Yeremia 6:29

6:29 The fiery bellows of judgment burn fiercely.

But there is too much dross to be removed. ¹ 

The process of refining them has proved useless. ² 

The wicked have not been purged.

Yeremia 28:9

28:9 So if a prophet prophesied ³  peace and prosperity, it was only known that the Lord truly sent him when what he prophesied came true.”

Yeremia 32:30

32:30 This will happen because the people of Israel and Judah have repeatedly done what displeases me ⁴  from their earliest history until now ⁵  and because they ⁶  have repeatedly made me angry by the things they have done. ⁷  I, the Lord, affirm it! ⁸ 

Yeremia 48:38

48:38 On all the housetops in Moab

and in all its public squares

there will be nothing but mourning.

For I will break Moab like an unwanted jar.

I, the Lord, affirm it! ⁹ 

Yeremia 49:9

49:9 If grape pickers came to pick your grapes,

would they not leave a few grapes behind? ¹⁰ 

If robbers came at night,

would they not pillage only what they needed? ¹¹ 

[6:29]  ¹ tn Heb “The bellows blow fiercely; the lead is consumed by the fire.” The translation tries to clarify a metaphor involving ancient metallurgy. In the ancient refining process lead was added as a flux to remove impurities from silver ore in the process of oxidizing the lead. Jeremiah says that the lead has been used up and the impurities have not been removed. The translation is based on the recognition of an otherwise unused verb root meaning “blow” (נָחַר [nakhar]; cf. BDB 1123 s.v. I חָרַר and HALOT 651 s.v. נָחַר) and the Masoretes’ suggestion that the consonants מאשׁתם be read מֵאֵשׁ תַּם (me’esh tam) rather than as מֵאֶשָּׁתָם (me’eshatam, “from their fire”) from an otherwise unattested noun אֶשָּׁה (’eshah).

[6:29]  ² tn Heb “The refiner refines them in vain.”

[28:9]  ³ tn The verbs in this verse are to be interpreted as iterative imperfects in past time rather than as futures because of the explicit contrast that is drawn in the two verses by the emphatic syntactical construction of the two verses. Both verses begin with a casus pendens construction to throw the two verses into contrast: Heb “The prophets who were before me and you from ancient times, they prophesied…The prophet who prophesied peace, when the word of that prophet came true, that prophet was known that the Lord truly sent him.”

[32:30]  ⁴ tn Heb “that which is evil in my eyes.” For this idiom see BDB 744 s.v. עַיִן 3.c and compare usage in 18:10.

[32:30]  ⁵ tn Heb “from their youth.”

[32:30]  sn Compare Jer 3:24-25; 11:21. The nation is being personified and reference is made to her history from the time she left Egypt onward (cf. 2:2).

[32:30]  ⁶ tn Heb “the people of Israel.” However, since “people of Israel” has been used in the preceding line for the northern kingdom as opposed to the kingdom of Judah, it might lead to confusion to translate literally. Moreover, the pronoun “they” accomplishes the same purpose.

[32:30]  ⁷ 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; 10:3.

[32:30]  ⁸ tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”

[48:38]  ⁹ tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”

[49:9]  ¹⁰ tn The translation of this verse is generally based on the parallels in Obad 5. There the second line has a ה interrogative 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).

[49:9]  ¹¹ tn The tense and nuance of the verb translated “pillage” are both different than 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 which means to “ruin” or “spoil.” The English versions and commentaries, however, almost all render the verb here in much the same way as in Obad 5. The nuance must mean they only “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.