¹ sn The fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign proved very significant in Jeremiah's prophecies. It was in that same year that he issued the prophecies against the foreign nations recorded in Jer 25 (and probably the prophecies recorded here in Jer 46-51). In that year he had Baruch record and read to the people gathered in the temple all the prophecies he had uttered against Judah and Jerusalem up to that point, in the hopes that they would repent and the nation would be spared. The fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 b.c.) marked a significant shift in the balance of power in Palestine. With the defeat of Necho at Carchemish in that year, the area came under the control of Nebuchadnezzar, and Judah and the surrounding nations had two options, either submit to Babylon and pay tribute, or suffer the consequences of death in war or exile in Babylon for failure to submit.

² tn The repetition of the adverb “there” in the translation of vv. 14 and 16 is to draw attention to the rhetorical emphasis on the locale of Egypt in the original text of both v. 14 and v. 16. In v. 14 they say, “To the land of Egypt we will go…, and there we will live.” In v. 16 God says, “Wars…there will catch up with you…the hunger…there will follow after you…, and there you will die.” God rhetorically denies their focus on Egypt as a place of safety and of relative prosperity. That can only be found in Judah under the protective presence of the Lord (vv. 10-12).

² sn This refers at the very least to the promises of Jer 23:5-6, 7-8; 30:3; 31:27, 31, where the same formula, “The time will certainly come” (Heb “Behold, the days are coming”), occurs. Reference may also be to the promises through the earlier prophets of what is alluded to here, i.e., restoration of Israel and Judah under a Davidic ruler and revival of the offerings (cf. Hos 1:10-11; 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-12; Isa 11:1-5, 10-16; Jer 30:9, 21 for the former, and Jer 31:14; 33:11 for the latter).

² sn Ordinarily this prerogative was confined to the priests and the Levites and even then under strict regulations (cf., e.g., Num 8:19; 16:10; Lev 16:10; 21:17; 22:3). Uzziah, king of Judah, violated this and suffered leprosy for having done so (2 Chr 26:16-20). It is clear, however, that both David and Solomon on occasion exercised priestly functions in the presence of the ark or the altar, which it was normally lawful for only the priests to approach (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 6:13-14; 1 Kgs 8:22, 54-55). The invited approach here is probably not for normal prerogatives of offering sacrifice or burning incense but for access to God’s special presence at special times with the purpose of consultation.

⁴ sn As the nations of Israel and Judah were united in their sin and suffered the same fate—that of exile and dispersion—(cf. Jer 3:8; 5:11; 11:10, 17), so they will ultimately be regathered from the nations and rejoined under one king, a descendant of David; and will regain possession of their ancestral lands. The prophets of both the eighth and seventh century looked forward to this ideal (see, e.g., Hos 1:11 (2:2 HT); Isa 11:11-13; Jer 23:5-6; 30:3; 33:7; Ezek 37:15-22). This has already been anticipated in Jer 3:18.

¹ tc Or “and all the kings of people of mixed origin who.” The Greek version gives evidence of having read the term only once; it refers to the “people of mixed origin” without reference to the kings of Arabia. While the term translated “people of mixed origin” seems appropriate in the context of a group of foreigners within a larger entity (e.g., Israel in Exod 12:38 and Neh 13:3; Egypt in Jer 50:37), it seems odd to speak of them as a separate entity under their own kings. The presence of the phrase in the Hebrew text and the other versions dependent upon it can be explained as a case of dittography.

⁴ sn What is being expressed here is the belief in the inviolability of Zion/Jerusalem carried to its extreme. Signal deliverances of Jerusalem, such as those experienced under Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20) and Hezekiah (Isa 37:36-37), in the context of promises to protect it (Isa 31:4-5; 37:33-35; 38:6) led to a belief that Zion was unconquerable. This belief found expression in several of Israel’s psalms (Pss 46, 48, 76) and led to the mistaken assumption that God would protect it regardless of how the people treated God or one another. Micah and Jeremiah both deny that (cf. Mic 3:8-12; Jer 21:13-14).

⁴ sn There is biting sarcasm involved in the use of the figures here. The law was inscribed on the tablets of stone by the “finger” of God (Exod 31:18; 32:16). Later under the new covenant it would be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). Blood was to be applied to the horns of the altar in offering the sin offering (cf., e.g., Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 20) and on the bronze altar to cleanse it from sin on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:18). Here their sins are engraved (permanently written; cf. Job 19:24) on their hearts (i.e., control their thoughts and actions) and on their altars (permanently polluting them).

² tn The meaning of this line is debated. Some understand it to mean, “she has breathed out her life” (cf., e.g., BDB 656 s.v. נָפַח and 656 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 1.c). However, as several commentaries have noted (e.g., W. McKane, Jeremiah [ICC], 1:341; J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 109), it makes little sense to talk about her suffering shame and embarrassment if she has breathed her last. Both the Greek and Latin versions understand “soul” not as the object but as the subject, with the idea being that of fainting under despair. This viewpoint seems likely in light of the parallelism. Bright suggests that the phrase means either, “she gasped out her breath” or, “her throat gasped.” The former is more probable. One might also translate, “she fainted dead away,” but that idiom might not be familiar to all readers.

¹ tn It would be a mistake to translate this word as “stranger.” This word (גֵּר, ger) refers to a resident alien or resident foreigner who stays in a country not his own. The status of a (גֵּר, ger) varied by country. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, but the resident foreigner in Israel was under the same laws (civil and religious) as the Israelite and could worship the Lord as part of the covenant community. For more on the ger (גֵּר), see the notes at Exod 12:19; Lev 19:3; Deut 23:7; 29:11. Jeremiah’s complaint here is particularly bold, reversing the image of Lev 25:23 where the Lord owns the land and the Israelites are “resident foreigners” (ger; גֵּר). For further information on the status of “resident foreigners” see IDB 4:397-99 s.v. “Sojourner.”

² sn This passage is carefully structured and placed to contrast the Lord, who is living and eternal (v. 10) and made the heavens and earth (v. 12), with the idols, who did not and will disappear. It also has a very careful, concentric structure in the original text where “the gods” is balanced by “these,” “heavens” by “from under the heavens,” and “the earth” by “from the earth.” In the very center, “did not make” is balanced and contrasted by “will disappear.” The structure is further reinforced by the sound play/wordplay between “did not make” (Aram לָא עֲבַדוּ [laʾ ʿavadu]) and “will disappear” (Aram יֵאבַדוּ [yeʾvadu]). This is the rhetorical climax of Jeremiah’s sarcastic attack on the folly of idolatry.

³ sn Some see an allusion to Gen 3:14 (note “you will eat dirt”). The point would be that even in this new era the snake (often taken as a symbol of Satan) remains under God’s curse. However, it is unlikely that such an allusion exists. Even if there is an echo of Gen 3:14, the primary allusion is to 11:8, where snakes are pictured as no longer dangerous. They will no longer attack other living creatures, but will be content to crawl along the ground. (The statement “you will eat dirt” in Gen 3:14 means “you will crawl on the ground.” In the same way the statement “dirt will be its food” in Isa 65:25 means “it will crawl on the ground.”)

⁴ tn The Hebrew noun אַרְגָּמָן (ʾargaman, “purple fabric”) is a loanword from Hittite argaman “tribute,” which is reflected in Akkadian argamannu “purple” (also “tribute” under Hittite influence), Ugaritic argmn “tax, purple,” and Aramaic argwn “purple” (HALOT 84 s.v. אַרְגָּמָן). The Hebrew term refers to wool dyed with red purple (BRL2 153; HALOT 84). It is used in reference to purple threads (Exod 35:25; 39:3; Esth 1:9) or purple cloth (Num 4:13; Judg 8:26; Esth 8:15; Prov 31:22; Jer 10:9; Song 3:10). Purple cloth and fabrics were costly (Ezek 27:7, 16) and were commonly worn by kings as a mark of their royal position (Judg 8:26). Thus, this was a sedan-chair fit for a king. KJV and NIV render it simply as “purple,” NASB as “purple fabric,” and NJPS “purple wool.”

³ tn It is difficult to determine whether the Hebrew term הֶבֶל (hevel) means “fleeting” or “useless” in this context. The imagery of quick-burning thorns under a cooking pot is ambiguous and can be understood in more than one way: (1) It is useless to try to heat a cooking pot by burning thorns because they burn out before the pot can be properly heated; (2) the heat produced by quick-burning thorns is fleeting—it produces quick heat, but lasts only for a moment. Likewise, the “laughter of a fool” can be taken in both ways: (1) In comparison to the sober reflection of the wise, the laughter of fools is morally useless: the burning of thorns, like the laughter of fools, makes a lot of noise but accomplishes nothing; (2) the laughter of fools is fleeting due to the brevity of life and certainty of death. Perhaps this is an example of intentional ambiguity.

³ tn Heb “oath” or “imprecation”; ASV “adjuration.” This amounted to an “oath” or “curse” (cf. NAB “he hears himself put under a curse”; NRSV “one hears the victim’s curse”) either by or on behalf of the victim, that any witness to the crime must testify (cf. Lev 5:1). However, in this legal setting referring to “a victim’s curse” could be misleading (cf. also KJV “he heareth cursing”), since it could be understood to refer to profanity directed against those guilty of the crime rather than an imprecation called down on a witness who refused to testify (as in the present proverb). The present translation specifies this as an “oath to testify.”

³ sn The oath to testify was not an oath to tell the truth before a court of law in the modern sense. Instead it was a “curse” or “imprecation” expressed by the victim of the theft, or by the legal authorities, called down on any witness of the crime who kept silent or refused to testify (as here). According to Lev 5:1, if a witness does not speak up he is accountable for the crime. This person hears the adjuration, but if he speaks up he is condemned, and if he does not speak up he is guilty under the law. The proverb is an unusual one; it seems to be warning against getting mixed up in any way with the thief, for it will create a serious ethical dilemma.

⁵ tc The MT reads אֵיתָן (ʾetan, “enduring; permanent; perennial”; BDB 450 s.v. יתן 1), which gives a meaning not consistent with the teachings of Proverbs. Several scholars suggest that the text here needs revision. G. R. Driver suggested that לֹא (loʾ, “not”) was dropped before the word by haplography and so the meaning would have been not “enduring” but “passing away” (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32 [1951]: 181). The LXX reads “the ways of the contemptuous [lead] to destruction” which, supported by the Syriac, may reflect an underlying text of אֵידָם (ʾedam) “their calamity” or just אֵיד (ʾed, “calamity, distress”; BDB 15 s.v.). The Targum reflects a text of תֹאבֵד (toʾved) “will perish, be destroyed.”

¹ tn Heb “your confidence” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV) or “at your side.” BDB (492) lists both meanings under one entry for כֶּסֶל (kesel). HALOT (489) sees two homonyms, I כֶּסֶל (“loin, side”) and II כֶּסֶל (“confidence”). The preposition ב (bet) either functions locatively meaning “at your side,” or as a bet essentiae (GKC 379 §119.i, BDB 88 s.v. 7 בְּ; HALOT 104 s.v. 3 בְּ), emphasizing the quality or nature of the noun (but which typically cannot be rendered in English) meaning here “your confidence.” It may then be viewed as a metonymy standing either for the object or the source of your confidence. The Vulgate reads “at your side (latus).” The LXX appears to have read כֹּל מְסִלֹּתֶיךָ (kol m^esillotekha, “[over] all your ways.”

¹ tn Heb “there I will cause a horn to sprout for David.” The horn of an ox underlies the metaphor (cf. Deut 33:17; 1 Kgs 22:11; Pss 18:2; 92:10). The horn of the wild ox is frequently a metaphor for military strength; the idiom “exalt the horn” signifies military victory (see 1 Sam 2:10; Pss 89:17, 24; 92:10; Lam 2:17). In the ancient Near East powerful warrior-kings would sometimes compare themselves to a goring bull that used its horns to kill its enemies. For examples, see P. Miller, “El the Warrior,” HTR 60 (1967): 422-25, and R. B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 135-36.

¹ sn God ascended his throne. In the context of vv. 3-4, which refer to the conquest of the land under Joshua, v. 5 is best understood as referring to an historical event. When the Lord conquered the land and placed his people in it, he assumed a position of kingship, as predicted by Moses (see Exod 15:17-18, as well as Ps 114:1-2). That event is here described metaphorically in terms of a typical coronation ceremony for an earthly king (see 2 Sam 15:10; 2 Kgs 9:13). Verses 1-2, 8-9 focus on God’s continuing kingship, which extends over all nations.