Yeremia 23:6
Konteks23:6 Under his rule 1 Judah will enjoy safety 2
and Israel will live in security. 3
This is the name he will go by:
‘The Lord has provided us with justice.’ 4
Yeremia 27:21
Konteks27:21 Indeed, the Lord God of Israel who rules over all 5 has already spoken 6 about the valuable articles that are left in the Lord’s temple, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem.
Yeremia 34:19
Konteks34:19 I will punish the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, 7 the priests, and all the other people of the land who passed between the pieces of the calf. 8
Yeremia 35:10
Konteks35:10 We have lived in tents. We have obeyed our ancestor Jonadab and done exactly as he commanded us. 9
Yeremia 35:16
Konteks35:16 Yes, 10 the descendants of Jonadab son of Rechab have carried out the orders that their ancestor gave them. But you people 11 have not obeyed me!
[23:6] 1 tn Heb “In his days [= during the time he rules].”
[23:6] 2 tn Parallelism and context (cf. v. 4) suggest this nuance for the word often translated “be saved.” For this nuance elsewhere see Ps 119:117; Prov 28:18 for the verb (יָשַׁע [yasha’] in the Niphal); and Ps 12:6; Job 5:4, 11 for the related noun (יֶשַׁע, yesha’).
[23:6] 3 sn It should be noted that this brief oracle of deliverance implies the reunification of Israel and Judah under the future Davidic ruler. Jeremiah has already spoken about this reunification earlier in 3:18 and will have more to say about it in 30:3; 31:27, 31. This same ideal was espoused in the prophecies of Hosea (1:10-11 [2:1-2 HT]), Isaiah (11:1-4, 10-12), and Ezekiel (37:15-28) all of which have messianic and eschatological significance.
[23:6] 4 tn Heb “his name will be called ‘The
[23:6] sn The Hebrew word translated “justice” here is very broad in its usage, and it is hard to catch all the relevant nuances for this word in this context. It is used for “vindication” in legal contexts (see, e.g., Job 6:29), for “deliverance” or “salvation” in exilic contexts (see, e.g., Isa 58:8), and in the sense of ruling, judging with “justice” (see, e.g., Lev 19:15; Isa 32:1). Here it probably sums up the justice that the
[27:21] 5 tn Heb “Yahweh of armies, the God of Israel.” For the significance of this title see the note at 2:19.
[27:21] 6 sn Some of the flavor of the repetitive nature of Hebrew narrative is apparent in vv. 19-21. In the Hebrew original vv. 19-20 are all one long sentence with complex coordination and subordinations. I.e., all the objects in v. 19 are all objects of the one verb “has spoken about” and the description in v. 20 is one long relative or descriptive clause. The introductory “For the
[34:19] 7 tn For the rendering of this term see the translator’s note on 29:2.
[34:19] 8 tn This verse is not actually a sentence in the Hebrew original but is a prepositioned object to the verb in v. 20, “I will hand them over.” This construction is called casus pendens in the older grammars and is used to call attention to a subject or object (cf. GKC 458 §143.d and compare the usage in 33:24). The same nondescript “I will punish” which was used to resolve the complex sentence in the previous verse has been chosen to introduce the objects here before the more specific “I will hand them over” in the next verse.
[35:10] 9 tn Heb “We have obeyed and done according to all which our ancestor Jonadab commanded us.”
[35:16] 10 tn This is an attempt to represent the particle כִּי (ki) which is probably not really intensive here (cf. BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e) but is one of those causal uses of כִּי that BDB discusses on 473-74 s.v. כִּי 3.c where the cause is really the failure of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to listen/obey. I.e., the causal particle is at the beginning of the sentence so as not to interrupt the contrast drawn.
[35:16] 11 tn Heb “this people.” However, the speech is addressed to the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem, so the second person is retained in English. In addition to the stylistic difference that Hebrew exhibits in the rapid shift between persons (second to third and third to second, which have repeatedly been noted and documented from GKC 462 §144.p) there may be a subtle rhetorical reason for the shift here. The shift from direct address to indirect address which characterizes this verse and the next may reflect the