Jeremiah 47-49

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Jeremiah 47:1 tn Heb “that which was.”
2. Jeremiah 47:1 sn The precise dating of this prophecy is uncertain. Several proposals have been suggested, the most likely of which is that the prophecy was delivered in 609 b.c. in conjunction with Pharaoh Necho’s advance into Palestine to aid the Assyrians. That was the same year Josiah was killed by Necho at the battle of Megiddo and four years before Necho was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, the foe from the north. The prophecy presupposes that Ashkelon is still in existence (v. 5); hence it must be before 604 b.c. For a fairly complete discussion of the options see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 299-300.
3. Jeremiah 47:2 tn Heb “Behold! Waters are rising from the north.” The metaphor of enemy armies compared to overflowing water occurs also in Isa 8:8-9 (Assyria) and 46:7-8 (Egypt). Here it refers to the foe from the north (Jer 1:14; 4:6; etc), which is specifically identified with Babylon in Jer 25. The metaphor has been turned into a simile in the translation to help the average reader identify that a figure is involved, and to hint at the referent.
4. Jeremiah 47:3 tn Heb “From the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, from the rattling of his chariots at the rumbling of their wheels, fathers will not turn to their children from sinking of hands.” According to BDB 952 s.v. רִפָּיוֹן, the “sinking of the hands” is figurative of helplessness caused by terror. A very similar figure appears with a related expression in Isa 35:3-4. The sentence has been restructured to put the subject up front and to suggest the same causal connections through shorter sentences more in keeping with contemporary English style. The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity for the average reader.
5. Jeremiah 47:4 tn Heb “For the Lord will.” The first person style has been adopted because the Lord is speaking (cf. v. 2).
6. Jeremiah 47:4 sn All the help that remains for Tyre and Sidon and that remnant that came from the island of Crete appear to be two qualifying phrases that refer to the Philistines, the last pertaining to their origin and the first to their vital alliance with Tyre and Sidon. “Crete” is literally “Caphtor,” which is generally identified with the island of Crete. The Philistines had come from there (Amos 9:7) in the wave of migration from the Aegean Islands during the twelfth and eleventh centuries. They had settled on the Philistine plain after having been repulsed from trying to enter Egypt.
7. Jeremiah 47:5 sn Shaving one’s head and gashing one’s body were customs to show mourning or sadness for the dead (cf. Deut 14:1; Mic 1:16; Ezek 27:31; Jer 16:6; 48:37).
8. Jeremiah 47:5 tn Or “you who are left alive on the Philistine plain.” Or “you who remain of the Anakim.” The translation follows the suggestion of several of the modern commentaries that the word עֵמֶק (ʿemeq) means “strength” or “power” here (see J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 698; J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 310; and see also HALOT 803 s.v. II עֵמֶק). It is a rare homonym of the word that normally means “valley,” which seems to be an inappropriate designation of the Philistine plain. Many of the modern English versions and commentaries follow the Greek version, which reads here “remnant of the Anakim” (עֲנָקִים [ʿanaqim] instead of עִמְקָם [ʿimqam], a confusion of basically one letter). This emendation is followed by both BDB 771 s.v. עֵמֶק and KBL 716 s.v. עֵמֶק. The Anakim were generally associated with the southern region around Hebron, but an enclave of them was known to have settled in Gaza, Gath, and Ekron, three of the Philistine cities (cf. Josh 11:22). However, the facts that this judgment is directed against the Philistines, not the Anakim, and that this homonym apparently appears also in Jer 49:4 make the reading of “power” more likely here.
9. Jeremiah 47:6 tn The words “How long will you cry out” are not in the text, but some such introduction seems necessary because the rest of the speech assumes a personal subject.
10. Jeremiah 47:6 tn Heb “before you are quiet/at rest.”
11. Jeremiah 47:6 sn The passage is highly figurative. The sword of the Lord, which is itself a figure of the destructive agency of the enemy armies, is here addressed as a person and is encouraged by rhetorical questions (questions designed to dissuade) and commands to “be quiet,” “be at rest,” and “be silent,” all of which aim to get the Lord to call off the destruction against the Philistines.
12. Jeremiah 47:7 tn The reading here follows the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions. The Hebrew text reads, “how can you rest,” as a continuation of the second person in v. 6.
13. Jeremiah 47:7 tn Heb “When the Lord has.” The first person is again adopted because the Lord has been speaking.
14. Jeremiah 47:7 tn Heb “Against Ashkelon and the sea coast, there he has appointed it.” For the switch to the first person see the preceding translator’s note. “There” is poetical and redundant, and the idea of “attacking” is implicit in “against.”
15. Jeremiah 48:1 tn Heb “Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel.” For this title see 7:3 and the study note on 2:19.
16. Jeremiah 48:1 sn Moab was a country east of the Dead Sea whose boundaries varied greatly over time. Basically, it was the tableland between the Arnon River, about halfway up the Dead Sea, and the Zered River, which is roughly at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites entered Palestine, they were forbidden to take any of the Moabite territory, but they did capture the kingdom of Sihon north of the Arnon, which Sihon had taken from Moab. Several of the towns mentioned in the oracles of judgment against Moab here are in this territory north of the Arnon and were assigned to Reuben and Gad. Several are mentioned on the famous Moabite Stone, which details how Mesha king of Moab recovered from Israel many of these cities during the reign of Joram (852-841 b.c.; cf. 2 Kgs 3:4-5). It is usually assumed that Moab submitted to Nebuchadnezzar after the battle of Carchemish and that it remained loyal to him throughout most of this period, though representatives were present at Jerusalem in 594 b.c. when plans for revolt were apparently being discussed (Jer 27:3). Moabite contingents were used by Nebuchadnezzar in 598 b.c. to harass Jehoiakim after he rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2), so they must have remained loyal at that time. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Moab in 582 b.c. and destroyed many of its cities.
17. Jeremiah 48:1 tn Heb “Woe to Nebo for it is destroyed.” For the use of the Hebrew particle “Woe” (הוֹי, hoy), see the translator’s note on 22:13. The translation has taken this form because the phrase “Woe to” probably does not convey the proper meaning or significance to the modern reader. The verbs again are in the tense (Hebrew prophetic perfect) that views the action as if it were as good as done. The particle כִּי (ki) probably is causal, but the asseverative works better in the modified translation.
18. Jeremiah 48:1 sn Nebo and Kiriathaim were both north of the Arnon and were assigned to Reuben (Num 32:3; Josh 13:19). They are both mentioned on the Moabite Stone as having been recovered from Israel.
19. Jeremiah 48:1 tn Or “Misgab.” The translation here follows the majority of commentaries and English versions. Only REB sees this as a place name, “Misgab,” which is otherwise unknown. The constant use of this word to refer to a fortress, the presence of the article on the front of it, and the lack of any reference to a place of this name anywhere else argue against it being a place name. However, the fact that the verbs that accompany it are feminine, while the noun for “fortress” is masculine, causes some pause.
20. Jeremiah 48:1 tn For the meaning of the verb here see BDB 369 s.v. חָתַת Qal.1 and compare usage in Isa 7:8 and 30:31.
21. Jeremiah 48:2 sn Heshbon was originally a Moabite city but was captured by Sihon king of Og and made his capital (Num 21:26-30). It was captured from Sihon and originally assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Num 32:37; Josh 13:17). Later it was made a Levitical city and was assigned to the tribe of Gad (Josh 21:39). It formed the northern limits of Moab and was located about eighteen miles east of the northern tip of the Dead Sea.
22. Jeremiah 48:2 sn There is a wordplay in Hebrew on the word “Heshbon” and the word “plot” (חָשְׁבוּ, khash^evu).
23. Jeremiah 48:2 tn Heb “In Heshbon they plot evil against her [i.e., Moab].” The “they” is undefined, but it would scarcely be Moabites living in Heshbon. Hence TEV and CEV are probably correct in seeing a reference to the enemy, which would imply the conquest of this city that lay on the northern border of Moab.
24. Jeremiah 48:2 tn The meaning of this line is somewhat uncertain. The translation here follows all the modern English versions and commentaries in reading the place name “Madmen,” even though the place is otherwise unknown, and the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions all read this word as an emphasizing infinitive absolute of the following verb, “will be destroyed,” i.e., דָּמוֹם יִדֹּמּוּ (damom yiddommu). Some see this word as a variant of the name Dimon in Isa 15:9, which in turn is a playful variant of the place name Dibon. There is once again a wordplay on the word “Madmen” and “will be destroyed”: מַדְמֵן (madmen) and יִדֹּמּוּ (yiddommu). For the meaning of the verb as “perish” or “be destroyed,” see Jer 8:14 and Ps 31:18.
25. Jeremiah 48:2 tn Heb “A sword will follow after you.” The sword is again figurative of destructive forces, here the army of the Babylonians.
26. Jeremiah 48:4 tc The reading here follows the Qere צְעִירֶיהָ (ts^eʿireha), which is the same noun found in Jer 14:3 in the sense of “servants.” Here it refers to the young ones, i.e., the children (cf. the use of the adjective BDB 859 s.v. I צָעִיר 2, and see Gen 43:33). Many of the modern commentaries and a few of the modern English versions follow the Greek version and read “their cry is heard as far as Zoar” (reading צֹעֲרָה, tsoʿarah; see, for example, J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 699, n. 4, and BDB 858 s.v. צֹעַר). However, that leaves the verb with an indefinite subject (the verb is active third plural, not passive) not otherwise identified in the preceding context. Many of the modern English versions, such as NRSV, NJPS, and NIV, retain the Hebrew, as the present translation has done. In this case, the masculine plural noun furnishes a logical subject for the verb.
27. Jeremiah 48:5 tn Or “Indeed her fugitives will…” It is unclear what the subject of the verbs are in this verse. The verb in the first two lines, “climb” (יַעֲלֶה, yaʿaleh), is third masculine singular, and the verb in the second two lines, “will hear” (שָׁמֵעוּ, shameʿu), is third common plural. The causal particles at the beginning of the two halves of the verse can indicate some connection with the preceding, so the translation assumes that the children are still the subject. In this case, the singular verb would be an example of the distributive singular already referred to in the translator’s note on 46:15. The parallel passage in Isa 15:5 refers to the “fugitives” (בְּרִיחֶהָ, b^erikheha) with the same singular verb as here, and that may be the implied subject here.sn The location of Luhith and Horonaim are uncertain, but their connection with Zoar in Isa 15:5 suggests they are located in southern Moab. Zoar was at the southern tip of the Dead Sea.
28. Jeremiah 48:5 tn Heb “the distresses of the cry of destruction.” Many commentaries want to leave out the word “distresses” because it is missing from the Greek version and the parallel passage in Isa 15:5. However, it is in all the Hebrew mss and in the other early versions, and it is hard to see why it would be added here if it were not original.
29. Jeremiah 48:6 tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The translation follows one reading of the Hebrew text. The Greek version reads, “Be like a wild donkey in the desert!” There are three points of debate in this line: the syntax of the verb form “be” (תִהְיֶינָה, tihyenah) and the text and meaning of the word translated “shrub” in the Hebrew text. This latter word only occurs with this meaning here and in Jer 17:6. A related word occurs in Ps 102:17 (102:18 HT). Elsewhere this spelling refers to the name Aroer, which designated a place in Moab on the edge of the Arnon River. Most commentators do not feel that a reference to that place is appropriate here because it was not in the desert. The Greek version reads “like a wild donkey” (reading כְּעָרוֹד [k^eʿarod] in place of כַּעֲרוֹעֵר [kaʿaroʿer]). That would make an appropriate simile here because the wild donkey enjoys its freedom and is hard to capture. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 312) explain the simile of the “shrub” as referring to the marginal and rudimentary existence of a displaced person. That may not be as optimistic as the reference to the wild donkey, but it does give an appropriate meaning. The third feminine plural verb “be” has been explained as due to the singular noun + suffix = “yourselves” (נַפְשְׁכֶם, nafsh^ekhem) being used as a collective (so S. R. Driver, Jeremiah, 368, with cross reference to GKC 462-63 §145.c). J. Bright (Jeremiah [AB], 314, n. e-e) follows a suggestion of D. N. Freedman in seeing the form (תִהְיֶינָה, tihyenah) as a mistake for the second masculine plural plus energic (תִהְיוּן, tihyun). Given the number of other textual difficulties in this passage, this is possible. The resultant meaning in either case is the same.
30. Jeremiah 48:7 sn Chemosh was the national god of Moab (see also Num 21:29). Child sacrifice appears to have been a part of his worship (2 Kgs 3:27). Solomon built a high place in Jerusalem for him (1 Kgs 11:7), and he appears to have been worshiped in Israel until Josiah tore that high place down (2 Kgs 23:13).
31. Jeremiah 48:7 sn The practice of carrying off the gods of captive nations has already been mentioned in the study note on 43:12. See also notes at Isa 46:1-2.
32. Jeremiah 48:8 tn Heb “The valley will be destroyed and the tableland laid waste.” However, in the context this surely refers to the towns and not to the valley and the tableland itself.sn Most commentaries see a reference to the towns in the Jordan valley referred to in Josh 13:27 and to the towns mentioned in Josh 13:15-17, which were on the high tableland or high plateau or plain north of the Arnon. The mention of the towns in the first half of the verse is broader than that because it would include all the towns in the southern half of Moab between the Arnon and Zered, as well as those mentioned in the second half of the verse in conjunction with the valley and the high plateau north of the Arnon.
33. Jeremiah 48:8 tn Heb “which/for/as the Lord has spoken.” The first person form has again been adopted because the Lord is the speaker throughout (cf. v. 1).
34. Jeremiah 48:9 tn Or “Scatter salt over Moab, for it will certainly be laid in ruins.” The meaning of these two lines is very uncertain. The Hebrew of these two lines presents several difficulties. It reads תְּנוּ־צִיץ לְמוֹאָב נָצֹא תֵּצֵא (t^enu-tsits l^emoʾav natsoʾ tetseʾ). Of the five words, two are extremely problematic, and the meaning of the second affects also the meaning of the last word, which normally means “go out.” The word צִיץ (tsits) regularly refers to a blossom or flower or the diadem on the front of Aaron’s mitre. BDB 851 s.v. II צִיץ gives a nuance “wings (coll),” based on the interpretation of Abu Walid and some medieval Jewish interpreters, who related it to an Aramaic root. But BDB says that meaning is dubious and refers to the Greek, which reads σημεῖα (sēmeia, “sign” or “sign post”). Along with KBL 802 s.v. I צִיץ and HALOT 959 s.v. II צִיץ, BDB suggests that the Greek presupposes the word צִיּוּן (tsiyyun) which refers to a road marker (Jer 31:21) or a gravestone (2 Kgs 23:17). That is the meaning followed here. Several modern commentaries and English versions have followed a proposal by W. Moran that the word is related to a Ugaritic word meaning salt (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 320). However, HALOT 959 s.v. II צִיץ questions the validity of this on philological grounds, saying that the meaning of salt does not really fit the Ugaritic either. The present translation follows the suggestions of the lexicons here and reads the word as though the Greek supported the meaning “gravestone.” The other difficulty is with the word נָצֹא (natsoʾ), which looks like a Qal infinitive absolute of an otherwise unattested root that BDB s.v. נָצָא says is defined in Gesenius’ Thesaurus as “fly.” However, BDB sees the meaning and the construction of an infinitive absolute of one root preceding an imperfect of another as improbable. Hence, most modern lexicons either emend the forms to read נָצֹה תִּצֶּה (natsoh titseh) from the root נָצָה (natsah), meaning “to fall into ruins” (so KBL 629 s.v. נָצָה Qal, and see, among others, J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 700, n. 10, who notes that final א [alef] and final ה [he] are often confused; see the discussion and examples in GKC 216-17 §75.nn-rr). This is the option that this translation and a number of modern ones have taken. A second option is to see נָצֹא (natsoʾ) as an error for יָצֹא (yatsoʾ) and read the text in the sense of “she will certainly surrender,” a meaning that the verb יָצָא (yatsaʾ) has in 1 Sam 11:3 and Isa 36:6. The best discussion of this option, as well as a discussion on the problem of reading צִיץ (tsits) as salt, is found in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 313-14.
35. Jeremiah 48:10 tn Heb “who withholds his sword from bloodshed.” This verse is an editorial aside (or apostrophe) warning the Babylonian destroyers to be diligent in carrying out the work of the Lord in destroying Moab.
36. Jeremiah 48:11 tn Heb “Therefore his taste remains in him, and his aroma is not changed.” The metaphor is changed into a simile in an attempt to help the reader understand the figure in the context.sn The picture is that of undisturbed complacency (cf. Zeph 1:12). Because Moab had never known the discipline of exile, she had remained as she always was.
37. Jeremiah 48:12 tn Heb “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, oracle of Yahweh, when I will send against him decanters [those who pour from one vessel to another], and they will decant him [pour him out], and they will empty his vessels and break their jars in pieces.” The verse continues the metaphor from the preceding verse, where Moab/the people of Moab are like wine left undisturbed in a jar, i.e., in their native land. In this verse the picture is that of the decanter emptying the wine from the vessels and then breaking the jars. The wine represents the people and the vessels the cities and towns where the people lived. The verse speaks of the exile of the people and the devastation of the land. The metaphor has been interpreted so it conveys meaning to the average reader.
38. Jeremiah 48:12 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
39. Jeremiah 48:13 tn Heb “Moab will be ashamed because of Chemosh as the house of Israel was ashamed because of Bethel, their [source of] confidence.” The “shame” is, of course, the disappointment and disillusionment because of the lack of help from these gods in which they trusted (for this nuance of the verb see BDB 101 s.v. בּוֹשׁ Qal.2 and compare usage in Jer 2:13 and Isa 20:5). Because of the parallelism, some see the reference to Bethel to be a reference to a West Semitic god worshiped by the people of Israel (see J. P. Hyatt, “Bethel [Deity],” IDB 1:390 for the arguments). However, there is no evidence in the OT that such a god was worshiped in Israel, and there is legitimate evidence that northern Israel placed its confidence in the calf god that Jeroboam set up in Bethel (cf. 1 Kgs 12:28-32; Hos 10:5; 8:5-6; Amos 7:10-17).
40. Jeremiah 48:15 tn Heb “will go down to the slaughter.”
41. Jeremiah 48:15 tn Heb “Yahweh of Armies.” For an explanation of the translation and meaning of this title, see the study note on 2:19.
42. Jeremiah 48:15 tn Heb “Oracle of the King whose name is Yahweh of armies.” The first person form has again been adopted because the Lord is the speaker throughout this oracle/ these oracles (cf. v. 1).
43. Jeremiah 48:17 tn For the use of the word “name” (שֵׁם, shem) for “fame” or “repute,” see BDB 1028 s.v. שֵׁם 2.b and compare the usage in Ezek 16:14 and 2 Chr 26:15.sn This refers both to the nearby nations and to those who lived farther away and had heard of Moab’s power and might only by repute.
44. Jeremiah 48:17 tn Heb “How is the strong staff broken, the beautiful rod!” “How” introduces a lament that is here rendered by “Alas.” The staff and rod refer to the support that Moab gave to others, not to the fact that she ruled over others, which was never the case. According to BDB 739 s.v. עוֹז 1, the “strong staff” is figurative of political power.
45. Jeremiah 48:18 tn Heb “sit in thirst.” The abstract “thirst” is put for the concrete, i.e., thirsty or parched ground (cf. Deut 8:19; Isa 35:7; Ps 107:33) for the concrete. There is no need to emend to “filth” (צֹאָה [tsoʾah] for צָמָא [tsamaʾ]) as is sometimes suggested.
46. Jeremiah 48:18 tn Heb “inhabitant of Daughter Dibon.” “Daughter” is used here, as often in Jeremiah, for the personification of a city, a country, or its inhabitants. The word “inhabitant” is to be understood as a collective, as also in v. 19.sn Dibon was an important fortified city located on the “King’s Highway,” the main north-south road in Transjordan. It was the site at which the Moabite Stone was found in 1868 and was one of the cities mentioned on it. It was four miles north of the Arnon River and thirteen miles east of the Dead Sea. It was one of the main cities on the northern plateau and had been conquered from Sihon and allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Josh 13:17).
47. Jeremiah 48:19 sn Aroer is probably the Aroer located a few miles south and west of Dibon on the edge of the Arnon River. It had formerly been the southern border of Sihon, king of Heshbon, and had been allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Josh 13:16). However, this whole territory had been taken over by the Arameans (2 Kgs 10:33; c. 842-800 b.c.), then by the Assyrians (Isa 15-16; c. 715-713 b.c.), and at this time was in the hands of the Moabites.
48. Jeremiah 48:21 sn See the study note on Jer 48:8 for reference to this tableland or high plain that lay between the Arnon and Heshbon.
49. Jeremiah 48:25 tn Heb “The horn of Moab will be cut off. His arm will be broken.” “Horn” and “arm” are both symbols of strength (see BDB 902 s.v. קֶרֶן 2 [and compare usage in Lam 2:3] and BDB 284 s.v. זְרוֹעַ 2 [and compare usage in 1 Sam 2:31]). The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity.
50. Jeremiah 48:25 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
51. Jeremiah 48:26 tn Heb “Make him drunk because he has magnified himself against the Lord.” The first person has again been adopted for consistency within a speech of the Lord. Almost all of the commentaries relate the figure of drunkenness to the figure of drinking the cup of God’s wrath spelled out in Jer 25, where reference is made at one point to the nations drinking, staggering, vomiting, and falling (25:27; see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 316, for a full list of references to this figure, including this passage and 49:12-13; 51:6-10, 39, 57).
52. Jeremiah 48:26 tn The meaning of this word is uncertain. It is usually used of clapping the hands or the thigh in helpless anger or disgust. Hence J. Bright (Jeremiah [AB], 321) paraphrases, “shall vomit helplessly.” HALOT 722 s.v. II סָפַק relates this to an Aramaic word and sees a homonym meaning “vomit” or “spew out.” The translation here is that of BDB 706 s.v. סָפַק Qal.3, “splash (fall with a splash),” from the same root that refers to slapping or clapping the thigh.
53. Jeremiah 48:27 tn Heb “were they caught among thieves?”
54. Jeremiah 48:27 tn Heb “that you shook yourself.” But see the same verb in 18:16 in the active voice with the object “head” in a very similar context of contempt or derision.
55. Jeremiah 48:27 tc The reading here presupposes the emendation of דְבָרֶיךָ (d^evarekha, “your words”) to דַבֶּרְךָ (dabber^ekha, “your speaking”). BHS (cf. fn c) suggested the change on the basis of one of the Greek versions (Symmachus). For the idiom, compare BDB 191 s.v. דַּי 2.c.α.
56. Jeremiah 48:28 tn Heb “in the sides of the mouth of a pit/chasm.” The translation follows the suggestion of J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 321. The point of the simile is inaccessibility.
57. Jeremiah 48:29 tn Heb “We have heard of the pride of Moab—[he is] exceedingly proud—of his haughtiness, and his pride, and his haughtiness, and the loftiness of his heart.” These words are essentially all synonyms, three of them coming from the same Hebrew root (גָּאָה, gaʾah), and one of the words being used twice (גָּאוֹן, gaʾon). Since the first person singular is used in the next verse, the present translation considers the “we” of this verse to refer to the plural of majesty or the plural referring to the divine council, as in passages like Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8, and has translated in the singular to avoid possible confusion of who the “we” are. Most understand the reference to be to Jeremiah and his fellow Judeans.
58. Jeremiah 48:30 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
59. Jeremiah 48:30 tn The meaning of this verse is somewhat uncertain: Heb “I know, oracle of the Lord,/ his arrogance and [that it is?] not true; // his boastings accomplish that which is not true.” Several modern English versions and commentaries redivide the verse and read something like, “I know his insolence…his boastings are false; his deeds are false” (NRSV, REB). However, the word translated “deeds” in the last line is a verb in the third person plural and can only have as its logical grammatical subject the word “boastings.” The adjective כֵּן (ken) + the negative לֹא (lo’) are evidently repeated here and applied to two different subjects, “arrogance” and “boasting,” to emphasize that Moab’s arrogant boasts will prove “untrue” (cf. HALOT 459 s.v. II כֵּן 2.c for the meaning “untrue” for both this passage and the parallel one in Isa 16:6). There is some difference of opinion about the identification of the “I” in this verse. Most commentators see it as referring to the prophet. However, F. B. Huey (Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC], 395) is probably correct in seeing it refer to the Lord. He points to the fact that the “I” in vv. 33, 35, 38 can only refer to God. The “I know” in v. 30 also clearly has the Lord as its subject. There are other cases in the book of Jeremiah where the Lord expresses his lament over the fate of a people (cf. 14:1-6, 17-18).
60. Jeremiah 48:31 tc The translation is based on the emendation of the Hebrew third masculine singular (יֶהְגֶּה, yehgeh) to the first singular (אֶהְגֶּה, ʾehgeh). This emendation is assumed by almost all of the modern English versions and commentaries even though the textual evidence for it is weak (only one Hebrew ms and the Eastern Qere according to BHS).
61. Jeremiah 48:32 tc Or “I will weep for the grapevines of Sibmah more than I will weep over the town of Jazer.” The translation here assumes that there has been a graphic confusion of מ (mem) with כ (kaf) or ב (bet). The parallel passage in Isa 16:9 has the preposition ב, and the Greek version presupposes the comparative idea “as with.” Many of the modern English versions render the passage with the comparative מִן (min) as in the alternate translation, but it is unclear what the force of the comparison would be here. The verse is actually in the second person, an apostrophe or direct address to the grapevine(s) of Sibmah. However, the translation has retained the third person throughout because such sudden shifts in person are uncommon in contemporary English literature and retaining the third person is smoother. The Hebrew text reads, “From/With the weeping of Jazer I will weep for you, vine of Sibmah. Your tendrils crossed over the sea. They reached unto the sea of Jazer. Upon your summer fruit and your vintage [grape harvest] the destroyer has fallen.”
62. Jeremiah 48:32 tn Heb “crossed over to the Sea.”
63. Jeremiah 48:32 tn Or “reached the sea of Jazer.” The Sea is generally taken to be a reference to the Dead Sea. The translation presupposes that the word “sea” is to be omitted before “Jazer.” The word is missing from two Hebrew mss, from the parallel passage in Isa 16:8, and from the Greek version. It may have arisen from a mistaken copying of the same word in the preceding line.sn Though there is some doubt about the precise location of these places, Sibmah is generally considered to have been located slightly north and west of Heshbon, with Jazer farther north toward the border of Ammon, not far from the city of Amman. Most commentators see the reference here (and in the parallel in Isa 16:8) to the spread of viticulture westward and northward from the vineyards of Sibmah. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 318-19), however, see the reference rather to the spread of trade in wine westward beyond the coast of the Mediterranean and eastward into the desert.
64. Jeremiah 48:32 tn Heb “her summer fruit.” See the translator’s note on 40:10 for the rendering here. According to BDB 657 s.v. נָפַל Qal.4.a, the verb means to “fall upon” or “attack,” but in the context it is probably metonymical for attack and destroy.
65. Jeremiah 48:33 tn Heb “from the garden land, even from the land of Moab.” Comparison with the parallel passage in Isa 16:10, and the translation of the Greek text here (which has only “the land of Moab”), suggest that the second phrase is appositional to the first.
66. Jeremiah 48:33 tn Heb “no one will tread [the grapes] with shout of joy.”
67. Jeremiah 48:33 tn Heb “shouts will not be shouts.” The text has been expanded contextually to explain that the shouts of those treading grapes in winepresses will come to an end (v. 33a-d) and be replaced by the shouts of the soldiers who trample down the vineyards (v. 32e-f). Cf. 25:30; 51:41 for the idea.
68. Jeremiah 48:34 tn The meaning of this verse is very uncertain. The ambiguity of the syntax and the apparent elliptical nature of this text make the meaning of this verse uncertain. The Hebrew text reads, “From the cry of Heshbon unto Elealeh unto Jahaz they utter their voice, from Zoar unto Horonaim, Eglath Shelishiyah.” The translation and interpretation here are based on interpreting the elliptical syntax here by the parallel passage in Isaiah 15:4-6, where cries of anguish rise from Heshbon and Elealeh that are heard all the way to Jahaz. The people flee southward, arriving at Zoar and Eglath Shelishiyah, where they voice the news of the destruction in the north. Hence, the present translation interprets the phrase “from the cry of Heshbon unto Elealeh” to be parallel to “Heshbon and Elealeh cry out” and take the preposition “from” with the verb “they utter their voice,” i.e., with the cry of Heshbon and Elealeh. The impersonal “they raise their voice” is then treated as a passive and made the subject of the whole verse. There is some debate about the identification of the waters of Nimrim. They may refer to the waters of the Wadi Nimrim, which enters the Jordan about eight miles north of the Dead Sea, or to those of the Wadi en-Numeirah, which flows into the southern tip of the Dead Sea from about ten miles south. Most commentators prefer the latter option because of association with Zoar. However, if the passage is talking about the destruction in the north that is reported in the south by the fleeing refugees, the reference is probably to the Wadi Nimrim in the north.sn Elealeh was about two miles (3.3 km) north of Heshbon. Jahaz was about twenty miles (33 km) south of it. These three cities were in the north, and Zoar, Horonaim, and Eglath Shelishiyah were apparently in the south. The verse is speaking about the news of destruction in the north spreading to the south. Comparison should be made with the parallel passage in Isa 15:4-6.
69. Jeremiah 48:35 tn Heb “high place[s].” For the meaning and significance of this term see the study note on 7:31.
70. Jeremiah 48:35 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
71. Jeremiah 48:37 tn Heb “upon every loin [there is] sackcloth.” The word “all” is restored here before “loin,” in agreement with a number of Hebrew mss and a number of versions. The words “in mourning” and “to show their sorrow” are not in the text. They have been supplied in the translation to give the average reader some idea of the significance of these acts.sn The actions referred to here were all acts used to mourn the dead (cf. Isa 15:2-3).
72. Jeremiah 48:38 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
73. Jeremiah 48:39 tn Heb “turn her back.”
74. Jeremiah 48:40 tn Heb “Behold! Like an eagle he will swoop and will spread his wings against Moab.” The sentence has been reordered in English to give a better logical flow, and the unidentified “he” has been identified as “a nation.” The nation is, of course, Babylon, but it is nowhere identified, so the referent has been left ambiguous.sn Conquering nations are often identified with an eagle flying swiftly to swoop down on its victims (cf. Deut 28:49). In this case the eagle is to be identified with the nation (or king) of Babylon (cf. Ezek 17:3, 12, where reference is to the removal of Jehoiachin [Jeconiah] and his replacement with Zedekiah).
75. Jeremiah 48:41 tn Parallelism argues that the word קְרִיּוֹת (q^eriyyot) be understood as the otherwise unattested feminine plural of the noun קִרְיָה (qiryah, “city”) rather than the place name Kerioth mentioned in v. 24 (cf. HALOT 1065 s.v. קִרְיָה). Both this noun and the parallel term “fortresses” are plural but are found with feminine singular verbs, being treated either as collectives or distributive plurals (cf. GKC 462-63 §145.c or 464 §145.l).
76. Jeremiah 48:41 tn Heb “The heart of the soldiers of Moab will be like the heart of a woman in labor.”
77. Jeremiah 48:42 tn Heb “Moab will be destroyed from [being] a people.”
78. Jeremiah 48:43 sn There is an extended use of assonance here and in the parallel passage in Isa 24:17. The Hebrew text reads פַּחַד וָפַחַת וָפָח (pakhad vafakhat vafakh). The assonance is intended to underscore the extensive trouble that is in store for them.
79. Jeremiah 48:43 tn Heb “are upon you, inhabitant of Moab.” This is another example of the rapid switch in person, or direct address (apostrophe) in the midst of a third person description or prediction, which the present translation typically keeps in the third person for smoother English style.
80. Jeremiah 48:43 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
81. Jeremiah 48:44 sn Jer 48:43-44a are in the main the same as Isa 24:17-18, which shows that the judgment was somewhat proverbial. For a very similar kind of argumentation see Amos 5:19; judgment is unavoidable.
82. Jeremiah 48:44 tn Heb “For I will bring upon her, even upon Moab, the year of her punishment.”
83. Jeremiah 48:44 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
84. Jeremiah 48:45 tn Or “of those noisy boasters.” Or “They will burn up the frontiers of Moab. They will burn up the mountain heights of those war-loving people.” The meaning of this verse is not entirely certain because of the highly figurative nature of the last two lines. The Hebrew text has been translated somewhat literally here. The Hebrew text reads, “In the shadow of Heshbon those fleeing stand without strength. For a fire goes forth from Heshbon, a flame from the midst of Sihon. And it devours the forehead of Moab and the skull of the sons of noise.” The meaning of the first part is fairly clear because v. 2 has already spoken of the conquest of Heshbon and a plot formed there to conquer the rest of the nation. The fire going forth from Heshbon would hence refer here to the conflagrations of war spreading from Heshbon to the rest of the country. The reference to the “midst of Sihon” is to be understood metonymically as a reference to the ruler for what he once ruled (cf. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 583). The last two lines must describe more than the fugitives who stopped at Heshbon for protection because it refers to the forehead of Moab (a personification of the whole land or nation). It is unclear, however, why reference is made to the foreheads and skulls of the Moabites, other than the fact that this verse seems to be a readaptation or reuse of Num 24:17, where the verb used with them is “smite,” which fits nicely in the sense of martial destruction. Translated rather literally, the phrase about foreheads and skulls appears here to refer to the destruction by the fires of war of the Moabites, the part (forehead and skulls) put for the whole. TEV sees a reference here to the “frontiers” and “mountain heights” of Moab, and this would work nicely for “foreheads,” which is elsewhere used of the corner or border of a land in Neh 9:22. The word “crown” or “skull” might be a picturesque metaphor for the mountain heights of a land, but the word is never used elsewhere in such a figurative way. TEV (and CEV), which follows it, might be correct here, but there is no way to validate it. The meaning “war-loving people” for the phrase “sons of noise” is based on the suggestion of BDB 981 s.v. שָׁאוֹן 1, which relates the phrase to the dominant use for שָׁאוֹן (shaʾon), and is adopted also by TEV, CEV, and C. von Orelli, Jeremiah, 341. REB’s “braggarts” and NIV’s “noisy boasters” seem to base the nuance on the usage of שָׁאוֹן (shaʾon) in Jer 46:17, where Pharaoh is referred to as an empty noise, and on the reference to Moab’s arrogance and boasting in 48:29.sn This verse and the next are an apparent adaptation and reuse of a victory song in Num 21:28-29 and a prophecy in Num 24:17. That explains the reference to Sihon, the Amorite king who captured Heshbon and proceeded from there to capture most of northern Moab (the area between Heshbon and the Arnon), which has been referred to earlier in this prophecy. This prophecy appears to speak of the destruction of Moab, beginning from the same place, under the picture of a destructive fire that burns up all the people. The fire is a reference to the conflagrations of war by which the enemy captures the cities, sets them on fire, and burns all the people in them. What Sihon once did (Num 21:28-29), and what Balaam prophesied would happen to Moab in the future (by David? Num 24:17), are being reapplied to a new situation.
85. Jeremiah 48:46 tn Heb “Woe to you, Moab.” For the usage of this expression see 4:13, 31; 13:17; and the translator’s notes on 4:13 and 10:19.
86. Jeremiah 48:46 tn Heb “Your sons will be taken away into captivity, your daughters into exile.”
87. Jeremiah 48:47 tn See 29:14; 30:3; and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.
88. Jeremiah 48:47 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
89. Jeremiah 49:1 sn Ammonites. Ammon was a small kingdom to the north and east of Moab that was in constant conflict with the Transjordanian tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh over territorial rights to the lands north and south of the Jabbok River. Ammon mainly centered on the city of Rabbah, which is modern Amman. According to Judg 11:13, the Ammonites claimed the land between the Jabbok and the Arnon, but this was land taken from them by Sihon and Og, and then taken from Sihon and Og by the Israelites. The Ammonites attempted to expand into the territory of Israel in the Transjordan in the time of Jephthah (Judg 10-11) and the time of Saul (1 Sam 11). Apparently when Tiglath Pileser carried away the Israelite tribes in Transjordan in 733 b.c., the Ammonites took over possession of their cities (Jer 49:1). Like Moab they appear to have been loyal to Nebuchadnezzar in the early part of his reign, forming part of the contingent that he sent to harass Judah when Jehoiakim rebelled in 598 b.c. (2 Kgs 24:2). But along with Moab and Edom they sent representatives to plot rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar in 594 b.c. (Jer 27:3). The Ammonites were evidently in rebellion against him in 588 b.c. when he had to decide whether to attack Rabbah or Jerusalem first (Ezek 21:18-23 [21:23-28 HT]). They appear to have remained in rebellion after the destruction of Jerusalem because their king Baalis was behind the plot to assassinate Gedaliah and offered refuge to Ishmael after he carried it out (Jer 40:13; 41:15). According to the Jewish historian Josephus they were conquered in 582 b.c. by Nebuchadnezzar.
90. Jeremiah 49:1 tc The reading here and in v. 3 follows the reading of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions and the name found in 1 Kgs 11:5, 33 and 2 Kgs 23:13. The Hebrew reads “Malcom” both here, in v. 3, and in Zeph 1:5. This god is to be identified with the one known elsewhere as Molech (cf. 1 Kgs 11:7).
91. Jeremiah 49:1 tn Heb “Does not Israel have any sons? Does not he have any heir [or “heirs” as a collective]? Why [then] has Malcom taken possession of Gad and [why] do his [Malcom’s] people live in his [Gad’s] land?” A literal translation here will not produce any meaning without major commentary. Hence the meaning that is generally agreed on is reflected in an admittedly paraphrastic translation. The reference is to the fact that the Ammonites had taken possession of the cities that had been deserted when the Assyrians carried off the Transjordanian tribes in 733 b.c., assuming that the Israelites would not return in sufficient numbers to regain control of them. The expression “Why has Milcom taken possession” reflects the idea, common in the OT and the ancient Near East, that the god of a people drove out the previous inhabitants, gave their land to his worshipers to possess, and took up residence with them there (cf., e.g., Deut 1:21; Judg 11:24; and line 33-34 of the Moabite stone: “Chemosh said to me, ‘Go down, fight against Hauronen.’ And I went down [and I fought against the town and took it], and Chemosh dwelt there in my time.” [ANET 321]).
92. Jeremiah 49:2 tn Heb “oracle of the Lord.”
93. Jeremiah 49:2 tn Heb “a desolate tel.” For the explanation of what a “tel” is see the study note on 30:18.
94. Jeremiah 49:2 tn Heb “Its daughters will be burned with fire.” For the use of the word “daughters” to refer to the villages surrounding a larger city, see BDB 123 s.v. I בַּת 4 and compare the usage in Judg 1:27.
95. Jeremiah 49:2 tn Heb “says the Lord.” The first person is used to maintain the first person address throughout.
96. Jeremiah 49:3 tn Or “you women of Rabbah”; Heb “daughters of Rabbah.” It is difficult to tell whether the word “daughters” is used here in the same sense that it has in v. 2 (see the translator’s note there) or in the literal sense of “daughters.” The former has been preferred because the cities themselves (e.g., Heshbon) are called to wail in the earlier part of the verse, and the term “daughters” has been used in the previous verse of the surrounding villages.
97. Jeremiah 49:3 tc Or “Run back and forth inside the walls of your towns.” Or “slash yourselves with gashes.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The Hebrew text reads, “run back and forth among the walls.” The word “run back and forth” is generally taken as a Hitpolel of a verb that means to “go about” in the Qal and to “go back and forth” in the Polel (cf. BDB 1002 s.v. I שׁוּט). The noun that follows in the Hebrew means “wall, hedge” and is quite commonly modified by the noun צֹאן (tsoʾn, “sheep”), referring to sheepfolds (cf., e.g., Num 32:36; 1 Sam 24:3). But the phrase “run back and forth among the sheepfolds” yields little meaning here. In Ps 89:40 (89:41 HT) the word “wall” is used in parallelism with fortified cities and refers to the walls of the city. That is the sense that is assumed in one of the alternate translations, with the words “of your towns” being supplied in the translation for clarification. However, that figure is a little odd in a context that speaks of mourning rites. Hence, some emend the word “walls” (גְּדֵרוֹת, g^ederot) to “gashes” (גְּדֻדוֹת, g^edudot), a word that has occurred in a similar context in Jer 48:37. That would involve only the common confusion of ר and ד. That is the reading adopted here, which fits the context nicely. The NRSV appears to go one step further, reading the verb as a Hitpolel from a root that is otherwise used only as a noun to mean “whip” or “scourge.” The NRSV has, “slash yourselves with whips,” which also makes excellent sense in the context but is not supported by any parallel use of the verb.
98. Jeremiah 49:3 sn Cf. Jer 48:7 and the study note there.
99. Jeremiah 49:4 tn Or “Why do you brag about your valleys, about the fruitfulness of your valleys.” The meaning of the first two lines of this verse are uncertain, primarily due to the ambiguity of the expression זָב עִמְקֵךְ (zav ʿimqekh). The form זָב (zav) is either a Qal perfect or Qal participle of a verb meaning flow. It is common in the expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” and in reference to the seminal discharge or discharge of blood that makes a man or woman unclean. BDB 264 s.v. זוּב Qal.2 sees it as an abbreviation of the idea of “flowing with milk and honey” that describes the fertility of Ammon’s valley. However, there are no other examples of such an ellipsis. Several modern English versions and commentaries have taken the word עֵמֶק (ʿemeq) not as a reference to a valley but as the homonym cited in the note on 47:5, referring in 49:4 to the flowing away of Ammon’s strength. That interpretation is followed here. Instead of explaining the plural ending on עֲמָקִים (ʿamaqim) as an enclitic ם (mem), as do others who follow this interpretation (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 325), the present translation understands the plural as a plural of amplification (cf. GKC 397-98 §124.e and compare the noun “might” in Isa 40:26).
100. Jeremiah 49:4 tn Heb “apostate daughter.” This same term is applied to Israel in Jer 31:22 but seems inappropriate here for Ammon because she had never been loyal to the Lord and so could not be called “apostate.” However, if it is used about her rebellion against the Lord’s servant, Nebuchadnezzar, it might be appropriate (cf. Jer 27:6, 8). Hence the term “rebellious” stands in the translation to represent it. The word “daughter” is again a personification of the land (cf. BDB 123 s.v. בַּת 3) and is here translated “people of Ammon” to make the referent easier for the modern reader to identify.
101. Jeremiah 49:5 tn Heb “The Lord Yahweh of Armies.” For an explanation of the rendering here and of the significance of this title, see the study note on 2:19.
102. Jeremiah 49:5 tn Heb “You will be scattered, each man [straight] before him.”
103. Jeremiah 49:6 tn See Jer 29:14; 30:3; and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.
104. Jeremiah 49:6 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
105. Jeremiah 49:7 tn Heb “Yahweh of Armies.” See the study note on 2:19 for this title.
106. Jeremiah 49:7 sn Edom was a kingdom to the south and east of Judah. Its borders varied over time, but basically Edom lay in the hundred-mile strip between the Gulf of Aqaba on the south and the Zered River on the north. It straddled the Arabah leading down from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba, having as its northern neighbors both Judah and Moab. A long history of hostility existed between Israel and Edom, making Edom one of the favorite subjects of the prophets’ oracles of judgment (cf., e.g., Isa 21:11-12; 34:5-15; 63:1-6; Amos 1:11-12; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Obad 1-16). Not much is known about Edomites at this time other than that they participated in the discussions in 594 b.c. regarding rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. According to Obadiah 10-16, they not only gloated over Judah’s downfall in 586 b.c. but participated in its plunder and killed some of those who were fleeing the country.
107. Jeremiah 49:7 sn Teman was the name of one of Esau’s descendants, the name of an Edomite clan, and the name of the district where they lived (Gen 36:11, 15, 34). Like the name Bozrah, it is used poetically for all of Edom (Jer 49:20; Ezek 25:13).
108. Jeremiah 49:7 tn Heb “Has counsel perished from men of understanding?”
109. Jeremiah 49:7 tn The meaning of this last word is based on the definitions given in KBL 668 s.v. II סָרַח Nif and HALOT 726 s.v. II סָרַח Nif, which give the nuance as “to be [or become] corrupt.” Instead, BDB 710 s.v. סָרַח Niph gives the nuance as “let loose (i.e., to be dismissed; to be gone),” deriving it from a verb used elsewhere of the overhanging of a curtain or a cliff.
110. Jeremiah 49:8 tn Heb “make deep to dwell.” The meaning of this phrase is debated. Some take it as a call for the Dedanites, who were not native to Edom, to go down from the heights of Edom and go back home (so G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 330). The majority of commentaries, however, take it as a call for the Dedanites to disassociate themselves from the Edomites and find remote hiding places to live in (so J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 718). For the options see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:375.
111. Jeremiah 49:8 sn Dedan. The Dedanites were an Arabian tribe who lived to the southeast of Edom. They are warned here to disassociate themselves from Edom because Edom is about to suffer disaster.
112. Jeremiah 49:8 tn Heb “For I will bring the disaster of Esau upon him, the time when I will punish him.” Esau was the progenitor of the tribes and nation of Edom (cf. Gen 36:1, 8, 9, 19).
113. Jeremiah 49:9 tn The translation of this verse is generally based on the parallels in Obad 5. There the second line has an interrogative ה (he) in front of it. The question can still be assumed because questions can be asked in Hebrew without a formal marker (cf. GKC 473 §150.a and BDB 519 s.v. לֹא 1.a[e], and compare usage in 2 Kgs 5:26).
114. Jeremiah 49:9 tn The tense and nuance of the verb translated “pillage” are different from those of the verb in Obad 5. There the verb is the imperfect of גָּנַב (ganav, “to steal”). Here the verb is the perfect of a verb meaning “ruin” or “spoil.” The English versions and commentaries, however, almost all render the verb here much the same way as in Obad 5. The nuance must mean they “ruin, destroy” (by stealing) only as much as they need (Heb “their sufficiency”), and the verb is used as metonymical substitute, effect for cause. The perfect must be some kind of a future perfect: “would they not have destroyed only…” The negative question is carried over by ellipsis from the preceding lines.
115. Jeremiah 49:11 tn Or “Their children and relatives will all be destroyed. And none of their neighbors will say, ‘Leave your orphans with me, and I’ll keep them alive. Your widows can trust in me.’” This latter interpretation is based on a reading in a couple of the Greek versions (Symmachus and Lucian) and is accepted by several modern commentaries (J. Bright, J. A. Thompson, W. L. Holladay, and G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers). However, the majority of modern English versions do not follow it, and, lacking any other Hebrew or versional evidence, it is probably an interpretation to deal with the mitigation of what seems a prophecy of utter annihilation. There have been other cases in Jeremiah where a universal affirmation (either positive or negative) has been modified in the verses that follow. The verb in the second line תִּבְטָחוּ (tivtakhu) is highly unusual; it is a second masculine plural form with a feminine plural subject. The form is explained in GKC 127-28 §47.k and 160-61 §60.a, n. 1 as a pausal substitution for the normal form תִּבְטַחְנָה (tivtakhnah), with a similar form in Ezek 37:7 cited as a parallel.
116. Jeremiah 49:12 tn The words “of my wrath” after “cup” in the first line and “from the cup of my wrath” in the last line are not in the text but are implicit in the metaphor. They have been supplied in the translation for clarity.sn The reference here is to the cup of God’s wrath that is connected with the punishment of war at the hands of the Babylonians, referred to already in Jer 25:15-29. Those who do not deserve to drink are the innocent victims of war who get swept away with the guilty. Edom was certainly not one of the innocent victims, as is clear from this judgment speech and those referred to in the study note on 49:7.
117. Jeremiah 49:13 tn Heb “I swear by myself.” See 22:5 and the study note there.
118. Jeremiah 49:13 sn Bozrah appears to have been the chief city in Edom, its capital city (see its parallelism with Edom in Isa 34:6; 63:1; Jer 49:22). The reference to “its towns” (translated here “all the towns around it”) could then be a reference to all the towns in Edom. It was located about twenty-five miles southeast of the southern end of the Dead Sea, apparently in the district of Teman (see the parallelism in Amos 1:12).
119. Jeremiah 49:13 tn See the study note on 24:9 for the rendering of this term.
120. Jeremiah 49:14 tn The words “I said” are not in the text, but it is generally agreed that the words that follow are Jeremiah’s. The translation supplies “I said” to make clear that the speaker has shifted from the Lord to Jeremiah.
121. Jeremiah 49:14 tn Heb “Rise up for battle.” The idea “against her” is implicit from the context and has been supplied in the translation for clarity.
122. Jeremiah 49:15 tn The words “The Lord says to Edom” are not in the text. The translation supplies them to mark the shift from the address of the messenger summoning the nations to prepare for battle against Edom. The Lord is clearly the speaker (see the end of v. 16), and Edom is clearly the addressee. Such sudden shifts are common in Hebrew poetry, particularly Hebrew prophecy, but are extremely disruptive to a modern reader trying to follow the argument of a passage. TEV adds “The Lord said” and then retains the third person throughout. The CEV puts all of vv. 14-16 in the second person and uses indirect discourse in v. 15.
123. Jeremiah 49:16 tn The meaning of this feminine Hebrew noun (תִּפְלֶצֶת, tifletset) is uncertain because it occurs only here. However, it is related to a verb root referring to the shaking of pillars (of the earth; Job 9:6) and to a noun (מִפְלֶצֶת, mifletset) denoting “horror” or “shuddering” (Job 21:6; Isa 21:4; Ezek 7:18; Ps 55:6). This is the nuance accepted by BDB, KBL, HAL and a majority of the modern English versions. The suffix is an objective genitive. The following masculine singular verb suggests that the text here (הִשִּׁיא אֹתָךְ, hishiʾ ʾotakh) is in error for feminine הִשִּׁיאָתָךְ (hishiʾatakh; so G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 327, n. 16.a).
124. Jeremiah 49:16 tn The Hebrew text of the first four lines reads, “Your terror [= the terror you inspire] has deceived you, [and] the arrogance of your heart, you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, who occupy the heights of the hill.” The sentence is broken up and restructured to better conform with English style.
125. Jeremiah 49:17 sn This verse is very similar to Jer 19:8, where the same judgment is pronounced on Jerusalem. For the meaning of some of the terms here (“hiss out their scorn” and “all the disasters that have happened to it”), see the notes on that verse.
126. Jeremiah 49:19 tn See the study note on Jer 12:5 for the rendering of this term.
127. Jeremiah 49:19 tn “The pasture-ground on the everflowing river,” according to KBL 42 s.v. I אֵיתָן 1. The “everflowing river” refers to the Jordan.
128. Jeremiah 49:19 tn Heb “Behold, as a lion comes up from the thicket of the Jordan into the pastureland of everflowing water, so [reading כֵּן (ken) for כִּי (ki); or “indeed” (reading כִּי as an asseverative particle with J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 719, n. 6)] I will suddenly chase him [Edom] from upon it [the land].” The sentence has been restructured to better conform with contemporary English style, and the significance of the simile drawn from the comparison has been spelled out for the sake of clarity. The form אַרְגִּיעָה (ʾargiʿah) is functioning here as an adverbial modifier in a verbal hendiadys (cf. GKC 386 §120.g).
129. Jeremiah 49:19 tn For the use of the interrogative מִי (mi) in the sense of “whoever” and functioning like an adjective, see BDB 567 s.v. מִי g and compare the usage in Prov 9:4, 16.
130. Jeremiah 49:19 tn For this verb in the sense of “arraign” or “call before the bar of justice,” compare Job 9:19 and see BDB 417 s.v. יָעַד Hiph.
131. Jeremiah 49:19 tn The interrogative מִי (mi) is rendered “there is no one” in each of the last three occurrences in this verse because it is used in a rhetorical question that expects the answer “no one” or “none.” It is, according to BDB 566 s.v. מִי f(c), equivalent to a rhetorical negative.
132. Jeremiah 49:19 tn In the Book of Jeremiah “shepherd” (רֹעֶה, roʿeh) often refers metaphorically to the ruler or leader (cf. BDB 945 s.v. I רָעָה Qal.1.d(2) and compare usage, e.g., in Jer 2:8; 23:1).
133. Jeremiah 49:20 tn Heb “Therefore, listen to the plan of the Lord that he has planned against Edom, and the purposes that he has purposed against…” The first person has again been adopted in the translation to avoid the shift from the first person address in v. 19 to the third person in v. 20, a shift that is common in Hebrew poetry, particularly Hebrew prophecy, but uncommon in contemporary English literature.
134. Jeremiah 49:20 sn Teman here appears to be a poetic equivalent for Edom in a common figure of speech for Hebrew poetry where the part is put for the whole. “The people of Teman” is thus equivalent to all the people of Edom.
135. Jeremiah 49:20 tn Heb “They will surely drag them off, namely the young ones of the flock. He will devastate their habitation [or “their sheepfold”] on account of them.” The figure of the lion among the flock of sheep appears to be carried on here, where the people and their homeland are referred to as a flock and their sheepfold. It is hard, however, to carry the figure over here into the translation, so the figures have been interpreted instead. Both of these last two sentences are introduced by a formula that indicates a strong affirmative oath (i.e., they are introduced by אִם לֹא [ʾim loʾ; cf. BDB 50 s.v. אִם 1.b(2)]). The subject of the verb “they will drag them off” is the indefinite third plural, which may be taken as a passive in English (cf. GKC 460 §144.g). The subject of the last line, which is the Lord, has been rendered in the first person for stylistic reasons (see the translator’s note on the beginning of the verse).
136. Jeremiah 49:21 tn Heb “At the sound of their downfall the earth will quake.” However, as in many other places, “earth” here metonymically stands for the inhabitants or people of the earth (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 578-79, and compare usage in 2 Sam 15:23 and Ps 66:4).
137. Jeremiah 49:21 tn Heb “the Red Sea,” of which the Gulf of Aqaba formed the northeastern arm. The land of Edom once reached this far according to 1 Kgs 9:26.
138. Jeremiah 49:22 sn Cf. Jer 48:40-41 for a similar prophecy about Moab. The parallelism here suggests that Bozrah, like Teman in v. 20, is a poetic equivalent for Edom.
139. Jeremiah 49:23 tn The words “The Lord spoke” and “he said” are not in the text. There is only a title here: “Concerning Damascus.” However, something needs to be supplied to show that these are the Lord’s words of judgment (cf. “oracle of the Lord” in v. 26 and “I” in v. 27). These words have been supplied in the translation for clarity and consistency with the introduction to the other judgment speeches.
140. Jeremiah 49:23 sn Damascus is a city in Syria, located below the eastern slopes of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. It was the capital of the Aramean state, which was in constant hostility with Israel from the time of David until its destruction by the Assyrians in 732 b.c. At various times it was allied with the Aramean state of Hamath, which was farther north. Contingents from these Aramean states were involved in harassing Judah and Jerusalem in 598 b.c. when Jehoiakim rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2), but little is heard about them in the rest of the book of Jeremiah or in the history of this period.
141. Jeremiah 49:23 tn Heb “Hamath and Arpad.” There is no word for people in the text. The cities are being personified. However, since it is really the people who are involved, the present translation supplies the words “people of” both here and in v. 24 to aid the reader. The verbs in vv. 23-25 are all to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, the tense of the Hebrew verb that views an action as though it were as good as done. The verbs are clearly future in vv. 26-27, which begin with a “therefore.”sn Hamath was a city on the Orontes River about 110 miles (183 km) north of Damascus. Arpad was a city 95 miles (158 km) farther north from there. These two cities were in the path of the northern descent of the kings of Assyria and Babylonia and had been conquered earlier under the Assyrian kings (Isa 10:9; 36:19; 37:13). The apparent reference here is to their terror and loss of courage when they hear the news that Nebuchadnezzar’s armies are on the move toward them and Damascus. They would have been in the path of Nebuchadnezzar as he chased Necho south after the battle of Carchemish.
142. Jeremiah 49:23 tc The meaning of this verse is very uncertain. The Hebrew text apparently reads, “Hamath and Arpad are dismayed. They melt away because they have heard bad news. Anxiety is in the sea; it [the sea] cannot be quiet.” Many commentaries and English versions redivide the verse, have “like the sea” for “in the sea” (כַּיָּם [kayyam] for בַּיָּם [bayyam]), and read the feminine singular noun דְּאָגָה (d^eʾagah) as though it were the third masculine plural verb דָּאֲגוּ (daʾagu): “They are troubled like the sea.” The translation follows the emendation proposed in BHS and accepted by a number of commentaries (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 333; J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 723, n. 1). That emendation involves reading נָמֹג לִבָּם מִדְּאָגָה (namog libbam midd^eʾagah) instead of נָמֹגוּ בַּיָּם דְּאָגָה (namogu bayyam d^eʾagah). The translation also involves a double reading of “heart,” for the sake of English style, once in the sense of courage (BDB 525 s.v. לֵב 10), because that is the nuance that best fits “melts” in the English idiom, and once in the more general sense of hearts as the seat of fears, anxieties, and worries. The double translation is a concession to English style.
143. Jeremiah 49:25 tn Heb “city of praise.”
144. Jeremiah 49:25 tn Heb “city of joy.”
145. Jeremiah 49:25 tc Or “Why has that famous city not been abandoned, that city I once took delight in?” The translation follows the majority of modern commentaries in understanding לֹא (loʾ, “not”) before “abandoned” as a misunderstanding of the emphatic ל (lamed; so J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 723, n. 3, and J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 333, n. c; see also IBHS 211-12 §11.2.10i and HALOT 485-86 s.v. II לְ for the phenomenon). The particle is missing from the Vulgate. The translation also follows the versions in omitting the suffix on the word “joy” that is found in the Hebrew text (see BHS note b for a listing of the versions). This gives a better connection with the preceding and the following verse than the alternate translation.
146. Jeremiah 49:26 tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of Armies.” For this title for God see the study note on 2:19.
147. Jeremiah 49:27 sn Ben Hadad was a common name borne by a number of the kings of Damascus, e.g., one during the time of Asa around 900 b.c. (cf. 1 Kgs 15:18-20), one a little later during the time of Omri and Ahab around 850 (1 Kgs 20), and one during the time of Jehoash about 800 (2 Kgs 13:24-25).
148. Jeremiah 49:28 sn Kedar appears to refer to an Arabic tribe of nomads descended from Ishmael (Gen 25:13). They are associated here with the people who live in the eastern desert (Heb “the children of the east”; בְּנֵי קֶדֶם, b^ene qedem). In Isa 21:16 they are associated with the Temanites and the Dedanites, Arabic tribes in the north Arabian desert. They were sheep breeders (Isa 60:7) who lived in tents (Ps 120:5) and unwalled villages (Isa 42:11). According to Assyrian records they clashed with Assyria from the time of Shalmaneser in 850 until the time of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in the late seventh century. According to the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar defeated them in 599 b.c.
149. Jeremiah 49:28 sn Hazor. Nothing is know about this Hazor other than what is said here in vv. 28, 30, 33. They appear to be nomadic tent dwellers, too, who had a loose association with the Kedarites.
150. Jeremiah 49:28 tn The words “Army of Babylon” are not in the Hebrew text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
151. Jeremiah 49:28 sn Heb “the children of the east.” Nothing much is known about them other than their association with the Midianites and Amalekites in their attack on Israel in the time of Gideon (Judg 6:3, 33) and the fact that God would let tribes from the eastern desert capture Moab and Ammon in the future (Ezek 25:4, 10). Midian and Amalek were considered to be located in the region in north Arabia east of Ezion Geber. That would put them in the same general locality as the region of Kedar. The parallelism here suggests that they are the same as the people of Kedar. The words here are apparently addressed to the armies of Nebuchadnezzar.
152. Jeremiah 49:29 tn Or “Let their tents…be taken….Let their tent…be carried…. Let people shout….”
153. Jeremiah 49:29 sn This expression is a favorite theme in the book of Jeremiah. It describes the terrors of war awaiting the people of Judah and Jerusalem (6:25), the Egyptians at Carchemish (46:5), and here the Kedarites.
154. Jeremiah 49:30 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
155. Jeremiah 49:30 tn Heb “Make deep to dwell.” See Jer 49:8 and the translator’s note there. The use of this same phrase here argues against the alternative there of going down from a height and going back home.
156. Jeremiah 49:30 tn Heb “has counseled a counsel against you, has planned a plan against you.”
157. Jeremiah 49:31 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
158. Jeremiah 49:31 tn The words “Army of Babylon” are not in the text but are implicit from the context. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
159. Jeremiah 49:31 tn Heb “no gates and no bar,” i.e., “that lives securely without gates or bars.” The phrase is used by the figure of species for genus (synecdoche) to refer to the fact that they have no defenses, i.e., no walls, gates, or bars on the gates. The figure has been interpreted in the translation for the benefit of the average reader.
160. Jeremiah 49:32 tn See the translator’s note at Jer 9:26 and compare the usage in 9:26 and 25:23.
161. Jeremiah 49:32 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
162. Jeremiah 49:33 sn Cf. Jer 9:11.
163. Jeremiah 49:33 sn Cf. Jer 49:18 and 50:40, where the same thing is said about Edom and Babylon.
164. Jeremiah 49:34 tn Heb “that which was.”
165. Jeremiah 49:34 sn Elam was a country on the eastern side of the Tigris River in what is now southwestern Iran. Its capital city was Susa. It was destroyed in 640 b.c. by Ashurbanipal after a long period of conflict with the Assyrian kings. Babylonian records suggest that Elam regained its independence shortly thereafter, perhaps as early as 625 b.c., and it was involved in the fall of Assyria in 612 b.c. If the date refers to the first year of Zedekiah’s rule (597 b.c.), this prophecy appears to be later than the previous ones (cf. the study notes on 46:2 and 47:1).
166. Jeremiah 49:34 tn Or “In the beginning of the reign.” For a discussion of the usage of the terms here see the translator’s note on 28:1. If this refers to the accession year, the dating would be 598/97 b.c.
167. Jeremiah 49:35 tn Heb “I will break the bow of Elam, the chief source of their might.” The phrase does not mean that God will break literal bows or that he will destroy their weapons (synecdoche of species for genus) or their military power (so Hos 1:5). Because of the parallelism, the “bow” here stands for the archers who wielded the bow and were the strongest force (or chief contingent) in their military.
168. Jeremiah 49:36 tn Or more simply, “I will bring enemies against Elam from every direction. / And I will scatter the people of Elam to the four winds. // There won’t be any nation / where the refugees of Elam will not go.” Or more literally, “I will bring the four winds against Elam / from the four quarters of heaven. / I will scatter….” However, the winds are not to be understood literally here. God isn’t going to “blow the Elamites” out of Elam with natural forces. The winds must figuratively represent enemy forces that God will use to drive them out. Translating literally would be misleading at this point.
169. Jeremiah 49:37 tn Heb “I will bring disaster upon them, even my fierce anger.”
170. Jeremiah 49:37 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
171. Jeremiah 49:37 tn Heb “I will send the sword after them.”
172. Jeremiah 49:38 tn Or “I will sit in judgment over Elam”; Heb “I will set up my throne in Elam.” Commentators are divided over whether this refers to a king sitting in judgment over his captured enemies or whether it refers to his formally establishing his rule over the country. Those who argue for the former idea point to the supposed parallels in 1:15 (which the present translation understands not to refer to this but to setting up siege) and 43:8-13. The parallelism in the verse here, however, argues that it refers to the Lord taking over the reins of government by destroying the former leaders.
173. Jeremiah 49:38 tn Heb “I will destroy king and leaders from there.”
174. Jeremiah 49:38 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
175. Jeremiah 49:39 tn See Jer 29:14; 30:3; and the translator’s note on 29:14 for the idiom used here.sn See a similar note on the reversal of Moab’s fortunes in Jer 48:47; compare also 46:26 for a future restoration of Egypt.