⁸ tn The noun קָהָל (qahal, “assembly”) does not refer here to the collective group of people assembled to worship the Lord, but to the place of their assembly: the temple. This is an example of a synecdoche of the people contained (= assembly) for the container (= temple). The intent is to make the violation feel more personal than someone walking into a building.

² tn Heb “the slain of Israel.” The words “because of” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The preceding context makes it clear that Babylon would be judged for its atrocities against Israel (see especially 50:33-34; 51:10, 24, 35).

² tn Heb “I will dry up her [Babylon’s] sea and make her fountain dry.” “Their” has been substituted for “her” because the word “Babylonians” has been inserted in the previous clause and is easier to understand than “her” as a personification of Babylon.

⁴ sn The figure here involves comparing Babylon to a destructive volcano that the Lord makes burned-out, i.e., he will destroy her power to destroy. The figure of personification is also involved because the Lord addresses the mountain and rolls her off the cliffs, an act normally inapplicable to a mountain.

¹ tn The majority of English versions and the commentaries understand the vav (ו) consecutive + perfect as a future here: “They will fall.” However, it makes better sense, in the light of the commands in the previous verse, to understand this as an indirect third person command (= a jussive; see GKC 333 §112.q, r), as REB and NJPS do.

¹ sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present, but all of this is really to take place in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future, as the present translation has regularly done.

⁴ sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present, but all of this is really to take place in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future, as the present translation has regularly done.

¹ sn The verbs in vv. 22-25 are all descriptive of the present, but all of this is really to take place in the future. Hebrew poetry has a way of rendering future actions as though they were already accomplished. The poetry of this section makes it difficult, however, to render the verbs as future, as has been done regularly in the present translation.

¹ 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.

² tn Heb “Concerning Egypt: Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was beside the Euphrates River at Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah.” The sentence has been broken up, restructured, and introductory words supplied in the translation to make the sentences better conform with contemporary English style.

² tn Heb “burn them or carry them off as captives.” Some of the commentaries and English versions make a distinction between the objects of the verbs, i.e., burn the temples and carry off the gods. However, the burning down of the temples is referred to later in v. 13.

¹ tn The particle כִּי (ki) here is probably temporal, introducing the protasis to the main clause in v. 17 (cf. BDB 473 s.v. כִּי 2.a). However, that would make the translation too long. The present translation, “So,” does what several modern English versions do here, though there are no parallels listed for this nuance in the lexicons.

¹ tn The Hebrew text has a compound object, the two terms of which have been synonyms in vv. 14, 15. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 189) make the interesting observation that these two terms (Heb “brother” and “neighbor”) emphasize the relationships that should have taken precedence over their being viewed as mere slaves.

¹ tn Heb “And to the Levites, the priests [= the Levitical priests, the apposition in place of the adjective], there will not be cut off a man from before me who offers up burnt offering, sacrifices a cereal offering, or makes a sacrifice, all the days.”

¹ sn Heb “Sheep will again pass under the hands of the counter.” This appears to be a reference to counting the sheep to make sure that none was missing as they returned to the fold. See the same idiom in Lev 27:32 and in the metaphor in Ezek 20:37.

³ tn Or “I will make them want to fear and respect me so much that”; Heb “I will put the fear of me in their hearts.” However, as has been noted several times, “heart” in Hebrew is more the center of volition (and intellect) than the center of emotions as it is in English. Both translations are intended to reflect the difference in psychology.

⁴ tn Heb “by the work of their hands.” See the translator’s note on 25:6 and the parallelism in 25:14 for this rendering rather than referring it to the making of idols as in 1:16 and 10:3.

¹ sn This refers to the remnant of northern Israel who had not been killed when Assyria conquered Israel in 722 b.c. or who had not died in exile. References to Samaria in v. 5 and Ephraim in vv. 6, 9 make clear that northern Israel is in view here.

⁸ tn The words “In your letter you said to Zephaniah” are not in the text: Heb “you sent a letter to…, saying.” The sentence has been broken up to conform better to contemporary English style, and these words have been supplied in the translation to make the transition to the address to Zephaniah in vv. 26-28.

² tn The words “of military destruction” have been supplied in the translation to make the metaphor clear. The metaphor has shifted from that of God as a lion, to God as a warrior, to God as a judge, to God as the author of the storm winds of destruction.