Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Jeremiah 8:13 - 8:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The warning of coming punishment, reiterated from a former discourse, is strengthened by the threatening that God will sweep them utterly away, because Judah has become an unfruitful vine and fig-tree. In אָסֹף we have a combination of אָסַף, gather, glean, carry away, and הֵסִיף, Niph. of סוּף, make an end, sweep off, so as to heighten the sense, as in Zep 1:1. - a passage which was doubtless in the prophet's mind: wholly will I sweep them away. The circumstantial clauses: no grapes - and the leaves are withered, show the cause of the threatening: The people is become an unfruitful vine and fig-tree, whose leaves are withered. Israel was a vineyard the Lord had planted with noble vines, but which brought forth sour grapes, Jer 2:21; Isa 5:2. In keeping with this figure, Israel is thought of as a vine on which are no grapes. With this is joined the like figure of a fig-tree, to which Micah in Mic 7:1 makes allusion, and which is applied by Christ to the degenerate race of His own time in His symbolical act of cursing the fig-tree (Mat 21:19). To exhaust the thought that Judah is ripe for judgment, it is further added that the leaves are withered. The tree whose leaves are withered, is near being parched throughout. Such a tree was the people of Judah, fallen away from its God, spurning at the law of the Lord; in contrast with which, the man who trusts in the Lord, and has delight in the law of the Lord, is like the tree planted by the water, whose leaves are ever green, and which bringeth forth fruit in his season, Jer 17:8; Psa 1:1-3. Ros. and Mov. are quite wrong in following the Chald., and in taking the circumstantial clauses as a description of the future; Mov. even proceeds to change אָסֹף אֲסִיפֵם into אֹסֵף . The interpretation of the last clause is a disputed point. Ew., following the old translators (Chald., Syr., Aq., Symm., Vulg.; in the lxx they are omitted), understands the words of the transgression of the commands of God, which they seem to have received only in order to break them. וָאֶתֵּן seems to tell in favour of this, and it may be taken as praeter. with the translation: and I gave to them that which they transgress. But unless we are to admit that the idea thus obtained stands quite abruptly, we must follow the Chald., and take it as the reason of what precedes: They are become an unfruitful tree with faded leaves, because they have transgressed my law which I gave them. But וָאֶתֵּן with וְ consec. goes directly against this construction. Of less weight is the other objection against this view, that the plural suffix in יַעַבְרוּם has no suitable antecedent; for there could be no difficulty in supplying "judgments" (cf. Jer 8:8). But the abrupt appearance of the thought, wholly unlooked for here, is sufficient to exclude that interpretation. We therefore prefer the other interpretation, given with various modifications by Ven., Rose., and Maur., and translate: so I appoint unto them those that shall pass over them. The imperf. c. וְ consec. attaches itself to the circumstantial clauses, and introduces the resulting consequence; it is therefore to be expressed in English by the present, not by the praeter.: therefore I gave them (Näg.). נָתַן in the general sig. appoint, and the second verb with the pron. rel. omitted: illos qui eos invadent. עָבַר, to overrun a country or people, of a hostile army swarming over it, as e.g., Isa 8:8; Isa 28:15. For the construction c. accus. cf. Jer 23:9; Jer 5:22. Hitz.'s and Graf's mode of construction is forced: I deliver them up to them (to those) who pass over them; for then we must not only supply an object to אֶתֵּן, but adopt the unusual arrangement by which the pronoun לָהֶם is made to stand before the words that explain it.