Yeremia 4:28

4:28 Because of this the land will mourn

and the sky above will grow black. ¹ 

For I have made my purpose known ² 

and I will not relent or turn back from carrying it out.” ³ 

Yeremia 27:22

27:22 He has said, ‘They will be carried off to Babylon. They will remain there until it is time for me to show consideration for them again. ⁴  Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.’ I, the Lord, affirm this!” ⁵ 

Yeremia 49:9

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

would they not leave a few grapes behind? ⁶ 

If robbers came at night,

would they not pillage only what they needed? ⁷ 

[4:28]  ¹ sn The earth and the heavens are personified here and depicted in the act of mourning and wearing black clothes because of the destruction of the land of Israel.

[4:28]  ² tn Heb “has spoken and purposed.” This is an example of hendiadys where two verbs are joined by “and” but one is meant to serve as a modifier of the other.

[4:28]  ³ tn Heb “will not turn back from it.”

[27:22]  ⁴ tn This verb is a little difficult to render here. The word is used in the sense of taking note of something and acting according to what is noticed. It is the word that has been translated several times throughout Jeremiah as “punish [someone].” It is also used in the opposite of sense of taking note and “show consideration for” (or “care for;” see, e.g., Ruth 1:6). Here the nuance is positive and is further clarified by the actions that follow, bringing them back and restoring them.

[27:22]  ⁵ tn Heb “oracle of the Lord.”

[49:9]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ 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.