Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Jeremiah 32:1 - 32:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jeremiah 32-33
With An Appendix (Jer_34:1-7)
From what has been said, it is evident that the present discourse forms a parallel to the earlier consolatory discourse, chh. 30 and 31, and that both, being placed purposely at the close of the collection, may with propriety be called the Book of Consolation. Though the general purport of the two discourses is similar, some differences are also noticeable. While the first (chh. 30 and 31) may be compared to a picture which beams with light and color, and in which the shading is indicated only by a few though powerful strokes (comp Jer_30:5-7; Jer_30:11; Jer_31:15-16; Jer_31:18-19), the second seems tike a picture, in which the deepest shades and the brightest light are equally divided and displayed in vivid contrast. Not only does the promise in the second discourse rise from present distressing circumstances, but the guilt of Israel, which is the cause of this distress, is portrayed with a strong hand (Jer_32:29-35). Still as the shade is stronger in the second discourse than in the first, so is the light. That which may be called the crown of all theocratic promise, viz., the Messianic kingdom, together with the priesthood standing inseparably by its side as a necessary supplement, is in the second discourse set forth much more clearly, much more comprehensively, and in much more various relations. While in the first discourse the Messianic king is spoken of in a few words only, and with no special emphasis, Jer_30:9; Jer_30:21, in the second the most prominent passage is occupied in detail with the Messianic king and priesthood. The passage Jer_33:14-26, which is evidently to form the crowning close of the whole discourse, is entirely devoted to that most important subject of Messianic prediction.
The time of the composition of chh. 32 and 33 is stated in the text. In Jer_32:1 it is expressly mentioned that the events there narrated took place in the tenth year of Zedekiah, the eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar (i. e., B. C., 587), during the siege by the Chaldeans, and while Jeremiah was a prisoner in the court of the gaol. Only a little later followed, as a continuation and completion of the consolatory prediction, the revelation communicated to us in the thirty-third chapter (comp. Jer_33:1).
Movers, De Wette and Hitzig regard Jeremiah 33 as worked over by the author of Isaiah 40-66. This view has been so thoroughly refuted by Graf that it will suffice to refer to him (comp. Graf, S. 369, 415).—J. D. Michaelis (Orient. Bibl., XVII., S. 172 sqq.), Jahn (Vatt. Messian., P. II., S. 112 sqq.) and Hitzig dispute the genuineness of Jer_33:14-26. Movers (de utr. Rec., etc., S. 41) declares that Jer_32:18; Jer_32:21 b-25 at least, are an interpolation. We may also appeal to Graf for the refutation of this view (S. 369, 370, and his exposition of the passages in question). For a valuation of the circumstance that the section mentioned is wanting in the LXX, comp. Graf, Einleitung, pag. XLVIII. Graf himself however regards Jer_33:2-3 as interpolated. I refer on the other hand to my exposition of this passage.
Since both chapters are so far of similar import, that Jeremiah 33 may be regarded as a continuation and extension of Jeremiah 32, the two together may consequently be regarded as one prophetic discourse. They are not so, however, in a logical and rhetorical sense, since they did not originate contemporaneously. We shall therefore treat the two halves separately.
1. The transaction of the purchase, Jer_32:1-15.
2. A prayer of praise and inquiry, Jer_32:16-25.
3. Nothing is impossible to the Lord, Jer_32:26-44.
1. Brief transition: summons to new prayer in the sense of Jer_32:16-25, and promise of a hearing, Jer_33:1-3.
2. Destruction in the present. Glorious internal and external rebuilding in the future not-withstanding, Jer_33:4-9.
3. The glorious city-life of the future, Jer_33:10-11.
4. The glorious country-life of the future, Jer_33:12-13.
5. The glorious kingdom and priesthood of the future, Jer_33:14-18.
6. The kingdom and priesthood of the future eternal, Jer_33:19-26.
1. CHAPTER 32
The most glorious future warranted in the midst of the most gloomy present by the purchase of a piece of ground in the hands of the enemy.
1. The transaction of the Purchase.
Jer_32:1-15.
Jer_32:1-5. The word … shall not prosper. The superscription is again of the larger kind. It dominates chh. 32 and 33. The word of Jehovah which it announces, is not merely the next following brief revelation of Jer_32:7, but all the revealed contents of both chapters. Comp. rems. on Jer_30:1.—In the tenth, etc. Comp. rems. on Jer_28:1. The numerical statements are in entire agreement with Jer_39:1; Jer_25:1; Jer_52:12.—Besieged. Comp. Jer_21:4; Jer_37:5; Jer_39:1; Deu_20:12, etc—Court of the prison. According to Jer_37:15, Jeremiah was incarcerated by the princes in áֵּéú äָàֵñåּø [prison, literally: house of bonds]. When the king had him brought out for an audience, he besought that he might not be taken back to that prison. The king granted his request and had him kept in the court of the guard, ( äֲöַø çַîַּèָøָä , Jer_37:21 coll. Jer_38:6; Jer_38:13; Jer_38:28; Jer_39:14-15). Accordingly this must have been at any rate a more tolerable place. The expression occurs, besides the passages mentioned, only in Jer_33:1; Neh_3:25; Neh_12:39. îַèָּãָä is custodia and may mean watch as well as custody. As his detention here afforded him relief, as he received visits and was supported from without (Jer_37:21), we may with the greater probability suppose that it was the closed court in which the palace-watch was stationed.—Wherefore dost thou prophesy. Comp. Jer_21:4 sqq.; Jer_34:2 sqq.; Jer_37:17. The words from I will give to Zedekiah to Babylon agree almost verbatim with Jer_34:2-3. From the slight differences we may infer that we have here two independent records, of which the passage Jer_34:2-5 is in so far to be regarded as the more complete, as it gives the particulars of Zedekiah’s fate after his captivity, while in Jer_32:5 all that relates to this is comprised in the words, “and there shall he be until I visit him.” If we compare Jer_34:4-5 with Jer_39:7; Jer_52:11, we shall see that in the first passage the fate of the king is portrayed from its favorable, in the latter passages from its unfavorable side. The representations are by no means contradictory. In Jer_34:4-5 it is merely stated that the king will not die by a violent, but in peace by a natural death, and after his death will receive an honorable interment. This by no means excludes the cruel treatment, which he received according to Jer_37:7; Jer_52:11. The indefinite-ness of the expression visit and the prospective, leaving it open either to deliverance or death, was perceived even by Jerome, who says “visitatio et consolationem significat et supplicium.” It should also be not unobserved that the expression “die in peace,” Jer_34:5, admits of this double meaning.—Though ye fight, etc. These words are not found in the record, Jeremiah 34. Coming after the positive prediction of calamity they do not make the impression of being intended for an admonition, but appear to have the meaning of a statement of reason: if you fight with the Chaldeans it certainly cannot result otherwise; ye cannot then prosper. The prophet does not want to call forth a subjective volition, but merely to present the objective nexus rerum. On the subject-matter, comp. Jer_21:9; Jer_27:8 sqq., as well as the introduction to Jer_34:1-7, and the remarks on Jer_34:1-5.
Jer_32:6-7. And Jeremiah … to buy it. After that in Jer_32:1-5 the general situation had been portrayed in which the following event took place, Jer_32:6 begins the narrative of the event itself. This narrative is given as the report of a third person. From the word in Jer_32:6, to the close of the prayer in Jer_32:25, it is Jeremiah who speaks. It is, however, a third person who tells us that Jeremiah spoke all these things, as is seen from the words and Jeremiah said, Jer_32:6. This form of presentation is not unusual in this book. Comp. Jer_19:14-15; Jer_26:7-9; Jer_28:5-7 coll. Jer_32:1; Jeremiah 37 etc.—Son of Shallum thine uncle. That the uncle was named Shallum is seen from Jer_32:8-9. Though Hanameel is also designated ãּåֹø , uncle, this is explained by the possibility of using this word in the wider sense. The meaning of “patruus” is the innermost of a series of concentric circles, which represent a progress from general to particulars. From the Canticles we unquestionably obtain the radical meaning of “caritas, amor” (Jer_1:2; Jer_1:4, etc.). From this is derived the meaning of “carus, amicus” (abstr. pro concreto as in îåֹãַòַú ), comp. Isa_5:1; Son_1:13-14; Son_1:16, etc. Now though the father’s brother is especially called the dear one, the friend of the family, this is an honorable distinction, which may of course in certain circumstances be transferred to another relative, as is doubtless the case here for the sake of brevity with respect to the son of the ãּåֹø .—Right of redemption. According to Lev_25:25 in the case of an impoverished Israelite wishing to sell his piece of ground, his nearest of kin have the right of purchase. Comp. Saalschuetz, Mos. Recht, S. 147 sqq.; 483, 808 sqq.—The members of the tribe of Levi also, according to Num_35:2 coll. Joshua 21 owned real estate, viz., so much as was included in the precincts of the cities allotted to them ( îִâְøָùׁ , comp. 1Ch_6:40-41). The statement in Lev_25:34, that this real estate could not be sold appears simply to mean that the sale of priests’ property to those who are not priests was forbidden. Among the family the sale must have been possible, otherwise an illegal act would have been demanded of Jeremiah, not only by his cousin but by the Lord Himself. The right of redemption ( âְàֻìָּä ) had moreover its two sides. Towards the seller it was a duty, towards the more distantly related it was a right. Comp. Ruth 4
Jer_32:8-10. So Hanameel … in the balances. The right of inheritance was generally and especially among the priests the basis of the right of redemption. For it was indeed the sense of the whole institution, that the real estate should remain in the family. Accordingly it was always the next heir who was in the first place entitled and obligated to the âְàֻìָּä . We find no intimation in the Law what the relation of the âֹּàֵì was to the îֹּëֵã (comp. Saalschutz, Mos. R. S. 811). After all it appears to me that this was left to the friendly understanding of the two relatives, and the loyal disposition of the goel was reckoned upon. From the fact that the visit announced to him by revelation was really received, Jeremiah knew that the proposal, which his visitor made him, and of which the Lord had not yet said anything, was also an expression of the divine will.—The price seems small. This has been explained by supposing that the seller was driven to the sale by urgent need and that the property was depreciated by the war. Both may be correct, but I do not think that the small price is thus explained. This would have been unworthy of the prophet. Could Jeremiah buy as a speculator? Livy relates (XXVI. 11) that when Hannibal was before the gates of Rome the very field on which his camp stood was sold, “nihil ob id dimiunto pretio.” Comp. Florus, II. 6 (Parva res dictu, sed ad magnanimitatem populi Romani probandam sails efficax, quod its ipsis quibus obsidebatur diebus ager, quem Hannibal castris insederat, venalis Romœ fuit hastæque subjectus invenit emtorem).—Can the proud assurance of the Romans have produced a greater effect than the trust reposed by our prophet on the divine promise? I therefore think that seventeen shekels was the nominal price. Its smallness may be explained, apart from the possible smallness of the object purchased, by the nearness of the jubilee year. Though we have no data by which to determine how far distant the jubilee was from the time of sale, it may be safely assumed that the provisions of the law, Lev_25:15-16, were not unobserved. The year of manumissio, spoken of in Jeremiah 34, was not a jubilee. Comp. rems, on Jer_34:14 and Herzog, R.-Enc. XIII., S. 212. Seventeen shekels in our money was little more than ten dollars. Comp. Herz. R.-Enc., IV., S. 764.—Whence did Jeremiah obtain the money? Had he, the prisoner, for whom a daily scanty subsistence was furnished (Jer_37:21), pecuniary means at command? His silence on this point shows that he regarded it as of little moment. There was probably more money than bread in the city. Baruch also might have procured him the funds.—After the account of the purchase and the price in Jer_32:9, the particulars of the transaction are specially enumerated in Jer_32:10. First the writing and sealing. From what follows we see that the deed of purchase was written in duplicate. One copy remained open, the other was closed with seals. “Quæ emtionum consuctudo hucusque servatur, ut quod intrinsecus clausum signacula continent, hoc legere cupientibus apertum volumen exhibeat,” Jerome on Jer_32:14. Whether the open copy also bore a seal cannot be definitely ascertained from the text. The object of the writing in duplicate appears to me to have been twofold. First, that which duplicates generally have, viz., to have a second copy in case the first is lost; secondly (and this is especially the destination of the sealed deed), in case of injury or defacement, which the open deed might suffer either by accident or design, to have an intact original. The circumstance that Jeremiah does not mention the witnesses till after the sealing is not to be explained, with Hitzig, as though the contents of the closed deed and the price were concealed from them. Evidently the prophet does not wish to confuse the three points in Jer_32:10. He therefore relates first of the deed ( ñôø ), then of the witnesses, then of the weighing of the money. The order of subjects then prevails, not however excluding the order of time, since the weighing out the money at any rate came last. If we should argue as Hitzig does, we should come to the conclusion that the witnesses had nothing at all to do with the documents. This, however, is contradicted by Jer_32:12, where it is expressly stated that the witnesses “subscribed the book of the purchase.” As now in Jer_32:11, Jer_32:12 init., Jer_32:14 ñֵôֶø äִîִּ÷ְðָä appears to be a general conception, to which the specifications given in the second half of the verse are subordinate, the word may in Jer_32:12 also designate both documents; they may therefore have both been subscribed by the witnesses.
Jer_32:11-12. So I took … of the prison. The words äַîְִöְåָä åְäַçֻ÷ִּéí , in Jer_32:11, are difficult. Those explanations do violence both to grammar and context which (a) assume an accusative of the norm; according to the law and customs, for which no instance can be adduced; (b) consider these words to indicate the contents of a third ñôø . The enumeration in Jer_32:14 is opposed to this, and the difficulty of perceiving what laws and customs were observed in a third deed, and why this was drawn. Only one explanation is grammatically possible and in agreement with the context, viz., that which takes the words as in apposition to äַçָúåּí . Then the question arises, what are we to understand by the words themselves? The respective definitions of the Mosaic law (comp. ex. gr. Deu_5:28)? But why should these be written out in detail and be designated as the main contents of the çָéåּí ? It is better then to take îִöְåָä in the sense of statutum, establishing, settling, and çֻ÷ִéí in the sense of stipulation. The main thing established, i. e. the object of the purchase and the price, as well as the special stipulations or conditions of sale were then fully contained only in the çָúּåë . Yet I confess that this explanation also is not perfectly satisfactory. We must wait for further illumination.—Baruch is here mentioned for the first time. Hence the more exact statement of his lineage. Josephus (Antt. X. 9, 1) calls him ἐî åðéóÞìïõ óöüäñá ïἰêßáò ὄíôá êáὶ ôç ðáôñþῳ ãëþôôῃ äéáöåñüíôùò ðåðáéäåõìÝíïí . The high position of his brother Seraiah at court (Jer_51:59) seems to prove that he was of a respectable house.—Before all the Jews. The prophet intimates that two circles of witnesses are to be imagined surrounding the central point, formed by Jeremiah and Baruch, a narrower and a wider. The wider circle testifies to the witness of the narrower.
Jer_32:13-15. And I charged … in this land.—In an earthen vessel. To keep the deeds from damp, moths or dirt. Can the earthen vessel have survived the abomination of destruction? It matters not. The main thing was the establishment of the fact that the Lord in the midst of their dread of destruction, at a moment when all hope for the future seemed to have fled, gave the promise of a glorious restoration, as indicated in Jer_32:15. The object of this promise was on the one hand to comfort those who were involved in the present ruin, and on the other hand to prove that the Lord had fore willed, foreknown and foretold the predicted favorable turn of affairs. Comp. rems. on Jer_30:1. To attain the latter object the transaction had certainly to be brought to the knowledge of posterity in an authentic manner. For this purpose the documents themselves relating to the purchase, which would hardly contain any account of the accompanying circumstances, would be less useful than on the one hand oral tradition based on the declaration of many eye and ear witnesses, and on the other hand the written report of the prophet.
Footnotes:
Jer_32:3.— àùׁø ëìàø . The Nota relationis is to be regarded as in the accusative. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 70, b; Num_13:27; Isa_64:10; Psa_84:4.
Jer_32:9.—On the accus. äַָëּֽñֶó . Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 70, g.—On the article. I b. 71, 4 a.
Jer_32:10.—The article in áַּñֵּôֶּø is again general. Naegelsb. Gr., § 71, 4 a.
Jer_32:12.— ëìÎ ìòéðé . Misled by the Atnach, many suppose that åְ is wanting here. But this ìòéðé does not belong to åָàֶúֵּï , init. ver., but to äֵëֹּúְáִéí .
Jer_32:14.— åàú – åàú . The two Vaus here as in Jer_32:20=both, and also comp. Jer_5:24. Naegelsb. Gr., § 110, 3. The construction would certainly be simpler and clearer, if åְàֵú were wanting before äֶçָúåּí , and it would certainly not be impossible that, as Graf thinks, this åְàֵú may have been repeated from Jer_32:11 by an oversight. A certain solemn breadth may, however, also have been intended. Then first the quantitative multiplicity or duplicity of the deeds may be generally set forth, then their qualitative unity (they form together only one dead of sale. Comp. Jer_32:11-12); finally the multiplicity is specified: there are two deed, one sealed, the other open. The äַæֶä and âָìåּé can then both be referred at the same time to äֶçָúåּí .