Bible Commentaries

B. THE ELEVENTH DISCOURSE

Jeremiah 32-33

With An Appendix ( Jeremiah 34:1-7)

The thirty-third chapter contains a revelation of somewhat later date than Jeremiah 32. In Jeremiah 33:1 it is expressly stated that the contents of this chapter were communicated to the prophet separately, and subsequently to the revelation contained in Jeremiah 32. The word second (שֵׁנִית) Jeremiah 33:1, however, designates this chapter as the second part or continuation of Jeremiah 32, which also accords with its very similar purport. As Jeremiah 32 shows us that the occupation of the Israelitish country by the northern foes does not prevent the Lord from commanding the prophet to purchase a piece of this very land, as a pledge that the time will come when the land can be bought and sold and inhabited and tilled in peace, so in Jeremiah 33, in connection with the destruction of many houses in the city of Jerusalem for the purposes of defence it is predicted that the city apparently devoted to entire devastation shall be rebuilt, that joy and rejoicing shall again prevail in it, that in the country breeding of cattle shall again be followed with blessing, and especially that from the house of David a “righteous sprout” shall proceed, by whom righteousness and salvation shall be diffused through the land. The throne of Israel shall no more lack a prince of the house of David, nor the worship Levitical priests. This covenant shall stand everlastingly as the laws of nature; innumerable as the stars of heaven or the sand of the sea shore shall be the seed of David and Levi. In the midst of the present mourning the prophet makes known these promises, for—and this is the formal basis, which Jeremiah 33 has in common with Jeremiah 32—the Lord has the power to do this; nothing is too wonderful for Him (comp. Jeremiah 33:2-3 with Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27). Without doubt these prophecies, proceeding from the court of the prison, are among the grandest which the prophet uttered. We shall see what a depth of misery this court of the prison involved for the prophet and for Israel. And in the very midst of this prophecy the abused prophet raises his voice in the most glorious prediction, that the wonder-working power of God may be recognized and praised, and faith, which rests not on the seen, but on the unseen ( 2 Corinthians 4:18), may be thus confirmed and encouraged. The fulfilment of this prophecy runs through all the stages of development, from that first feeble beginning, which was made after the return from exile, to the consummation of the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν which the future æon will bring us.

From what has been said, it is evident that the present discourse forms a parallel to the earlier consolatory discourse, chh30,31, 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 (chh30,31) 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 Jeremiah 30:5-7; Jeremiah 30:11; Jeremiah 31:15-16; Jeremiah 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 ( Jeremiah 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, Jeremiah 30:9; Jeremiah 30:21, in the second the most prominent passage is occupied in detail with the Messianic king and priesthood. The passage Jeremiah 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 chh32,33 is stated in the text. In Jeremiah 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. Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 33:14-26. Movers (de utr. Rec, etc., S. 41) declares that Jeremiah 32:18; Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 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 33may be regarded as a continuation and extension of Jeremiah 32, the two together may consequently be regarded as one prophetic discourse. They are not Song of Solomon, however, in a logical and rhetorical sense, since they did not originate contemporaneously. We shall therefore treat the two halves separately.

I. CHAPTER32

The most glorious future warranted in the midst of the most gloomy present by the purchase of a piece of ground in the enemy’s hands.

1. The transaction of the purchase, Jeremiah 32:1-15.

2. A prayer of praise and inquiry, Jeremiah 32:16-25.

3. Nothing is impossible to the Lord, Jeremiah 32:26-44.

II. CHAPTER33

Promise of the most glorious future, given at the moment when the destruction of Jerusalem was already begun by its own inhabitants in the interest of defence.

1. Brief transition: summons to new prayer in the sense of Jeremiah 32:16-25, and promise of a hearing, Jeremiah 33:1-3.

2. Destruction in the present. Glorious internal and external rebuilding in the future not-withstanding, Jeremiah 33:4-9.

3. The glorious city-life of the future, Jeremiah 33:10-11.

4. The glorious country-life of the future, Jeremiah 33:12-13.

5. The glorious kingdom and priesthood of the future, Jeremiah 33:14-18.

6. The kingdom and priesthood of the future eternal, Jeremiah 33:19-26.

__________

1. CHAPTER32

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.

Jeremiah 32:1-15.

1The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the tenth year of Zedekiah, 2king of Judah, which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar. For then the king of Babylon’s army besieged Jerusalem: and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison [or guard] which was in the king of Judah’s house 3 For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up,¹ saying, Wherefore dost thou prophesy, and say, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will give this city into the hand 4 of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it; And Zedekiah king of Judah shall not escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him mouth to mouth, and his 5 eyes shall behold his eyes; And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the Lord: though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye 6 shall not prosper. And Jeremiah said, The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 7Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to 8 buy it. So Hanameel mine uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that 9 this was the word of the Lord. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle’s Song of Solomon, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of 10 silver. ² And I subscribed the evidence [deed], ³ and sealed it, and took witnesses, 11and weighed him the money in the balances. So I took the evidence [deed] of the purchase, both that which was sealed according to the law and custom [or 12(containing) the assignment and limitation], and that which was open: And I gave the evidence [deed] of the purchase unto Baruch, the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, in the sight of Hanameel mine uncle’s son and in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase, before all ⁴ the Jews that sat in13, 14the court of the prison. And I charged Baruch before them, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both ⁵ which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them 15 in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Houses and fields and vineyards shall be possessed again in this land.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

In the tenth year of king Zedekiah, during the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, at a time when all hope of deliverance had vanished and the overthrow of the kingdom was certain to all those who were not blinded, Jeremiah, who was then on account of his prophecy of inevitable ruin held a prisoner in the prison court, received a divine Revelation, which announced that the lot of ground of his uncle Shallum at Anathoth would be offered him for sale on account of his right of redemption. Hanameel, the son of Shallum, really came with this offer to Jeremiah. The latter recognizing the Lord’s will, buys the lot, carefully observing all the formalities, as a sign that “houses, fields and vineyards will again be bought in the land of Judah.”

Jeremiah 32:1-5. The word … shall not prosper. The superscription is again of the larger kind. It dominates chh32,33. The word of Jehovah which it announces, is not merely the next following brief revelation of Jeremiah 32:7, but all the revealed contents of both chapters. Comp. rems. on Jeremiah 30:1.—In the tenth, etc. Comp. rems. on Jeremiah 28:1. The numerical statements are in entire agreement with Jeremiah 39:1; Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 52:12.—Besieged. Comp. Jeremiah 21:4; Jeremiah 37:5; Jeremiah 39:1; Deuteronomy 20:12, etc—Court of the prison. According to Jeremiah 37:15, Jeremiah was incarcerated by the princes in בֵּית הָאֵסוּר [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, (הֲצַר חַמַּטָרָה, Jeremiah 37:21 coll. Jeremiah 38:6; Jeremiah 38:13; Jeremiah 38:28; Jeremiah 39:14-15). Accordingly this must have been at any rate a more tolerable place. The expression occurs, besides the passages mentioned, only in Jeremiah 33:1; Nehemiah 3:25; Nehemiah 12:39. מַטָּדָה 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 ( Jeremiah 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. Jeremiah 21:4 sqq.; Jeremiah 34:2 sqq.; Jeremiah 37:17. The words from I will give to Zedekiah to Babylon agree almost verbatim with Jeremiah 34:2-3. From the slight differences we may infer that we have here two independent records, of which the passage Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 32:5 all that relates to this is comprised in the words, “and there shall he be until I visit him.” If we compare Jeremiah 34:4-5 with Jeremiah 39:7; Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 37:7; Jeremiah 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,” Jeremiah 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. Jeremiah 21:9; Jeremiah 27:8 sqq, as well as the introduction to Jeremiah 34:1-7, and the remarks on Jeremiah 34:1-5.

Jeremiah 32:6-7. And Jeremiah … to buy it. After that in Jeremiah 32:1-5 the general situation had been portrayed in which the following event took place, Jeremiah 32:6 begins the narrative of the event itself. This narrative is given as the report of a third person. From the word in Jeremiah 32:6, to the close of the prayer in Jeremiah 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, Jeremiah 32:6. This form of presentation is not unusual in this book. Comp. Jeremiah 19:14-15; Jeremiah 26:7-9; Jeremiah 28:5-7 coll. Jeremiah 32:1; Jeremiah 37 etc.—Son of Shallum thine uncle. That the uncle was named Shallum is seen from Jeremiah 32:8-9. Though Hanameel is also designated דּוֹר, 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” ( Jeremiah 1:2; Jeremiah 1:4, etc.). From this is derived the meaning of “carus, amicus” (abstr. pro concreto as inמוֹדַעַת), comp. Isaiah 5:1; Song of Solomon 1:13-14; Song of Solomon 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 דּוֹר.—Right of redemption. According to Leviticus 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 Numbers 35:2 coll. Joshua 21owned real estate, viz., so much as was included in the precincts of the cities allotted to them (מִגְרָשׁ, comp. 1 Chronicles 6:40-41). The statement in Leviticus 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 (גְאֻלָּה) had moreover its two sides. Towards the seller it was a duty, towards the more distantly related it was a right. Comp. Ruth 4

Jeremiah 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 גְאֻלָּה. We find no intimation in the Law what the relation of the גֹּאֵל was to the מֹּכֵד (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, Leviticus 25:15-16, were not unobserved. The year of manumissio, spoken of in Jeremiah 34, was not a jubilee. Comp. rems, on Jeremiah 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 Hebrews, the prisoner, for whom a daily scanty subsistence was furnished ( Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 32:9, the particulars of the transaction are specially enumerated in Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 32:10. He therefore relates first of the deed (ספר), 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 Jeremiah 32:12, where it is expressly stated that the witnesses “subscribed the book of the purchase.” As now in Jeremiah 32:11, Jeremiah 32:12 init., Jeremiah 32:14סֵפֶר הִמִּקְנָה appears to be a general conception, to which the specifications given in the second half of the verse are subordinate, the word may in Jeremiah 32:12 also designate both documents; they may therefore have both been subscribed by the witnesses.

Jeremiah 32:11-12. So I took … of the prison. The words הַמְִצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים, in Jeremiah 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 ספר. The enumeration in Jeremiah 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 הַחָתוּם. Then the question arises, what are we to understand by the words themselves? The respective definitions of the Mosaic law (comp. ex. gr. Deuteronomy 5:28)? But why should these be written out in detail and be designated as the main contents of the חָיוּם? It is better then to take מִצְוָה in the sense of statutum, establishing, settling, and חֻקִים 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 חָתּוכ. 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 ἐξ επισήμου σφόδρα οἰκίας ὄντα καὶ τη πατρώῳ γλώττῃ διαφερόντως πεπαιδευμένον . The high position of his brother Seraiah at court ( Jeremiah 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.

Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 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 Jeremiah 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