Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 31:15
Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, [and] bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they [were] not.
15. This v. is specially familiar to us through St Matt. (Jer 2:17 f.), who quotes it after relating the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlehem. The prophecy is quoted as an illustration or type. The mourning at Ramah is a forecast of that bitter wailing which shall be raised by the mothers of the slaughtered babes. The geographical connexion of Ramah and Bethlehem cannot be maintained, and depends upon a statement which is probably a gloss in Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7, “Ephrath (the same is Bethlehem).” Ramah is mentioned first in Jos 18:25, between Gibeon and Beeroth, five miles north of Jerusalem, and is very possibly identical with the birth-place, home, and place of burial of Samuel (1Sa 1:19; 1Sa 25:1). It was much too far from Bethlehem to be in any way immediately connected with the subject in illustration of which St Matt. quotes the passage. It was at Ramah that the exiles were assembled before departing for Babylon, as described ch. Jer 40:1. The appropriateness of calling upon Rachel to weep in Ramah consists in this, that her tomb (1Sa 10:2 f.) was on the N. border of Benjamin, not far from Bethel which was ten miles N. of Jerusalem, and thus apparently in the neighbourhood of Ramah as well. See the whole question discussed, with views of the probable site, in Pal. Explor. Fund Quart. Statement, April 1912, pp. 74 ff. (Clermont-Ganneau and R. A. S. Macalister).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15 17. Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is heard weeping for her lost sons. She is bidden to dry her tears, for there is hope.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15 22. See introd. summary to the section. These striking vv. may be confidently considered as stamped with Jeremiah’s personality.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The religious character of the restoration of the ten tribes. Chastisement brought repentance, and with it forgiveness; therefore God decrees their restoration.
Jer 31:15
Ramah, mentioned because of its nearness to Jerusalem, from which it was distant about five miles. As the mother of three tribes, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, Rachel is regarded as the mother of the whole ten. This passage is quoted by Matthew (marginal reference) as a type. In Jeremiah it is a poetical figure representing in a dramatic form the miserable condition of the kingdom of Ephraim devastated by the sword of the Assyrians.
Jer 31:16
Rachels work had been that of bearing and bringing up children, and by their death she was deprived of the joy for which she had labored: but by their being restored to her she will receive her wages.
Jer 31:17
In thine end – i. e., for thy time to come (see the Jer 29:11 note).
Jer 31:18
As a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke – literally, like an untaught calf. Compare the Hos 10:11 note. Ephraim, like an untrained steer, had resisted Yahwehs will.
Jer 31:19
After that I was turned – i. e., after I had turned away from Thee. In Jer 31:18 it has the sense of turning to God.
Instructed – Brought to my senses by suffering. The smiting upon the thigh is a sign of sorrow. Compare Eze 21:17.
The reproach of my youth – i. e., the shame brought upon me by sins of my youth.
Jer 31:20
Moved to compassion by Ephraims lamentation, Yahweh shows Himself as tender and ready to forgive as parents are their spoiled (rather, darling) child.
For … him – Or, that so often as I speak concerning him, i. e., his punishment.
My bowels are troubled – The metaphor expresses the most tender internal emotion.
Jer 31:21
Waymarks – See 2Ki 23:17 note.
High heaps – Or, signposts, pillars to point out the way.
Set thine heart – Not set thy affection, but turn thy thoughts and attention (in Hebrew the heart is the seat of the intellect) to the highway, even the way by which thou wentest.
Jer 31:22
Israel instead of setting itself to return hesitates, and goes here and there in a restless mood. To encourage it God gives the sign following.
A woman shall compass a man – i. e., the female shall protect the strong man; the weaker nature that needs help will surround the stronger with loving and fostering care. This expresses a new relation of Israel to the Lord, a new covenant, which the Lord will make with His people (Jer 31:31 following). The fathers saw in these words a prophecy of the miraculous conception of our Lord by the Virgin.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jer 31:15-17
A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children.
Innocents day
Undoubtedly it seems strange, that one of the earliest consequences of the incarnation of Him, who afterwards declared that He came not to destroy mens lives, but to save them, should thus have been the murder of so many unoffending little ones. A few days ago we assembled around the cradle of the newborn King, and now the ground round about us is strewed with the bodies of the young ones, slaughtered, as it were, in His stead. Well might He afterwards declare, that He came not to send peace, but a sword upon the earth; seeing that, while yet a nursling in His mothers arms, He is the occasion of the sword being fleshed in numbers who least deserved to die. And the thing most remarkable in this transaction appears to us to be, that the permission of the slaughter was in no sense requisite to the safety of Christ. Joseph, and Mary, and the Child had departed for Egypt, before the fury of Herod was allowed to break out. How easy does it seem that Herod should have been informed of the flight, and thus taught the utter uselessness of his cruel decree. Let us see whether there be really anything in the facts now commemorated at variance with the known mercy of God. If, indeed, we were unable to discover that the slaughter of the innocents was a means to ensure wise ends, we shall be confident, from the known attributes of God, that there was such an end, though not to be ascertained by our limited faculties. This, however, is not the ease. And they who think at all carefully will find enough to remove all surprise that Herod was not withheld from the slaughter. Let it be first observed, that prophecy had fixed Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Christ, and had determined, with considerable precision, the time of the nativity. It were easy, therefore, to prove that no one could be the Messiah who had not been born at Bethlehem, and about the period when the Virgin became a mother. How wonderfully, then, did the slaughter of the innocents corroborate the pretensions of Jesus. If no one could be Messiah unless born at Bethlehem, and at a certain time, why, the sword of Herod did almost demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ; for removing, perhaps, every other who could have answered to the test of time and place of birth, there seems only Jesus remaining in whom the prophecy could be fulfilled. Besides, it should be carefully marked, that Jesus was to live in comparative obscurity, until thirty years of age; He was then to burst suddenly upon the world, and to amaze it by displays of omnipotence. But, brought up as He had been at Nazareth, it was very natural that when He emerged from long seclusion, He should have been regarded as a Nazarene. Accordingly we find so completely had His birthplace been forgotten, that many objected His being of Nazareth, against the possibility of His being the Messiah. They argued rightly, that no one could be the Christ who had not been born at Bethlehem; but then they rashly concluded, that Jesus wanted this sign of Messiahship, because they knew Him to have been brought up in Galilee. And what made them inexcusable? Why, the slaughter of the innocents. They could not have been uninformed of this event; bereaved parents were still living who would be sure to tell the story of their wrongs; and this event marked as with a line of blood the period at which the Christ was supposed to have been born. A moments inquiry would have proved to them that Jesus was this Child, and removed the doubt which attached to Him as a supposed Galilean. And, therefore, not in vain was the mother stirred from her sepulchre by the cry of her infant offspring; the echo of her lament might still be heard in the land, and those who listened not to the witness of the birthplace of Jesus stood self-condemned, while rejecting Him on the plea, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? There are yet more obvious reasons why God should have allowed this act of cruelty. We may believe that God was leaving Herod to fill up the measure of his guilt. Add to all this, that God was unquestionably disciplining the parents by the slaughter of the children. There was at this time a great and general expectation of the Messiah, and the Jewish mothers must have more than ever hoped for the honour of giving birth to the Deliverer: but of course such a hope must have been stronger in Bethlehem than in any other town, seeing that prophecy was supposed to mark it as the birthplace. Hence we may readily believe that the infants of Bethlehem were objects of extraordinary interest to their parents–objects in which their ambition centred, as well as their affection. And, if so, we can understand that these fathers and mothers stood in special need of that discipline which God administers to parents through the death of their children; so that there was a suitableness in the dispensation as allotted to Bethlehem, which might not have been discoverable had another town been its subject. Now all this reasoning would be shaken, if it could be shown that a real and everlasting injury were done to the innocents themselves. Let us now, then, consider the consequences of the massacre, so far as the innocents themselves were concerned. There is much here to require and repay your careful examination. We have an unhesitating belief in respect of all children, admitted into Gods Church, and dying before they know evil from good, that they are saved by the virtues of Christs propitiation. We never hesitate to tell parents sorrowing for their dead children, who had been old enough to endear themselves by the smile and the prattle, but not old enough to know moral good from moral evil, that they have a right to feel such assurance of the salvation of their offspring, as the best tokens could scarcely have afforded had they died in riper years. And however melancholy the thought, that so many of our fellow-men live without God, and therefore die without hope, it is cheering to believe, that perhaps a yet greater number are saved through the sacrifice of Christ. For as a large proportion of our population die before old enough for moral accountableness; how many of the Christian community are safely housed ere exposed to the blight and tumult of the world! Oh, the magnificent possession would not want inhabitants if all, who could choose for themselves, chose death, and not life; heaven would still gather within its capacious bosom, a shining multitude, who just descended to earth that they might there be grafted into the body of Christ, and then flew back to enjoy all the privileges of membership. And we may believe of this multitude that it would be headed by the slaughtered little ones of Bethlehem–those who, dying, we might almost say, for the Saviour, won something like the martyrs crown, which shall, through eternity, sparkle on their foreheads. Who, then, shall say that Herod was permitted to do a real injury to those innocents, and that thus their death is an impeachment either of the justice or the mercy of God? We may be assured that they escaped many cares, difficulties, and troubles, with which a long life must have been charged; for, had the sword of Herod not hewn them down, they might have remained on earth till Judahs desolation began, and have shared in the worst woes which ever fell on a land. The innocents of Bethlehem have always been reckoned by the Church amongst the martyrs; for, though incapable of making choice, God, we may believe, supplied the defect of their will by His own entertainment of their death. And it is beautiful to think, that as the spirits of the martyred little ones soared toward heaven, they may have been taught to look on the Infant in whose stead they had died; to feel that He for whom they had been sacrificed was about to be sacrificed for them; and that they were mounting to glory on the merits of that defenceless Babe (as He seemed then), hurrying as an outcast into Egypt. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Rachel weeping for her children
The death of young children is among the saddest bereavements of life. The sight of a suffering, dying child is painful. The mystery distresses us. Affection yearns in vain. The death of a young child is a sore disappointment. The fond parents cling round it through life, like bees about a flowers wine-cup. What dreams of long life, and rich fortune, and untold happiness beguile their days! Their cherished hopes are blighted, and the future is a scene of clouded prospects and changed plans. The death of young children is often one of the hardest things to endure. Like the weeping Rachel, the bereaved parents are inconsolable. What bitter words of rebellion are sometimes spoken, instead of words of sweet resignation! Never is the weakness of all earthly props more manifest than under such circumstances. No considerations save such as the Bible supplies can give to the soul strength and peace. Still you remember your dead. Your experience ripens into that of Vaughan–
They are all gone into a world of light,
And I alone sit lingering here;
Their very memory is fair and bright,
And my sad thoughts doth clear.
Although the death of young children is such a sore loss, there are sources of comfort–considerations which constrain us to say, Thy will be done.
I. In the early removal of children God acts as a Father. In one of our English churchyards there is this inscription on a childs tombstone: Who plucked that flower? cried the gardener, as he walked through the garden. His fellow-servant answered, The Master, and the gardener held his peace. There is an Eastern story of a rabbi, who, having been absent all day, returned home in the evening, and was met by his wife at the door. With her first greeting she told him how she had been perplexed during the day, because a friend, who years ago had entrusted some rare jewels to her care, had that day come for them from her long possession of them they seemed almost her own, and she felt loth to give them back. They were only lent, replied her husband; be thankful that you have had the use of them so long. Your words are good, said she; may we now and always follow them! Then, leading him into an inner chamber, she showed him, stretched upon one bed, their two children who had that day died. Forthwith he knew the jewels which God had lent him, and now resumed, and his heart said, The Lord gave, &c.
II. Children who die young are removed from all possible sorrow and harm to live the perfect life above. Their sufferings, perhaps, were great, and you would fain have suffered in their stead; but their day of suffering was short. There was mercy in their death. Had they lived, some wild and withering anguish might have sered their summers earliest leaf; the sickness of hope deferred might have given them a disgust of life. They have escaped these and all other woes–escaped them for ever. They are, moreover, taken away from all possible sin. They might have lived to be a curse to their parents and to the world. We know little of their future life; but we know as much as this–that all which can make life worth living is theirs. Your fondest love could not wish more for them than they enjoy. Selfishness might desire their return; love never can. All that was imperfect in them is left behind; and they are as the angels of God for ever.
III. The death of young children is often a ministry of blessing to the bereaved parents. Just as we make idols of other objects that we regard with undue affection, so we are in danger of making idols of our children. If we allow them to estrange our affections from God, to interfere with our religious duties–to withdraw our sympathies from the poor and suffering around us, then our love is of the nature of idolatry; and it is a proof of Gods love that He removes the idols. In one of his letters, Dr. Judson writes thus: Our only darling boy was, three days ago, laid in the silent grave. Eight months we enjoyed the precious little gift, in which time he had so completely entwined himself around his parents hearts, that his existence seemed necessary to their own. But God has taught us by afflictions what we would not learn by mercies, that our hearts are His exclusive property, and whatever rival intrudes He will tear it away. Edward Irving exclaimed, after his childs death, Glorious exchange! God took my son to His own more fatherly bosom; and revealed in my bosom the sure expectation and faith of His own eternal Son. Dr. Bushnell once said, I have learned more of experimental religion since my little boy died than in all my life before. The shepherd of the Alps who cannot get his sheep to climb the higher ascents of the mountains, will take the lambs and throw them up to the shelving rocks, when their dams soon spring up after them. By somewhat similar methods the Shepherd of Israel gathers His flocks on the hills of glory. He removes your children to heaven, that you may follow them thither.
IV. Consider, further, the joy your children gave you while they lived. Of course, the memory is touched with sadness; but there is room for gratitude. Be thankful that they were yours so long. You were rich in their possession; and you are all the richer for them, even though God has taken them away. Your heart has been enlarged. A fount of feeling has been opened in your nature that never can be dry any more. You are richer in sympathy and in hope; richer towards society and God. In a deep and true sense, your dead children are with you still (W. Walters.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 15. A voice was heard in Ramah] The Ramah mentioned here, (for there were several towns of this name,) was situated in the tribe of Benjamin, about six or seven miles from Jerusalem. Near this place Rachel was buried; who is here, in a beautiful figure of poetry, represented as coming out of her grave, and lamenting bitterly for the loss of her children, none of whom presented themselves to her view, all being slain or gone into exile. St. Matthew, who is ever fond of accommodation, applies these words, Mt 2:17-18, to the massacre of the children at Bethlehem. That is, they were suitable to that occasion, and therefore he so applied them; but they are not a prediction of that event.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Interpreters are much divided in the sense of these words, whether they should refer to the slaughter of the Jews belonging to the ten tribes, upon their being captivated by the Assyrians, or to the slaughter of the Jews, upon the siege and taking of the city by the king of Babylon, or to Herods killing the infants in Bethlehem. Certain it is, the evangelist, Mat 2:18, applieth them unto the latter; but whether the evangelists application of it be as a literal fulfilling of the prophecy, or by way of allusion, or no, is the question. Those that think that it is primarily to be understood of the slaughter of the infants, urge,
1. That Mat 2:18, so applies it.
2. That womens mourning for children seems rather to be for the loss of infants, (as was there,) than expressive of the mourning of all sorts of people, in a general desolation.
3. That the place of the mourning seems to hint it; for Ramah was near to Bethlehem, and contained under the coasts about Bethlehem, mentioned by the evangelist.
4. The words
because they were not they think make for them; for by being carried into captivity, they did not cease to be, though they ceased to be in that happy estate they were in before.
5. Because they think that this is here propounded as a sign of his coming, upon whose coming these promises of felicity to the Jews should be fulfilled. These reasons are not unanswerable; for,
1. Matthew may apply it only by way of allusion, speaking of such a providence, when such a thing should happen as happened before; in which sense particular texts of Scripture are in Scripture often said to be fulfilled, though they had their fulfilling before.
2. Rachel here doth not signify a single person, no, nor a particular sex, but is brought in as a common parent, lamenting the loss of her offspring.
3. Ramah was indeed near Bethlehem, but it was a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Jos 18:25; 1Ki 15:17. Rachel was, buried betwixt it and Bethlehem, Gen 35:19; 1Sa 10:2; and it was also the place where Nebuzaradan, after he had taken Jerusalem, disposed of his prisoners, as we read, Jer 40:1;
4. Though the greater part of the Jews were not slain, but carried into captivity; yet doubtless many were slain, and those left alive were not as to her, being now carried out of Canaan into a strange land.
5. Although the promises in this chapter made to the Jews were more eminently and fully made good under the kingdom of Christ; yet it may be doubted whether any of these promises were primarily and solely fulfilled to them under the kingdom of Christ, but literally before that time, though more fully and largely then. In Ramah therefore a voice was heard, that is, in Canaan, and particularly in Ramah, where Nebuzaradan, Jer 40:1, disposed of the prisoners he had taken, setting some at liberty, (as Jeremiah in particular,) ordering others to death, and carrying the rest away to Babylon, which caused a bitter weeping and lamentation.
Rachel weeping for her children: Rachel is here brought in, having been buried near that place, as if she were risen up from the grave, and lamented the Jewish nation, which came out of her loins, (for so Benjamin did, which was one of the two tribes that made the kingdom of Judah,) all the people of which tribe are properly enough called her children. Rachel here signifieth all the Benjamitish women who descended from Rachel.
Refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not; and, like a passionate woman, she refused all arguments of comfort, because her children either were not absolutely, being slain by the pestilence, the famine, and the sword of the king of Babylon, or were no longer her children, being transplanted and removed into Babylon. So as I take this text literally and primarily to refer to the lamentation for the miseries the people suffered, upon the king of Babylons taking the city; to which mourning Matthew alludeth, there being a lamentation like this when Herod caused the infants of two years old to be slain in Bethlehem, and in the coasts about Bethlehem, of which Ramah was one.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. RamahIn Benjamin, east ofthe great northern road, two hours’ journey from Jerusalem. Rachel,who all her life had pined for children (Ge30:1), and who died with “sorrow” in giving birth toBenjamin (Gen 35:18; Gen 35:19,Margin; 1Sa 10:2), andwas buried at Ramah, near Beth-lehem, is represented as raising herhead from the tomb, and as breaking forth into “weeping” atseeing the whole land depopulated of her sons, the Ephraimites. Ramahwas the place where Nebuzara-dan collected all the Jews in chains,previous to their removal to Babylon (Jer40:1). God therefore consoles her with the promise of theirrestoration. Mat 2:17; Mat 2:18quotes this as fulfilled in the massacre of the innocents underHerod. “A lesser and a greater event, of different times, mayanswer to the single sense of one passage of Scripture, until theprophecy is exhausted” [BENGEL].Besides the temporary reference to the exiles in Babylon, the HolySpirit foreshadowed ultimately Messiah’s exile in Egypt, and thedesolation caused in the neighborhood of Rachel’s tomb by Herod’smassacre of the children, whose mothers had “sons of sorrow”(Ben-oni), just as Rachel had. The return of Messiah (therepresentative of Israel) from Egypt, and the future restoration ofIsrael, both the literal and the spiritual (including the innocents),at the Lord’s second advent, are antitypical of the restoration ofIsrael from Babylon, which is the ground of consolation held out hereby Jeremiah. The clause, “They were not,” that is, weredead (Ge 42:13), does not applyso strictly to the exiles in Babylon as it does to the history ofMessiah and His peoplepast, present, and future. So the words,”There is hope in thine end,” are to be fulfilledultimately, when Rachel shall meet her murdered children at theresurrection, at the same time that literal Israel is to be restored.”They were not,” in Hebrew, is singular; each wasnot: each mother at the Beth-lehem massacre had but onechild to lament, as the limitation of age in Herod’s order, “twoyears and under,” implies; this use of the singulardistributively (the mothers weeping severally, each for her ownchild), is a coincidence between the prophecy of the Beth-lehemmassacre and the event, the more remarkable as not being obvious: thesingular, too, is appropriate as to Messiah in HisEgyptian exile, who was to be a leading object of Rachel’slamentation.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Thus saith the Lord, a voice was heard in Ramah,…. Which signifies a high place; hence the Targum paraphrases it,
“in the high place of the world;”
and so the Vulgate Latin version,
“in a high place;”
but it is here the proper name of a place, of a city in the tribe of Benjamin, Jos 18:25; and this voice heard was not a voice of joy and gladness as before, but of
lamentation [and] bitter weeping; signifying great sorrow and distress upon some very extraordinary occasion; and is as follows:
Rachel weeping for her children; not really and in person, but by a figurative way of speaking. Rachel is introduced as representing the Jewish women in those parts mourning for their slaughtered infants, even those that were slaughtered some time after the birth of Christ; for to this barbarous fact are the words applied by the Evangelist Matthew, as a fulfilment of them, Mt 2:16; and with great propriety and pertinence is Rachel brought in as the chief, yea, sole mourner, representing all the sorrowful mothers; since Ramah was in the tribe of Benjamin, a child of hers, as far as which, it seems, the bloody massacre referred to reached, from Bethlehem, where it began; and since Rachel’s grave was between these two places, Ge 35:18; she is represented as rising out of her grave to act this part; or it signifies, that could she have been sensible of this inhuman affair, and could have come out of her grave, she would have done what she is here represented to do; and the rather is she mentioned, since she was so affectionately fond and desirous of children, Ge 30:1;
refused to be comforted for her children; by any of her friends, the loss was so great, the affliction so heavy:
because they [were] not; or, “because he was not” q; the Messiah was not, but was slain among the rest of the children, as the Jewish mothers, whom Rachel represented, imagined; and this heightened their distress, and filled them with more grief and trouble than the loss of their own children: but as Matthew has the plural number, the Targum, and all the Oriental versions, it is best to understand it of the children who “were not”; that is, they were dead; they were not in the land of the living, as this phrase is used in Ge 37:30; which shows that this is not to be understood of the Babylonish captivity, and of the mourning of the Jewish women on that account; since the cause of this was death, and not captivity; besides, mourning for so general a calamity as captivity would not have been confined to mothers, and to some only, and to one particular place; though so the Jewish writers interpret it; and the Targum, which is,
“a voice was heard in the high place of the world, the house of Israel weeping and mourning after Jeremiah the prophet, whom Nabuzaradan the chief of those that slew, sent from Ramah; lamentation and weeping with bitterness, Jerusalem weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they were gone into captivity.”
q “quia non ipse”, Vatablus; “vel non ille” i.e. “non sit ullus”, Schmidt.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Changing of sorrow into joy, because Ephraim will turn to the Lord, and the Lord will lead him back. – Jer 31:15. “Thus saith Jahveh: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not. Jer 31:16. Thus saith Jahveh: Restrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for there is a reward for thy work, saith Jahveh, and they shall return from the land of the enemy. Jer 31:17. And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jahveh, that children shall return to thy border. Jer 31:18. I have certainly heard Ephraim complaining, Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf not tamed. Turn me that I may turn, for Thou, O Jahveh, art my God. Jer 31:19. For, after I return I repent, and after I have been taught I smite upon [my] thigh; I am ashamed, yea, and confounded, because I bear the reproach of my youth. Jer 31:20. Is Ephraim a son dear to me, or a child of delight, that, as often as I speak against him, I do yet certainly remember him? Therefore my bowels move for him; I shall surely pity him, saith Jahveh. Jer 31:21. Set thee up way-marks, put up posts for thyself; set thine heart to the highway, the road [by which] thou camest: return, O virgin of Israel, return to these cities of thine. Jer 31:22. How long wilt thou wander about, O backsliding daughter? For Jahveh hath created a new [thing] in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man.”
In this strophe the promise is further confirmed by carrying out the thought, that Israel’s release from his captivity shall certainly take place, however little prospect there is of it at present. For Israel will come to an acknowledgment of his sins, and the Lord will then once more show him His love. The hopeless condition of Israel is dramatically set forth in Jer 31:15.: Rachel, the mother of Joseph, and thus the ancestress of Ephraim, the chief tribe of the Israelites who had revolted from the royal house of David, weeps bitterly over the loss of her children, the ten tribes who have been carried away into exile; and the Lord addresses consolation to her, with the promise that they shall return out of the land of the enemy. “A voice is heard” ( , participle, to show duration). The “voice” is more fully treated of in the second part of the verse: loud lamentation and bitter weeping. There is a difficulty connected with . The lxx took it to be the name of the city Ramah, now called er – Ram , in the tribe of Benjamin, five English miles north from Jerusalem, on the borders of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (1Ki 15:17), although this city is elsewhere written with the article ( ), not only in the historical notices found in Jer 40:1, Jos 18:25; Jdg 4:5, etc., but also in prophetical addresses, as in Hos 6:8; Isa 10:29. In this passage it cannot be a mere appellative (“on a height”), as in 1Sa 22:6; Eze 16:24; nor can we think of Ramah in Naphtali (Jos 19:36, also ), for this latter city never figures in history like the Ramah of Samuel, not far from Gibeah; see on Jos 18:25 and 1Sa 1:1. But why is the lamentation of Rachel heard at Ramah? Most expositors reply, because the tomb of Rachel was in the divinity of Ramah; in support of this they cite 1Sa 10:2. Ngelsbach, who is one of these, still maintains this view with the utmost confidence. But this assumption is opposed to Gen 35:16 and Gen 35:19, where it is stated that Rachel died and was buried on the way to Bethlehem, and not far from the town (see on Genesis, l.c.), which is about five miles south from Jerusalem, and thus far from Ramah. Nor is any support for this view to be got from 1Sa 10:2, except by making the groundless assumption, that Saul, while seeking for the asses of his father, came to Samuel in his native town; whereas, in the account given in that chapter, he is merely said to have sought for Samuel in a certain town, of which nothing more is stated, and to have inquired at him; see on 1Sa 10:2. We must therefore reject, as arbitrary and groundless, all attempts to fix the locality of Rachel’s sepulchre in the neighbourhood of Ramah (Ngelsbach); in the same way we must treat the assertion of Thenius, Knobel, Graf, etc., that the Ephratah of Gen 35:16, Gen 35:19, is the same as the Ephron of 2Ch 13:19, which was situated near Bethel; so, too, must we deal with the statements, that Ephratah, i.e., Bethlehem, is to be expunged from the text of Gen 35:9 and 48 as a false gloss, and that the tradition, attested in Mat 2:18, as to the situation of Rachel’s sepulchre in the vicinity of Bethlehem, is incorrect. Nor does the passage of Jeremiah now before us imply that Rachel’s sepulchre was near Ramah. Rachel does not weep at Ramah over her lost children, either because she had been buried there, or because it was in Ramah of Benjamin that the exiles were assembled, according to Jer 40:1 (Hitzig, and also Delitzsch on Gen 35:20). For it was the Jews who were to be carried away captive that were gathered together at Ramah, whereas it was over Israelites or Ephraimites that had been carried into exile that Rachel weeps. The lamentation of Rachel is heard at Ramah, as the most loftily situated border-town of the two kingdoms, whence the wailing that had arisen sounded far and near, and could be heard in Judah. Nor does she weep because she has learned something in her tomb of the carrying away of the people, but as their common mother, as the beloved spouse of Jacob, who in her married life so earnestly desired children. Just as the people are often included under the notion of the “daughter of Zion,” as their ideal representative, so the great ancestress of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh is here named as the representative of the maternal love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people are lost. The sing. signifies, “for not one of them is left.” – This verse is quoted by Matthew (Mat 2:18), after relating the story of the murder of the children at Bethlehem, with the introductory formula, : from this the older theologians (cf. Calovii Bibl. illustr. ad Jer. l.c.) conclude that Jeremiah directly prophesied that massacre of the children committed by Herod. But this inference cannot be allowed; it will not fit in with the context of the prophecy. The expression , used by Matthew, only shows that the prophecy of Jeremiah received a new fulfilment through that act of Herod. Of course, we must not reduce the typical reference of the prophecy to that event at Bethlehem simply to this, that the wailing of the mothers of Bethlehem over their murdered children was as great as the lamentation made when the people were carried into exile. Typology rather assumes a causal connection between the two events. The destruction of the people of Israel by the Assyrians and Chaldeans is a type of the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, in so far as the sin which brought the children of Israel into exile laid a foundation for the fact that Herod the Idumean became king over the Jews, and wished to destroy the true King and Saviour of Israel that he might strengthen his own dominion. Cf. Fr. Kleinschmidt, die typolog. Citate der vier Evangelien, 1861, S. 10ff.; Fairbairn’s Typology, fifth edition, vol. i. pp. 452-3.]
The Lord will put an end to this wailing. “Cease thy weeping,” He cries to the sorrowing ones, “for there is a reward for thy labour” (almost identical with 2Ch 15:7). is the maternal labour of birth and rearing of children. The reward consists in this, that the children shall return out of the land of the enemy into their own land. Jer 31:17 states the same thing in parallel clauses, to confirm the promise. On the expression “hope for thy latter end,” cf. Jer 29:11. without the article, as in Hos 11:10, etc.; cf. Ewald, 277, b. This hope is grounded on the circumstance that Israel will become aware, through suffering, that he is punished for his sins, and, repenting of these sins, will beseech his God for favour. The Lord already perceives this repentant spirit and acknowledgment of sin. does not mean “I had myself chastised,” or “I learned chastisement” (Hitzig), but “I was chastised,” like an untamed calf, i.e., one not trained to bear the yoke and to endure labour. On this figure, cf. Hos 10:11. The recognition of suffering as chastisement by God excites a desire after amelioration and amendment. But since man cannot accomplish these through his own powers, Israel prays, “Lead me back,” sc. from my evil way, i.e., turn me. He finds himself constrained to this request, because he feels regret for his apostasy from God. in this connection can only mean, “after I turned,” sc. from Thee, O Lord my God; on this meaning of , cf. Jer 8:4. , to be brought to understanding through punishment, i.e., to become wise. To smite the thighs is a token of terror and horror; cf. Eze 21:17. On cf. Isa 45:16. “The shame of my youth” is that which I brought on myself in my youth through the sins I then committed. On this confession generally, cf. the similar one in Jer 3:21. – Thereafter the Lord replies, Jer 31:20, with the question, whether Ephraim is so dear a son to Him that, as often as He has spoken against him, i.e., uttered hard words of condemnation, He still, or again, thinks of him. , “a child of delight,” whom one fondles; cf. Isa 5:7. The clause explanatory of the question, “for as often as,” etc., is taken in different ways. may signify, “to speak about one,” or “to speak against one,” or “to pay addresses to one,” i.e., to court him: 1Sa 25:39; Son 8:8. Hitzig applies the last meaning to the expression, and translates, “as often as I have paid my suit to him;” according to this view, the basis of the representation of Jahveh’s relation to the people is that of a husband to his wife. But this meaning of the verb does not by any means suit the present context, well established though it is by the passages that have been adduced. Ephraim is here represented as a son, not a virgin to whom Jahveh could pay suit. Hence we must take the expression in the sense of “speaking against” some one. But what Jahveh says against Ephraim is no mere threatening by words, but a reprimand by deeds of judgment. The answer to the question is to be inferred from the context: If the Lord, whenever He is constrained to punish Ephraim, still thinks of him, then Ephraim must be a son dear to Him. But this is not because of his conduct, as if he caused Him joy by obedience and faithful attachment, but in consequence of the unchangeable love of God, who cannot leave His son, however much grief he causes his Father. “Therefore,” i.e., because he is a son to whom Jahveh shows the fulness of His paternal love, all His kindly feelings towards him are now excited, and He desires to show compassion on him. On cf. Isa 16:11 and Isa 63:15. Under “bowels” are included especially the heart, liver, reins, the noblest organs of the soul. The expression is strongly anthropopathic, and denotes the most heartfelt sympathy. This fellow-feeling manifests itself in the form of pity, and actually as deliverance from misery.
The Lord desires to execute this purpose of His everlasting love. Jer 31:21. Israel is required to prepare himself for return, and to go home again into his own cities. “Set thee up way marks.” , in 2Ki 23:17 and Eze 39:15, “a tombstone,” probably a stone pillar, which could also serve as a way-mark. is not from as in Jer 31:15, but from , and has the same meaning as , Joe 3:3, Talm. , a pillar, Arab. tamirun , pl., cippi, signa in desertis . “Set thy heart,” i.e., turn thy mind to the road, the way you have gone (on see Jer 2:20), not, that you may not miss it, but because it leads thee home. “Return to these cities of thine.” “These” implies that the summons issues from Palestine. Moreover, the separate clauses of this verse are merely a poetic individualization of the thought that Israel is to think seriously of returning; and, inasmuch as this return to Palestine presupposes return to the Lord, Israel must first turn with the heart to his God. Then, in Jer 31:22, follows the exhortation not to delay. The meaning of is educed from Son 5:6, where signifies to turn one’s self round; hence the Hithpael means to wander about here and there, uncertain what to do. This exhortation is finally enforced by the statement, “Jahveh creates a new thing on earth” (cf. Isa 43:19). This novelty is, “a woman will encompass a man.” With regard to the meaning of these words, about which there is great dispute, this much is evident from the context, that they indicate a transformation of things, a new arrangement of the relations of life. This new arrangement of things which Jahveh brings about is mentioned as a motive which should rouse Ephraim (= Israel) to return without delay to the Lord and to his cities. If we keep this in mind, we shall at once set aside as untenable such interpretations as that of Luther in his first translation of 1532-38, “those who formerly behaved like women shall be men,” which Ewald has revived in his rendering, “a woman changing into a man,” or that of Schnurrer, Rosenmller, Gesenius, Maurer, “the woman shall protect the man,” or that of Ngelsbach, “the woman shall turn the man to herself.” The above-mentioned general consideration, we repeat, is sufficient to set aside these explanations, quite apart from the fact that none of them can be lexically substantiated; for neither means to “turn one’s self, vertere,” nor to “protect,” nor to “cause to return” (as if were used for ). Deu 32:10 is adduced to prove the meaning of protection; but the word there means to go about fondling and cherishing. Neither the transmutation of the female into a male, or of a weak woman into a strong man, nor the protection of the man by a woman, nor the notion that the strong succumbs to the weak, forms an effectual motive for the summons to Israel to return; nor can we call any of them a new creative act effected by Jahveh, or a new arrangement of things. But we must utterly reject the meaning of the words given by Castle, le Clerc, and Hitzig, who apply them to the unnatural circumstance, that a woman makes her suit to a man, even where by the woman is understood the virgin of Israel, and by the man, Jahveh. Luther gave the correct rendering in his editions of 1543 and 1545, “the woman shall encompass the man,” – only, “embrace” (Ger. umfangen ) might express the sense better than “encompass” (Ger. umgeben ). is nomen sexus, “femella, a female;” , a “man,” also “ proles mascula ,” not according to the sexual relation (= ), but with the idea of strength. Both in the choice of these words and by the omission of the article, the relation is set forth in its widest generality; the attention is thereby steadily directed to its fundamental nature. The woman, the weak and tender being, shall lovingly embrace the man, the strong one. Hengstenberg reverses the meaning of the words when he renders them, “the strong one shall again take the weak into his closest intercourse, under his protection, loving care.” Many expositors, including Hengstenberg and Hitzig of moderns, have rightly perceived that the general idea has been set forth with special reference to the relation between the woman, Israel, and the man, Jahveh.
Starting with this view, which is suggested by the context, the older expositors explained the words of the conception and birth of Christ by a virgin; cf. Corn. a Lapide, Calovii Bibl. ill., Cocceius, and Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 758ff. Thus, for example, the Berleburger Bibel gives the following explanation: “A woman or virgin – not a married woman – will encompass, i.e., carry and contain in her body, the man who is to be a vanquisher of all and to surpass all in strength.” This explanation cannot be set aside by the simple remark, “that here there would be set forth the very feature in the birth of Christ by a virgin which is not peculiar to it as compared with others;” for this “superficial remark” does not in the least touch the real point to be explained. But it may very properly be objected, that has not the special meaning of conceiving in a mother’s womb. On this ground we can also set down as incorrect the other explanation of the words in the Berleburger Bibel, that the text rather speaks of “the woman who is the Jewish Church, and who, in the spirit of faith, is to bear Christ as the mighty God, Isa 9:6, in the likeness of a man, Rev 12:1-2.” However, these explanations are nearer the truth than any that have been offered since. The general statement, “a woman shall encompass (the) man,” i.e., lovingly embrace him – this new relation which Jahveh will bring about in place of the old, that the man encompasses the wife, loving, providing for, protecting her – can only be referred, agreeably to the context, to change of relation between Israel and the Lord. , “to encompass,” is used tropically, not merely of the mode of dealing on the part of the Lord to His people, the faithful, – of the protection, the grace, and the aid which He grants to the pious ones, as in Psa 32:7, Psa 32:10; Deu 32:10, – but also of the dealings of men with divine things. , Psa 26:6, does not mean, “I will go round Thine altar,” in a circle or semicircle as it were, but, “I will keep to Thine altar,” instead of keeping company with the wicked; or more correctly, “I will surround Thine altar,” making it the object of my care, of all my dealings, – I will make mine own the favours shown to the faithful at Thine altar. In the verse now before us, signifies to encompass with love and care, to surround lovingly and carefully, – the natural and fitting dealing on the part of the stronger to the weak and those who need assistance. And the new thing that God creates consists in this, that the woman, the weaker nature that needs help, will lovingly and solicitously surround the man, the stronger. Herein is expressed a new relation of Israel to the Lord, a reference to a new covenant which the Lord, Jer 31:31., will conclude with His people, and in which He deals so condescendingly towards them that they can lovingly embrace Him. This is the substance of the Messianic meaning in the words. The conception of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary is not expressed in them either directly or indirectly, even though we were allowed to take in the meaning of “embrace.” This new creation of the Lord is intended to be, and can be, for Israel, a powerful motive to their immediate return to their God.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Vs. 15-22: RACHEL’S LAMENTATION AND DIVINE CONSOLATION
1. So sad has been the scattering of Israel that Jeremiah pictures Rachel (the beloved wife of Jacob, and mother of Joseph and Benjamin) as lifting up her head from the grave to weep over the deportation of her children by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. (vs. 15).
a. Ramah was a settlement in the vicinity of Gibeah and Beeroth (Jos 18:25), about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, (Jer 40:1; Isa 10:29).
b. Rachel had died in giving birth to Benjamin, enroute to Bethlehem, and had been buried at Zelah on the border of Benjamin, (Gen 35:19; Gen 48:17; 1Sa 10:2).
c. Matthew cites this illustrative figure in connection with the slaughter of innocents by King Herod, in his attempt to destroy the newborn “King of the Jews!” (Mat 2:17-18).
2. In verses 16-17 the Lord is pictured as comforting Rachel by the assurance that her children will be restored, (Isa 25:8; Isa 30:18-19; Jer 30:3; Jer 29:11).
3. Ephraim is likened to an undisciplined calf (Hos 4:16) until the hand of the Lord laid upon him such restraints and chastisement as brought him to repentance and shame, (Jer 3:22-25) – and a readiness to submit to the yoke of Jehovah, (vs. 18-19; Psa 94:12-13; Mat 11:28-30).
4. As an humbled returning prodigal, Ephraim will come to know the vastness of God’s love and care! (vs. 20; comp. Luk 15:22-32).
a. Such divine grief as here expressed over the waywardness of his people is something that only parents of rebellious children can begin to understand! (comp. Hos 11:8-9).
b. They were dear to Him; He delighted in them; He had fond memories of their youth; and He yearned for an opportunity to RESTORE THEM to His fellowship! (Isa 55:7; Hos 14:4).
5.Verse 21 is an appeal for Israel to return by the same way she has departed (Isa 52:11), the old relationship cannot be restored until she turns to the Lord with her whole heart, (Deu 30:1-4); she will then be regarded as the “virgin of Israel”, (vs. 4).
6. In the first part of verse 22 the Lord chides Israel as a “backsliding daughter”: How long will she go hither and thither- placing her hope and trust in most anything other than Jehovah Himself? (Jer 2:23; Jer 13:27; Jer 49:4).
7. A number of suggestions have been put forth to explain the meaning of the “new thing” that Jehovah creates: “a woman shall compass a man” (vs. 22b).
a. Some view it as fulfilled in a repentant and restored Israel – embracing Jehovah her God, and being established in the New Covenant, (Psa 110:3; Mat 23:39).
b. Others seem certain that it is a reference to the virgin birth of the Christ, (Luk 1:26-35; Gal 4:4-5).
c. However, since Israel has rejected the role of a faithful witnessing institution to all men, the Lord ultimately casts her aside and raises up a new witnessing institution (in His church) with which He establishes the new covenant relationship, and to whom He gives a commission to evangelize all nations – even unto the consummation of the age, (Mat 16:18; Luk 12:32; Mat 28:18-20; Mat 26:26-29).
1) As with Israel, the church is said to be His “house” and the “holy temple” in which He dwells, by the Holy Spirit, (1Ti 3:15; Eph 2:19-21).
2) Likewise, the relationship between Christ and His church is illustrated by that between a husband and his wife; she is espoused to “one husband” in whole-hearted love, devotion and obedient loyalty, (Eph 5:22-32; 2Co 11:2).
3) So obviously “blessed” is the relationship of love between the Lord (the man Christ Jesus) and His new covenant community (the church) that Israel (the nation) is said to be “provoked to jealousy” (Rom 11:11) – a very powerful influence in effecting her ultimate repentance and loyal return to her long-spurned Saviour, Lord and King!
4) Having learned obedience, the believing nation will also be brought into the bonds of the new covenant – though it is the studied judgment of this writer that such will NOT take place until AFTER she has faithfully executed her role as “chief” of the nations (vs. 7) during the millennium.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Here, in the first place, the Prophet describes the desolation of the land, when deprived of all its inhabitants; and, in the second place, he adds a comfort, — that God would restore the captives from exile, that the land might again be inhabited. But there is here what they call a personification, that is, an imaginary person introduced: for the Prophet raises up Rachel from the grave, and represents her as lamenting. She had been long dead, and her body had been reduced to ashes; but the discourse has more force when lamentation is ascribed to a dead woman than if the Prophet had said, that the land would present a sad and a mournful appearance, because it would be waste and desolate; for rhetoricians mention personification among the highest excellencies, and Cicero, when treating of the highest ornament of an oration, says, that nothing touches an audience so much as when the dead are raised up from below. The Prophet, then, though not taught in the school of rhetoricians, thus adorned his discourse through the impulse ot God’s Spirit, that he might more effectually penetrate into the hearts of the people.
And this personification introduces a scene, for it brings before us the Jews and the other Israelites; nor does it only represent to them the calamity that was at hand, and what had already in part happened, but it also sets before their eyes the vengeance of God which had taken place in the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, when first four tribes were driven into exile, and afterwards the whole kingdom was destroyed, and it also sets forth what the Jews little thought of and did not fear, even the extreme calamity and ruin of the kingdom of Judah, and of the holy city.
Hence he says, Thus saith Jehovah, A voice on the height is heard, even lamentation, the weeping of bitterness, he introduces God as the speaker; for the Jews, though they had seen the dreadful scattering of their brethren, were yet remaining secure; and hence another Prophet complains, that no one laid to heart the calamity of Joseph. (Amo 6:6) They saw that the whole land was almost consumed by God’s vengeance, as though a fire had raged everywhere; and yet they followed their own gratifications, as Isaiah also accuses them. (Isa 22:0) This is the reason why God is made to speak here: he had to do with men altogether torpid and heedless. That the Prophet then might awaken them from their torpor, he introduces God as making the announcement, A voice then is heard, — whose voice? of Rachel.
Interpreters think that Rachel is mentioned, because she was buried in Bethlehem: but as to Joseph, that is, his posterity, this region had come by lot, it seems to me probable that the Prophet here refers not to the grave of Rachel, but to her offspring; for that part which they who descended from her son Benjamin had obtained, was laid waste; hence he introduces Rachel as the mother of that part of the country; and it is well known that under the tribe of Ephraim is included the other ten tribes: but the reference to her burial is without meaning. Rachel, then, weeping for her children, refused consolation, because they were not; (32) that is, she could not receive consolation, for a reason was wanting, as her posterity were destroyed, and were become extinct in the land.
This passage is quoted by Matthew, (Mat 2:18) where he gives an account of the infants under two years old, who had been slain by the command of Herod: then he says, that this prophecy was fulfilled, even that Rachel again wept for her children. But the explanation of this is attended with no difficulty; for Matthew meant no other thing than that the same thing happened at the coming of Christ as had taken place before, when the whole country was reduced to desolation; for it was the Evangelist’s object to remove an offense arising from novelty, as we know that men’s minds feel a dread when anything new, unexpected, and never heard of before happens. Hence, the Evangelists often direct their attention to this point, so that what happened in the time of Christ might not terrify or disturb the minds of men as a thing new and unexpected, inasmuch as the fathers formerly had experienced the same. To no purpose then do interpreters torture themselves by explaining this passage allegorically; for Matthew did not intend to lessen the authority of ancient history, for he knew in what sense this had been formerly said; but his only object was to remind the Jews that there was no cause for them to be greatly astonished at that slaughter, for that region had formerly been laid waste and bereaved of all its inhabitants, as though a mother, having had a large family, were to lose all her children. (33)
We now then see how Matthew accommodated to his own purpose this passage. He retains the proper name, “Ramah,” and there was a place so called; but the appellative is preferable here, “A voice is heard on the height,” as we had yesterday, “on the height of Zion.” Then a high place is what Jeremiah has mentioned here, because lamentation was to be heard through all parts of the country, for a voice sent forth from a high place sounds afar off. (34) Now, also, we perceive the meaning of this sentence, — that the country possessed by the sons of Benjamin had been reduced to desolation, so that the mother, as one bereaved of her children, pined away in her lamentation, as nothing could afford her comfort, because her whole offspring had been cut off.
Now follows a promise which moderates the grievousness of the calamity. And the two verses ought to be read as opposite the one to the other, “Though Rachel, weeping for her children, has no ground for consolation for a time, yet God will console her.” And thus the Prophet, in the former verse, exhorts the Jews to repentance, but in the latter to hope: for it was necessary that the Jews should be forewarned of their dreadful calamity, that they might acknowledge God’s judgment; and it was also necessary for them to have their minds inspired with hope. Now, then, the Prophet bids them to be comforted; for Rachel, having long bewailed her children without any consolation, would at length obtain God’s mercy. God then would console Rachel after her long lamentation.
(32) “To be not,” according to the usage of the Scripture, means either dead or absent. See Gen 42:36. Joseph was not, he being dead; and Simeon was not, he being absent in Egypt. To be not here refers to the absent, those driven into exile; but the passage, as quoted by Matthew, refers to such as were dead. The similarity was only in part, that is, as to the weeping. — Ed.
(33) The quotation in Matthew is neither from the Hebrew nor from the Sept. It is substantially correct, but not verbally; the sense and not the words, seems to have been chiefly regarded by the Apostles. — Ed.
(34) “Ramah” is found in the Sept., the Syr., and the Targ.; but “on the height,” or, on high, is the Vulg. It seems better to retain the proper name, “Ramah.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
3. The disconsolate (Jer. 31:15-17)
TRANSLATION
(15) Thus says the LORD: Listen! In Ramah lamentation is heard! bitter weeping! Rachel is weeping over her children. She refuses to be comforted concerning her children, because they are no more. (16) Thus says the LORD: Restrain your voice from weeping, your eyes from tears. For there is a reward for your labor (oracle of the LORD) when they shall return from the land of the enemy. (17) There is hope for your latter end (oracle of the LORD) when sons return to their borders.
COMMENTS
With brilliant poetic imagination Jeremiah represents Rachel (Rahel, KJV) in her grave near Bethlehem lifting up her voice in bitter lamentation over the recent fate of her children. Rachel, who had pined for children all her life (Gen. 30:1), died with sorrow in giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18-19). It is most appropriate that this one who loved children so much should here bemoan the loss of them. The meaning of the name Rachel (ewe) adds force to the prophets description. He hears the cry of the ewe in Ramah (literally, on the hill-top) bleating for her lambs. Rachel was the mother of Benjamin and Joseph and, through the latter, of Ephraim and Manasseh. As Ephraim was the leading tribe of the north it is likely that Rachel was regarded as the mother of Israel, the ideal representative of the northern kingdom. In a bit broader sense, Rachel symbolizes all the mothers of the entire nation who had lost sons through death and deportation.
Rachel is disconsolate because her children are being slain and snatched away. No one can comfort her in this moment of sorrow because her children are not, i.e., they are dead. The following verses seem to indicate that the prophet primarily has in mind the symbolic death of exile. But since many were slain when the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered the people of God, and since many died in captivity in foreign lands, an allusion to literal death cannot be absolutely eliminated from the expression they are not. The question arises as to whether Rachel is weeping over the deportations of Israelites to Assyria or of Jews to Babylon. One cannot be absolutely sure. But in view of the fact that Jer. 31:18-20 speak exclusively of Ephraim it is likely that it is the early Assyrian deportation which is in mind.
The mention of Ramah raises an exegetical problem. Which Ramah does the writer have in mind and why does he mention the place? TWO places called Ramah are prominent in the Old Testament. Both of them were some miles north of Jerusalem.[262] Some think that the reference is to another Ramah in the vicinity of Bethlehem which is otherwise unknown in the Old Testament. Still others fed that the term Ramah is not a proper name at all but means simply a mountain height. On the whole, however, it is best to regard Ramah as a definite location though it is impossible to determine which of the two places of this name is intended.
[262] One Ramah is mentioned in Jos. 18:25 and was five miles north of Jerusalem; the other Ramah, the home town of Samuel (1Sa. 1:19; 1Sa. 25:1) about four miles north-west of Jerusalem.
Why is Ramah mentioned in this passage? Various suggestions have been made. Some think that Ramah is mentioned because Rachel was buried near there. But nowhere is Ramah explicitly designated as the site of Rachels tomb. Others think that Ramah is mentioned because this was the spot at which the exiles were assembled before being slain or deported.[263] Jeremiah himself was taken in chains to Ramah (Jer. 40:1; Jer. 39:11-12). He may have actually heard the women of Israel weeping and wailing as they watched the cruel fate of their sons. Still another view is that Ramah is mentioned only to indicate the distance at which the lamentation was heard. According to this view the weeping originated at Bethlehem but was heard as far away as Ramah. On the whole the last view seems to be the most satisfactory.
[263] The mention of Ramah in Isa. 10:29 seems to indicate that it was the scene of some special massacre by Sennacherib in the days of king Hezekiah.
Matthew cites Jer. 31:15 as being fulfilled in the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem by Herod. Because of the inspired statement of Matthew some commentators have argued that Jer. 31:15 is a direct prophecy of what would transpire in Bethlehem centuries later.[264] However the word fulfilled as used in Mat. 2:17 probably only means that the words in Jeremiah aptly express the event which Matthew is recording. The language used by Old Testament writers to describe events of their own or previous times is often so full and rich that it can be appropriately used to describe New Testament events which occurred in similar circumstances and were of similar import. In such cases the language of the Old Testament is said to have been fulfilled in the New Testament.[265] Thus the slaughter of the Bethlehem infants was not the fulfillment of a prediction of Jeremiah, but only of certain words spoken by the prophet.[266] Rachels grief was reawakened by the slaughter of the innocent babes of Bethlehem.
[264] Laetsch (op. cit., p. 250), has, perhaps, the most capable defense of this position. According to Laetsch, Rachel is introduced as bewailing her children because her tomb was located at Bethlehem where the infants were to be slain.
[265] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964), p. 17.
[266] J. W. McGarvey, The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark (Cincinnati: Chase and Hall, 1875), p. 30,
The word fulfilled does not seem to have the same force in every passage of the New Testament where it occurs. Some time ago J. W. McGarvey suggested that the word was used by Matthew in the second chapter of his Gospel in three different ways. He writes:
The three quotations from the prophets contained in this chapter (6, 15, 18) belong to and illustrate three distinct classes of such quotations which are found in the New Testament, and which especially abound in Matthew. The first, concerning the birth-place of Jesus, is strictly a prediction, for it refers directly to the event. The second, concerning the call out of Egypt, is an example of words used with a double reference, having both a primary and secondary reference and fulfillment. Such predictions are sometimes called typical, because they are originally spoken concerning a type and find another fulfillment in the antetype. The third, concerning the weeping at Bethlehem, is an example in which the event fulfills the meaning of words used by a prophet, though the words had originally no reference at all to this event. It is a verbal fulfillment, and not a real fulfillment, as in the other two cases.[267]
[267] Ibid.
In Jer. 31:16-17 God wipes away the tears from the cheek of the disconsolate Rachel. Using the language of the prophet Azariah (2Ch. 15:7) Jeremiah assures the mother of Israel that there will be a reward for her work. The work refers to the parental weeping for her children.[268] Rachel is not weeping in vain. Her children will one day return to their homeland. Though the present prospects are exceedingly dismal. there is hope for the future of Israel.
[268] Others take the work to be the travail of childbirth.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(15) A voice was heard in Ramah.The sharp contrast between this and the exulting joy of the previous verse shows that we are entering on a new section which repeats in altered form the substance of the foregoing, presenting in succession the same pictures of present woe and future gladness. The prophet sees first the desolation of the captivity. Rachel, as the mother of Joseph, and therefore of Ephraim, becomes the ideal representative of the northern kingdom. Her voice is heard in Ramah (possibly, as in 1Sa. 22:6, Eze. 16:24, and in the Vulgate here, not as the name of a locality, but in its general meaning, from a mountain height) weeping for the children who have been slain or carried into exile. When used elsewhere as a proper name, the noun always has the article. Here it stands without it. If Ramah be definitely one of the places of that name, known fully as Ramathaim-zophim (1Sa. 1:1; 1Sa. 1:19), it is probably that within the borders of Benjamin (Jos. 18:25), not far from Rachels sepulchre (1Sa. 10:2). She, even in her grave, weeps for her children. The mention of Ramah in Isa. 10:29 seems to indicate that it was the scene of some special massacre in the progress of the Assyrian invader, in the reign of Hezekiah; and Jeremiah may possibly refer to it, as well as to some later atrocity, in connection with that of the Chaldans (comp. Jer. 40:1), over which Rachel, in her sepulchre near Bethlehem, is supposed to weep. Possibly also the meaning of the name Rachel (= ewe) may have added something to the force of the prophets description. He hears the cry of the ewe on the hill-top bleating for her lambs. The passage has gained a special significance as being cited by St. Matthew (Mat. 2:18), as fulfilled in Herods massacre of the infants of Bethlehem. On the nature of this fulfilment see Note on Mat. 2:18.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. A voice was heard This strophe (Jer 31:15-22) brings to view another side of Israel’s restoration. It was to be not merely political and external, but internal and spiritual. This is set forth in a passage of peculiar tenderness. Rachel, their common mother, is represented as lamenting the loss of her children who have gone into exile; and Ephraim, of these very children, bemoans his sins. In view of these the promise is given from the Almighty that they should come again from the land of the enemy.
Ramah Probably, as even the Seventy understood, the town of Ramah, which was situated about five English miles to the north of Jerusalem. Why was the lamentation of Rachel heard at Ramah?
1) Most say, because Rachel was buried there, and 1Sa 10:2, is quoted in proof of this. But this passage is manifestly inconclusive; for not Ramah, but “Zelzar, in the border of Benjamin,” is mentioned as the locality of Rachel’s sepulchre, and the assumption that this was at Samuel’s native home, and hence Ramah, is most gratuitous. From Gen 35:16; Gen 35:19, we learn that Rachel died “on the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem,” and that “there was but a little way to come to Bethlehem,” hence very plainly her tomb was near Bethlehem, which is six miles south of Jerusalem, and not Ramah, nearly as far north. This, too, falls in well with Mat 2:18.
2) Others say that Ramah is mentioned because here the exiles were assembled preparatory to being carried away. (See Jer 40:1.) But this is weeping, not over those who are to go into captivity, but those who have already gone. Yet the fact that this was the place of rendezvous gives, it must be confessed, special interest to the language.
3) Some have conjectured another Ramah, which was situated to the south of Jerusalem, and so at or near Rachel’s tomb. This conjecture is entirely unsupported, and yet not impossible. The name Ramah ( height) is certainly one that would apply to many localities. But the fact of no other Ramah in this general region, which is well identified, stands strongly, if not conclusively, against this conjecture.
4) Others, as Keil, say that the lamentation was heard in Ramah “as the most loftily situated border town of the two kingdoms, whence the wailing that had arisen sounded far and near, and could be heard in Judah.” Rachel is named as the representative of that parental love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people were lost. This explanation is, on the whole, to be preferred. We ought not, however, to leave out of account the fact, that this height was situated near Jerusalem, and so a voice in Ramah would be heard in the city and country alike.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
But This Great Joy Will Arise Out Of Sorrow And Out Of What YHWH Has Caused To Happen To His People ( Jer 31:15 ).
In a deliberate contrast to the joy and exultancy of the previous verses, Jeremiah now returns to the anguish of the current situation. In a very short (one verse) passage we are reminded again of the chastisement that must precede the blessing. The future is bright, but the present is not. The present is ‘Rachel’ weeping for her children because ‘they are not’.
Jer 31:15
‘Thus says YHWH,’
Once more what happens is to be seen as resulting from the word of YHWH.
Jer 31:15
“A voice is heard on a height (or ‘in Ramah’), lamentation, and bitter weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children,
She refuses to be comforted for her children,
Because they are not.”
There would appear here to be a play on ideas. ‘Ramah’ (‘height’) is here without the article whereas when used of towns it usually has the article, not only in the historical contexts such as Jer 40:1, Jos 18:25; Jdg 4:5, etc., but also in prophetic writings such as Hos 6:8; Isa 10:29. It is thus suggestive of ‘Rachel’ standing on ‘a height’ (as in 1Sa 22:6; Eze 16:24), looking towards the north as her children disappear over the horizon. And just as ‘Jacob’ represented the people of Israel/Judah, so we may see ‘Rachel’ as doing the same here. The picture is of the remnant of Israel/Judah, and all their buried ancestors in the land, mourning over those who have gone into exile.
But why should Rachel in particular be introduced? It was probably precisely because Jeremiah wanted to see in this a reference to ancient Ramah, a site which was unquestionably near the place where Rachel died in sorrow in child birth. And as she died she called her son ‘Ben-oni’, ‘son of my sorrow’ (Gen 35:18). Thus Rachel’s sorrow was especially related to Benjamin, and to this area. We could even describe this as ‘the time of Rachel’s sorrow’ (compare ‘Jacob’s trouble’ in Jer 30:7). Rachel was Jacob’s wife, and she was buried after dying in childbirth ‘on the way to Bethlehem’ (coming from Bethel – Gen 35:16 ff.). 1Sa 10:2 puts her tomb as ‘on the border of Benjamin’ near Zelzah (site unknown). Her tomb was thus well known in Samuel’s day. He himself lived at a different Ramah (which simply means ‘height’) and he possibly therefore referred to ‘nearby Zelzah’ rather than ‘nearby ancient Ramah’ so as to avoid confusion between the two Ramahs.
This ancient Ramah in Benjamin was a stopping place between Bethel and Bethlehem in the area of Gibeon and Beeroth in the tribal area of Benjamin (Jos 18:25). It was near Jerusalem (which was on the border of Benjamin) and Gibeah (Jdg 19:13). This may be seen as supporting the ancient tradition that Rachel was buried near Ramah, (on the basis of which tradition a tomb was in more modern times (15th century AD) built there after the Muslim style, as a memorial of her). This pathetic picture may well therefore be intended to include the idea of Rachel weeping from her resting place, where she had once grieved over Benjamin, as she sees what has now happened to her present seed and to the seed of Jacob. Once again she is in sorrow because of Benjamin. Interestingly her sons can be seen as representing both Ephraim (who was the son of her own son Joseph) and Judah (who were united as one people with Benjamin her son), and it should be noted that in Psa 80:2 it is the Rachel tribes, Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh (the ‘children’ of Rachel) who represent the whole of Israel/Judah. On the other hand she did, of course, also have other sons by her handmaid who would certainly in those days have been seen as genuinely her sons. We cannot therefore see Rachel as just weeping over Ephraim. She is weeping over the whole of Israel/Judah.
Ramah was also the place where the captives were gathered to be taken into exile (Jer 40:1), which may also possibly help to explain why ‘Rachel’ was seen as weeping there, but if that was the prime reference we would expect mention of Ramah before this in order to make the reference clear, and we would have expected the article (found in Jer 40:1). On the other hand everyone knew that ancient Ramah was near the place where Rachel had died in sorrow, so that the very hint of ‘ramah’ would draw attention to it. What is, however, most important is that her weeping is depicted as unceasing (she refuses to be comforted), because the land is empty and her children are no longer there. She refuses to be comforted because her children ‘are not.’ That is the essence of the verse.
As already mentioned, Ramah is in Benjamin (Jos 18:25), and on the border with Judah, and so she is not to be seen as just weeping for the northern kingdom. Benjamin and Judah too are gone. And Rachel has, as it were, been left alone, bereft of all her children, either by slaughter or by exile. The only thing that can comfort her will be the return of her children. But as yet that has not happened. The days of hope that lie ahead must first be preceded (especially for the few remaining in Judah and Benjamin, if Rachel is seen as representing them), by days of mourning and weeping for a people far away. Matthew later sees the return from exile as not really satisfying her sorrow when he contemplated in his day what Israel had become, and so he saw the sorrow of the bereaved women of Bethlehem as significant when Another Who represented Israel and was one of Rachel’s ‘children’ would be exiled to Egypt, escaping from the slaughter of other children, only later to return from exile (Mat 2:17-18). He was thus seen by Matthew as representing exiled Israel (see Mat 2:15-17) and therefore as fulfilling this prophecy.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Sorrow Turned into Joy
v. 15. Thus saith the Lord, A voice was heard in Ba-mah, v. 16. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears, v. 17. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, v. 18. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus, v. 19. Surely after that I was turned, I repented, v. 20. Is Ephraim My dear son? v. 21. Set thee up way-marks, v. 22. How long wilt thou go about, v. 23. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, v. 24. And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, v. 25. For I have satiated the weary soul, v. 26. Upon this I awaked,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Jer 31:15. A voice was heard in Ramah The prophet describes the lamentations in and about Jerusalem at the time of the several captivities, under the image of a mother lamenting over her dead children. The mournful scene is laid in Ramah, in the tribe of Benjamin mentioned Jos 18:25 and Rachel, the mother of that tribe, is introduced as chief mourner on so sad an occasion. This figurative representation was in a great measure literally fulfilled when Herod slew the infants at Bethlehem, the place where Rachel was buried; and, therefore, she may with great propriety be represented as rising from the grave, and lamenting the death of her innocent children. It is observable, that the Vulgate, Chaldee, and LXX. understand the word Ramah, not as a proper name, but as an appellative; and translate it on high, or aloud; according to which the sense will be, A voice is heard on high, or aloud, lamentations, weepings louder and louder; Rachel weeping over her children, refusing to be comforted over her children, because they are not. The prophesy might primarily have alluded to the afflictions in which the Jews were immerged when collected by Nebuzar-adan at Ramah, in order to be transported into Babylon: but when considered in its secondary sense, as alluding to the massacre made by Herod at Bethlehem, we may infer, that had the prophet lived at that time, and heard the mothers’ shrieks increasing, as the murderers proceeded in their havoc, he could not have given a more lively description of that massacre. See Grotius.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
3. The threefold Turn
Jer 31:15-22
15Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and most bitter crying;
Rachel weeps for her children,
Refusing11 to be comforted for her children, for they are no more.12
16Thus saith Jehovah: Restrain thy voice from weeping,
And thine eyes from tears:
For there is reward for thy work, saith Jehovah;
And they shall return from the land of the enemy.
17There is also hope for thy future, saith Jehovah;
And children13 shall return to their border.
18I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself;
Thou hast chastised me,
And I allowed myself to be chastised like an untrained bullock.
Turn thou me again, that I may turn;
For thou art Jehovah my God.
19For after my revolt,14 I repent;
And after I have learned to know myself,15 I smite on the thigh:
I blush, I am also ashamed
That I have borne the reproach of my youth.
20Is then Ephraim a favourite16 son to me or a bosom-child,17
That whenever I speak against him I must still remember him?
Therefore my bowels heave towards him;
I must have pity on him, saith Jehovah.
21Erect for thyself signals, set up for thyself poles,18
Turn thy mind to the highway, the way thou wentest!
Return, O virgin Israel,
Return to these thy cities.
22How long wilt thou turn hither and thither,19 thou backsliding daughter?20
For Jehovah has created a new thing on earth:
The woman shall turn the man.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This strophe causes the return of Israel, set forth before us in prospect, to be seen from another side, viz. as at the same time an inward return to God, or conversion. In a wonderfully touching picture the prophet represents Rachel, the mother of the house of Joseph, as raising a lamentation at Ramah over the tracks of those who are going into exile, as though they were dead (Jer 31:15). Jehovah Himself, however, comforts her; a reward is still to be hoped for her work and comfort for the future, for the return of her children is promised (Jer 31:16-17). But is this possible? Yes, for Israel will turn inwardly to the Lord and thus fulfil that condition, which the outward return as a necessary consequence thereof must have. The prophet does this by introducing Ephraim as speaking and causing him to make an honest and hearty confession (Jer 31:18-19). On this Jehovah gives us to understand in touching words that His love for Ephraim is deeply rooted and invincible (Jer 31:20). Ephraim consequently receives the command to make all the preparations for return. Thus at the same time the (according to Jer 3:1) entirely new and unheard of case is now realized, that a woman, rejected and shared by other men, brings back her first husband (Jer 31:21-22).
Jer 31:15. Thus saith Jehovah they are no more. With respect to Ramah and the grave of Rachel the greatest obscurity still prevails. My view is as follows: 1. The tomb of Rachel was near Ramah. This definitely follows from this passage and 1Sa 10:2. Delitzschremarks (Comm. on Genesis , 2 te Aufl. ter Theil., S. 53) that Rachels weeping is heard in Ramah not because her tomb is in the neighborhood, but because, according to Jer 40:1, the exiles assembled there, but to this it is opposed (a) that according to 1Sa 10:2 the tomb of Rachel was positively near Ramah; and (b) that Rachels weeping does not refer to the exiles mentioned in Jer 40:1; for these were Jews, while according to the whole connection of this passage, Rachel bewails the exile of the Ephraimites. 2. Ramah, near which was Rachels tomb and where Samuel dwelt (1Sa 10:2) was in Benjamin, in the vicinity of Gibeah, north of Jerusalem. This is seen from Jdg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8. In Jos 18:25 it is expressly said that Ramah was in Benjamin. The original and complete name is Ramathaim Zophim ( ), 1Sa 1:1 coll. Jer 31:19. The statement that Ramah was situated on the mountains of Ephraim (Jdg 4:5; 1Sa 1:1) is not in contradiction to this, for the southern slopes of the mountains of Ephraim extended thus far. (Comp. Herzog, R.-Enc. XII. S. 515 [Robinson, Bibl. Researches, II. 315317; 331334; Thomson, The Land and the Book, II., 503.S. R. A.]). It has been objected to the identity of the Ramah of Samuel and the Ramah near Gibeah that Saul in seeking the she-asses took three days in going from Gibeah to Ramah (1Sa 9:20), and that David fleeing from Gibeah took refuge in Ramah (1Sa 19:18). Even Raumer (Palst. S. 219) lays some weight on these objections. [Comp. also Smith, Bible Dict., s. v. Ramah.S. R. A.]. As to the first, however, it is clear from 1Sa 9:4-5 that Saul did not follow the direct road, but seeking or pursuing the track of the asses, reached Ramah by a very circuitous route. With respect to the second Ruetschi (Herz. R.-Enc., ut sup.) has replied that David did not seek (temporary) protection from the city of Ramah but from Samuel. 3. There is also a Ramah in Gilead (Ramoth, Ramath Mizpeh, Jos 13:26; Jos 20:8; Jos 21:38, etc.); another south-west from Jerusalem, west of the mountains of Judea (Ramathlebi, Jdg 15:17=Eleutheropolis. Comp. Raumer, Palst, S. 185, 6); a third in Naphtali (Jos 19:36); a fourth in Asher (Jos 19:29). A fifth place, which sometimes occurs under this name is Ramlah, a city which is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (unless perhaps in Neh 11:33), of later origin, and very probably identical with Arimathea, and situated to the west of Jerusalem in the plain of Saron near Lydia (Diospolis). Comp. Raumer, Palst., S. 217, 8, 448. There is then no Ramah in the vicinity of Bethlehem! 4. Bethlehem is doubtless also called Ephrath or Ephratah (Mic 5:1; Rth 1:2; 1Sa 17:12). Now if Rachels tomb is in the neighborhood of Ramah it cannot be near Bethlehem, and the Ephratah near which (Gen 36:16; Gen 36:19 coll. Jer 48:7) Rachel bore Benjamin and was buried, cannot be Bethlehem.
Now we read in 2Ch 13:19 of a place in the neighborhood of Bethel, the name of which according to the, Chethibh is but according to the Keri . The latter reminds us of or , a little town, which, according to Jerome, lay 20 m. p. north from Jerusalem, where Christ remained for some time after the resurrection of Lazarus (Joh 11:54). Josephus also relates (B. Jud. VI.9, 9) that Vespasian destroyed , and then rode to Jerusalem. In Jos 18:23 is mentioned among the cities of Benjamin. The same name recurs in 1Sa 13:17. Eusebius in his Onomast., s. v. Aphra, says: est et hodie vicus Effrem in quinio milliario Bethiis ad Orientem respiciens. The distances given point to the identity of Ephraim (Ephron) and Ophra. (Comp. Robinson, II., S. 333 sqq. [3:124]; Raumer, S. 189 and 216). Now it is remarkable that the Alexandrian translators in 1Sa 13:17 render the name by , and on the other hand in Jos 18:23 by (Cod. Alex. ). From this it seems to follow that even in very ancient times and were interchanged, and that hence not only the , Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7, but also the name , Jer 35:16; Jer 35:19; Jer 48:7, is to be regarded as a corruption of the original reading. I had reached this result before Grafs treatise on the situation of Bethel and Rama (Stud. u. Krit., 1854, 4., S. 86S) became known to me.The prophet goes back in spirit to the time when the inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes were led away to Assyria into captivity. Since that time, he says, making use of figurative language, may be heard in Ramah, the greater city near Rachels tomb (1Sa 20:2), nightly wailing and bitter weeping (Jer 6:26). It is Rachel who is weeping for her children. The inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes may be designated children of Rachel, because at their head stands the tribe of Ephraim, which is frequently mentioned as a representative of the kingdom of Israel, Isa 7:2-5; Isa 7:8-9; Isa 7:17; Isa 11:13; Hos 4:17, etc.; Jer 7:15; Jer 31:9; Jer 31:18; Jer 31:20. The mother of the ruling tribe appears thus as the personification of the kingdom ruled by it. The spirit of Rachel is the genius of the kingdom of the ten tribes, whom the prophet represents by a bold poetical figure as rising from her tomb by night and bewailing the misery of her children.Are no more. Comp. Isa 17:14; Eze 26:21.
Jer 31:16-17. Thus saith Jehovah . . . their border. The Lord comforts Rachel by promising her a glorious reward for her maternal labor and care, (on restrain thy voice comp. guard thy foot, Jer 2:25. On there is reward comp. 2Ch 15:7) viz. her children shall be redeemed from the land of captivityand by setting before her the consolatory hope for the future, that the children will also return to their native land. On there is also hope comp. Jer 31:11.
Jer 31:18-19. I have surely . . . of my youth. These verses give the inner reason of that joyful change: Israel will fulfil the condition required of him by the Lord (Jer 3:13 sqq.). First the people express their acknowledgment that the chastisement was necessary for them, for they were like an untamed and untrained bullock (the prophet evidently has in mind Hos 10:11), but they have also let themselves be chastened and accepted the chastening (Jer 5:3). As Jeremiah here generally moves in the same circle of thought as in Jeremiah 3, so especially in what follows, where also as there the idea of turning forms the central point or pivot of his re-presentation.Turn thou me, etc. The knowledge gained as the result of the chastisement produces a double effect: a positive and a negative. The positive effect consists in the desire to return to Jehovah. Meanwhile the people are well aware that willing is not performing. They therefore pray the Lord that He Himself will turn their hearts to Him, who alone is Israels God. (This is the sense of the causal sentence. For thou art, etc.). Then only will they really return. The bodily return is connected with the spiritual in the closest causal relation. Comp. Rems. on , Jer 31:19, and Lam 5:21.Lam 3:40; Psa 80:4; Psa 80:8The negative effect, which on their part forms the psychological condition of the positive, and is therefore introduced by for, is the inner turning and cutting loose from all that which had allured Israel, but had yet only brought him to hurt and shame.The smiting on the side ( ,duo femina cum natibus, comp. Eze 21:17) was a sign of mourning. Comp. Winer and Herzog, R.-Enc., s. v. Trauer.I blush, etc. Comp. Isa 45:16-17.The connection of this passage is then as follows: Ephraim has taken the chastening to heart. In consequence he addresses the prayer for power to return to Jehovah, for he has now learned to repent of his turning away from Him, and to be ashamed of the consequences.
Jer 31:20-22. Is then Ephraim . . . the man. Jehovah grants the moving petition. Astonished at surprising Himself, as it were, in such tender feelings towards Ephraim, Jehovah asks Himself if then Ephraim is his favorite son, his darling child (enfant gt), since often as he has been obliged to bring the severe judgment of rejection upon him, he has yet never been able to forget him.Speak against. We may compare 2Ch 22:10, where it is said of Athaliah that she arose and all the seed royal. But apart from being here construed with a single accusative, we have in the parallel passage (2Ki 11:1) so that it is easy to suspect a mistake. Now and in the sense of speak, are frequently connected with in different meanings: loqui per aliquem (Num 12:2), de aliquo (Deu 6:7; 1Sa 19:3; Psa 119:46 coll. 23), ad aliquem (Num 12:8; Hab 2:1; Zec 1:9, etc., Num 12:2, etc., 1Sa 25:39; Son 8:8). But it also signifies loqui contra aliquem, Num 21:7 coll. Jer 31:5; Psa 50:20; Psa 78:19. This last meaning corresponds perfectly to the connection here:Often as I ( as in 1Sa 18:30; 1Ki 14:28) speak against him, i. e., cast him from me by a sentence of reprobation, yet I cannot forget him. I am always reminded of him again, and then the old feelings of love and pity are excited anew.Mybowels. Drechsler, correctly remarks on Isa 16:5, that does not like , viscera, include the nobler entrails (the heart). The word does not therefore designate the innermost source of the feelings, but only a place of the external organism where these make themselves specially noticeable. Comp. Son 5:4; Job 30:27; Lam 1:20; Lam 2:11; Isa 63:15; Jer 4:19.The immediate effect of this excitation of love, is that Israel receives directions to make preparations for the journey homewards. Thus persons are to be sent in advance to set up stone pillars as way marks for the coming train, cippus, monumentum; comp. 2Ki 23:17. Eze 39:15.Israels returning by the same road which he came is comforting in two respects, first in itself, second because it is known and easier to retrace.-The word these, before thy cities, shows unquestionably that the author has his point of view in Palestine, and not in the lands of the captivity. Comp. Graf, S. 387, Anm.
Turn hither and thither. Hitzig finds in this not incorrectly the collateral idea of delay. This accords well with how long? which expresses a certain degree of impatience. Israel does not respond quickly enough to the invitation to return. The Lord has to drive him. The expression backsliding daughter, occurs besides only in a much later passage, of the people of the Ammonites.It is surprising, that the Lord in the midst of this assurance of His tenderest love, and after Israel in Jer 31:18-19, has manifested such sincere and deep penitence, should utter another word of harsh censure. In this passage there appears to me to be a play upon words. In the section Jer 3:1-4; Jer 3:2 namely, to which this discourse is most closely related in matter as well as in form, the prophet gives as many variations of the theme as possible, sometimes applying the idea to Israel and Judah in a physical, at others in a spiritual sense. A similar variation though in abbreviated measure is found in Jer 8:4-5. In this passage also from Jer 31:19 onwards, the idea of forms the main thought. It is, however, variously modified: in Jer 31:16-17 the word is referred to bodily return, in Jer 31:18 to spiritual and bodily turning, and in Jer 31:19 to spiritual alienation, in Jer 31:21 again to bodily conditioned by spiritual turning. Now when the prophet in Jer 31:22 calls Israel , would he not thus wish to say that Israel is a person, who makes much of turning, who applies the idea of in every possible way? It appears to me that the prophet with the following sentence goes back again to the conceptions of Jeremiah 3. In the beginning of this chapter he designates it as a crime profaning the land that a man return to his rejected wife, who has meanwhile been anothers. Notwithstanding that Israel is such a wife, Jehovah yet calls her back to Himself. This is the repentance of which our passage speaks. For when the Lord does something which, according to His own law, has been hitherto regarded as inadmissible, this is certainly an exception to the rule, therefore something new and extraordinary. If now we ask how the Lord comes to make such an exception?the answer is given in Jer 31:20. Israel has done this to the Lord, he is His darling child, whom he cannot forget. Israel is like a magnet which irresistibly attracts the Lord. Israel, the woman, here mentioned by the specific name of the sex , causes the Lord to turn to herself, who is also antithetically designated by the word which sets forth the specific distinction of the male sex. Thus the weak is victorious over the strong. It is not only a new thing that the Lord returns to his desecrated wife, but that this power to bring back proceeds from the weak, so that the strong succumbs to the weak. I therefore take in the sense of to turn round, to cause to turn back. Although no passage can be shown where is really used in this sense (everywhere where it occurs, it means either circuire, Psa 26:6; Psa 55:11; Psa 59:7; Psa 59:15; Son 3:2, or circumdare; Deu 32:10; Psa 7:8; Psa 32:7; Psa 32:10; Jon 2:4; Jon 2:6), this is only accidental, for there is nothing in the radical meaning which excludes this sense. The root which is radically related to has the meaning of turning or returning in the widest sense. And that it may also stand for reverti is shown by the passage, Psa 71:20-21, where the verb is interchanged with . It cannot then be denied that may mean reducit. would certainly be more suitable, especially as corresponding more exactly to , and it is not indeed impossible that the prophet did originally write . Neither the , nor in general the importance of the idea for the explanation of the whole passage, and particularly the reference to Jer 3:1 being understood, may have occasioned the change into , unless indeed it is an error of the copyist. It is not, however, at all necessary to alter the reading, since even this, as we have shown, gives the sense required by the connection. It is exceedingly difficult to give the play upon words in the translation, since we have no corresponding word with the same variety of meanings. I know no better rendering now than thou turn-coat daughter, though the phrase is not particularly suitable as applied to a nation. This explanation is not a new one. It is essentially that of most of the Rabbins: Proinde Hebri hunc locum sic legendum contendunt: femina reducet virum, et hoc est novum in terra, at mulier, qu passim aliis viris se prostituit, veteris mariti cupida, illum iterum sui amantem obtineat. Muenster. My explanation of only is new, so far as I know, for all the commentators take the word as simply equivalent to . The other explanations of the passage whose number is legion, all do violence either to the language or the connection. To mention only the principal onesthe old orthodox explanation, which refer the words a woman shall compass, etc., to the birth of the Saviour from a virgin, must take in the sense of virgin, a meaning which the word never has nor can have. Abarbanel explains femin viros circumdabunt, i. e., superabunt, understanding by the women the weak Israelites, by the men their strong enemies. But neither is this a new thing, nor has this meaning. Femina vertetur in virum is the translation of Abulmalid, R. Tanchum, who are followed by Luther (in the first editions of his Bible till 1538) and by Ewald among the moderns. The alteration of into , however, or the rendering of the former in a passive sense is forced: the sense also must be such as to agree with the context. The explanation proposed by Schnurrer, which is adopted by many modern commentators, is the woman will protect the man,but neither corresponds to the connection, nor is it satisfactory in itself. When women protect men, either the men are become women and the women men, or there is no need of any protection.The explanation given by Hitzig, femina ambibit virum, which is found also in Castalio and Clericus (Vid. Graf, S. 389) is not inappropriate in meaning, but cannot be justified grammatically. Hengstenberg, to whom Graf attaches himself for want of a better, takes in the sense of to keep ones self near, to persist in dependence, seeking protection (Christology, Eng. Tr., II., p. 429). But this rendering is developed from the idea of surrounding which cannot be declared of a single person with respect to another. The sense thus obtained is also the reverse of the primary meaning of the words, on which the rendering is based. Radically the explanation of Hengstenberg is no other than that the man will surround the woman with his protection, as Meier also actually renders the words in his translation. Besides the larger commentaries, there are many monographs on this passage. Lists of them are found in Seb. Schmidt, Starke, J. D. Michaelis, Observ. in Jer., p. 248; Rosenmueller; Dietelmair in the Engl. Biblework, Tom. IX., S. 543. I add Andr. Dan. Habichhorst, Diss, de femina circumdante virum, 1670 and 1677.
[Of English and American commentators, Blayney fenders a woman shall put to the rout a strong man. Henderson: Woman shall encompass man, following however Blayney and Calvin in his explanation, Jehovah would make the feeblest of them more than a match for the most powerful of their foes. Wordsworth retains the interpretation of the words, which refers them to the miraculous conception of the Virgin, quoting in favor of this view S. Jerome and Jackson and Pearson on the Creed, with references also to Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Augustine, Luther, colampadius, Chemnitz, Galatinus, Calovius, Huetius, etc. Noyes translates the woman shall protect the man, with the note, there shall be a state of peace and security, so that those who are regarded as feeble and defenceless, and unfit for war, shall be competent to the defence of the country. Cowles agrees most closely with Naegelsbach, referring the woman to the Virgin Israel, the people of God, who instead of perpetually going about after other lovers, will go about (in the sense of seeking to win the love of) her own divine Lord.”S. R. A.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Joh. Conr. Schaller, pastor at Cautendorf, says in his Gospel Sermons, (Hof. 1742, S. 628), These chapters are like a sky in which sparkle many brilliant stars of strong and consolatory declarations, a paradise and pleasure-garden in which a believing soul is refreshed with delightsome flowers of instruction, and solaced with sweetly flavored apples of gracious promise.
2. On Jer 30:1-3. The people of Israel were not then capable of bearing such a prophecy, brimming over with happiness and glory. They would have misused it, hearing to the end what was promised them, and then only the more certainly postponing what was the only thing then necessarysincere repentance. Hence they are not yet to hear this gloriously consolatory address. It is to be written, that it may in due time be perceived that the Lord, even at the time when He was obliged to threaten most severely, had thoughts of peace concerning the people, and that thus the period of prosperity has not come by chance, nor in consequence of a change of mind, but in consequence of a plan conceived from the beginning and executed accordingly.
3. On Jer 30:7. The great and terrible day of the Lord (Joe 3:4) has not the dimensions of a human day. It has long sent out its heralds in advance. Yea, it has itself already dawned. For since by the total destruction of the external theocracy judgment is begun at the house of God (1Pe 4:17), we stand in the midst of the day of God in the midst of the judgment of the world. Then the time of trouble for Jacob has begun (Jer 30:7), from which he is to be delivered, when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in (Romans 11.)
4. On Jer 30:9. Christ is David in his highest potency, and He is also still more. For if we represent all the typical points in Davids life as a circle, and draw a line from each of these points, the great circle thus formed would comprise only a part of the given in Christ. Nevertheless Christ is the true David, who was not chosen like Saul for his bodily stature, but only for his inward relation to God (comp. Psa 2:7), whose kingdom also does not cease after a short period of glory, but endures forever; who will not like Saul succumb to his enemies, but will conquer them all, and will give to his kingdom the widest extent promised; all this however not without, like David, having gone through the bitterest trials.
5. On Jer 30:11. Modus patern castigationis accommodatus et quasi appensus ad stateram judicii Dei adeoque non immensus sed dimensus. Christus ecclesiam crucis su hredem constituit. Gregor. M. Frster.
6. On Jer 30:14. Cum virlutem patienti nostr flagella transeunt, valde metuendum est, ne peccatis nostris exigentibus non jam quasi filii a patre, sed quasi hostes a Domino feriamur. Gregor. M. Moral. XIV. 20, on Job 19:11. Ghisler.
7. On Jer 30:17. Providentia Dei mortalibus salutifera, antequam percutiat, pharmaca medendi grati componit, et gladium ir su acuit. Evagr. Hist. Ecc 4:6.Quando incidis in tentationem, crede, quod nisi cognovisset te posse illam evadere, non permisisset te in illam incidere. Theophyl. in cap. 18 Joh. Frster.Feriam prius et sanabo melius. Theophyl. in Hosea 11. Ghisler.
8. On Jer 30:21. This church of God will own a, Prince from its midstJesus, of our flesh and blood through the virgin Mary, and He approaches God, as no other can, for He is Gods image, Gods Son, and at the same time the perfect, holy in all His sufferings, only obedient son of man. This king is mediator and reconciler with God; He is also high-priest and fulfilled all righteousness, as was necessary for our propitiation. What glory to have such a king, who brings us nigh unto God, and this is our glory! Diedrich.
9. On Jer 31:1. There is no greater promise than this: I will be thy God. For if He is our God we are His creatures, His redeemed, His sanctified, according to all the three articles of the Christian faith. Cramer.
10. On Jer 31:2. The rough heap had to be sifted by the sword, but those who survived, though afflicted in the desert of this life, found favor with God, and these, the true Israel, God leads into His rest. Diedrich.
11. On Jer 31:3. The love of God towards us comes from love and has no other cause above or beside itself, but, is in God and remains in God, so that Christ who is in God is its centre. For herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us (1Jn 4:10). Cramer. Totum grati imputatur, non nostris meritis. Augustine in Psalms 31. Frster. Before I had done anything good Thou hadst already moved towards me. Let these words be written on your hearts with the pen of the living God, that they may light you like flames of fire on the day of the marriage. It is your certificate of birth, your testimonial. Let me never lose sight of how much it has cost Thee to redeem me. Zinzendorf. God says: My chastisement even was pure love, though then you did not understand it; you shall learn it afterwards. Diedrich. [I incline to the construction given in the English version, both because the suffix to the verb is more naturally, I have drawn thee, than I have drawn out toward thee, and because there seems to be a tacit allusion to Hos 11:4, With loving kindness have I drawn thee.-A great moral truth lies in this passage so construed, viz., that the main power which humbles mans pride, softens his hard heart and makes him recoil in shame and sorrow from sinning, comes through his apprehension of Gods love as manifested in Christ and His cross. It is love that, draws the fearful or stubborn soul to the feet of divine mercy. Cowles.S. R. A.]
12. On Jer 31:6. It is well: the watchmen on Mount Ephraim had to go to Zion. They received however another visit from the Jewish priests, which they could not have expected at the great reformation, introduced by John, and which had its seat among other places on Mount Ephraim. The Samaritans were not far distant, and Mount Ephraim had even this honor that when the Lord came to His temple He took His Seat as a teacher there. Zinzendorf. [Gods grace loves to triumph over the most inveterate prejudices No words could represent a greater and more benign change in national feeling than these: Samaria saying through her spiritual watchmen, Let us go up to Zion to worship, for our God is there. Cowles. Ascendamus in Sion, hoc est in Ecclesiam says S. Jerome. According to this view, the watchmen here mentioned are the Preachers of the Gospel. Wordsworth.S. R. A.]
13. On Jer 31:9. I will lead them. It is an old sighing couplet, but full of wisdom and solid truth:
Lord Jesus, while I live on earth, O guide me,
Let me not, self-led, wander from beside Thee.
Zinzendorf.
14. On Jer 31:10. He who has scattered Israel will also collect it. Why? lie is the Shepherd. It is no wolf-scattering. He interposes His hand, then they go asunder, and directly come together again more orderly. Zinzendorf.
15. On Jer 31:12-14. Gaudebunt electi, quando videbunt supra se, intra se, juxta se, infra se. Augustine.Prmia clestia erunt tam magna, ut non possint mensurari, tam multa, ut non possint numerari, tam copiosa, ut non possint terminari, tam pretiosa, ut non possint stimari. Bernhard. Frster.
16. On Jer 31:15. Because at all times there is a similar state of things in the church of God, the lament of Rachel is a common one. For as this lament is over the carrying away captive and oppressions of Babylon, so is it also a lament over the tyranny of Herod in slaughtering the innocent children (Mat 2:1-7.)Cramer. Premuntur justi in ecclesia ut clament, clamantes exaudiuntur, exauditi glorificent Deum. Augustin. Frster.With respect to this, that Rachels lament may be regarded as a type of maternal lamentation over lost children, Frster quotes this sentence of Cyprian: non amisimus, sed prmisimus (2Sa 12:23). [On the application of this verse to the murder of the innocents consult W. L. Alexander, Connexion of the Old and New. Testament, p. 54, and W. H. Mill in Wordsworths Note in loc.S. R. A.]
17. On Jer 31:18. The conversion of man must always be a product of two factors. A conversion which man alone should bring about, without God, would be an empty pretence of conversion; a conversion, which God should produce, without man, would be a compulsory, manufactured affair, without any moral value. The merit and the praise is, however, always on Gods side. He gives the will and the execution. Did He not discipline us, we should never learn discipline. Did He not lead back our thoughts to our Fathers house which we have left (Luke 15) we should never think of returning.
18. On Jer 31:19. The children of God are ashamed their life long, they cannot raise their heads for humiliation. For their sins always seem great to them, and the grace of God always remains something incomprehensible to them.Zinzendorf. The farther the Christian advances in his consciousness of sonship and in sanctification, the more brilliantly rises the light of grace, the more distinctly does he perceive in this light, how black is the night of his sins from which God has delivered him. [It is the ripest and fullest ears of grain which hang their heads the lowest.S. R. A.]
19. On Jer 31:19. The use of the dear cross is to make us blush (Dan 9:8) and not regard ourselves as innocent (Jer 30:11). And as it pleases a father when a child soon blushes, so also is this tincture a flower of virtue well-pleasing to God. Cramer. Deus oleum miserationis su non nisi in vas contritum et contribulatum infundit. Bernhard.Frster.
20. On Jer 31:19. The reproach of my youth. The sins of youth are not easily to be forgotten (Psa 25:7; Job 31:18). Therefore we ought to be careful so to act in our youth as not to have to chew the cud of bitter reflection in our old age. It is a comfort that past sins of youth will not injure the truly penitent. Non nocent peccata prterita, cum non placent prsentia. Augustine. To transgress no more is the best sign of repentance. Cramer.
21. On Jer 31:20. Comforting and weighty words, which each one should lay to heart. God loves and caresses us as a mother her good child. He remembers His promise. His heart yearns and breaks, and it is His pleasure to do us good. Cramer. lpsius proprium est, misereri semper et parcere. Augustine.Major est Dei misericordia quam omnium hominum miseria. Idem.
22. On Jer 31:23. The Lord bless thee, thou dwelling-place of righteousness, thou holy mountain. Certainly no greater honor was ever done to the Jewish mountains than that the womans seed prayed and wept on them, was transfigured, killed and ascended above all heaven. Zinzendorf. It cannot be denied that a church sanctifies a whole place . Members of Jesus are real guardian angels, who do not exist in the imagination, but are founded on Gods promise (Mat 25:40). Idem.
23. On Jer 31:29-30. The so-called family curse has no influence on the servants of God; one may sleep calmly nevertheless. This does not mean that we should continue in the track of our predecessors, ex. gr., when our ancestors have gained much wealth by sinful trade, that we should continue this trade with this wealth with the hope of the divine blessing. If this or that property, house, right, condition be afflicted with a curse, the children of God may soon by prudent separation deliver themselves from these unsafe circumstances. For nothing attaches to their persons, when they have been baptized with the blood of Jesus and are blessed by Him. Zinzendorf.
24. On Jer 31:29-30. In testamento novo per sarguinem mediatoris deleto paterno chirographo incipit homo paternis debitis non esse obnoxius renascendo, quibus nascendo fuerat obligatus, ipso Mediatore di cente: Ne vobis patrem dicis in terra (Mat 23:9). Secundum hoc utique, quod alios natales, quibus non patri succederemus, sed cum patre semper viveremus, invenimus. Augustine, contra Julian, VI. 12, in Ghisler.
25. On Jer 31:31. In veteribus libris aut nusquam aut difficile prter hunc propheticum locum legitur facta commemoratio testamenti novi, ut omnino ipso nomine appellaretur. Nam multis locis hoc significalur et prnuntiatur futurum, sed non ita ut etiam nomen lega ur expressum. Augustine, de Spir. et Lit. ad Marcellin, Cap. 19 (where to Cap. 29 there is a detailed discussion of this passage) in Ghisler.In the whole of the Old Testament there is no passage, in which the view is so clearly and distinctly expressed as here that the law is only . And though some commentators have supposed that the passage contains only a censure of the Israelites and not of the Old Covenant, they only show thus that they have not understood the simple meaning of the words. Ebrard. Comm. zum Hebrerbr. S. 275.
26. On Jer 31:31, sqq. Propter veteris hominis noxam, qu per literam jubentem et minantem minime sanabatur, dicitur illud testamentum vetus; hoc antem novum propter novitatem spiritus, qu hominem novum sanat a vitio vetustatis. Augustine, c. Lit. Cap. 19.
27. On Jer 31:33. Quid sunt ergo leges Dei ab ipso Deo script in cordibus, nisi ipsa prsentia Spiritus sancti, qui est digitus Dei, quo prsente diffunditur charitas in cordibus nostrio, qu plenitudo legis est et prcepti finis? Augustine, l. c. Cap. 20.
28. On Jer 31:34. Quomodo tempus est novi testamenti, de quo propheta dixit: et non docebit unusquisque civem suum, etc. nisi quia rjusdem testamenti novi ternam mercedem, id est ipsius Dei beatissimam contemplationem promittendo conjunxit? Augustine, l. c. Cap. 24.
29. On Jer 31:33-34. This is the blessed difference between law and Gospel, between form and substance. Therefore are the great and small alike, and the youths like the elders, the pupils more learned than their teachers, and the young wiser than the ancients (1Jn 2:20 sqq.). Here is the cause:For I will forgive their iniquities. This is the occasion of the above; no one can effect this without it. Forgiveness of sins makes the scales fall from peoples eyes, and gives them a cheerful temper, clear conceptions, a clear head.Zinzendorf.
30. On Jer 31:35-37. Etsi particulares ecclesi intotum deficere possunt, ecclesia tamen catholica nunquam defecit aut deficiet. Obstant enim Dei amplissim promissiones, inter quas non ultimum locum sibi vindicut qu hic habetur Jer 31:37. Frster.
31. On Jer 31:38-40. Jerusalem will one day be much greater than it has ever been. This is not to be understood literally but spiritually. Jerusalem will be wherever there are believing souls, its circle will be without end and comprise all that has been hitherto impure and lost. This it is of which the prophet is teaching, and which he presents in figures, which were intelligible to the people in his time. The hill Gareb, probably the residence of the lepers, the emblem of the sinner unmasked and smitten by God, and the cursed valley of Ben-Hinnom will be taken up into the holy city. Gods grace will one day effect all this, and Israel will thus be manifested as much more glorious than ever before. Diedrich.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. On Jer 30:5-9. Sermon on one of the last Sundays after Trinity or the second in Advent. The day of the judgment of the world a great day. For it is, (1) a day of anxiety and terror for all the world; (2) a day of deliverance from all distress for the church of the Lord; (3) a day of realization of all the happiness set in prospect before it.
2. On Jer 30:10-12. Consolation of the church in great trial. 1. It has well deserved the trial (Jer 30:12); 2. it is therefore chastised, but with moderation; 3. it will not perish but again enjoy peace.
3. On Jer 30:17. [The Restorer of mankind. 1. Faith in the Christian Sacrament and its attendant revelation of divine character alone answer the demand of the heart and reason of man for a higher state of moral perfection. 2. Christianity offers to maintain a communication between this world and that eternal world of holiness and truth. 3. It commends itself to our wants in the confirmation and direction of that principle of hope, which even in our daily and worldly life, we are perpetually forced to substitute for happiness, and 4. By the adorable object, which it presents to our affections. Archer ButlerS. R. A.]
4. On Jer 31:1-2. Gesetz and Zeugniss (Law and Testimony) 1864, Heft. 1. Funeral sermon of Ahlfeld.
5. On Jer 31:2-4. lb. 1865. Heft 1. Funeral sermon of Besser, S. 32 ff.
6. On Jer 31:3. C. Fr. Hartmann (Wedding, School, Catechism and Birth-day sermons, ed. C. Chr. Eberh. Ehemann. Tb. 1865). Wedding sermon. 1. A grateful revival in the love of God already received. 2. Earnest endeavor after a daily enjoyment of this love. 3. Daily nourishment of hope.
7. On Jer 31:3. Florey. Comfort and warning at graves. I. Bndchen, S. 253. On the attractions of Gods love towards His own children. They are, 1. innumerable and yet so frequently overlooked; 2. powerful and yet so frequently resisted; 3. rich in blessing and yet so frequently; unemployed. [For practical remarks on this text see also Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, No. 11.S. R. A.]
8. On Jer 31:9. Confessional sermon by Dekan V. Biarowsky in Erlangen (in Palmers Evang. Casual-Reden, 2 te Folge, 1 Band. Stuttgart, 1850.) Every partaking of the Lords supper is a return to the Lord in the promised land, and every one who is a guest at the supper rises and comes. 1. How are we to come? (weeping and praying). 2. What shall we find? (Salvation and blessing, power and life, grace and help).
9. On Jer 31:18-20. Comparison of conversion with the course of the earth and the sun. 1. The man who has fallen away is like the planet in its distance from the sun; he flees from God as far as he Song of Solomon 2. Love however does not release him: a. he is chastened (winter, cold, long nights, short days); b. he accepts the chastening and returns to proximity to the sun (summer, warmth, light, life). Comp. Brandt, Altes und Neues in i extemporirbaren Entwrfen. Nremberg, 1829, II. 5. [The stubborn sinner submitting himself to God. I. A description of the feelings and conduct of an obstinate, impenitent sinner, while smarting under the rod of affliction: He is rebellioustill subdued. II. The new views and feelings produced by affliction through divine grace: (a) convinced of guilt and sinfulness; (b) praying; (c) reflecting on the effects of divine grace in his conversion. III. A correcting but compassionate God, watching the result, etc., (a) as a tender father mindful of his penitent child; (b) listening to his complaints, confessions and petitions; (c) declaring His determination to pardon. Payson.S. R. A.]
10. On Jer 31:31-34. Sermon on 1 Sunday in Advent by Pastor Diechert in Grningen, S. Stern aus Jakob. I. Stuttg. 1867.
11. On Jer 31:33-34. Do we belong to the people of God? 1. Have we holiness? 2. Have we knowledge? 3. Have we the peace promised to this people? (Caspari in Predigtbuch von Dittmar, Erlangen, 1845).
12. On Jer 31:33-34. By the new covenant in the bath of holy baptism all becomes new. 1. What was dead becomes alive 2. What was obscure becomes clear. 3. What was cold becomes warm. 4. What was bound becomes free (Florey, 1862).
Footnotes:
[11]Jer 31:15.. Comp. Jer 3:3; Jer 5:3; Jer 8:5; Jer 15:18.
[12]Jer 31:15. . As in Jer 11:4 the plural pronoun is referred to a singular, regarded collectively, so here, the case being reversed, the singular pronoun is referred to a plural, regarded as a unity. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 61, 1; Psa 5:9; Job 24:24; Job 8:6, etc.
[13]Jer 31:17.The article is wanting before , comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 71,3.
[14]Jer 31:19. . This has been commonly taken in the same sense as in Jer 31:18 [A. V.: Surely after that I was turned], which has given rise to great obscurity and to arbitrary attempts to avoid it, as e.g. by Venema, who takes at once for i. e. after I had come again to myself. The only correct rendering is that of Hitzig and Graf. They take in the sense of se avertere a Jove. They are justified in this by (Jer 3:6; Jer 3:8; Jer 3:11-12, etc.), (Jer 3:14; Jer 3:22), , (Jer 8:6; Jer 31:22), and by the expression (Jer 3:19), which does not indeed occur without the in Jer 8:4, but it does in Jos 23:12. It seems as though the prophet, here also as well an in Jeremiah 3, were endeavoring to bring the idea of into application in as great a variety of meanings as possible.
[15]Jer 31:19.. Many commentators take this word in the sense of the passive of , edocere = to be made wise, to he instructed. But Niph. is only the reflexive or passive of Kal. It means therefore only to be acknowledged or to acknowledge ones self. The latter signification, in which it moreover appears to be used in no other passage of the Old Testament but this, corresponds perfectly to the connection.
[16]Jer 31:20. Hebrew here only; Chald. Ezr 4:10; Dan 2:11. It denotes, like (Jer 15:19; Lam 4:2, etc). and (Jer 20:5), what is precious, a jewel.
[17]Jer 31:20.. Comp. , Isa 5:7 coll. Pro 8:30-31.
[18]Jer 31:21. from , prominuit, related to , palm truncus, Jer 10:5, and , columna, Joe 3:3, occurs here only. All other preparations are comprised in the brief phrase , Comp. Exo 7:23; Psa 48:14.
[19]Jer 31:22.. The verb is found only in Son 5:6 and connected with . The connection requires the meaning of to turn ones self away, with which the only noun derived from it (Son 7:2) accords. This can only signify winding, rounding (Delitzsch: the swinging of thy loins). According to the etymology then the Hithp. must have the sense of turning ones self hither and thither.
[20]Jer 31:22. . Observe that it is , not , as in Jer 3:14; Jer 3:22; Isa 57:17. The passive form has doubtless the meaning of turned away, alienated. The active form must primarily have an active meaning. The Pilel from is primarily objective causative and signifies to make some one or something return, bring back (Jer 50:19), restore (Psa 60:3; Psa 23:3), to render alienated (Isa 47:10). It may also have a subjective causative meaning: to make a turn, back or away, i. e. to turn ones self back, to desert. Hiphil has primarily this signification. (Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 18, 3; 1Ki 8:47). But the Piel forms also have it (Ew., 120, c). As now it is decided by the connection in what sense the verb is to be taken, the meaning of the N. verbate is also thus decided. It may then mean one who brings back, restores, alienates, and also one who turns, deserts. It has the latter meaning in Jer 49:4 and Mic 2:4.The Pilel of hollow roots includes also the significance of the Piel (Ewald, 121 a, coll. 120). Especially does this word seem to me to involve the idea of in the causative sense, which corresponds to the following , i.e., in the sense of reducens (comp. , Isa 58:12; Olsh., S. 552).
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Joh. Conr. Schaller, pastor at Cautendorf, says in his Gospel Sermons, (Hof. 1742, S. 628), These chapters are like a sky in which sparkle many brilliant stars of strong and consolatory declarations, a paradise and pleasure-garden in which a believing soul is refreshed with delightsome flowers of instruction, and solaced with sweetly flavored apples of gracious promise.
2. On Jer 30:1-3. The people of Israel were not then capable of bearing such a prophecy, brimming over with happiness and glory. They would have misused it, hearing to the end what was promised them, and then only the more certainly postponing what was the only thing then necessarysincere repentance. Hence they are not yet to hear this gloriously consolatory address. It is to be written, that it may in due time be perceived that the Lord, even at the time when He was obliged to threaten most severely, had thoughts of peace concerning the people, and that thus the period of prosperity has not come by chance, nor in consequence of a change of mind, but in consequence of a plan conceived from the beginning and executed accordingly.
3. On Jer 30:7. The great and terrible day of the Lord (Joe 3:4) has not the dimensions of a human day. It has long sent out its heralds in advance. Yea, it has itself already dawned. For since by the total destruction of the external theocracy judgment is begun at the house of God (1Pe 4:17), we stand in the midst of the day of God in the midst of the judgment of the world. Then the time of trouble for Jacob has begun (Jer 30:7), from which he is to be delivered, when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in (Romans 11.)
4. On Jer 30:9. Christ is David in his highest potency, and He is also still more. For if we represent all the typical points in Davids life as a circle, and draw a line from each of these points, the great circle thus formed would comprise only a part of the given in Christ. Nevertheless Christ is the true David, who was not chosen like Saul for his bodily stature, but only for his inward relation to God (comp. Psa 2:7), whose kingdom also does not cease after a short period of glory, but endures forever; who will not like Saul succumb to his enemies, but will conquer them all, and will give to his kingdom the widest extent promised; all this however not without, like David, having gone through the bitterest trials.
5. On Jer 30:11. Modus patern castigationis accommodatus et quasi appensus ad stateram judicii Dei adeoque non immensus sed dimensus. Christus ecclesiam crucis su hredem constituit. Gregor. M. Frster.
6. On Jer 30:14. Cum virlutem patienti nostr flagella transeunt, valde metuendum est, ne peccatis nostris exigentibus non jam quasi filii a patre, sed quasi hostes a Domino feriamur. Gregor. M. Moral. XIV. 20, on Job 19:11. Ghisler.
7. On Jer 30:17. Providentia Dei mortalibus salutifera, antequam percutiat, pharmaca medendi grati componit, et gladium ir su acuit. Evagr. Hist. Ecc 4:6.Quando incidis in tentationem, crede, quod nisi cognovisset te posse illam evadere, non permisisset te in illam incidere. Theophyl. in cap. 18 Joh. Frster.Feriam prius et sanabo melius. Theophyl. in Hosea 11. Ghisler.
8. On Jer 30:21. This church of God will own a, Prince from its midstJesus, of our flesh and blood through the virgin Mary, and He approaches God, as no other can, for He is Gods image, Gods Son, and at the same time the perfect, holy in all His sufferings, only obedient son of man. This king is mediator and reconciler with God; He is also high-priest and fulfilled all righteousness, as was necessary for our propitiation. What glory to have such a king, who brings us nigh unto God, and this is our glory! Diedrich.
9. On Jer 31:1. There is no greater promise than this: I will be thy God. For if He is our God we are His creatures, His redeemed, His sanctified, according to all the three articles of the Christian faith. Cramer.
10. On Jer 31:2. The rough heap had to be sifted by the sword, but those who survived, though afflicted in the desert of this life, found favor with God, and these, the true Israel, God leads into His rest. Diedrich.
11. On Jer 31:3. The love of God towards us comes from love and has no other cause above or beside itself, but, is in God and remains in God, so that Christ who is in God is its centre. For herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us (1Jn 4:10). Cramer. Totum grati imputatur, non nostris meritis. Augustine in Psalms 31. Frster. Before I had done anything good Thou hadst already moved towards me. Let these words be written on your hearts with the pen of the living God, that they may light you like flames of fire on the day of the marriage. It is your certificate of birth, your testimonial. Let me never lose sight of how much it has cost Thee to redeem me. Zinzendorf. God says: My chastisement even was pure love, though then you did not understand it; you shall learn it afterwards. Diedrich. [I incline to the construction given in the English version, both because the suffix to the verb is more naturally, I have drawn thee, than I have drawn out toward thee, and because there seems to be a tacit allusion to Hos 11:4, With loving kindness have I drawn thee.-A great moral truth lies in this passage so construed, viz., that the main power which humbles mans pride, softens his hard heart and makes him recoil in shame and sorrow from sinning, comes through his apprehension of Gods love as manifested in Christ and His cross. It is love that, draws the fearful or stubborn soul to the feet of divine mercy. Cowles.S. R. A.]
12. On Jer 31:6. It is well: the watchmen on Mount Ephraim had to go to Zion. They received however another visit from the Jewish priests, which they could not have expected at the great reformation, introduced by John, and which had its seat among other places on Mount Ephraim. The Samaritans were not far distant, and Mount Ephraim had even this honor that when the Lord came to His temple He took His Seat as a teacher there. Zinzendorf. [Gods grace loves to triumph over the most inveterate prejudices No words could represent a greater and more benign change in national feeling than these: Samaria saying through her spiritual watchmen, Let us go up to Zion to worship, for our God is there. Cowles. Ascendamus in Sion, hoc est in Ecclesiam says S. Jerome. According to this view, the watchmen here mentioned are the Preachers of the Gospel. Wordsworth.S. R. A.]
13. On Jer 31:9. I will lead them. It is an old sighing couplet, but full of wisdom and solid truth:
Lord Jesus, while I live on earth, O guide me,
Let me not, self-led, wander from beside Thee.
Zinzendorf.
14. On Jer 31:10. He who has scattered Israel will also collect it. Why? lie is the Shepherd. It is no wolf-scattering. He interposes His hand, then they go asunder, and directly come together again more orderly. Zinzendorf.
15. On Jer 31:12-14. Gaudebunt electi, quando videbunt supra se, intra se, juxta se, infra se. Augustine.Prmia clestia erunt tam magna, ut non possint mensurari, tam multa, ut non possint numerari, tam copiosa, ut non possint terminari, tam pretiosa, ut non possint stimari. Bernhard. Frster.
16. On Jer 31:15. Because at all times there is a similar state of things in the church of God, the lament of Rachel is a common one. For as this lament is over the carrying away captive and oppressions of Babylon, so is it also a lament over the tyranny of Herod in slaughtering the innocent children (Mat 2:1-7.)Cramer. Premuntur justi in ecclesia ut clament, clamantes exaudiuntur, exauditi glorificent Deum. Augustin. Frster.With respect to this, that Rachels lament may be regarded as a type of maternal lamentation over lost children, Frster quotes this sentence of Cyprian: non amisimus, sed prmisimus (2Sa 12:23). [On the application of this verse to the murder of the innocents consult W. L. Alexander, Connexion of the Old and New. Testament, p. 54, and W. H. Mill in Wordsworths Note in loc.S. R. A.]
17. On Jer 31:18. The conversion of man must always be a product of two factors. A conversion which man alone should bring about, without God, would be an empty pretence of conversion; a conversion, which God should produce, without man, would be a compulsory, manufactured affair, without any moral value. The merit and the praise is, however, always on Gods side. He gives the will and the execution. Did He not discipline us, we should never learn discipline. Did He not lead back our thoughts to our Fathers house which we have left (Luke 15) we should never think of returning.
18. On Jer 31:19. The children of God are ashamed their life long, they cannot raise their heads for humiliation. For their sins always seem great to them, and the grace of God always remains something incomprehensible to them.Zinzendorf. The farther the Christian advances in his consciousness of sonship and in sanctification, the more brilliantly rises the light of grace, the more distinctly does he perceive in this light, how black is the night of his sins from which God has delivered him. [It is the ripest and fullest ears of grain which hang their heads the lowest.S. R. A.]
19. On Jer 31:19. The use of the dear cross is to make us blush (Dan 9:8) and not regard ourselves as innocent (Jer 30:11). And as it pleases a father when a child soon blushes, so also is this tincture a flower of virtue well-pleasing to God. Cramer. Deus oleum miserationis su non nisi in vas contritum et contribulatum infundit. Bernhard.Frster.
20. On Jer 31:19. The reproach of my youth. The sins of youth are not easily to be forgotten (Psa 25:7; Job 31:18). Therefore we ought to be careful so to act in our youth as not to have to chew the cud of bitter reflection in our old age. It is a comfort that past sins of youth will not injure the truly penitent. Non nocent peccata prterita, cum non placent prsentia. Augustine. To transgress no more is the best sign of repentance. Cramer.
21. On Jer 31:20. Comforting and weighty words, which each one should lay to heart. God loves and caresses us as a mother her good child. He remembers His promise. His heart yearns and breaks, and it is His pleasure to do us good. Cramer. lpsius proprium est, misereri semper et parcere. Augustine.Major est Dei misericordia quam omnium hominum miseria. Idem.
22. On Jer 31:23. The Lord bless thee, thou dwelling-place of righteousness, thou holy mountain. Certainly no greater honor was ever done to the Jewish mountains than that the womans seed prayed and wept on them, was transfigured, killed and ascended above all heaven. Zinzendorf. It cannot be denied that a church sanctifies a whole place . Members of Jesus are real guardian angels, who do not exist in the imagination, but are founded on Gods promise (Mat 25:40). Idem.
23. On Jer 31:29-30. The so-called family curse has no influence on the servants of God; one may sleep calmly nevertheless. This does not mean that we should continue in the track of our predecessors, ex. gr., when our ancestors have gained much wealth by sinful trade, that we should continue this trade with this wealth with the hope of the divine blessing. If this or that property, house, right, condition be afflicted with a curse, the children of God may soon by prudent separation deliver themselves from these unsafe circumstances. For nothing attaches to their persons, when they have been baptized with the blood of Jesus and are blessed by Him. Zinzendorf.
24. On Jer 31:29-30. In testamento novo per sarguinem mediatoris deleto paterno chirographo incipit homo paternis debitis non esse obnoxius renascendo, quibus nascendo fuerat obligatus, ipso Mediatore di cente: Ne vobis patrem dicis in terra (Mat 23:9). Secundum hoc utique, quod alios natales, quibus non patri succederemus, sed cum patre semper viveremus, invenimus. Augustine, contra Julian, VI. 12, in Ghisler.
25. On Jer 31:31. In veteribus libris aut nusquam aut difficile prter hunc propheticum locum legitur facta commemoratio testamenti novi, ut omnino ipso nomine appellaretur. Nam multis locis hoc significalur et prnuntiatur futurum, sed non ita ut etiam nomen lega ur expressum. Augustine, de Spir. et Lit. ad Marcellin, Cap. 19 (where to Cap. 29 there is a detailed discussion of this passage) in Ghisler.In the whole of the Old Testament there is no passage, in which the view is so clearly and distinctly expressed as here that the law is only . And though some commentators have supposed that the passage contains only a censure of the Israelites and not of the Old Covenant, they only show thus that they have not understood the simple meaning of the words. Ebrard. Comm. zum Hebrerbr. S. 275.
26. On Jer 31:31, sqq. Propter veteris hominis noxam, qu per literam jubentem et minantem minime sanabatur, dicitur illud testamentum vetus; hoc antem novum propter novitatem spiritus, qu hominem novum sanat a vitio vetustatis. Augustine, c. Lit. Cap. 19.
27. On Jer 31:33. Quid sunt ergo leges Dei ab ipso Deo script in cordibus, nisi ipsa prsentia Spiritus sancti, qui est digitus Dei, quo prsente diffunditur charitas in cordibus nostrio, qu plenitudo legis est et prcepti finis? Augustine, l. c. Cap. 20.
28. On Jer 31:34. Quomodo tempus est novi testamenti, de quo propheta dixit: et non docebit unusquisque civem suum, etc. nisi quia rjusdem testamenti novi ternam mercedem, id est ipsius Dei beatissimam contemplationem promittendo conjunxit? Augustine, l. c. Cap. 24.
29. On Jer 31:33-34. This is the blessed difference between law and Gospel, between form and substance. Therefore are the great and small alike, and the youths like the elders, the pupils more learned than their teachers, and the young wiser than the ancients (1Jn 2:20 sqq.). Here is the cause:For I will forgive their iniquities. This is the occasion of the above; no one can effect this without it. Forgiveness of sins makes the scales fall from peoples eyes, and gives them a cheerful temper, clear conceptions, a clear head.Zinzendorf.
30. On Jer 31:35-37. Etsi particulares ecclesi intotum deficere possunt, ecclesia tamen catholica nunquam defecit aut deficiet. Obstant enim Dei amplissim promissiones, inter quas non ultimum locum sibi vindicut qu hic habetur Jer 31:37. Frster.
31. On Jer 31:38-40. Jerusalem will one day be much greater than it has ever been. This is not to be understood literally but spiritually. Jerusalem will be wherever there are believing souls, its circle will be without end and comprise all that has been hitherto impure and lost. This it is of which the prophet is teaching, and which he presents in figures, which were intelligible to the people in his time. The hill Gareb, probably the residence of the lepers, the emblem of the sinner unmasked and smitten by God, and the cursed valley of Ben-Hinnom will be taken up into the holy city. Gods grace will one day effect all this, and Israel will thus be manifested as much more glorious than ever before. Diedrich.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. On Jer 30:5-9. Sermon on one of the last Sundays after Trinity or the second in Advent. The day of the judgment of the world a great day. For it is, (1) a day of anxiety and terror for all the world; (2) a day of deliverance from all distress for the church of the Lord; (3) a day of realization of all the happiness set in prospect before it.
2. On Jer 30:10-12. Consolation of the church in great trial. 1. It has well deserved the trial (Jer 30:12); 2. it is therefore chastised, but with moderation; 3. it will not perish but again enjoy peace.
3. On Jer 30:17. [The Restorer of mankind. 1. Faith in the Christian Sacrament and its attendant revelation of divine character alone answer the demand of the heart and reason of man for a higher state of moral perfection. 2. Christianity offers to maintain a communication between this world and that eternal world of holiness and truth. 3. It commends itself to our wants in the confirmation and direction of that principle of hope, which even in our daily and worldly life, we are perpetually forced to substitute for happiness, and 4. By the adorable object, which it presents to our affections. Archer ButlerS. R. A.]
4. On Jer 31:1-2. Gesetz and Zeugniss (Law and Testimony) 1864, Heft. 1. Funeral sermon of Ahlfeld.
5. On Jer 31:2-4. lb. 1865. Heft 1. Funeral sermon of Besser, S. 32 ff.
6. On Jer 31:3. C. Fr. Hartmann (Wedding, School, Catechism and Birth-day sermons, ed. C. Chr. Eberh. Ehemann. Tb. 1865). Wedding sermon. 1. A grateful revival in the love of God already received. 2. Earnest endeavor after a daily enjoyment of this love. 3. Daily nourishment of hope.
7. On Jer 31:3. Florey. Comfort and warning at graves. I. Bndchen, S. 253. On the attractions of Gods love towards His own children. They are, 1. innumerable and yet so frequently overlooked; 2. powerful and yet so frequently resisted; 3. rich in blessing and yet so frequently; unemployed. [For practical remarks on this text see also Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, No. 11.S. R. A.]
8. On Jer 31:9. Confessional sermon by Dekan V. Biarowsky in Erlangen (in Palmers Evang. Casual-Reden, 2 te Folge, 1 Band. Stuttgart, 1850.) Every partaking of the Lords supper is a return to the Lord in the promised land, and every one who is a guest at the supper rises and comes. 1. How are we to come? (weeping and praying). 2. What shall we find? (Salvation and blessing, power and life, grace and help).
9. On Jer 31:18-20. Comparison of conversion with the course of the earth and the sun. 1. The man who has fallen away is like the planet in its distance from the sun; he flees from God as far as he Song of Solomon 2. Love however does not release him: a. he is chastened (winter, cold, long nights, short days); b. he accepts the chastening and returns to proximity to the sun (summer, warmth, light, life). Comp. Brandt, Altes und Neues in i extemporirbaren Entwrfen. Nremberg, 1829, II. 5. [The stubborn sinner submitting himself to God. I. A description of the feelings and conduct of an obstinate, impenitent sinner, while smarting under the rod of affliction: He is rebellioustill subdued. II. The new views and feelings produced by affliction through divine grace: (a) convinced of guilt and sinfulness; (b) praying; (c) reflecting on the effects of divine grace in his conversion. III. A correcting but compassionate God, watching the result, etc., (a) as a tender father mindful of his penitent child; (b) listening to his complaints, confessions and petitions; (c) declaring His determination to pardon. Payson.S. R. A.]
10. On Jer 31:31-34. Sermon on 1 Sunday in Advent by Pastor Diechert in Grningen, S. Stern aus Jakob. I. Stuttg. 1867.
11. On Jer 31:33-34. Do we belong to the people of God? 1. Have we holiness? 2. Have we knowledge? 3. Have we the peace promised to this people? (Caspari in Predigtbuch von Dittmar, Erlangen, 1845).
12. On Jer 31:33-34. By the new covenant in the bath of holy baptism all becomes new. 1. What was dead becomes alive 2. What was obscure becomes clear. 3. What was cold becomes warm. 4. What was bound becomes free (Florey, 1862).
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
The Evangelist hath made application of what is here said to the murder of the young children by Herod: and thereby hath very clearly shown, that the whole of this blessed chapter is of gospel signification. Rahel, or Rachel, is, probably, put for the whole of the afflicted Parents; meaning that all felt in the general calamity. The grave of Rachel was near Bethlehem: and therefore formed a suitable image of grief. Gen 35:19 ; Mat 2:18 . Pious parents, in the loss of their little ones, may find some rich, consoling thoughts from these scriptures, in the consideration of covenant mercies!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, [and] bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they [were] not.
Ver. 15. A voice was heard in Ramah. ] It was once, when the poor captives were carried that way to Babylon, the mothers bitterly bewailing their Luctuosam faeunditatem. It was also another time, when Herod barbarously butchered the babes of Bethlehem. Mat 2:16-18 But now the case is altered, joy is restored, &c.
Rachel weeping for her children.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 31:15-20
15Thus says the LORD,
A voice is heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children;
She refuses to be comforted for her children,
Because they are no more.
16Thus says the LORD,
Restrain your voice from weeping
And your eyes from tears;
For your work will be rewarded, declares the LORD,
And they will return from the land of the enemy.
17There is hope for your future, declares the LORD,
And your children will return to their own territory.
18I have surely heard Ephraim grieving,
‘You have chastised me, and I was chastised,
Like an untrained calf;
Bring me back that I may be restored,
For You are the LORD my God.
19For after I turned back, I repented;
And after I was instructed, I smote on my thigh;
I was ashamed and also humiliated
Because I bore the reproach of my youth.’
20Is Ephraim My dear son?
Is he a delightful child?
Indeed, as often as I have spoken against him,
I certainly still remember him;
Therefore My heart yearns for him;
I will surely have mercy on him, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:15-20 The strophe is addressed to the northern ten tribes. They, too, will participate in YHWH’s restoration and new day! The split of the United Monarchy in 922 B.C. was a sad and destructive event, both physically and spiritually. All of the prophets condemned the northern kings. Restoration was the only option.
Jer 31:15 Ramah The Hebrew word height (BDB 928) is possibly not a reference to a place name. The rabbis see this as a reference to God’s hearing in heaven. The MT is not pointed for a place name.
Rachel This was Jacob’s favorite wife and the mother of Joseph (and, therefore, the grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin (cf. Gen 35:16-18). The rabbis say she was buried by the very road on which the northern tribes were taken into exile by Assyria in 722 B.C. This verse is quoted in Mat 2:18 concerning Herod’s killing of the children of Bethlehem (in order to kill the newborn King of the Jews who the Wise Men sought).
Jer 31:16 Rachel should not weep because the exiles from Israel will be brought back to Palestine.
Jer 31:18 I have surely heard This is an INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE and IMPERFECT VERB from the same root (BDB 1033, KB 1570) for emphasis. God does hear when we pray (cf. Exo 3:7).
Like an untrained calf This is terminology from Hos 4:16.
Bring me back that I may be restored This is a Hiphil IMPERATIVE (i.e., a prayer to YHWH). The rabbis say that such a radical repentance is involved that only God can give it (i.e., the new covenant of Jer 31:31-34, described in Eze 36:22-38). The divine initiation is stressed in Jer 31:19. This reflects Jeremiah’s prayer of Jer 17:12-18.
Jer 31:19 I smote on my thigh This is a cultural idiom of grief or shame (cf. Eze 21:12).
Jer 31:20 This verse begins with a question(s). Some translations have
1. no question mark (possibly assuming the question[s] expect a yes, LXX, Peshitta, JPSOA, TEV)
2. one question (NJB, REB, NIV)
3. two questions (NASB, NKJV, NRSV)
Jer 31:20 describes YHWH as a loving parent who disciplines His son but still loves him. The discipline is for the purpose of restoration (cf. Hos 11:8-9; Hos 14:4-7).
The UBS Handbook on Jeremiah (p. 641) makes the interesting comment, This verse is God’s reply to Israel’s statement of repentance, just as Jer 4:1-2 is God’s response to Israel’s repentance in Jer 3:22-25.
dear son. . .delightful child These statements are parallel. The words (BDB 430 and 1044) express YHWH’s love in parental terms. It reminds me of Exo 19:5-6. There was so much potential in the covenant people, but what a disaster their idolatry caused (cf. Eze 36:22-38).
I have spoken against him The Hebrew can be interpreted as of him, which fits the context better.
remember. . .have mercy Both of these are the INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE and IMPERFECT VERB of the same root for the intensity of YHWH’s love and forgiveness!
1. I certainly still remember him – BDB 269, KB 269
2. I will surely have mercy on him – BDB 933, KB 1216
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
A voice was heard, &c. Quoted in Mat 2:18. Reference to Pentateuch (Gen 35:19). App-92.
in Ramah = on the high place. Evidently a “high place” near Bethlehem. A common name in Palestine. The Targum and Vulg, read “in a high place”.
Rahel = Rachel. The mother of Joseph and Benjamin (i.e. Ephraim); thus uniting the two kingdoms and the two peoples. Compare Jer 31:9.
children = sons.
because they were not. Now, another weeping, and other comfort given. Compare verses: Jer 31:9, Jer 31:16. Reference to Pentateuch (Gen 42:36). App-92.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jer 31:15-20
Jer 31:15-20
Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, because they are not. Thus saith Jehovah: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith Jehovah; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jehovah; and [thy] children shall come again to their own border. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself [thus], Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a calf unaccustomed [to the yoke]: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a darling child? for as often as I speak against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my heart yearneth for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith Jehovah.
The great emphasis in this paragraph is upon repentance and the tenderness and forgiveness by which true repentance shall be welcomed by the loving father.
This promise is not a picture of Ephraim’s repentance, but a picture of the welcome that he would have received from God if he had repented. Over and beyond that, it emphasizes the necessity of repentance as a key element in the New Covenant to be announced a moment later. As Jesus expressed it twice in three lines, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish!” (Luk 13:3; Luk 13:5).
As far as the Northern Israel was concerned, there is no Biblical evidence whatever that any such wave of repentance as that suggested here ever happened.
3. The disconsolate (Jer 31:15-17)
With brilliant poetic imagination Jeremiah represents Rachel (Rahel, KJV) in her grave near Bethlehem lifting up her voice in bitter lamentation over the recent fate of her children. Rachel, who had pined for children all her life (Gen 30:1), died with sorrow in giving birth to Benjamin (Gen 35:18-19). It is most appropriate that this one who loved children so much should here bemoan the loss of them. The meaning of the name Rachel (ewe) adds force to the prophets description. He hears the cry of the ewe in Ramah (literally, on the hill-top) bleating for her lambs. Rachel was the mother of Benjamin and Joseph and, through the latter, of Ephraim and Manasseh. As Ephraim was the leading tribe of the north it is likely that Rachel was regarded as the mother of Israel, the ideal representative of the northern kingdom. In a bit broader sense, Rachel symbolizes all the mothers of the entire nation who had lost sons through death and deportation.
Rachel is disconsolate because her children are being slain and snatched away. No one can comfort her in this moment of sorrow because her children are not, i.e., they are dead. The following verses seem to indicate that the prophet primarily has in mind the symbolic death of exile. But since many were slain when the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered the people of God, and since many died in captivity in foreign lands, an allusion to literal death cannot be absolutely eliminated from the expression they are not. The question arises as to whether Rachel is weeping over the deportations of Israelites to Assyria or of Jews to Babylon. One cannot be absolutely sure. But in view of the fact that Jer 31:18-20 speak exclusively of Ephraim it is likely that it is the early Assyrian deportation which is in mind.
The mention of Ramah raises an exegetical problem. Which Ramah does the writer have in mind and why does he mention the place? TWO places called Ramah are prominent in the Old Testament. Both of them were some miles north of Jerusalem. One Ramah is mentioned in Jos 18:25 and was five miles north of Jerusalem; the other Ramah, the home town of Samuel (1Sa 1:19; 1Sa 25:1) about four miles north-west of Jerusalem. Some think that the reference is to another Ramah in the vicinity of Bethlehem which is otherwise unknown in the Old Testament. Still others fed that the term Ramah is not a proper name at all but means simply a mountain height. On the whole, however, it is best to regard Ramah as a definite location though it is impossible to determine which of the two places of this name is intended.
Why is Ramah mentioned in this passage? Various suggestions have been made. Some think that Ramah is mentioned because Rachel was buried near there. But nowhere is Ramah explicitly designated as the site of Rachels tomb. Others think that Ramah is mentioned because this was the spot at which the exiles were assembled before being slain or deported. The mention of Ramah in Isa 10:29 seems to indicate that it was the scene of some special massacre by Sennacherib in the days of king Hezekiah. Jeremiah himself was taken in chains to Ramah (Jer 40:1; Jer 39:11-12). He may have actually heard the women of Israel weeping and wailing as they watched the cruel fate of their sons. Still another view is that Ramah is mentioned only to indicate the distance at which the lamentation was heard. According to this view the weeping originated at Bethlehem but was heard as far away as Ramah. On the whole the last view seems to be the most satisfactory.
Matthew cites Jer 31:15 as being fulfilled in the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem by Herod. Because of the inspired statement of Matthew some commentators have argued that Jer 31:15 is a direct prophecy of what would transpire in Bethlehem centuries later. According to Laetsch, Rachel is introduced as bewailing her children because her tomb was located at Bethlehem where the infants were to be slain. However the word fulfilled as used in Mat 2:17 probably only means that the words in Jeremiah aptly express the event which Matthew is recording. The language used by Old Testament writers to describe events of their own or previous times is often so full and rich that it can be appropriately used to describe New Testament events which occurred in similar circumstances and were of similar import. In such cases the language of the Old Testament is said to have been fulfilled in the New Testament. Thus the slaughter of the Bethlehem infants was not the fulfillment of a prediction of Jeremiah, but only of certain words spoken by the prophet. Rachels grief was reawakened by the slaughter of the innocent babes of Bethlehem.
The word fulfilled does not seem to have the same force in every passage of the New Testament where it occurs. Some time ago J. W. McGarvey suggested that the word was used by Matthew in the second chapter of his Gospel in three different ways. He writes:
The three quotations from the prophets contained in this chapter (6, 15, 18) belong to and illustrate three distinct classes of such quotations which are found in the New Testament, and which especially abound in Matthew. The first, concerning the birth-place of Jesus, is strictly a prediction, for it refers directly to the event. The second, concerning the call out of Egypt, is an example of words used with a double reference, having both a primary and secondary reference and fulfillment. Such predictions are sometimes called typical, because they are originally spoken concerning a type and find another fulfillment in the antetype. The third, concerning the weeping at Bethlehem, is an example in which the event fulfills the meaning of words used by a prophet, though the words had originally no reference at all to this event. It is a verbal fulfillment, and not a real fulfillment, as in the other two cases.
In Jer 31:16-17 God wipes away the tears from the cheek of the disconsolate Rachel. Using the language of the prophet Azariah (2Ch 15:7) Jeremiah assures the mother of Israel that there will be a reward for her work. The work refers to the parental weeping for her children. Others take the work to be the travail of childbirth. Rachel is not weeping in vain. Her children will one day return to their homeland. Though the present prospects are exceedingly dismal. there is hope for the future of Israel.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
A: Eze 2:10, Mat 2:16
Ramah: Jer 40:1, Jos 18:25, 1Sa 7:17, Mat 2:18, Rama
refused: Gen 37:35, Psa 77:2, Isa 22:4
because: Gen 42:13, Gen 42:36, Job 7:21, Psa 37:36, Lam 5:7
Reciprocal: Gen 5:24 – he was not Gen 29:17 – Rachel Gen 37:30 – General Exo 11:6 – General Jdg 4:5 – between 1Sa 10:2 – Rachel’s 1Ki 15:17 – Ramah Est 4:4 – but he received it not Psa 90:14 – satisfy Ecc 7:3 – is better Isa 10:29 – Ramah Isa 49:21 – seeing Jer 10:20 – my children Jer 30:5 – a voice Luk 7:13 – Weep not Luk 15:24 – he
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The prophet has been writing about the past sorrows of Gods people and their joy that came afterward. Following the prophets’ practice, Jeremiah regards this as an opportunity to speak of another event in the future In which a condition of great distTSBS was to be turned into a cause of joy. That event was the coming slaughter of the infants by Herod (Matt. 2: 16-18) in hiB attempt to destroy Jesus. That crime was overruled by the Lord for the good of humanity. Just as the captivity of the Jews was to he reversed and replaced by a condition of rejoicing. The reference to Rahel (Rachel) is figurative and doubtless is in recognition of her sorrowful life, ending at her death in childbirth at Rarnah, near Jerusalem.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jer 31:15-17. Thus saith the Lord; A voice, &c. Here the scene of this prophecy changes, and two new personages are successively introduced, in order to diversify the subject, and to impress it more strongly on the mind of the reader. The first is Rachel, who in these verses is represented as just rising from the grave, and bitterly bewailing the loss of her children, for whom she looks about in vain, but none are to be seen. Her tears are dried up, and she is consoled with the assurance that they are not lost for ever, but shall in time be brought back to their ancient borders. The passage is strongly figurative, but not difficult of interpretation, as the reader will perceive by what follows: A voice was heard in Ramah Ramah was a city of Benjamin, (see Jdg 19:13,) near which Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, was buried. She is here, in a beautiful figure of poetry, represented as come forth out of her grave, and, as chief mourner on so sad an occasion, lamenting bitterly for the loss of her children, none of whom presented themselves to her view, being all either slain or gone into exile. In this way the prophet sets forth the lamentations, in and about Jerusalem, at the time of the several captivities mentioned Jer 52:15; Jer 52:28-30. The evangelist indeed applies these words to Herods massacre of the infants at Bethlehem and its environs, Mat 2:17-18. But the context here plainly shows, that this massacre could not have been the direct and immediate object of the prophecy, (see the following note,) but the prophets words so well suited the occasion that the evangelist, with great propriety, observes their congruity therewith. He must however be understood just as if he had said, The circumstances of this affair were such that the words of Jeremiah, though spoken with a different view, may well be accommodated to this event. And this is as much as can be allowed with respect to several passages of the New Testament, where the words of the Old Testament were said to be fulfilled. See Mat 2:16; Act 1:16-20, &c.; and Blaney. It is observable, that the Vulgate and Chaldee understand the word, , ramah, not as a proper name, but as an appellative, and translate it, in excelso, on high, or, aloud; according to which the sense will be, A voice is heard on high, or aloud, lamentations, weepings; of Rachel bewailing her children, and refusing to be comforted concerning them, because they are not. Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears Set bounds to thy sorrow, repress and moderate thy inordinate and excessive grief; for thy work shall be rewarded That is, it will appear thou hast not brought forth children in vain, nor shalt thou be deprived of the satisfaction of seeing the welfare of thy children, which is the parents reward for her pain in bringing them into the world, and her care and attention in providing for their support and education; for they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Thus the text interprets itself. But if the massacre at Bethlehem had been primarily designed here, with what propriety could it have been said, how could it have been affirmed, that they should return fromthe land of the enemy, or, as in the next verse, should come again to their own border? The words , rendered here, There is hope in thine end, may be translated, There is hope, or expectation, to thy posterity; that is, though these of the present age do not experience a return from captivity, yet their posterity shall enjoy that blessing. This promise was particularly fulfilled with respect to the tribe of Benjamin, as well as that of Judah, in their return under Cyrus. See Ezr 1:5.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jer 31:15-22. Jeremiah hears Rachel (the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, Gen 30:24; Gen 35:16 ff.) weeping at (her grave near) Ramah, for her children, the northern exiles. He bids her refrain, in the certainty of their restoration. Their penitence is described (Jer 31:18 f.). Yahweh expresses wonder (Jer 31:20) at His own enduring love for this very precious son, this child of delight; He is moved to deep emotion, and, in spite of all, cannot abandon him. Let Israel indicate and note the way of return (Jer 31:21), and persist in it (Jer 31:22), for Yahweh will now bring the virgin Israel to cling around Him, offer herself to Him in true marital affection (Hos 2:16, Isa 54:5 f.), as never before.
Jer 31:15. Ramah: 5 m. N. of Jerusalem; cf. 1Sa 10:2. Mat 21:7 f. follows the different tradition as to the site of the grave (vicinity of Bethlehem) given in Gen 35:19*, Gen 48:7.
Jer 31:16. Shall be: emphatic.
Jer 31:17. is: emphatic.
Jer 31:18. turn thou me: better, bring me back.
Jer 31:19. turned: i.e. from thee; for the gesture of grief, see Eze 21:12; the reproach is that springing from earlier sins.
Jer 31:20. dear . . . pleasant: not strong enough for the Heb. The bowels, in Heb. psychology, are the seat of deep emotion (Jer 4:19).
Jer 31:21. set thine heart: denoting attention, not desire or affection.
Jer 31:22 is difficult and dubious; some commentators emend, after Ewald and Duhm, into A woman shall be turned into a man, i.e. the weak shall be made strong; the interpretation already given follows Driver.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, [and] bitter weeping; {t} Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they [were] not.
(t) To declare the greatness of God’s mercy in delivering the Jews, he shows them that they were like the Benjamites of the Israelites, that is, utterly destroyed and carried away, so much so that if Rachel the mother of Benjamin could have risen again to seek her children she would have found none remaining.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The end of Rachel’s mourning 31:15-22
"In this strophe the promise is further confirmed by carrying out the thought, that Israel’s release from his captivity shall certainly take place, however little prospect there is of it at present." [Note: Ibid., 2:23.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Lord described the Israelite mothers-using the figure of Rachel-weeping for their children who had died because of the Assyrian invasion. [Note: The figure appears again in Matthew 2:17-18 where Rachel, the symbolic mother of all Israelites, weeps for the children that Herod the Great slew. See Dyer, "Jeremiah," p. 1170, for a brief discussion of Matthew’s use of this figure.] Rachel-being the mother of Joseph (the father of Ephraim and Manasseh), and Benjamin-represented all the Israelites, from the north and the south. Ramah was a town about five miles north of Jerusalem that stood in Benjamin’s tribal territory near the border between Israel and Judah. The exiles stopped at Ramah, and undoubtedly wept there, on their way to exile in Babylon (Jer 40:1). Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem (Gen 35:16; Gen 35:19), south of Jerusalem.
"Rachel’s life story sets her apart from the other Israelite ancestors. She alone had only a grave and never a home in the promised land (Jer 30:3). She died ’on the way’ (Gen 35:19), and her last words express her sorrow (Gen 35:18). Not every mother will give up her own life for her child’s (e.g., Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; Lam 4:10; 2Ki 6:28-29). Rachel’s death in childbirth makes her deeply credible as an example of the profound extent of a mother’s love. Rachel is a mother who does not forget her children (cf. Isa 49:15)." [Note: Scalise, p. 119.]
"The destruction of the people of Israel by the Assyrians and Chaldeans is a type of the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, in so far as the sin which brought the children of Israel into exile laid a foundation for the fact that Herod the Idumean became king over the Jews, and wished to destroy the true King and Saviour of Israel that he might strengthen his own dominion." [Note: Keil, 2:26. Cf. Matthew 2:18.]