Ch. Jeremiah 32:1-44. Jeremiah redeems a piece of property belonging to his family. The significance of his act

A considerable part of this ch. is believed by most recent commentators to be a later addition to the historical nucleus of the narrative as found in Jeremiah 32:6-15. Thus we may consider the following vv. as more or less probably accretions, Jeremiah 32:1-5 (introductory), 17–23 (the earlier part of Jeremiah’s prayer), 28–35 (Jehovah’s denunciation of the people’s idolatry). See the notes on these passages.

The ch. may be summarized as follows. (i) Jeremiah 32:1-5. Introductory account of the circumstances under which the events of the ch. occurred. (ii) Jeremiah 32:6-15. The prophet is invited by his kinsman, Hanamel, to exercise his right as next of kin to buy his field at Anathoth, and recognises it as his duty to do so, having already received a Divine communication announcing the object of his kinsman’s coming. He executes the purchase with due legal formalities, and charges Baruch to secure the preservation of the deeds; inasmuch as he has Jehovah’s promise that, in spite of present circumstances, land tenure shall again become secure. (iii) Jeremiah 32:16-27. The prophet addresses Jehovah, the omnipotent, the merciful, the all-knowing, the Deliverer and Preserver of His people in past times, who now for their disobedience are in imminent danger from the Chaldaeans. Can it be that normal security will ever return? The Lord answers that nothing is too hard for Him. (iv) Jeremiah 32:28-35. The Lord enumerates the people’s sins, idolatry and human sacrifices, and declares that the city shall be sacked as requital for its polluting practices. (v) Jeremiah 32:36-44. Nevertheless, the people shall be brought back from Babylon, and enjoy Jehovah’s favour, and secure possession of their land.

1. Jeremiah’s own circumstances and those of the State are given first with great particularity in order that it may be brought out that it is in spite of the gloomiest appearances that his faith in the future is thus firm.

the tenth year of Zedekiah] The siege had commenced in his ninth year (Jeremiah 39:1), but the Chaldaeans, hearing that an Egyptian army was approaching, had departed for a time (Jeremiah 37:5). Jeremiah took advantage of this to leave Jerusalem, in order to visit his property at Anathoth, was charged with falling away to the Chaldaeans, and in spite of his denial was imprisoned (Jeremiah 37:11-15). The stringency with which he was at first treated was after a while relaxed on his petitioning the king to that effect (Jeremiah 37:20, Jeremiah 38:28). He was still, however, “shut up in the court of the guard” (Jeremiah 32:2). This part of the narrative therefore is somewhat subsequent in date to those incidents above referred to which are recounted later.

1–5. Introductory account of the historical position.

2. the court of the guard] not meaning the place where a guard, or body of men, were posted but “a part of the court surrounding the Palace railed off to guard prisoners in, whom it was not desired to throw into the common dungeon” (Dr. ad loc.; see also his note p. 367). Cp. Nehemiah 3:25; Nehemiah 12:39.

3. For] Gi. and Co. supported by LXX render Where, to which Du. also inclines. Not so Dr.

3–5. These vv. form a parenthetical explanation, so that Jeremiah 32:6 is to be connected immediately in sense with Jeremiah 32:2.

4. This v. occurs again in almost the same words at ch. Jeremiah 34:3, where see note.

5. until I visit him] The words are in themselves ambiguous and they with the rest of the v. are lacking in the LXX.

6–15. See introd. summary to the section.

7. Hanamel the son of Shallum thine uncle] The distinct statement in Jeremiah 32:8-9 however that Hanamel was Jeremiah’s first cousin makes it necessary to refer the word uncle of this v. to Shallum, and to consider the word for son in Jeremiah 32:12 to have been accidentally omitted by a Heb. copyist.

Anathoth] See Intr. p. x.

the right of redemption is thine to buy it] According to the law, as formulated in Leviticus 25:24 f.; Ruth 4:6, if land was, or was about to be, sold, the nearest of kin, in this case Jeremiah, had a right to purchase or re-purchase it as the case might be, so that it should not pass from one family to another. For the system of land tenure (although it is doubtful whether the laws regulating it were ever reduced to practice) see HDB. IV. 325 a.

8. which … Benjamin] absent from LXX and under the circumstances obviously a superfluity.

the right of inheritance is thine] We infer that Hanamel had no children.

9. that was in Anathoth] Omit with LXX.

weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver] The shekel weighed about 220 of our grains. The amount may appear small (about £2. 6s. 6d. of our money), but we do not know the size of the field. It is clear from the aim of the whole transaction that it was a fair price in ordinary times. We must remember also that in those days the purchasing power of silver was much greater. Araunah’s threshing floor, oxen, and implements were bought at a time of great prosperity for fifty shekels (2 Samuel 24:24).

10. And I subscribed the deed] The following will explain the particulars of Jeremiah’s action as given here and in the next vv. “Contracts stamped upon clay tablets have been found in Babylonia, enclosed in an envelope of clay, on the outside of which an exact duplicate of the contract was impressed (see an illustration in Maspero, The Dawn of Civilization, p. 732): if in course of time any disagreement arose, and it was suspected that the outside text had been tampered with, the envelope was broken in the presence of witnesses to see if the inside text agreed with it or not. Earthen jars containing such duplicate contracts have been excavated at Nippur (Peters, Nippur; II. 198).” Dr. ad loc. See further in Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters, pp. 10 f.

sealed it] not in our sense of adding a seal to a signature (“under one’s hand and seal”), but sealed up, closed securely.

11. both that which was sealed … and that which was open] but not implying two documents to be kept separate. They were the two parts of a whole. See on Jeremiah 32:10.

according to the law and custom] better, with mg. containing the terms and conditions. The former Dr. however renders the injunction, viz. to the seller, bidding him hand over the property, while the latter are the conditions on which it is purchased.

12. Baruch] the first mention of the prophet’s faithful amanuensis.

mine uncle’s son] See on Jeremiah 32:7. From this v. together with ch. Jeremiah 51:59 we gather that Seraiah, chief chamberlain to Zedekiah, was Baruch’s brother.

in the court of the guard] See on Jeremiah 32:2.

15. “It is not the only time in the history of States and Churches that he who has been denounced as a deserter and traitor [see note on the tenth year of Zedekiah, Jeremiah 32:1] becomes in the last extremity the best comforter and counsellor. Demosthenes, who had warned his fellow countrymen in his earlier days against their excessive confidence, in his later days was the only man who could reassure their excessive despondency. Stanley’s J. Ch. II. 465.

For an illustration of the above transaction from Roman history see Intr. p. xviii.

16. I prayed unto the Lord] Jeremiah still felt a difficulty in reconciling the obvious import of the transaction which he had just carried out at the Lord’s command with that overthrow which at the command of the same Lord he had so frequently announced to the guilty city. This difficulty he expresses in Jeremiah 32:24 f. which (against Du.), unlike the earlier portion of the invocation, are in all probability genuine. Jeremiah 32:17-23 (see introd. notes) (a) are to a large extent made up of expressions found elsewhere in this Book and in Deut., (b) bear a marked resemblance to Nehemiah 9:5-38, and (c) in their elaboration are quite out of proportion to the brevity of the prayer that succeeds them. The passage, however, is in itself a fine composition, setting forth in order Jehovah’s attributes in general (Jeremiah 32:17-19), His dealings with His people in particular (Jeremiah 32:20-22), and Israel’s sinfulness and its penalty (Jeremiah 32:23).

16–27. See introd. summary to the section.

17. thy stretched out arm] Here, as in Jeremiah 27:5, referring to creation. Elsewhere the expression has to do with Jehovah’s acts of deliverance (e.g. Jeremiah 32:21; Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 4:34). Cp. the similar phrase used of punishment in Jeremiah 21:5.

hard] lit. as mg. wonderful. Cp. Genesis 18:14.

18. recompensest the iniquity of the fathers] an allusion to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9). See on Jeremiah 31:29.

into the bosom] The Eastern garment formed at the bosom numerous folds, which served as a pocket. Cp. Ruth 3:15; Proverbs 17:23, and for the phrase itself Psalm 79:12; Isaiah 65:6.

20. which didst set] Cp. Deuteronomy 6:22; Nehemiah 9:10.

even unto this day] a difficult expression. Perhaps we should understand before these words, and hast continued them (signs and wonders).

21. Almost the same as Deuteronomy 26:8. For the terror caused to neighbouring nations by the miracles attendant upon the Exodus cp. Exodus 15:14; Deuteronomy 2:25; Deuteronomy 4:34.

22. a land flowing with milk and honey] See Jeremiah 11:5, and for the whole v. cp. Nehemiah 9:22-35.

24. the mounts] See on ch. Jeremiah 6:6.

are come unto the city] The enemy have pushed them forward so that they already reach to the walls.

is given] The thing is virtually done, there being a complete blockade, and no hope of rescue for the starving population within.

25. The two things, the state of the city and God’s command, are placed side by side that their apparent inconsistency may be most strikingly shewn.

26–35. See introd. summary to the section. The vv. after 27, purporting to give the Lord’s reply to Jeremiah’s question as to the fitness of his action in purchasing the field, bear fully the marks of a later addition. Their substance indeed is quite in harmony with other prophecies in the Book, and they consist to a large extent of Jeremianic expressions. On the other hand, they are quite unnatural in this context. See further in note on Jeremiah 32:36-44.

28. thus saith the Lord] A formula only suitable to introduce an utterance by the prophet himself is here assigned to the Divine speaker.

30. from their youth] from their earliest times; cp. Hosea 11:1. In Jeremiah 2:2 the Exodus time is spoken of as the youth of Israel.

for the children … the Lord] omitted in LXX and probably a gloss, for otherwise why should its reference, in spite of the preceding clause, be confined to the Northern tribes? “Israel” can hardly be used in the wide and restricted senses in the same v.

31. from the day that they built it] a somewhat loose expression (as it existed in Canaanitish times; see 2 Samuel 5:6 ff.) for its earliest days as an Israelitish city.

32, 33. These vv. are akin to Jeremiah 2:26 f., Jeremiah 7:13; Jeremiah 7:25, Jeremiah 11:17, Jeremiah 25:3 f.

33. though I taught them, etc.] This verb and the two participles following are infinitives in the Heb. (as in ch. Jeremiah 7:9, where see note), and there was a teaching of them, etc.

34, 35. See on Jeremiah 7:30-31, in the main identical with these vv. In addition it is to be remarked that here Baal and Molech are identified. Molech is probably only a variant or distortion of the word melech, king, in order to express contempt or abhorrence by giving to the consonants the vowels of bosheth, shame (cp. Ishbosheth, 2 Samuel 2:8, for Eshbaal, 1 Chronicles 8:33). Apparently this title of king “was in use among the Phoenicians and especially at Byblus; and Philo of Byblus writes of the god of his city, whom he calls Cronus, that he sacrificed his own son. Of this deity Diodorus says, ‘The Carthaginians had a brasen statue of Cronus, with hands extended upwards, but with the palms bent downwards towards the earth, so that the child who was laid upon them rolled into a pit of fire below.’ Now since Cronus was a god of the Underworld where ‘no rays of the sun penetrated and no wind blew’ (Homer, Iliad 8:479 ff.), i.e. was a god of the Dead, it is quite probable that the deity whom the Semites called Melech was also a god of the Shades. Such a god would naturally be supposed to have the desire of peopling his realm, and human sacrifices would seem to be acceptable to him. Thus Melech seems to be the designation of a deity like the Babylonian Nergal (2 Kings 17:30), the god of pestilence, war, and the country of the dead.” Barnes on 1 Kings 11:5 C. B.

36. thus saith the Lord] See on Jeremiah 32:27.

ye say] better, with LXX, thou (Jeremiah) sayest, referring to his words in Jeremiah 32:24. The MT. may have arisen from the influence of Jeremiah 33:10.

36–44. See introd. summary to the section. There seems much more to be said for the genuineness of this group of vv. in the main than for that of the previous one, though here too (see note introducing the section) there is far from a general acceptance of them by commentators. They have comparatively little in common with other passages as regards phraseology, and they are more relevant to the question which Jeremiah had asked (Jeremiah 32:24 f.). Jeremiah 32:37 (which speaks as though a general dispersion had already taken place) and Jeremiah 32:43 (referring to the land as already desolate) are perhaps the least defensible parts of the subsection.

39. that they may fear me for ever … after them] The words seem suggested by those of Deuteronomy 4:10; Deuteronomy 6:24.

40. that they shall not depart] better, that it turn not away.

41. I will plant them] See on Jeremiah 24:6.

44. in the land of Benjamin, etc.] See on Jeremiah 17:26.