Jeremiah 32:5-7

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Jeremiah 32:5 tn This is the verb (פָּקַד, paqad) that has been met with several times in the book of Jeremiah, most often in the ominous sense of “punish” (e.g., 6:15; 11:22; 23:24), but also in the good sense of “resume concern for” (e.g., 27:22; 29:10). Here it is obviously in the ominous sense, referring to his imprisonment and ultimate death (52:11).sn Cf. Jer 34:2-3 for this same prophecy. The incident in Jer 34:1-7 appears to be earlier than this one. Here Jeremiah is confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse; there he appears to have freedom of movement.
2. Jeremiah 32:5 tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
3. Jeremiah 32:5 sn The pronouns are plural here, referring to the people of Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah had counseled that they surrender (cf. 27:12; 21:8-10) because they could not succeed against the Babylonian army, even under the most favorable circumstances (37:3-10).
4. Jeremiah 32:5 tn Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on 21:4 for further explanation.
5. Jeremiah 32:6 sn This verse resumes the narrative introduction in v. 1, which was interrupted by the long parenthetical note about historical background. There is again some disjunction in the narrative (compare the translator’s notes on 27:2 and 28:1). What was begun as a biographical (third person) narrative turns into an autobiographical (first person) narrative until v. 26, where the third person is again resumed. Again this betrays the hand of the narrator, Baruch.
6. Jeremiah 32:7 tn Heb “your right.” The term מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) here and in v. 8 refers to legal entitlement to the option to purchase a property (BDB 1049 s.v. מִשְׁפָּט 5; cf. Deut 21:17).
7. Jeremiah 32:7 sn Underlying this request are the laws of redemption of property spelled out in Lev 25:25-34 and illustrated in Ruth 4:3-4. Under these laws, if a property owner became impoverished and had to sell his land, the nearest male relative had the right and duty to buy it so that it would not pass out of the use of the extended family. The land, however, would not actually belong to Jeremiah because in the Year of Jubilee it reverted to its original owner. All Jeremiah was actually buying was the right to use it (Lev 25:13-17). Buying the field, thus, did not make any sense (thus Jeremiah’s complaint in v. 25) other than the fact that the Lord intended to use Jeremiah’s act as a symbol of a restored future in the land.