Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Jeremiah 48:1 - 48:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Calamities to come on Moab. - Jer 48:1. "Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, Woe to Nebo, for it is laid waste! Kiriathaim is come to dishonour, it is taken: the fortress is come to dishonour and broken down. Jer 48:2. Moab's glory is no more. In Heshbon they have devised evil against her, [saying], Come, and let us cut her off from [being] a nation: thou also, O Madmen, art brought to silence; the sword shall go after thee. Jer 48:3. A sound of crying from Horonaim, desolation and great destruction. Jer 48:4. Moab is destroyed; her little ones have caused a cry to be heard. Jer 48:5. For they ascend the ascent of Luhith with weeping - weeping: for on the descent of Horonaim the enemies have heard a cry of destruction. Jer 48:6. Flee, save your life! and be like one destitute in the wilderness. Jer 48:7. For, because they trust [was] in thy works, and in thy treasures, thou also shalt be taken; and Chemosh shall go into captivity, his priests and his princes together. Jer 48:8. The destroyer shall come to every city, and no city shall escape; and the valley shall perish, and the plain shall be laid waste, as Jahveh hath said."
With the exclamation "Woe!" Jeremiah transports the hearers of the word of God at once into the midst of the catastrophe which is to come on Moab; this is with the view of humbling the pride of this people, and chastening them for their sins. The woe is uttered over Nebo, but holds also of the towns named afterwards. Nebo is not the mountain of that name (Deu 32:49; Deu 34:1), but the city, which probably did not lie far from the peak in the mountain-range of Abarim, which bore the same name (Num 32:3, Num 32:38; Isa 15:2), although in the Onomasticon, s.v. Ναβαῦ, the situation of the mountain is given as being six Roman miles from Heshbon, towards the west, and s.v. Ναβώρ, that of the city, eight Roman miles south from Heshbon, for both accounts point to a situation in the south-west. The Arab. name nba= is still applied to some ruins; cf. Robinson's Palestine, iii. p. 170. "Kiriathaim is taken." The site of this town, mentioned as early as Gen 14:5, has been fixed, since the time of Burckhardt, as that of a mass of ruins called et Teim, about five miles south of Heshbon; but Dietrich, in Merx' Archiv. i. S. 337ff., has shown this is incorrect. According to Eusebius, in his Onomasticon, Kiriathaim lay ten Roman miles to the west of Medeba: this suits not merely the position of et Teim, but also the ruins of Kereyat south-west from Medeba, on the ridge of Mount Attarus, a little to the south of M'kaur (Machaerus), and of Baara in the Wady Zerka Maein, where also is the plain mentioned in Gen 14:5, either in the plain stretching direct east from Kereyat between Wady Zerka Maein and Wady Wal, or south-east in the beautiful plain el Kura, described by Burckhardt, p. 371ff., between the Wal and the Mojeb. Nebo and Kiriathaim lay on the eastern border of the high range of mountains, and seem to be comprehended under הַמִּשְׂגָּב, "the height, the high fortress," in the third clause of Jer 48:1, as the representatives of the mountain country of Moab. Various expositors, certainly, take the word as a proper name designating an elevated region; Graf and Nägelsbach take it to be a name of Kir-Moab (Kir-heres, Kir-haresheth, Jer 48:31, Jer 48:36), the chief fortress in the country, the modern Kerek in the southern part of Moab; but no valid proof has been adduced. By "the height" Hitzig understands the highlands, which learn of the fall of these towns in the lowlands, and feel this disgrace that has come on Moab, but have not yet themselves been taken. But this view is untenable, because the towns of Nebo and Kiriathaim are not situated in the level country. Again, since הֹובִשָׁה is common to the two clauses, the distinction between נִלְכְּדָה and חַתָּה could hardly be pressed so far as to make the latter the opposite of the former, in the sense of being still unconquered. The meaning rather is, that through Nebo's being laid waste, and the capture of Kiriathaim, the fortress on which the Moabites trusted is no more. And to this Jer 48:3 appropriately adds, "the boasting of Moab is gone," i.e., Moab has no more ground for boasting. "In Heshbon they (the enemy, or the conquerors) plot evil against Moab." Heshbon was formerly the capital of the Amorite kingdom of Sihon (Num 21:26; Deu 2:24, etc.), and was assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Jos 13:17); but because it lay on the boundary of the territory belonging to the tribe, it was given up to the Gadites, and set apart as a Levitical city (Jos 21:37). It lay ten Roman miles east from the Jordan, opposite Jericho, almost intermediate between the Arnon and the Jabbok, and is still pointed out, though in ruins, under the old name Heshbân (see on Num 32:37). At the time of Jeremiah it was taken possession of by the Ammonites (Jer 49:3), consequently it was the frontier town of the Moabite territory at that time; and being such, it is here named as the town where the enemy, coming from the north, deliberate regarding the conquest of Moab - "meditate evil," i.e., decide upon conquest and devastation. The suffix of עָלֶיהָ refers to Moab as a country, and hence is feminine; cf. v. 4. "We will destroy it (Moab) מִגֹּוי, so that it shall no longer be a nation." Just as in בְּחֶשְׁבֹּון חָֽשְׁבוּ there is a play on the words, so is there also in the expression מַדְמֵן תִּדֹּמִּי which follows. This very circumstance forms an argument for taking Madmen as a proper name, instead of an appellative, as Venema and Hitzig have done, after the example of the lxx: "Yea, thou shalt be destroyed (and made into) a dunghill." In support of this rendering they point to 2Ki 10:27; Ezr 6:11. But the verb דָּמַם, in its meaning, ill accords with מַדְמֵן in the sense of a dung-heap, and in this case there would be no foundation for a play upon the words (Graf). It is no proof of the non-existence of a place called Madmen in Moab, that it is not mentioned elsewhere; Madmena in the tribe of Benjamin (Isa 10:31), and Madmanna in Judah (Jos 15:31), are also mentioned but once. These passages rather show that the name Madmen was not uncommon; and it was perhaps with reference to this name that Isaiah (Isa 25:10) chose the figure of the dunghill. דָּמַם, to be silent, means, in the Niphal, to be brought to silence, be exterminated, perish; cf. Jer 49:26; Jer 25:37; Jer 8:14, etc. As to the form תִּדֹּמִּי instead of תִּדַּמִּי , cf. Ewald, §140, b; Gesenius, §67, Rem. 5. The following clause refers to Madmen: "after thee shall the sword go;" cf. Jer 9:15.
Jer 48:3-4
A cry is heard from Horonaim against violence and destruction. The words שֹׁד וָשֶׁבֶ are to be taken as the cry itself; cf. Jer 4:20; Jer 20:8. The city of Horonaim, mentioned both here and in Isa 15:5 in connection with Luhith, lay on a slope, it would seem, not far from Luhith. Regarding this latter place we find it remarked in the Onomasticon: est usque hodie vicus inter Areopolim et Zoaram nomine Luitha (Λουειθά). As to ̓Ωροναείμ, the Onomasticon says no more than πόλις Μωὰβ ὲν ̔Ιερεμίᾳ (ed. Lars. p. 376). The destruction over which the outcry is made comes on Moab. By "Moab" Graf refuses to understand the country or its inhabitants, but rather the ancient capital of the country, Ar-Moab (Num 21:28; Isa 15:1), in the valley of the Arnon, which is also simply called Ar in Num 21:15; Deu 2:9. But, as Dietrich has already shown (S. 329ff.), the arguments adduced in support of this view are insufficient to prove the point.
(Note: The mention of Moab among names if cities in Jer 48:4, and in connection with Kir-heres in Jer 48:31 and Jer 48:36 proves nothing; for in Jer 48:4 Moab is not named among towns, and the expression in Jer 48:31 and Jer 48:36 is analogous to the phrase "Judah and Jerusalem." Nor can any proof be derived from the fact that Rabbath-Moab is merely called "Moab" in the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and Mâb in Abulfeda, and Rabbath-Ammon, now merely "Amman;" because this mode of speaking will not admit of being applied for purposes of proof to matters pertaining to Old Testament times, since it originated only in the Christian ages,at a time, too, when Rabbath had become the capital of the country, and when Rabbath-Moab could easily be shortened by the common people into "Moab." Rabbath (of Moab), however, is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.)
שָׁבַר, to break,of a nation or a city (Jer 19:11; Isa 14:25, etc.), as it were, to ruin, - is here used of the country or kingdom. צְעֹורֶיהָ is for צְעִירֶיהָ, as in Jer 14:3. The little ones of Moab, that raise a cry, are neither the children (Vulgate, Dahler, Maurer), nor the small towns (Hitzig), nor the people of humble condition, but cives Moabi ad statum miserum dejecti (Kueper). The lxx have rendered εἰς Ζογόρα (i.e., צְעֹורָה), which reading is preferred by J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Umbreit, Graf, Nägelsbach, but without sufficient reason; for neither the occurrence of Zoar in combination with Horonaim in Jer 48:34, nor the parallel passage Isa 15:5, will prove the point. Isa 15:5 is not a parallel to this verse, but to Jer 48:34; however, the train of thought is different from that before us here. Besides, Jeremiah writes the name of the town צֹעַר (not צֹועַר), cf. v. 34, as in Isa 15:5; Deu 34:3; Gen 13:10 (צֹועַר occurs only in Gen 19:22, Gen 19:30); hence it is unlikely that צעור has been written by mistake for צוער.
Jer 48:5
In Jer 48:5 this idea is further elucidated. The inhabitants flee, weeping as they go, towards the south, before the conquering enemy advancing from the north, up the ascent of Luhith, and down the descent of Horonaim. The idea is taken from Isa 15:5, but applied by Jeremiah in his own peculiar manner; יַעֲלֶה בֹּו is changed into יַעֲלֶה בְּכִי, and the notion of weeping is thereby intensified. We take בְּכִי as an adverbial accusative, but in fact it is to be rendered like the preceding בִּבְכִי; and יַעֲלֶה stands with an indefinite nominative: "one ascends = they ascend," not "weeping rises over weeping," as Hitzig, Graf, and others take it. For, in the latter case, בִּבְכִי could not be separated from בְּכִי, nor stand first; cf. the instances adduced by Graf, שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה and עַיִן בְּעַיִן. The form חַלֻּחֹות for חַלֻּחִית is either an error of transcription or an optional form, and there is no ground for taking the word as appellative, as Hitzig does, "the ascent of boards, i.e., as boards tower one above another, so does weeping rise," - an unnatural figure, and one devoid of all taste. The last words of the second member of the verse present some difficulty, chiefly on account of צָרֵי, which the lxx have omitted, and which Ewald and Umbreit set down as spurious, although (as Graf rightly remarks) they do not thereby explain how it came into the text. To suppose, with the Rabbinical writers, that the construct state צָרֵי stands for the absolute, is not only inadmissible, as being against the principles of grammar, but also contrary to the whole scope of the passage. The context shows that the clamour cannot proceed from the enemy, but only from the fugitive Moabites. Only two explanations are possible: either צָרֵי must be taken in the sense of angustiae, and in connection with צַעֲקַת, "straits, distress of crying," a cry of distress, as De Wette does; or, "oppressors of the cry of distress," as Nägelsbach takes it. We prefer the former, in spite of the objection of Graf, that the expression "distress of crying," for "a cry of distress," would be a strange one: for this objection may be made against his own explanation, that צָרֵי means the bursting open of the mouth in making a loud cry; and צָרֵי זַעֲקָה is a loud outcry for help.
Jer 48:6
Only by a precipitate flight into the desert can the Moabites save even their lives. The summons to flee is merely a rhetorical expression for the thought that there is no safety to be had in the country. To וְתִּהְיֶנָה in Jer 48:6 we must supply נְפָשֹׁות as the subject: "your souls shall be." Ewald would change נַפְשְׁכֶם into נַפְשֵׁיכֶם; but this proposal has against it the fact that the plural form נְפָשִׁים is found in but a single case, Eze 13:20, and נְפָשֹׁות everywhere else: besides, נֶפֶשׁ is often used in the singular of several persons, as in 2Sa 19:6, and may further be easily taken here in a distributive sense; cf. מַלְּטוּ אִישׁ נַפְשׁו, Jer 51:6. The assumption of C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer, and of the translators of our "Authorized" English Version, that תִּהְיֶנָה is the second person, and refers to the cities, i.e., their inhabitants, is against the context. עֲרֹועֵר cannot here be the name of a town, because neither Aroer in the tribe of Reuben, which was situated on the Arnon, nor Aroer of the tribe of Gad, which was before Rabbath-Ammon, lay in the wilderness; the comparison, too, of the fugitives to a city is unsuitable. The clause reminds us of Jer 17:6, and עֲרֹועֵר = the עַרְעָר of that passage; the form found here is either an error of transcription caused by thinking of Aroer, or a play upon the name of the city, for the purpose of pointing out the fate impending over it.
Jer 48:7-8
Moab will not be saved from destruction by any trust on their works or on their treasures. The lxx, Vulgate, and Syriac render מַעֲשֶׂיךָ by fortresses, hence Ewald would read מְעֹונֶיךָ instead; but there is no ground for the change, since the peculiar rendering alluded to has evidently originated from מַעֲשֶׂה having been confounded with מָעֹוז. Others, as Dahler, refer the word to idols; but these are always designated as מַעֲשֵׂי יָד. Graf translates "property," and points to 1Sa 25:2; Exo 23:16; but this meaning also has really nothing to support it, for מַעֲשֶׂה in these passages denotes only agriculture and its produce, and the combination of the word with אֹוצָרֹות in this passage does not require such a rendering. We abide by the common meaning of "doings" or "works," not evil deeds specially (Hitzig), but "all that Moab undertakes." Neither their efforts to maintain and increase their power, nor their wealth, will avail them in any way. They shall be overcome. Moab is addressed as a country or kingdom. לָכַד, to seize, capture; of a land, to take, conquer. Chemosh, with his priests and princes, shall go into exile. כְּמִישׁ is perhaps a mere error of the copyist for כְּמֹושׁ, Chemosh, the chief deity of the Moabites and Ammonites, worshipped as a king and the war-god of his people: see on Num 21:29. As in the last-named passage the Moabites are called the people of Chemosh, so here, not merely the priests, but also the princes of Moab, are called his priests and his princes. The Kethib יַחַד is not to be changed, although Jeremiah elsewhere always uses יַחְדָּו, which is substituted in the Qeri; cf. Jer 49:3. In confirmation of this, it is added, in Jer 48:8, that all the cities of Moab, without exception, shall be laid waste, and the whole country, valley and plain, shall be brought to ruin. הַמִּישֹׁור, "the level," is the table-land stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and north-eastwards as far as Rabbath-Ammon, and which originally belonged to the Moabites, hence called "the fields of Moab" in Num. 21:40; but it was taken from them by the Amorites, and after the conquest of the latter was taken possession of by the Israelites (Deu 3:10; Deu 4:43; Jos 13:9), but at that time had been taken back once more by the Moabites. הָעֵמֶק is the valley of the Jordan, commonly called הָֽעֲרָבָה, as in Jos 13:27 and Jos 13:19; here it is that portion of the valley towards the west which bounds the table-land. אֲשֶׁר can only be taken in a causal signification, "because," as in Jer 16:13, or in a relative meaning, quod, or "as."