When the Wicked Prosper and the Lord’s Inheritance Is Trampled

Jer 12:5-6 In Jer 12:5 and Jer 12:6 the Lord so answers the prophet’s complaint as to reprove his impatience, by intimating that he will have to endure still worse. Both parts of Jer 12:5 are of the nature of proverbs. If even the race with footmen made him weary, how will he be able to compete with horses? תּחרה here and Jer 22:15, a Tiph. , Aramaic form for Hiph.

, arising by the hardening of the ה into ת-cf. Hos 11:3, and Ew. §122, a - rival, vie with. The proverb exhibits the contrast between tasks of smaller and greater difficulty, applied to the prophet’s relation to his enemies. What Jeremiah had to suffer from his countrymen at Anathoth was but a trifle compared with the malign assaults that yet awaited him in the discharge of his office.

The second comparison conveys the same thought, but with a clearer intimation of the dangers the prophet will undergo. If thou puttest thy trust in a peaceful land, there alone countest on living in peace and safety, how wilt thou bear thyself in the glory of Jordan? The latter phrase does not mean the swelling of Jordan, its high flood, so as that we should with Umbr.

and Ew. , have here to think of the danger arising from a great and sudden inundation. It is the strip of land along the bank of the Jordan, thickly overgrown with shrubs, trees, and tall reeds, the lower valley, flooded when the river was swollen, where lions had their haunt, as in the reedy thickets of the Euphrates. Cf. v. Schubert, Resie , iii. S. 82; Robins.

Bibl. Researches in Palestine , i. 535, and Phys. Geogr. of the Holy Land , p. 147. The "pride of the Jordan" is therefore mentioned in Jer 49:19; Jer 50:44; Zec 11:3, as the haunt of lions, and comes before us here as a region where men’s lives were in danger. The point of the comparison is accordingly this: Thy case up till this time is, in spite of the onsets thou hast borne, to be compared to a sojourn in a peaceful land; but thou shalt come into much sorer case, where thou shalt never for a moment be sure of thy life.

To illustrate this, he is told in Jer 12:6 that his nearest of kin, and those dwelling under the same roof, will behave unfaithfully towards him. They will cry behind him מלא, plena voce (Jerome; cf. קראוּ מלאוּ, Jer 4:5). They will cry after him, "as one cries when pursuing a thief or murderer" (Gr.) Perfectly apposite is therefore Luther’s translation: They set up a hue and cry after thee.

These words are not meant to be literally taken, but convey the thought, that even his nearest friends will persecute him as a malefactor. It is therefore a perverse design that seeks to find the distinction between the inhabitants of Anathoth and the brethren and housemates, in a contrast between the priests and the blood-relations. Although Anathoth was a city of the priests, the men of Anathoth need not have been all priests, since these cities were not exclusively occupied by priests.

- In this reproof of the prophet there lies not merely the truth that much sorer suffering yet awaits him, but the truth besides, that the people’s faithlessness and wickedness towards God and men will yet grow greater, ere the judgment of destruction fall upon Judah; for the divine long-suffering is not yet exhausted, nor has ungodliness yet fairly reached its highest point, so that the final destruction must straightway be carried out. But judgment will not tarry long.

This thought is carried on in what follows. The execution of the judgment on Judah and its enemies. - As to this passage, which falls into two strophes, Jer 12:7-13 and Jer 12:14-17, Hitz. , Graf, and others pronounce that it stands in no kind of connection with what immediately precedes. The connection of the two strophes with one another is, however, allowed by these commentators; while Eichh.

and Dahler hold Jer 12:14-17 to be a distinct oracle, belonging to the time of Zedekiah, or to the seventh or eighth year of Jehoiakim. These views are bound up with an incorrect conception of the contents of the passage-to which in the first place we must accordingly direct our attention.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:7 "I have forsaken mine house, cast out mine heritage, given the beloved of my soul into the hand of its enemies. Jer 12:8. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest, it hath lifted up its voice against me; therefore have I hated it. Jer 12:9. Is mine heritage to me a speckled vulture, that vultures are round about it? Come, gather all the beasts of the field, bring them to devour!

Jer 12:10. Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard, have trodden down my ground, have made the plot of my pleasure a desolate wilderness. Jer 12:11. They have made it a desolation; it mourneth around me desolate; desolated is the whole land, because none laid it to heart. Jer 12:12. On all the bare-peaked heights in the wilderness are spoilers come; for a sword of Jahveh’s devours from one end of the land unto the other: no peace to all flesh.

Jer 12:13. They have sown wheat and reaped thorns; they have worn themselves weary and accomplished nothing. So then ye shall be put to shame for your produce, because of the hot anger of Jahve." Jer 12:14. "Thus saith Jahveh against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the heritage which I have given unto my people Israel: Behold, I pluck them out of their land, and the house of Judah will I pluck out of their midst.

Jer 12:15. But after I have plucked them out, I will pity them again, and bring them back, each to his heritage, and each into his land. Jer 12:16. And it shall be, if they will learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name: As Jahveh liveth, as they have taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built in the midst of my people. Jer 12:17. But if they hearken not, I will pluck up such a nation, utterly destroying it, saith Jahve."

Hitz. and Graf, in opposition to other commentators, will have the strophe, Jer 12:7-13, to be taken not as prophecy, but as a lament on the devastation which Judah, after Jehoiakim’s defection from Nebuchadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, had suffered through the war of spoliation undertaken against insurgent Judah by those neighbouring nations that had maintained their allegiance to Chaldean supremacy, 2Ki 24:2.

In support of this, Gr. appeals to the use throughout of unconnected perfects, and to the prophecy, Jer 12:14. , joined with this description; which, he says, shows that it is something complete, existing, which is described, a state of affairs on which the prophecy is based. For although the prophet, viewing the future with the eyes of a seer as a thing present, often describes it as if it had already taken place, yet, he says, the context easily enables us in such a case to recognise the description as prophetic, which, acc.

to Graf, is not the case here. This argument is void of all force. To show that the use of unconnected perfects proves nothing, it is sufficient to note that such perfects are used in Jer 12:6, where Hitz. and Gr. take בּגדוּ and קראוּ as prophetic. So with the perfects in Jer 12:7. The context demands this. For though no particle attaches Jer 12:7 to what precedes, yet, as Graf himself alleges against Hitz.

, it is shown by the lack of any heading that the fragment (Jer 12:7-13) is "not a special, originally independent oracle;" and just as clearly, that it can by no means be (as Gr. supposes) an appendix, stuck on to the preceding in a purely external and accidental fashion. These assumptions are disproved by the contents of the fragment, which are simply an expansion of the threat of expulsion from their inheritance conveyed to the people already in Jer 11:14-17; an expansion which not merely points back to Jer 11:14-17, but which most aptly attaches itself to the reproof given to the prophet for his complaint that judgment on the ungodly was delayed (Jer 12:1-6); since it discloses to the prophet God’s designs in regard to His people, and teaches that the judgment, though it may be delayed, will not be withheld.

Jer 12:7-12 contain sayings of God, not of the prophet, who had left his house in Anathoth, as Zwingli and Bugenhagen thought. The perfects are prophetic, i. e. , intimate the divine decree already determined on, whose accomplishment is irrevocably fixed, and will certainly by and by take place. "My house" is neither the temple nor the land inhabited by Israel, in support whereof appeal is unjustly made to passages like Hos 8:1-14; Hos 1:1-11; Hos 9:15; Eze 8:12; Eze 9:9; but, as is clearly shown by the parallel "mine heritage," taken in connection with what is said of the heritage in Jer 12:8, and by "the beloved of my soul," Jer 12:7, means the people of Israel, or Judah as the existing representative of the people of God (house = family); see on Hos 8:1.

נחלתי = עם נחלה, Deu 4:20, cf. Isa 47:6; Isa 19:25. ידדוּת, object of my soul’s love, cf. Jer 11:15. This appellation, too, cannot apply to the land, but to the people of Israel - Jer 12:8 contains the reason why Jahveh gives up His people for a prey. It has behaved to God like a lion, i. e. , has opposed Him fiercely like a furious beast. Therefore He must withdraw His love.

To give with the voice = to lift up the voice, as in Psa 46:7; Psa 68:34. "Hate" is a stronger expression for the withdrawal of love, shown by delivering Israel into the hand of its enemies, as in Mal 1:3. There is no reason for taking שׂנאתי as inchoative (Hitz. , I learned to hate it). The "hating" is explained fully in the following verses. In Jer 12:9 the meaning of העיט צבוּע is disputed.

In all other places where it occurs עיט means a bird of prey, cf. Isa 46:11, or collective, birds of prey, Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6. צבוּע, in the Rabbinical Heb. the hyaena, like the Arabic s[abu'un or s[ab'un . So the lxx have rendered it; and so, too, many recent comm. , e. g. , Gesen. in thes . But with this the asyndeton by way of connection with עיט does not well consist: is a bird of prey, a hyaena, mine heritage?

On this ground Boch. ( Hieroz . ii. p. 176, ed. Ros.) sought to make good the claim of עיט to mean "beast of prey," but without proving his case. Nor is there in biblical Heb. any sure case for צבוּע in the meaning of hyaena; and the Rabbinical usage would appear to be founded on this interpretation of the word in the passage before us. צבע, Arab. s[aba'a , means dip, hence dye; and so צבע, Jdg 5:30, is dyed materials, in plur.

parti-coloured clothes. To this meaning Jerome, Syr. , and Targ. have adhered in the present case; Jerome gives avis discolor , whence Luther’s der sprincklight Vogel ; Chr. B. Mich. , avis colorata . So, and rightly, Hitz. , Ew. , Graf, Näg. The prophet alludes to the well-known fact of natural history, that "whenever a strange-looking bird is seen amongst the others, whether it be an owl of the night amidst the birds of day, or a bird of gay, variegated plumage amidst those of duskier hue, the others pursue the unfamiliar intruder with loud cries and unite in attacking it."

Hitz. , with reference to Tacit. Ann . vi. 28, Sueton. Caes . 81, and Plin. Hist . N. x. 19. The question is the expression of amazement, and is assertory. לי is dat . ethic . , intimating sympathetic participation (Näg.) , and not to be changed, with Gr. , into כּי. The next clause is also a question: are birds of prey round about it (mine heritage), sc. to plunder it?

This, too, is meant to convey affirmation. With it is connected the summons to the beasts of prey to gather round Judah to devour it. The words here come from Isa 56:9. The beasts are emblem for enemies. התיוּ is not first mode or perfect (Hitz.) , but imperat. , contracted from האתיוּ, as in Isa 21:14. The same thought is, in Jer 12:10, carried on under a figure that is more directly expressive of the matter in hand.

The perfects in Jer 12:10-12 are once more prophetic. The shepherds who (along with their flocks, of course) destroy the vineyard of the Lord are the kings of the heathen, Nebuchadnezzar and the kings subject to him, with their warriors. The "destroying" is expanded in a manner consistent with the figure; and here we must not fail to note the cumulation of the words and the climax thus produced.

They tread down the plot of ground, turn the precious plot into a howling wilderness. With "plot of my pleasure" cf. 'ארץ חמדּה, Jer 3:19. In Jer 12:11 the emblematical shepherds are brought forward in the more direct form of enemy. שׂמהּ, he (the enemy, "they" impersonal) has changed it (the plot of ground) into desolation. It mourneth עלי, round about me, desolated.

Spoilers are come on all the bare-topped hills of the desert. מרבּר is the name for such parts of the country as were suited only for rearing and pasturing cattle, like the so-called wilderness of Judah to the west of the Dead Sea. A sword of the Lord’s (i. e. , the war sent by Jahveh, cf. Jer 25:29; Jer 6:25) devours the whole land from end to end; cf. Jer 25:33.

"All flesh" is limited by the context to all flesh in the land of Judah. בּשׂר in the sense of Gen 6:12, sinful mankind; here: the whole sinful population of Judah. For them there is no שׁלום, welfare or peace.

Jer 12:13 They reap the contrary of what they have sowed. The words: wheat they have sown, thorns they reap, are manifestly of the nature of a saw or proverb; certainly not merely with the force of meliora exspectaverant et venerunt pessima (Jerome); for sowing corresponds not to hoping or expecting, but to doing and undertaking. Their labour brings them the reverse of what they aimed at or sought to attain.

To understand the words directly of the failure of the crop, as Ven. , Ros. , Hitz. , Graf, Näg. prefer to do, is fair neither to text nor context. To reap thorns is not = to have a bad harvest by reason of drought, blight, or the ravaging of enemies. The seed: wheat, the noblest grain, produces thorns, the very opposite of available fruit. And the context, too, excludes the thought of agriculture and "literal harvesting."

The thought that the crop turned out a failure would be a very lame termination to a description of how the whole land was ravaged from end to end by the sword of the Lord. The verse forms a conclusion which sums up the threatening of Jer 12:7-12, to the effect that the people’s sinful ongoings will bring them sore suffering, instead of the good fortune they hoped for.

נחלוּ, they have worn themselves out, exhausted their strength, and secured no profit. Thus shall ye be put to shame for your produce, ignominiously disappointed in your hopes for the issue of your labour.

Jer 12:14-17 The spoilers of the Lord’s heritage are also to be carried off out of their land; but after they, like Judah, have been punished, the Lord will have pity on them, and will bring them back one and all into their own land. And if the heathen, who now seduce the people of God to idolatry, learn the ways of God’s people and be converted to the Lord, they shall receive citizenship amongst God’s people and be built up amongst them; but if they will not do so, they shall be extirpated.

Thus will the Lord manifest Himself before the whole earth as righteous judge, and through judgment secure the weal not only of Israel, but of the heathen peoples too. By this discovery of His world-plan the Lord makes so complete a reply to the prophet’s murmuring concerning the prosperity of the ungodly (Jer 12:1-6), that from it may clearly be seen the justice of God’s government on earth.

Viewed thus, both strophes of the passage before us (Jer 12:7-17) connect themselves singularly well with Jer 12:1-6. Jer 12:14-15 The evil neighbours that lay hands on Jahve’s heritage are the neighbouring heathen nations, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Syrians. It does not, however, follow that this threatening has special reference to the event related in 2Ki 24:2, and that it belongs to the time of Jehoiakim.

These nations were always endeavouring to assault Israel, and made use of every opportunity that seemed favourable for waging war against them and subjugating them; and not for the first time during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, at which time it was indeed that they suffered the punishment here pronounced, of being carried away into exile. The neighbours are brought up here simply as representatives of the heathen nations, and what is said of them is true for all the heathen.

The transition to the first person in שׁכני is like that in Jer 14:15. Jahveh is possessor of the land of Israel, and so the adjoining peoples are His neighbours. נגע ב, to touch as an enemy, to attack, cf. Zec 2:12. I pluck the house of Judah out of their midst, i. e. , the midst of the evil neighbours. This is understood by most commentators of the carrying of Judah into captivity, since נתשׁ cannot be taken in two different senses in the two corresponding clauses.

For this word used of deportation, cf. 1Ki 14:15. "Them," Jer 12:15, refers to the heathen peoples. After they have been carried forth of their land and have received their punishment, the Lord will again have compassion upon them, and will bring back each to its inheritance, its land. Here the restoration of Judah, the people of God, is assumed as a thing of course (cf.

Jer 12:16 and Jer 32:37, Jer 32:44; Jer 33:26).

Jer 12:14-17 The spoilers of the Lord’s heritage are also to be carried off out of their land; but after they, like Judah, have been punished, the Lord will have pity on them, and will bring them back one and all into their own land. And if the heathen, who now seduce the people of God to idolatry, learn the ways of God’s people and be converted to the Lord, they shall receive citizenship amongst God’s people and be built up amongst them; but if they will not do so, they shall be extirpated.

Thus will the Lord manifest Himself before the whole earth as righteous judge, and through judgment secure the weal not only of Israel, but of the heathen peoples too. By this discovery of His world-plan the Lord makes so complete a reply to the prophet’s murmuring concerning the prosperity of the ungodly (Jer 12:1-6), that from it may clearly be seen the justice of God’s government on earth.

Viewed thus, both strophes of the passage before us (Jer 12:7-17) connect themselves singularly well with Jer 12:1-6. Jer 12:14-15 The evil neighbours that lay hands on Jahve’s heritage are the neighbouring heathen nations, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Syrians. It does not, however, follow that this threatening has special reference to the event related in 2Ki 24:2, and that it belongs to the time of Jehoiakim.

These nations were always endeavouring to assault Israel, and made use of every opportunity that seemed favourable for waging war against them and subjugating them; and not for the first time during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, at which time it was indeed that they suffered the punishment here pronounced, of being carried away into exile. The neighbours are brought up here simply as representatives of the heathen nations, and what is said of them is true for all the heathen.

The transition to the first person in שׁכני is like that in Jer 14:15. Jahveh is possessor of the land of Israel, and so the adjoining peoples are His neighbours. נגע ב, to touch as an enemy, to attack, cf. Zec 2:12. I pluck the house of Judah out of their midst, i. e. , the midst of the evil neighbours. This is understood by most commentators of the carrying of Judah into captivity, since נתשׁ cannot be taken in two different senses in the two corresponding clauses.

For this word used of deportation, cf. 1Ki 14:15. "Them," Jer 12:15, refers to the heathen peoples. After they have been carried forth of their land and have received their punishment, the Lord will again have compassion upon them, and will bring back each to its inheritance, its land. Here the restoration of Judah, the people of God, is assumed as a thing of course (cf.

Jer 12:16 and Jer 32:37, Jer 32:44; Jer 33:26).

Jer 12:14-17 The spoilers of the Lord’s heritage are also to be carried off out of their land; but after they, like Judah, have been punished, the Lord will have pity on them, and will bring them back one and all into their own land. And if the heathen, who now seduce the people of God to idolatry, learn the ways of God’s people and be converted to the Lord, they shall receive citizenship amongst God’s people and be built up amongst them; but if they will not do so, they shall be extirpated.

Thus will the Lord manifest Himself before the whole earth as righteous judge, and through judgment secure the weal not only of Israel, but of the heathen peoples too. By this discovery of His world-plan the Lord makes so complete a reply to the prophet’s murmuring concerning the prosperity of the ungodly (Jer 12:1-6), that from it may clearly be seen the justice of God’s government on earth.

Viewed thus, both strophes of the passage before us (Jer 12:7-17) connect themselves singularly well with Jer 12:1-6. Jer 12:14-15 The evil neighbours that lay hands on Jahve’s heritage are the neighbouring heathen nations, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Syrians. It does not, however, follow that this threatening has special reference to the event related in 2Ki 24:2, and that it belongs to the time of Jehoiakim.

These nations were always endeavouring to assault Israel, and made use of every opportunity that seemed favourable for waging war against them and subjugating them; and not for the first time during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, at which time it was indeed that they suffered the punishment here pronounced, of being carried away into exile. The neighbours are brought up here simply as representatives of the heathen nations, and what is said of them is true for all the heathen.

The transition to the first person in שׁכני is like that in Jer 14:15. Jahveh is possessor of the land of Israel, and so the adjoining peoples are His neighbours. נגע ב, to touch as an enemy, to attack, cf. Zec 2:12. I pluck the house of Judah out of their midst, i. e. , the midst of the evil neighbours. This is understood by most commentators of the carrying of Judah into captivity, since נתשׁ cannot be taken in two different senses in the two corresponding clauses.

For this word used of deportation, cf. 1Ki 14:15. "Them," Jer 12:15, refers to the heathen peoples. After they have been carried forth of their land and have received their punishment, the Lord will again have compassion upon them, and will bring back each to its inheritance, its land. Here the restoration of Judah, the people of God, is assumed as a thing of course (cf.

Jer 12:16 and Jer 32:37, Jer 32:44; Jer 33:26).

Jer 12:14-17 The spoilers of the Lord’s heritage are also to be carried off out of their land; but after they, like Judah, have been punished, the Lord will have pity on them, and will bring them back one and all into their own land. And if the heathen, who now seduce the people of God to idolatry, learn the ways of God’s people and be converted to the Lord, they shall receive citizenship amongst God’s people and be built up amongst them; but if they will not do so, they shall be extirpated.

Thus will the Lord manifest Himself before the whole earth as righteous judge, and through judgment secure the weal not only of Israel, but of the heathen peoples too. By this discovery of His world-plan the Lord makes so complete a reply to the prophet’s murmuring concerning the prosperity of the ungodly (Jer 12:1-6), that from it may clearly be seen the justice of God’s government on earth.

Viewed thus, both strophes of the passage before us (Jer 12:7-17) connect themselves singularly well with Jer 12:1-6. Jer 12:14-15 The evil neighbours that lay hands on Jahve’s heritage are the neighbouring heathen nations, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Syrians. It does not, however, follow that this threatening has special reference to the event related in 2Ki 24:2, and that it belongs to the time of Jehoiakim.

These nations were always endeavouring to assault Israel, and made use of every opportunity that seemed favourable for waging war against them and subjugating them; and not for the first time during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, at which time it was indeed that they suffered the punishment here pronounced, of being carried away into exile. The neighbours are brought up here simply as representatives of the heathen nations, and what is said of them is true for all the heathen.

The transition to the first person in שׁכני is like that in Jer 14:15. Jahveh is possessor of the land of Israel, and so the adjoining peoples are His neighbours. נגע ב, to touch as an enemy, to attack, cf. Zec 2:12. I pluck the house of Judah out of their midst, i. e. , the midst of the evil neighbours. This is understood by most commentators of the carrying of Judah into captivity, since נתשׁ cannot be taken in two different senses in the two corresponding clauses.

For this word used of deportation, cf. 1Ki 14:15. "Them," Jer 12:15, refers to the heathen peoples. After they have been carried forth of their land and have received their punishment, the Lord will again have compassion upon them, and will bring back each to its inheritance, its land. Here the restoration of Judah, the people of God, is assumed as a thing of course (cf.

Jer 12:16 and Jer 32:37, Jer 32:44; Jer 33:26).

Jer 13:1-11 The spoilt girdle. - Jer 13:1. "Thus spake Jahveh unto me: Go and buy thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, but into the water thou shalt not bring it. Jer 13:2. So I bought the girdle, according to the word of Jahveh, and put it upon my loins, Jer 13:3. Then came the word of Jahveh to me the second time, saying: Jer 13:4. Take the girdle which thou hast bought, which is upon thy loins, and arise, and go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a cleft of the rock.

Jer 13:5. So I went and hid it, as Jahveh had commanded me. Jer 13:6. And it came to pass after many days, that Jahveh said unto me: Arise, go to the Euphrates, and bring thence the girdle which I commanded thee to hide there. Jer 13:7. And I went to the Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it; and, behold, the girdle was marred, was good for nothing.

Jer 13:8. And the word of Jahveh came to me, saying: Jer 13:9. Thus hath Jahveh said, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. Jer 13:10. This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the stubbornness of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them and to worship them, it shall be as this girdle which is good for nothing.

Jer 13:11. For as the girdle cleaves to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith Jahveh; that it might be to me for a people and for a name, for a praise and for an ornament; but they hearkened not." With regard to the symbolical action imposed on the prophet and performed by him, the question arises, whether the thing took place in outward reality, or was only an occurrence in the spirit, in the inward vision.

The first view seems to be supported by the wording of the passage, namely, the twice repeated account of the prophet’s journey to the Phrat on the strength of a twice repeated divine command. But on the other hand, it has been found very improbable that "Jeremiah should twice have made a journey to the Euphrates, merely to prove that a linen girdle, if it lie long in the damp, becomes spoilt, a thing he could have done much nearer home, and which besides everybody knew without experiment" (Graf.)

On this ground Ros. , Graf, etc. , hold the matter for a parable or an allegorical tale, But this view depends for support on the erroneous assumption that the specification of the Euphrates is of no kind of importance for the matter in hand; whereas the contrary may be gathered from the four times repeated mention of the place. Nor is anything proved against the real performance of God’s command by the remark, that the journey thither and back on both occasions is spoken of as if it were a mere matter of crossing a field.

The Bible writers are wont to set forth such external matters in no very circumstantial way. And the great distance of the Euphrates - about 250 miles - gives us no sufficient reason for departing from the narrative as we have it before us, pointing as it does to a literal and real carrying out of God’s command, and to relegate the matter to the inward region of spiritual vision, or to take the narrative for an allegorical tale.

- Still less reason is to be found in arbitrary interpretations of the name, such as, after Bochart’s example, have been attempted by Ven. , Hitz. , and Ew. The assertion that the Euphrates is called נהר פּרת everywhere else, including Jer 46:2, Jer 46:6,Jer 46:10, loses its claim to conclusiveness from the fact that the prefaced rhn is omitted in Gen 2:14; Jer 51:63.

And even Ew. observes, that "fifty years later a prophet understood the word of the Euphrates at Jer 51:63." Now even if Jer 51:63 had been written by another prophet, and fifty years later (which is not the case, see on Jer 50ff.) , the authority of this prophet would suffice to prove every other interpretation erroneous; even although the other attempts at interpretation had been more than the merest fancies.

Ew. remarks, "It is most amazing that recent scholars (Hitz. with Ven. and Dahl.) could seriously come to adopt the conceit that פּרת is one and the same with אפּרת (Gen 48:7), and so with Bethlehem;" and what he says is doubly relevant to his own rendering. פּרת, he says, is either to be understood like Arab. frt , of fresh water in general, or like frdt , a place near the water, a crevice opening from the water into the land - interpretations so far fetched as to require no serious refutation.

More important than the question as to the formal nature of the emblematical action is that regarding its meaning; on which the views of commentators are as much divided. from the interpretation in Jer 13:9-11 thus much is clear, that the girdle is the emblem of Israel, and that the prophet, in putting on and wearing this girdle, illustrates the relation of God to the folk of His covenant (Israel and Judah).

The further significance of the emblem is suggested by the several moments of the action. The girdle does not merely belong to a man’s adornment, but is that part of his clothing which he must put on when about to undertake any laborious piece of work. The prophet is to buy and put on a linen girdle. פּשׁתּים, linen, was the material of the priests’ raiment, Eze 44:17.

, which in Exo 28:40; Exo 39:27. is called שׁשׁ, white byssus, or בּד, linen. The priest’s girdle was not, however, white, but woven parti-coloured, after the four colours of the curtains of the sanctuary, Exo 28:40; Exo 39:29. Wool (צמר) is in Eze 44:18 expressly excluded, because it causes the body to sweat. The linen girdle points, therefore, to the priestly character of Israel, called to be a holy people, a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6).

"The purchased white girdle of linen, a man’s pride and adornment, is the people bought out of Egypt, yet in its innocence as it was when the Lord bound it to Himself with the bands of love" (Umbr.) The prohibition that follows, "into water thou shalt not bring it," is variously interpreted. Chr. B. Mich. says: forte ne madefiat et facilius dein computrescat ; to the same effect Dahl.

, Ew. , Umbr. , Graf: to keep it safe from the hurtful effects of damp. A view which refutes itself; since washing does no kind of harm to the linen girdle, but rather makes it again as good as new. Thus to the point writes Näg. , remarking justly at the same time, that the command not to bring the girdle into the water plainly implies that the prophet would have washed it when it had become soiled.

This was not to be. The girdle was to remain dirty, and as such to be carried to the Euphrates, in order that, as Ros. and Maur. observed, it might symbolize sordes quas contraxerit populus in dies majores, mores populi magis magisque lapsi , and that the carrying of the soiled girdle to the Euphrates might set forth before the eyes of the people what awaited it, after it had long been borne by God covered with the filth of its sins.

- The just appreciation of this prohibition leads us easily to the true meaning of the command in Jer 13:4, to bring the girdle that was on his loins to the Euphrates, and there to conceal it in a cleft in the rock, where it decays. But it is signifies, as Chr. B. Mich. , following Jerome, observes, populi Judaici apud Chaldaeos citra Euphratem captivitas et exilium .

Graf has objected: "The corruptness of Israel was not a consequence of the Babylonish captivity; the latter, indeed, came about in consequence of the existing corruptness." But this objection stands and falls with the amphibolia of the word corruptness, decay. Israel was, indeed, morally decayed before the exile; but the mouldering of the girdle in the earth by the Euphrates signifies not the moral but the physical decay of the covenant people, which, again, was a result of the moral decay of the period during which God had, in His long-suffering, borne the people notwithstanding their sins.

Wholly erroneous is the view adopted by Gr. from Umbr. : the girdle decayed by the water is the sin-stained people which, intriguing with the foreign gods, had in its pride cast itself loose from its God, and had for long imagined itself secure under the protection of the gods of Chaldea. The hiding of the girdle in the crevice of a rock by the banks of the Euphrates would have been the most unsuitable emblem conceivable for representing the moral corruption of the people.

Had the girdle, which God makes to decay by the Euphrates, loosed itself from him and imagined it could conceal itself in a foreign land? as Umbr. puts the case. According to the declaration, Jer 13:9, God will mar the great pride of Judah and Jerusalem, even as the girdle had been marred, which had at His command been carried to the Euphrates and hid there.

The carrying of the girdle to the Euphrates is an act proceeding from God, by which Israel is marred; the intriguing of Israel with strange gods in the land of Canaan was an act of Israel’s own, against the will of God.

Jer 13:1-11 The spoilt girdle. - Jer 13:1. "Thus spake Jahveh unto me: Go and buy thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, but into the water thou shalt not bring it. Jer 13:2. So I bought the girdle, according to the word of Jahveh, and put it upon my loins, Jer 13:3. Then came the word of Jahveh to me the second time, saying: Jer 13:4. Take the girdle which thou hast bought, which is upon thy loins, and arise, and go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a cleft of the rock.

Jer 13:5. So I went and hid it, as Jahveh had commanded me. Jer 13:6. And it came to pass after many days, that Jahveh said unto me: Arise, go to the Euphrates, and bring thence the girdle which I commanded thee to hide there. Jer 13:7. And I went to the Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it; and, behold, the girdle was marred, was good for nothing.

Jer 13:8. And the word of Jahveh came to me, saying: Jer 13:9. Thus hath Jahveh said, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. Jer 13:10. This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the stubbornness of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them and to worship them, it shall be as this girdle which is good for nothing.

Jer 13:11. For as the girdle cleaves to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith Jahveh; that it might be to me for a people and for a name, for a praise and for an ornament; but they hearkened not." With regard to the symbolical action imposed on the prophet and performed by him, the question arises, whether the thing took place in outward reality, or was only an occurrence in the spirit, in the inward vision.

The first view seems to be supported by the wording of the passage, namely, the twice repeated account of the prophet’s journey to the Phrat on the strength of a twice repeated divine command. But on the other hand, it has been found very improbable that "Jeremiah should twice have made a journey to the Euphrates, merely to prove that a linen girdle, if it lie long in the damp, becomes spoilt, a thing he could have done much nearer home, and which besides everybody knew without experiment" (Graf.)

On this ground Ros. , Graf, etc. , hold the matter for a parable or an allegorical tale, But this view depends for support on the erroneous assumption that the specification of the Euphrates is of no kind of importance for the matter in hand; whereas the contrary may be gathered from the four times repeated mention of the place. Nor is anything proved against the real performance of God’s command by the remark, that the journey thither and back on both occasions is spoken of as if it were a mere matter of crossing a field.

The Bible writers are wont to set forth such external matters in no very circumstantial way. And the great distance of the Euphrates - about 250 miles - gives us no sufficient reason for departing from the narrative as we have it before us, pointing as it does to a literal and real carrying out of God’s command, and to relegate the matter to the inward region of spiritual vision, or to take the narrative for an allegorical tale.

- Still less reason is to be found in arbitrary interpretations of the name, such as, after Bochart’s example, have been attempted by Ven. , Hitz. , and Ew. The assertion that the Euphrates is called נהר פּרת everywhere else, including Jer 46:2, Jer 46:6,Jer 46:10, loses its claim to conclusiveness from the fact that the prefaced rhn is omitted in Gen 2:14; Jer 51:63.

And even Ew. observes, that "fifty years later a prophet understood the word of the Euphrates at Jer 51:63." Now even if Jer 51:63 had been written by another prophet, and fifty years later (which is not the case, see on Jer 50ff.) , the authority of this prophet would suffice to prove every other interpretation erroneous; even although the other attempts at interpretation had been more than the merest fancies.

Ew. remarks, "It is most amazing that recent scholars (Hitz. with Ven. and Dahl.) could seriously come to adopt the conceit that פּרת is one and the same with אפּרת (Gen 48:7), and so with Bethlehem;" and what he says is doubly relevant to his own rendering. פּרת, he says, is either to be understood like Arab. frt , of fresh water in general, or like frdt , a place near the water, a crevice opening from the water into the land - interpretations so far fetched as to require no serious refutation.

More important than the question as to the formal nature of the emblematical action is that regarding its meaning; on which the views of commentators are as much divided. from the interpretation in Jer 13:9-11 thus much is clear, that the girdle is the emblem of Israel, and that the prophet, in putting on and wearing this girdle, illustrates the relation of God to the folk of His covenant (Israel and Judah).

The further significance of the emblem is suggested by the several moments of the action. The girdle does not merely belong to a man’s adornment, but is that part of his clothing which he must put on when about to undertake any laborious piece of work. The prophet is to buy and put on a linen girdle. פּשׁתּים, linen, was the material of the priests’ raiment, Eze 44:17.

, which in Exo 28:40; Exo 39:27. is called שׁשׁ, white byssus, or בּד, linen. The priest’s girdle was not, however, white, but woven parti-coloured, after the four colours of the curtains of the sanctuary, Exo 28:40; Exo 39:29. Wool (צמר) is in Eze 44:18 expressly excluded, because it causes the body to sweat. The linen girdle points, therefore, to the priestly character of Israel, called to be a holy people, a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6).

"The purchased white girdle of linen, a man’s pride and adornment, is the people bought out of Egypt, yet in its innocence as it was when the Lord bound it to Himself with the bands of love" (Umbr.) The prohibition that follows, "into water thou shalt not bring it," is variously interpreted. Chr. B. Mich. says: forte ne madefiat et facilius dein computrescat ; to the same effect Dahl.

, Ew. , Umbr. , Graf: to keep it safe from the hurtful effects of damp. A view which refutes itself; since washing does no kind of harm to the linen girdle, but rather makes it again as good as new. Thus to the point writes Näg. , remarking justly at the same time, that the command not to bring the girdle into the water plainly implies that the prophet would have washed it when it had become soiled.

This was not to be. The girdle was to remain dirty, and as such to be carried to the Euphrates, in order that, as Ros. and Maur. observed, it might symbolize sordes quas contraxerit populus in dies majores, mores populi magis magisque lapsi , and that the carrying of the soiled girdle to the Euphrates might set forth before the eyes of the people what awaited it, after it had long been borne by God covered with the filth of its sins.

- The just appreciation of this prohibition leads us easily to the true meaning of the command in Jer 13:4, to bring the girdle that was on his loins to the Euphrates, and there to conceal it in a cleft in the rock, where it decays. But it is signifies, as Chr. B. Mich. , following Jerome, observes, populi Judaici apud Chaldaeos citra Euphratem captivitas et exilium .

Graf has objected: "The corruptness of Israel was not a consequence of the Babylonish captivity; the latter, indeed, came about in consequence of the existing corruptness." But this objection stands and falls with the amphibolia of the word corruptness, decay. Israel was, indeed, morally decayed before the exile; but the mouldering of the girdle in the earth by the Euphrates signifies not the moral but the physical decay of the covenant people, which, again, was a result of the moral decay of the period during which God had, in His long-suffering, borne the people notwithstanding their sins.

Wholly erroneous is the view adopted by Gr. from Umbr. : the girdle decayed by the water is the sin-stained people which, intriguing with the foreign gods, had in its pride cast itself loose from its God, and had for long imagined itself secure under the protection of the gods of Chaldea. The hiding of the girdle in the crevice of a rock by the banks of the Euphrates would have been the most unsuitable emblem conceivable for representing the moral corruption of the people.

Had the girdle, which God makes to decay by the Euphrates, loosed itself from him and imagined it could conceal itself in a foreign land? as Umbr. puts the case. According to the declaration, Jer 13:9, God will mar the great pride of Judah and Jerusalem, even as the girdle had been marred, which had at His command been carried to the Euphrates and hid there.

The carrying of the girdle to the Euphrates is an act proceeding from God, by which Israel is marred; the intriguing of Israel with strange gods in the land of Canaan was an act of Israel’s own, against the will of God.

Jer 13:1-11 The spoilt girdle. - Jer 13:1. "Thus spake Jahveh unto me: Go and buy thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, but into the water thou shalt not bring it. Jer 13:2. So I bought the girdle, according to the word of Jahveh, and put it upon my loins, Jer 13:3. Then came the word of Jahveh to me the second time, saying: Jer 13:4. Take the girdle which thou hast bought, which is upon thy loins, and arise, and go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a cleft of the rock.

Jer 13:5. So I went and hid it, as Jahveh had commanded me. Jer 13:6. And it came to pass after many days, that Jahveh said unto me: Arise, go to the Euphrates, and bring thence the girdle which I commanded thee to hide there. Jer 13:7. And I went to the Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it; and, behold, the girdle was marred, was good for nothing.

Jer 13:8. And the word of Jahveh came to me, saying: Jer 13:9. Thus hath Jahveh said, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. Jer 13:10. This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the stubbornness of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them and to worship them, it shall be as this girdle which is good for nothing.

Jer 13:11. For as the girdle cleaves to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith Jahveh; that it might be to me for a people and for a name, for a praise and for an ornament; but they hearkened not." With regard to the symbolical action imposed on the prophet and performed by him, the question arises, whether the thing took place in outward reality, or was only an occurrence in the spirit, in the inward vision.

The first view seems to be supported by the wording of the passage, namely, the twice repeated account of the prophet’s journey to the Phrat on the strength of a twice repeated divine command. But on the other hand, it has been found very improbable that "Jeremiah should twice have made a journey to the Euphrates, merely to prove that a linen girdle, if it lie long in the damp, becomes spoilt, a thing he could have done much nearer home, and which besides everybody knew without experiment" (Graf.)

On this ground Ros. , Graf, etc. , hold the matter for a parable or an allegorical tale, But this view depends for support on the erroneous assumption that the specification of the Euphrates is of no kind of importance for the matter in hand; whereas the contrary may be gathered from the four times repeated mention of the place. Nor is anything proved against the real performance of God’s command by the remark, that the journey thither and back on both occasions is spoken of as if it were a mere matter of crossing a field.

The Bible writers are wont to set forth such external matters in no very circumstantial way. And the great distance of the Euphrates - about 250 miles - gives us no sufficient reason for departing from the narrative as we have it before us, pointing as it does to a literal and real carrying out of God’s command, and to relegate the matter to the inward region of spiritual vision, or to take the narrative for an allegorical tale.

- Still less reason is to be found in arbitrary interpretations of the name, such as, after Bochart’s example, have been attempted by Ven. , Hitz. , and Ew. The assertion that the Euphrates is called נהר פּרת everywhere else, including Jer 46:2, Jer 46:6,Jer 46:10, loses its claim to conclusiveness from the fact that the prefaced rhn is omitted in Gen 2:14; Jer 51:63.

And even Ew. observes, that "fifty years later a prophet understood the word of the Euphrates at Jer 51:63." Now even if Jer 51:63 had been written by another prophet, and fifty years later (which is not the case, see on Jer 50ff.) , the authority of this prophet would suffice to prove every other interpretation erroneous; even although the other attempts at interpretation had been more than the merest fancies.

Ew. remarks, "It is most amazing that recent scholars (Hitz. with Ven. and Dahl.) could seriously come to adopt the conceit that פּרת is one and the same with אפּרת (Gen 48:7), and so with Bethlehem;" and what he says is doubly relevant to his own rendering. פּרת, he says, is either to be understood like Arab. frt , of fresh water in general, or like frdt , a place near the water, a crevice opening from the water into the land - interpretations so far fetched as to require no serious refutation.

More important than the question as to the formal nature of the emblematical action is that regarding its meaning; on which the views of commentators are as much divided. from the interpretation in Jer 13:9-11 thus much is clear, that the girdle is the emblem of Israel, and that the prophet, in putting on and wearing this girdle, illustrates the relation of God to the folk of His covenant (Israel and Judah).

The further significance of the emblem is suggested by the several moments of the action. The girdle does not merely belong to a man’s adornment, but is that part of his clothing which he must put on when about to undertake any laborious piece of work. The prophet is to buy and put on a linen girdle. פּשׁתּים, linen, was the material of the priests’ raiment, Eze 44:17.

, which in Exo 28:40; Exo 39:27. is called שׁשׁ, white byssus, or בּד, linen. The priest’s girdle was not, however, white, but woven parti-coloured, after the four colours of the curtains of the sanctuary, Exo 28:40; Exo 39:29. Wool (צמר) is in Eze 44:18 expressly excluded, because it causes the body to sweat. The linen girdle points, therefore, to the priestly character of Israel, called to be a holy people, a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6).

"The purchased white girdle of linen, a man’s pride and adornment, is the people bought out of Egypt, yet in its innocence as it was when the Lord bound it to Himself with the bands of love" (Umbr.) The prohibition that follows, "into water thou shalt not bring it," is variously interpreted. Chr. B. Mich. says: forte ne madefiat et facilius dein computrescat ; to the same effect Dahl.

, Ew. , Umbr. , Graf: to keep it safe from the hurtful effects of damp. A view which refutes itself; since washing does no kind of harm to the linen girdle, but rather makes it again as good as new. Thus to the point writes Näg. , remarking justly at the same time, that the command not to bring the girdle into the water plainly implies that the prophet would have washed it when it had become soiled.

This was not to be. The girdle was to remain dirty, and as such to be carried to the Euphrates, in order that, as Ros. and Maur. observed, it might symbolize sordes quas contraxerit populus in dies majores, mores populi magis magisque lapsi , and that the carrying of the soiled girdle to the Euphrates might set forth before the eyes of the people what awaited it, after it had long been borne by God covered with the filth of its sins.

- The just appreciation of this prohibition leads us easily to the true meaning of the command in Jer 13:4, to bring the girdle that was on his loins to the Euphrates, and there to conceal it in a cleft in the rock, where it decays. But it is signifies, as Chr. B. Mich. , following Jerome, observes, populi Judaici apud Chaldaeos citra Euphratem captivitas et exilium .

Graf has objected: "The corruptness of Israel was not a consequence of the Babylonish captivity; the latter, indeed, came about in consequence of the existing corruptness." But this objection stands and falls with the amphibolia of the word corruptness, decay. Israel was, indeed, morally decayed before the exile; but the mouldering of the girdle in the earth by the Euphrates signifies not the moral but the physical decay of the covenant people, which, again, was a result of the moral decay of the period during which God had, in His long-suffering, borne the people notwithstanding their sins.

Wholly erroneous is the view adopted by Gr. from Umbr. : the girdle decayed by the water is the sin-stained people which, intriguing with the foreign gods, had in its pride cast itself loose from its God, and had for long imagined itself secure under the protection of the gods of Chaldea. The hiding of the girdle in the crevice of a rock by the banks of the Euphrates would have been the most unsuitable emblem conceivable for representing the moral corruption of the people.

Had the girdle, which God makes to decay by the Euphrates, loosed itself from him and imagined it could conceal itself in a foreign land? as Umbr. puts the case. According to the declaration, Jer 13:9, God will mar the great pride of Judah and Jerusalem, even as the girdle had been marred, which had at His command been carried to the Euphrates and hid there.

The carrying of the girdle to the Euphrates is an act proceeding from God, by which Israel is marred; the intriguing of Israel with strange gods in the land of Canaan was an act of Israel’s own, against the will of God.

Jer 13:1-11 The spoilt girdle. - Jer 13:1. "Thus spake Jahveh unto me: Go and buy thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, but into the water thou shalt not bring it. Jer 13:2. So I bought the girdle, according to the word of Jahveh, and put it upon my loins, Jer 13:3. Then came the word of Jahveh to me the second time, saying: Jer 13:4. Take the girdle which thou hast bought, which is upon thy loins, and arise, and go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a cleft of the rock.

Jer 13:5. So I went and hid it, as Jahveh had commanded me. Jer 13:6. And it came to pass after many days, that Jahveh said unto me: Arise, go to the Euphrates, and bring thence the girdle which I commanded thee to hide there. Jer 13:7. And I went to the Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it; and, behold, the girdle was marred, was good for nothing.

Jer 13:8. And the word of Jahveh came to me, saying: Jer 13:9. Thus hath Jahveh said, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. Jer 13:10. This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the stubbornness of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them and to worship them, it shall be as this girdle which is good for nothing.

Jer 13:11. For as the girdle cleaves to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith Jahveh; that it might be to me for a people and for a name, for a praise and for an ornament; but they hearkened not." With regard to the symbolical action imposed on the prophet and performed by him, the question arises, whether the thing took place in outward reality, or was only an occurrence in the spirit, in the inward vision.

The first view seems to be supported by the wording of the passage, namely, the twice repeated account of the prophet’s journey to the Phrat on the strength of a twice repeated divine command. But on the other hand, it has been found very improbable that "Jeremiah should twice have made a journey to the Euphrates, merely to prove that a linen girdle, if it lie long in the damp, becomes spoilt, a thing he could have done much nearer home, and which besides everybody knew without experiment" (Graf.)

On this ground Ros. , Graf, etc. , hold the matter for a parable or an allegorical tale, But this view depends for support on the erroneous assumption that the specification of the Euphrates is of no kind of importance for the matter in hand; whereas the contrary may be gathered from the four times repeated mention of the place. Nor is anything proved against the real performance of God’s command by the remark, that the journey thither and back on both occasions is spoken of as if it were a mere matter of crossing a field.

The Bible writers are wont to set forth such external matters in no very circumstantial way. And the great distance of the Euphrates - about 250 miles - gives us no sufficient reason for departing from the narrative as we have it before us, pointing as it does to a literal and real carrying out of God’s command, and to relegate the matter to the inward region of spiritual vision, or to take the narrative for an allegorical tale.

- Still less reason is to be found in arbitrary interpretations of the name, such as, after Bochart’s example, have been attempted by Ven. , Hitz. , and Ew. The assertion that the Euphrates is called נהר פּרת everywhere else, including Jer 46:2, Jer 46:6,Jer 46:10, loses its claim to conclusiveness from the fact that the prefaced rhn is omitted in Gen 2:14; Jer 51:63.

And even Ew. observes, that "fifty years later a prophet understood the word of the Euphrates at Jer 51:63." Now even if Jer 51:63 had been written by another prophet, and fifty years later (which is not the case, see on Jer 50ff.) , the authority of this prophet would suffice to prove every other interpretation erroneous; even although the other attempts at interpretation had been more than the merest fancies.

Ew. remarks, "It is most amazing that recent scholars (Hitz. with Ven. and Dahl.) could seriously come to adopt the conceit that פּרת is one and the same with אפּרת (Gen 48:7), and so with Bethlehem;" and what he says is doubly relevant to his own rendering. פּרת, he says, is either to be understood like Arab. frt , of fresh water in general, or like frdt , a place near the water, a crevice opening from the water into the land - interpretations so far fetched as to require no serious refutation.

More important than the question as to the formal nature of the emblematical action is that regarding its meaning; on which the views of commentators are as much divided. from the interpretation in Jer 13:9-11 thus much is clear, that the girdle is the emblem of Israel, and that the prophet, in putting on and wearing this girdle, illustrates the relation of God to the folk of His covenant (Israel and Judah).

The further significance of the emblem is suggested by the several moments of the action. The girdle does not merely belong to a man’s adornment, but is that part of his clothing which he must put on when about to undertake any laborious piece of work. The prophet is to buy and put on a linen girdle. פּשׁתּים, linen, was the material of the priests’ raiment, Eze 44:17.

, which in Exo 28:40; Exo 39:27. is called שׁשׁ, white byssus, or בּד, linen. The priest’s girdle was not, however, white, but woven parti-coloured, after the four colours of the curtains of the sanctuary, Exo 28:40; Exo 39:29. Wool (צמר) is in Eze 44:18 expressly excluded, because it causes the body to sweat. The linen girdle points, therefore, to the priestly character of Israel, called to be a holy people, a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6).

"The purchased white girdle of linen, a man’s pride and adornment, is the people bought out of Egypt, yet in its innocence as it was when the Lord bound it to Himself with the bands of love" (Umbr.) The prohibition that follows, "into water thou shalt not bring it," is variously interpreted. Chr. B. Mich. says: forte ne madefiat et facilius dein computrescat ; to the same effect Dahl.

, Ew. , Umbr. , Graf: to keep it safe from the hurtful effects of damp. A view which refutes itself; since washing does no kind of harm to the linen girdle, but rather makes it again as good as new. Thus to the point writes Näg. , remarking justly at the same time, that the command not to bring the girdle into the water plainly implies that the prophet would have washed it when it had become soiled.

This was not to be. The girdle was to remain dirty, and as such to be carried to the Euphrates, in order that, as Ros. and Maur. observed, it might symbolize sordes quas contraxerit populus in dies majores, mores populi magis magisque lapsi , and that the carrying of the soiled girdle to the Euphrates might set forth before the eyes of the people what awaited it, after it had long been borne by God covered with the filth of its sins.

- The just appreciation of this prohibition leads us easily to the true meaning of the command in Jer 13:4, to bring the girdle that was on his loins to the Euphrates, and there to conceal it in a cleft in the rock, where it decays. But it is signifies, as Chr. B. Mich. , following Jerome, observes, populi Judaici apud Chaldaeos citra Euphratem captivitas et exilium .

Graf has objected: "The corruptness of Israel was not a consequence of the Babylonish captivity; the latter, indeed, came about in consequence of the existing corruptness." But this objection stands and falls with the amphibolia of the word corruptness, decay. Israel was, indeed, morally decayed before the exile; but the mouldering of the girdle in the earth by the Euphrates signifies not the moral but the physical decay of the covenant people, which, again, was a result of the moral decay of the period during which God had, in His long-suffering, borne the people notwithstanding their sins.

Wholly erroneous is the view adopted by Gr. from Umbr. : the girdle decayed by the water is the sin-stained people which, intriguing with the foreign gods, had in its pride cast itself loose from its God, and had for long imagined itself secure under the protection of the gods of Chaldea. The hiding of the girdle in the crevice of a rock by the banks of the Euphrates would have been the most unsuitable emblem conceivable for representing the moral corruption of the people.

Had the girdle, which God makes to decay by the Euphrates, loosed itself from him and imagined it could conceal itself in a foreign land? as Umbr. puts the case. According to the declaration, Jer 13:9, God will mar the great pride of Judah and Jerusalem, even as the girdle had been marred, which had at His command been carried to the Euphrates and hid there.

The carrying of the girdle to the Euphrates is an act proceeding from God, by which Israel is marred; the intriguing of Israel with strange gods in the land of Canaan was an act of Israel’s own, against the will of God.