32; Job xvii. 5. For the construction, cf. Job xxxi. 37. They spoil the symmetry of the line. That dibbah really means "defaming," or "slander," appears not only from the passages in which it occurs, but also from the Arabic dabÛb; "one who creeps about with slander," from dabba, "to move gently or slowly about." The Heb. ragal, riggel, "to go about slandering," and rakÎl, "slander," are analogous).

And not only open enemies thus conspired for the prophet's destruction. Even professed friends (for the phrase, cf. xxxviii. 22; Ps. xli. 10) were treacherously watchful to catch him tripping (cf. ix. 2, xii. 6). Those on whom he had a natural claim for sympathy and protection, bore a secret and determined grudge against him. His unpopularity was complete, and his position full of peril. We have in the thirty-first and several of the following psalms outpourings of feeling under circumstances very similar to those of Jeremiah on the present occasion, even if they were not actually written by him at the same crisis in his career, as certain striking coincidences of expression seem to suggest (ver. 10; cf. Ps. xxxi. 13, xxxv. 15, xxxviii. 17, xli. 9; ver. 13 with Ps. xxxv. 9, 10).

The prophet closes his psalm-like monologue with an act of faith. He remembers that he has a Champion who is mightier than a thousand enemies. Iahvah is with him, not with them (cf. 2 Kings vi. 16); their plots, therefore, are foredoomed to failure, and themselves to the vengeance of a righteous God (xi. 20). The last words are an exultant anticipation of deliverance.

We thus see that the whole piece, like a previous one (xv. 10-21), begins with cursing and ends with an assurance of blessing.

[1] The same root is used in the Targ. on i. 15 for setting or fixing thrones, cf. Dan. vii. 9: (??????)[2] Clem. Alex., Strom., I., § 120.[3] At least seven times.[4] Hitzig.[5] i. 6.[6] i. 2, xxv. 3.[7] ??? puer; (1) Ex. ii. 6, of a three months' babe; (2) of a young man up to about the twentieth year, Gen. xxxiv. 19, of Shechem ben Hamor; 1 Kings iii. 7, of Solomon, as here.[8] Hitzig, Vorbemerkungen.[9] The Cimmerians are the Gomer of Scripture, the GimirrÂ'a of the cuneiform inscriptions.[10] Ewald, Die Psalmen, 165.[11] Zeph. ii. 4 sqq., ????? ???? ... ??? ????? ????[12] ??? ?????, 2 Kings xxii. 8; ??? ?????, 2 Kings xxiii. 2.[13] Comparing the Hebrew verb with the Arabic Arabic script timuit, fastidivit. LXX., ???? ????sa a?t??, Cf. Jer. iii. 14. Gesenius rendered fastidivit, rejecit.[14] So rightly the Syriac, for Jehoiakim.[15] i.e. To scent food afar off, like beasts of prey. There was no occasion to alter A.V.[16] Even in the history of the transmission of ancient writings.[17] Isa. xliv. 24, ?????? ??????, xlix. 5, ?????? ??????? ????? ??.[18] For the words of this promise, cf. ver. 19 infr., xv. 20, xlii. 11.[19] ?????????, so far as the punctuation suggests that the term is a compound, meaning "shadow of death," is one of the fictions of the Masorets, like ????????????? and ??????????? and ???????? in the Psalms.[20] Perhaps, too, the immediate object of the prophet was attained, which was, as Ewald thinks, to dissuade the people from alliance with Psammitichus, the vigorous monarch who was then reviving the power and ambition of Egypt. Jeremiah dreaded the effects of Egyptian influence upon the religion and morals of Judah. Ewald notes the significant absence of all reference to the enemy from the north, who appears in all the later pieces.[21] She saw: Pesh. This may be right. And the Traitress, her sister Judah, saw it: yea, saw that even because the Turncoat Israel had committed adultery, I put her away.... And yet the Traitress Judah, her sister, was not afraid, etc.[22] 1 Kings ii. 4, ???????? = ?????????????[23] As if "Turn back, back-turning Israel!" i.e. Thou that turnedst thy back upon Iahvah, and, therefore, upon His pleasant land.[24] Cf. also the Arabic Arabic script pravus, Arabic script pravitas, with the Hebrew term.[25] The modern singer has well caught the echo of this ancient strain.

[26] The second 'awen, however, probably means "trouble," "calamity," as in Hab. iii. 7. The Sept. renders p????, and this agrees with the mention of Dan in viii. 16. As Ewald puts it, "from the north of Palestine the misery that is coming from the further north is already being proclaimed to all the nations in the south (vi. 18)."[27] With a different point: "When I had fed them to the full" (cf. Hos. xiii. 6).[28] This term—mashchÎthÎm—is certainly not the plur. of the mashchÎth, "pitfall" or "trap," of v. 26. The meaning is the same as in Isa. i. 4. The original force of the root shachath is seen in the Assyrian shachÂtu, "to fall down."[29] The form—c?arof—is like bachon, "assayer," in ver. 27.[30] The omissions of the Septuagint are not always intelligent. The repetition of the "all" here intensifies the idea of the totality of the ruin of the northern kingdom. The two clauses balance each other: all your brethren—all the seed of Ephraim. The objection that Edom was also a "brother" of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 8; Amos i. 11) shews a want of rhetorical sense.

In vii. 4 the Septuagint tastelessly omits the third "The Temple of Iahvah!" upon which the rhetorical effect largely depends: cf. chap. xxii. 29; Isa. vi. 3.[31] Note on vii. 25.—The word answering to "daily" in the Heb. simply means "day," and ought to be omitted, as an accidental repetition either from the previous line, or of the last two letters of the preceding word "prophets." Cf. ver. 13, where a similar phrase, "rising early and speaking," occurs in a similar context, but without "daily."[32] Wa'etten lahem can only mean "and I gave (in prophetic idiom 'and I will give') unto them," and this, of course, requires an object. "I will give them to those who shall pass over them" is the rendering proposed by several scholars. But lahem does not mean "to those," and the thought does not harmonize with what precedes, and this use of ??? is doubtful, and the verb "to give" absolutely requires an object. The Vulgate rendering is really more in accordance with Hebrew syntax, as the masc. suffix of the verb might be used in less accurate writing. Targum: "because I gave them My law from Sinai, and they transgressed against it;" Peshito: "and I gave unto them, and they transgressed them." So also the Syro-Hexaplar of Milan (participle: "were transgressing") between asterisks.[33] It seems to take the ???? each time as ???????????? and to read ??????? ???? for ????????: thus getting "Scoffers! I will bring upon them sorrow; upon them my heart is faint."[34] The irregular Hiphil form of the verb—cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 22; Job xix. 4—may be justified by Job xxviii. 8; we are not, therefore, bound to render the Masoretic text: and they make their tongue bend their lying bow. Probably, however, Qal is right, the Hiphil being due to a misunderstanding, like that of the Targum, "And they taught their tongue words of lying."[35] Ewald prefers the reading of the LXX., which divides the words differently. If we suppose their version correct, they must have read: "They have trained their tongue to speak falsehood, to distort. They are weary of returning. Oppression in oppression, deceit in deceit! They refuse to know Me, saith Iahvah." But I do not think this an improvement on the present Masoretic text.[36] If Jeremiah wrote Ps. lv., as Hitzig supposes, he may be alluding to the treachery of a particular friend; cf. Ps. lv. 13, 14.[37] Shahadhta lisÂnaka `alaina. In this case, we should follow the Heb. margin or Q'rÊ.[38] Speak thou, Thus saith Iahweh, is undoubtedly a spurious addition, and does not appear in the LXX. Jeremiah never says Koh ne'um Iahvah, and never uses the imperative dabber![39] LXX. "for they are afraid before them," ?? ???? ??? ??????.[40] This is the most natural interpretation of the passage according to the Hebrew punctuation. Another is given below.[41] It is against usage to divide the clause as Naegelsbach does, "Vain instruction! It is wood!" or to render with Ewald "Simply vain doctrine is the wood!" which would require the article (ha'eÇ).[42] But perhaps it is rather the prophet's love for his people, which fervently prays that the oath of blessing may be observed, and Judah maintained in the goodly land.[43] Hitzig supposed that the "vows" and "hallowed flesh" were thank-offerings for the departure of the Scythians. "It is plain that the people are really present in the temple; they bring, presumably after the retreat of the Scythians, the offerings vowed at that time." But, considering the context, the reference appears to be more general. I have partly followed the LXX. in emending an obviously corrupt verse; the only one in the chap. which presents any textual difficulty. Read: ??????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??????????. The article with a noun with suffix, and the peculiar form of the 2 pers. pron. f., are found elsewhere in Jer. But I incline to correct further thus: "What avail to My beloved is her dealing (or sacrificing: ??? 2 Kings xvii. 32) in My house?" ????????????? ????????? ???? ??? ???. "Can the many altars (ver. 13) and hallowed flesh cause thine evil to pass away from thee (or pass thee by)?" This seems very apposite to what precedes. The Hebrew, as it stands, cannot possibly mean what we read both in the A. V. and R. V., nor indeed anything else.[44] Reading ????????, with Hitzig, instead of ??????????, which is meaningless. Deut. xxxiv. 7; Ezek. xxi. 3. Perhaps it would be better to keep all the letters, and point ??????????, understanding ??? as collective, "the trees."[45] Not a vocative: xx. 12, xvii. 10.[46] That "the swelling" or "the pride of Jordan" should rather be read "the wilds" or "jungles of Jordan," is clear from xlix. 19; Zech. xi. 3; quoted by Hitzig. ???? means "growth," "overgrowth," among other things; and the Heb. phrase coincides with the ???d?? d???? of Josephus (Bell. Jud., vii. 6, 5).[47] The form of the Heb. verbs implies the certainty of the event. Hitzig supposes that ver. 6 simply explains the expression "land of peace" in ver. 5. At Anathoth the prophet was at home; if he "ran away" (reading ???? "fleest" for ???? "art confident") there, what would he do, when he had gone forth as a "sheep among wolves" (St. Luke x. 3)? But I think it is much better to regard ver. 6 as explaining the whole of ver. 5 in the manner suggested above.[48] Or perhaps rather the holy land itself, as Hitzig suggested: Hos. ix. 15.[49] Lit. "Is my domain vultures, hyenas, to me?" The dative expresses the interest of the speaker in the fact (dat. ethic.). The Heb. term ???? only occurs here. It is the Arabic dhabu`, "hyena" (so Sept.). St. Jerome renders avis discolor. So the Targum: "a strewn" "sprinkled," or "spotted fowl."[50] The references to "birds of prey," "beasts of the field," and "spoilers" (ver. 12), are interpreted by the phrase "mine evil neighbours" (ver. 14); and this constitutes a link between vv. 7-14 and 14-17.[51] Such seems to be the best punctuation of the sentence. It involves the transfer of Athnach to ????.[52] So the LXX. This agrees better with the context than "So be ye ashamed of your fruits."[53] As Hitzig has observed, only a people, or a king, or a national god, could be spoken of as a "neighbour" to the God of Israel.[54] Also xlviii. 12; Lam. iv. 2; Isa. xxx. 14.[55] LXX. ?p? ?efa??? ???.. Read ?????????????? = ???????????; and cf. Assyrian reŠu, plur. reŠÊtu (= ?????).[56] For ?????? we might read, with LXX., Vat., ????? (?????)?. The Arabic has Israel. But Vulg. and Targ. agree with the Q'rÊ, and take the verbs as plur.: "Lift ye up your eyes and see who are coming from the north." The sing. fem. is to be preferred as the more difficult reading, and on account of ver. 21, where it recurs. Jerusalem is addressed (ver. 27), and "your eyes," plur. masc. pron., may be justified as indicating the collective sense of the fem. sing. The population of the capital is meant. Cf. Mic. i. 11; Jer. xxi. 13, 14. In ver. 23, the masc. plur. appears again, the figure for a moment being dropped.[57] Hitzig: (1) xiv. 1-9, 19-22: "Lament and Prayer on occasion of a Drought." (2) xiv. 10-18. "Oracle against the false Prophets and the misguided People" (Hitzig mistakes the import of the phrase ?? ???? ????, "Thus have they loved to wander," ver. 10; supposing that the "thus" refers to xiii. 27, and that xiv. 1-9 is misplaced). (3) xv. 1-9. "The incorrigible People will be punished mercilessly." Hitzig thinks C. B. Michaelis wrong in asserting close connexion with the end of the preceding chapter, because the intercession, vv. 2-9, does not agree with the prohibition, xiv. 11; and because xiv. 19-22, merely prays for cessation of the Drought; while the rejection of "the hypothetical intercession," xv. 1, delivers the people over to all the horrors which follow in the train of war. xv. 1-9 may originally have followed xiv. 18. But this is far from cogent reasoning. There is nothing surprising in the renewal of the prophet's intercession, except on a theory of strictly verbal inspiration; and xv. 1 sqq. in refusing deliverance from the Drought, or rather in answer to the prayer imploring it, announces further and worse evils to follow. (4) "Complaint of the Seer against Iahvah, and Soothing of his Dejection," xv. 10-21. Hitzig thinks internal evidence here points to the fourth year of Jehoiakim; and that xvii. 1-4 originally preceded this section, especially as ch. xvi. connects closely with xv. 9. (5) xvi. 1-20. "Prediction of an imminent general Judgment by Plague and Captivity." Written immediately after xv. 1-9, and falls with that in the short reign of Jehoiachin. (6) xvii. 1-4. "Judah's unforgotten Guilt will be punished by Captivity." Wanting in LXX. (as early as Jerome), but contains original of xv. 13, 14, and must therefore be genuine. Belongs 602 b.c., year of Jehoiakim's revolt. (7) xvii. 5-18. "The Vindication of Trust in God on Despisers and Believers. Prayer for its Vindication." Date immediately after death of Jehoiakim. (8) 19-27. "Warning to keep the Sabbath." Time of Jehoiachin.[58] The Heb. verb ?????? "is broken" may probably have this meaning. "Dismayed" is not nearly so suitable, though it is the usual meaning of the term. Cf. Isa. vii. 8.[59] Cf. viii. 9. "And no wisdom is in them."[60] So Dathe, Naegelsbach.[61] Lit. "all these things," i.e., this visible world. There is no Heb. special term for the "universe" or "world." "The all" or "heaven and earth," or the phrase in the text, are used in this sense.[62] The reference to an eclipse of the sun in the words

appears fairly certain. Such an event is said to have occurred in that part of the world, Sept. 30, b.c. 610.[63] 13. Read ????? "Thine high places" for ?? ????? "without price"; and transpose ????? (xvii. 3).[64] 14. Read ???????? "and I will make thee serve" (xvii. 4) for ??????? "and I will make to pass through...."

The third member is a quotation from Deut. xxxii. 22. In the fourth, read ??????? "for ever" (xvii. 4) instead of ????? "upon you."[65] The tone of all this indicates that the prophet was no novice in his office. It does not suit the time of Josiah; but agrees very well with the time of confusion and popular dismay which followed his death. That event must have brought great discredit upon Jeremiah and upon all who had been instrumental in the religious changes of his reign.[66] Practices forbidden, Lev. xxi. 5; Deut. xiv. 1. Jeremiah mentions them as ordinary signs of mourning, and doubtless they were general in his time. An ancient usage, having its root in natural feeling, is not easily extirpated.[67] Naegelsbach.[68] The figure recalls the Persian custom of sweeping off the whole population of an island, by forming a line and marching over it, a process of extermination called by the Greek writers sa???e?e??, "fishing with a seine or drag-net" (Herod. iii. 149, iv. 9, vi. 31).[69] For the construction, cf. Gen. i. 22; Jer. li. 11. Or "With their abominations they filled, etc.," a double accusative.[70] i.e., Loose thine hold of ... let go ... release. Read ??? for ???. The uses of ???? "to throw down," "let fall," resemble those of the Greek ??? and its compounds. I corrected the passage thus, to find afterwards that I had been anticipated by J. D. Michaelis, Graf, and others.[71] There is something strange about the phrase "by (upon, `al) the evergreen tree." Twenty-five Heb. MSS., the Targ., and the Syriac, read "every" (kol) for "upon" (`al). We still feel the want of a preposition, and may confidently restore "under" (ta?ath), from the nine other passages in which "evergreen tree" (`ec? ra`anan) occurs in connexion with idolatrous worship. In all these instances the expression is "under every evergreen tree" (ta?ath kol `ec? ra`anan); from the Book of the Law (Deut. xii. 2), whence Jeremiah probably drew the phrase, to 2 Chron. xxviii. 4. Jeremiah has already used the phrase thrice (ii. 20, iii. 6, 13), in exactly the same form. The other passages are Ezek. vi. 13; Isa. lvii. 5; 2 Kings xvi. 4, xvii. 10. The corruption of kol into `al is found elsewhere. Probably ta?ath had dropt out of the text, before the change took place here.[72] A popular opinion of the time.[73] Isa. xxii. 23.[74] The Heb. term is probably written with omission of the final mem, a common abbreviation; and the right reading may be ?????? "and apostates."[75] ??? for ????.[76] ??????? for ???????.[77] I have left this paragraph as I wrote it, although I feel great doubts upon the subject. What I have remarked elsewhere on similar passages, should be considered along with the present suggestions. We have especially to remember, (i) the peculiar status of the speaker as a true prophet; and (ii) the terrible invectives of Christ Himself on certain occasions (St. Matt. xxiii. 33-35; St. Luke x. 15; St. John viii. 44).[78] The context is against supposing, with Graf, that the prophet's call "hear ye!" extends also to princes yet unborn (cf. xiii. 13; xxv. 18 is different). If, however, it be thought that Jeremiah addressed not the sovereigns personally, but only the people passing in and out of the gates; then the expression becomes intelligible as a generalised plural, like the parallels in 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 ("his children"), ibid. 16 ("the kings of Assyria" = Tiglath-pileser II.). The prophet might naturally avoid the singular as too personal, in affirming an obligation which lay upon the Judean kings in general.[79] Encycl. Britann., s.v. Sabbath, p. 125.[80] Instead of ???? ??? "from the rock of the field," I have ventured to read ???? ??? (Lam. iii. 54; Deut. xi. 4; 2 Kings vi. 6). For ????? "plucked up" "uprooted," which is inappropriate in connexion with water, Schnurrer's ????? "dried up" (Isa. xix. 5; Jer. li. 30), is probably right. In the second couplet, I read ???? for ????, which is meaningless, and transpose ???? with ??????.[81] LXX. ?p? t?? ??a?a?s??? a?t?? makes it possible that they read ?????? which would represent ??????????? "defiled."[82] The name is probably a quadriliteral from ???, Arabic script Ethiopic ???? "to be glad," Assyrian Assyrian script pashÂchu "to be at ease," "to rest," (which comes nearest to the Hebrew root). The Arabic verb means "The place was roomy, wide, ample"; whence Arabic script "free from distress or narrowness of mind." Thus Pashchur = "case," "tranquillity," and is formed like Achbor, kaphtor, "a capital," (LXX. Pashchor). But the name might remind a Hebrew of the root ??? "to leap," "prance," Jer. l. 11, and ?? "free" (plur. only), as if it were a compound of pash and chor. "Glad and free:" cf. the LXX. vocalisation ?as???. I think this popular etymology pash + chor is probably what Jeremiah thought of.[83] Ex. xii. 33; Isa. viii. 11; Ezek. iii. 14; Jer. xv. 17.[84] vi. 11 (or, of enduring, Mal. iii. 2).[85] 'Denounce ye, and we will denounce him!'