*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
These verses are to be read together; for the Prophet first shews that Israel was not as to his original condition miserable, but that this happened through a new cause, and then he mentions the cause. He then first asks, whether Israel was a servant or a slave? God had adopted them as his people, and had promised to be so bountiful to them as to render them in every way happy; and what was more, as a proof of their happiness, he said, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:14.) We then see what was the original condition of Israel; they excelled all other nations, because they were God's peculiar people, they were his heritage, they were a royal priesthood. Hence the Prophet, as though astonished at something new and strange, asks this question, Is Israel a servant? He was free beyond all nations; for he was the first -- born son of God: it was therefore necessary to inquire for the cause why he was so miserable; for he says afterwards, that lions roared against him, and sent forth their voice; he says, that their cities were burnt, or destroyed; he says, that their land was reduced to desolation; and at length he adds, Has not this done these things to thee? This again is put as a question, but it is doubly affirmative, for it takes away every doubt: "What do you say is the cause why you are so miserable? for all are hostile to you, and you are exposed to the wrongs of all: whence can you say has all this proceeded, except from your own wickedness?" We now see what the Prophet means. But that what he says may be more clear, we must remember that he reminds the people, by way of reproach, of the benefits which God had conferred on them. As then the children of Abraham had been honored with so many singular favors that they had the preeminence over all the world, this dignity is now referred to, but only for the purpose of exposing their base conduct, as though he had said, "God did not deceive you, when he promised to be bountiful to you; his adoption is not deceptive nor in vain: hence you would have been happier than all other nations, had not your own wickedness rendered you miserable." We now see for what end the Prophet asked, Is Israel a servant or a slave? They were indeed on an equality with other people, as they were by nature; but as they had been chosen by God, and as he had favored them with that peculiar privilege, the Prophet asks, whether they were servants, as though he had said, "What is it that prevents that blessedness to appear among you, which God has promised? for it was not God's design to disappoint you: it then follows that you are miserable through your own fault." [1] And by saying, Why is he become a prey, he intimates that except Israel had been deprived of God's protection, they would not have been thus exposed to the caprice of their enemies. They were not then become a prey except for this reason, because God had forsaken them, according to what is said in the song of Moses, "How should one chase a thousand, and ten should put to flight as many thousands, except God had given us up as captives, except we had been shut up by his hand." (Deuteronomy 32:30.) For Moses in that passage does also in an indirect manner remind the people how often and how wonderfully God had given them victories over their enemies, and thus he leaves it to their posterity, when in distress, to consider how the change came that one should chase a thousand; that is, how could it be, that they, possessing great forces, should yet be put to flight by their enemies; for they were not wont to turn their backs, but to conquer their enemies: it then follows, that they were made captives by God, and not by the men who chased them. So also here the Prophet shews, that Israel would not have been made a prey, had they not been deprived of God's assistance. He afterwards adds, Over him roar the lions. The Prophet seems not simply to compare the enemies of Israel to lions on account of their cruelty, but also by way of contempt, as though he had said, that Israel found that not only men were incensed against them, but also wild beasts: and it is more degrading when God permits us to be torn by the beasts of the field. It is then the same, as though he had said, that Israel were so miserably treated, that they were not only slain by the hands of enemies, but were also exposed to the beasts of prey. And then he adds, they have sent forth their voice; which is the same as to say, that Israel, whom God was wont to protect by his powerful band, were become the food of wild beasts, and that lions, as it were in troops, were roaring against them. He then adds, without a metaphor, that his land was laid waste, and his cities burnt without an inhabitant This language cannot be suitably applied to lions or to any other wild beasts; but what he had figuratively said before, he now explains in a plain manner, and says, that the land was desolate, that the cities were cut off or burnt up. Now this, as we have said, could not have been the case, had not Israel departed from God, and had been on this account deprived of his help. [2] By way of amplification he adds, Also the sons of Noph and of Tephanes shall for thee break the head, or, the crown of the head. We shall hereafter see that the Israelites were wont to seek help from the Egyptians. The particle gm, gam, may be thus explained, "Not only those who have been hitherto professed enemies to thee, but even thy friends, in whose help thou didst confide, shall turn their power against thee and break for thee thy head." Some think that their degradation is here enhanced, because the Egyptians were an unwarlike people; and ancient historians say that men there followed the occupations of women; but as this is not mentioned in Scripture, and as the Egyptians are not thus spoken of in it, I prefer to follow the usual explanation, that the Egyptians, though confederate with Israel, would yet be adverse to them, and had been so already. By the head, some understand the chief men among the people of Israel: but we may render it thus, they will break for thee the head, as we say in our language, Ils to romperont la tete, or, Ils to frotteront la tete; and this, in my judgment, is the real meaning. [3] Now follows the cause; the Prophet, after having shewn that Israel were forsaken by God, now mentions the reason why it so happened, Has not this done it for thee? Some read in the second person, "Hast thou not done this for thee?" but the meaning is still nearly the same. More probable, however, is the rendering which others have given, "Has not this happened to thee, because thou hast forsaken Jehovah thy God?" Jeremiah, in short, teaches us that the cause of all the evils was the defection of the people, as though he had said, "Thou hast concocted for thyself all this evil; then must thou swallow it, and know that the blame cannot be cast on God; for he would have been faithful to thee, except thine impiety had prevented him. God has not, indeed, chosen thee in vain, nor has he in vain preferred thee to other nations; but thou hast rejected his kindness. Thy condition then would have never been as it is, hadst thou not procured thine own ruin." How so? "Because thou hast departed from thy God." And he further exaggerates this sin by saying, At the time when he led thee in the way To lead in the way, is rightly to govern, so as to make people happy. The Prophet then shews, that the people's perfidy and defection were without excuse in rejecting the worship of their God, for they were happy during the time they served him. Had they been in various ways tempted, or tried, they might have reigned some pretense. "We thought ourselves deceived in hoping in the true God, for he concealed his favor from us; we were therefore compelled by necessity. There ought at least some indulgence to be shewn to our levity; for we could have formed no other conjecture but that God had removed far from us." The Prophet meets this objection, as he does in the fifth verse, "What iniquity have your fathers found in me?" and, as it is done in another place, "My people, what have I done to thee, or in what have I been troublesome to thee?" (Micah 6:4) for God in that passage shews that he was prepared to defend his own cause, and to clear himself from whatever the people might object to him. So also he does in this place, "I have led thee," he says, "in the way;" that is, "Thou didst live happily under my government, and yet I could not retain thee by my goodness while I kindly treated thee; and thou knewest that nothing could be better for thee than to continue under my protection; but thou hast determined to go over into the service of idols. Now what excuse hast thou, or what pretense is left thee?" We hence see, that the sin of the people is greatly enhanced, for they were induced by no temptation or trial to forsake God, but through mere perfidy gave themselves up to idols: and a confirmation of this verse follows --
1 - The difficulty of understanding this passage has arisen from not considering the questions in a negative sense, as implying a strong denial-"Is Israel a servant (or, rather a slave)?" No, by no means. "Is he one begotten in the house," that is, in a state of bondage? No, by no means. Then the following question comes naturally; since he is neither a purchased slave, nor a slave born in the house, "why has he become a prey?" That there were two sorts of slaves of this kind is evident from many parts of Scripture. See Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:27; Exodus 21:4; Leviticus 22: 11. This is the view taken evidently in our version, by Jun and Trem., Piscator, Gataker, Grotius, Henry, and Scott. Blarney renders the two first lines thus, -- Is Israel a slave? or if a child of the household, Wherefore is he exposed to spoil? He considers "the child of the household" to be the son and the heir, as Isaac was, and refers to Galatians 4:7. Horsley coincides with him. But the usus loquendi gives no countenance to this view, while it confirms the other. To refer to filiusfamilias in Latin is to no purpose. "The child of the house," as the expression literally is, and similar phrases, ever mean in Scripture those who were born slaves in a family. -- Ed.
2 - The verse literally is as follows,- Over him shall young lions roar; They have uttered their voice, And have made his land a waste; His cities are grown over with grass, Without an inhabitant. The verb in the first line is future, the other verbs are in the past tense; and Blarney thinks that they are so put to denote the certainty of what is said, as it is often done by the prophets: and this is rendered probable by what is contained in Jeremiah 4:7, where the same judgment is spoken of. The verb ntsth, in the received text, ought evidently to be ntstv, according to the Keri and twenty MSS.; and so we find it in Jeremiah 9:10. Our version and Calvin give it the idea of "burning;" but according to Leigh and Parkhurst, its meaning is, to shoot forth, to produce grass, or to grow over with grass, as the case is with ruined cities; and the words connected with it here and in other places seem to favor this meaning. It is rendered in our version, "laid waste," in Jeremiah 4:7, and "desolate" in Jeremiah 46:19. -- Ed
3 - There have been many expositions of this latter clause, which may be seen in the Assembly's Annotations, which were written, as to Isaiah and Jeremiah, by the learned Gataker. He gives the preference to the idea, that the crown of the head means the best and the principal part of the land, and to break the crown means the plunder of this portion. See Isaiah 28:4. This seems to correspond in meaning with the previous verse. It was the opinion of Blarney that an allusion is prophetically made to the slaying of Josiah by the Egyptians. The words literally are, -- They shall break thee, the crown of the head. "The crown of the head" seems to be explanatory of "thee;" it might then be rendered, -- They shall break thee, even the crown of thy head. The Septuagint mistook one letter for another, and took the verb to be, ydvk, "they knew thee," instead of yrvk "they shall break thee;" but what they made the last word to be, it is hard to know, for they rendered it, "and searched thee." The Vulgate has followed the Septuagint; and the idea is a very indecent one: and there is nothing in the context to favor it. The Targum's paraphrase is this, "They shall slay thy brave men, and plunder thy riches;" which countenances the idea evidently conveyed by the figurative terms of the Hebrew. The next verse literally rendered is as follows, -- Is not this what thou wilt do for thyself, By thy forsaking of Jehovah thy God, At the time he was leading thee in the way? The first verb is no doubt future, whether it be rendered in the second or third person. The sentence may be rendered in Welsh without "Is," or the relative "what," and word for word, -- Ai nid hyn a wnai i'th hun? And the future is understood as the present. Blayney's version is, -- Shall not this be done unto thee, Because thou hast forsaken Jehovah thy God, At the time that he led thee in the way? -- Ed.
It was Israel's glory to be Yahweh's servant Jeremiah 30:10, and slaves born in the house were more prized than those bought with money as being more faithful Genesis 14:14. Cannot Yahweh guard His own household? How happens it that a member of so powerful a family is spoiled? In the next verse the prophet gives the reason. Israel is a runaway slave, who has deserted the family to which he belongs by right of birth, and thereby brought upon himself trouble and misery.
Is Israel a servant? - Is he a slave purchased with money, or a servant born in the family? He is a son himself. If so, then, why is he spoiled? Not because God has not shown him love and kindness; but because he forsook God, turned to and is joined with idols.
[Is] Israel a (u) servant? [is] he a homeborn [slave]? why is he laid waste?
(u) Have I ordered them like servants and not like dearly beloved children? (Exodus 4:22) therefore it is their fault only, if the enemy spoil them.
Is Israel a servant?.... That he does not abide in the house, in his own land, but is carried captive, becomes subject to others, and is used as a slave; so the Targum,
"as a servant;''
is he not the Lord's first born? are not the people of Israel called the children of the living God? how come they then to be treated not as children, as free men, but as servants? this cannot be owing to any breach of covenant or promise on God's part, or to the failure of the blessing of national adoption bestowed on them; but to some sin or sins of theirs, which have brought them into this miserable condition:
is he a home born slave? or born in the house, of the handmaid, and so in the power of the master of the family in whose house he was born, Exodus 21:4 or the sense is, either Israel is a servant,
or a son of the family (d), as some render the words; not the former, being not only the son of a free woman, but Jehovah's firstborn; if the latter,
why is he spoiled? why is he delivered up to the spoilers? as the Targum; why should he be given up into the hands of the Babylonians, and become their prey? is it usual for fathers to suffer their children, or those born in their house, to be so used? some reason must be given for it.
(d) "filius familias", Munster.
Is Israel a servant? No, they are the seed of Abraham. We may apply this spiritually: Is the soul of man a slave? No, it is not; but has sold its own liberty, and enslaved itself to divers lusts and passions. The Assyrian princes, like lions, prevailed against Israel. People from Egypt destroyed their glory and strength. They brought these calamities on themselves by departing from the Lord. The use and application of this is, Repent of thy sin, that thy correction may not be thy ruin. What has a Christian to do in the ways of forbidden pleasure or vain sinful mirth, or with the pursuits of covetousness and ambition?
is he a homeborn slave--No. "Israel is Jehovah's son, even His first-born" (Exodus 4:22). Jeremiah 2:16, Jeremiah 2:18, Jeremiah 2:36, and the absence of any express contrast of the two parts of the nation are against EICHORN'S view, that the prophet proposes to Judah, as yet spared, the case of Israel (the ten tribes) which had been carried away by Assyria as a warning of what they might expect if they should still put their trust in Egypt. "Were Israel's ten tribes of meaner birth than Judah? Certainly not. If, then, the former fell before Assyria, what can Judah hope from Egypt against Assyria? . . . Israel" is rather here the whole of the remnant still left in their own land, that is, Judah. "How comes it to pass that the nation which once was under God's special protection (Jeremiah 2:3) is now left at the mercy of the foe as a worthless slave?" The prophet sees this event as if present, though it was still future to Judah (Jeremiah 2:19).
By this double sin Israel has drawn on its own head all the evil that has befallen it. Nevertheless it will not cease its intriguing with the heathen nations. Jeremiah 2:14. "Is Israel a servant? is he a home-born slave? why is he become a booty? Jeremiah 2:15. Against him roared the young lions, let their voice be heard, and made his land a waste; his cities were burnt up void of inhabitants. Jeremiah 2:16. Also the sons of Noph and Tahpanes feed on the crown of thy head. Jeremiah 2:17. Does not this bring it upon thee, thy forsaking Jahveh thy God, at the time when He led thee on the way? Jeremiah 2:18. And now what hast thou to do with the way to Egypt, to drink the waters of the Nile? and what with the way to Assur, to drink the waters of the river? Jeremiah 2:19. Thy wickedness chastises thee, and thy backslidings punish thee; then know and see that it is evil and bitter to forsake Jahveh thy God, and to have no fear of me, saith the Lord Jahveh of hosts." The thought from Jeremiah 2:14-16 is this: Israel was plundered and abused by the nations like a slave. To characterize such a fate as in direct contradiction to its destiny is the aim of the question: Is Israel a servant? i.e., a slave or a house-born serf. עבד is he who has in any way fallen into slavery, יליד בּיתa slave born in the house of his master. The distinction between these two classes of salves does not consist in the superior value of the servant born in the house by reason of his attachment to the house. This peculiarity is not here thought of, but only the circumstance that the son of a salve, born in the house, remained a slave without any prospect of being set free; while the man who has been forced into slavery by one of the vicissitudes of life might hope again to acquire his freedom by some favourable turn of circumstances. Another failure is the attempt of Hitz. to interpret עבד as servant of Jahveh, worshipper of the true God; for this interpretation, even if we take no account of all the other arguments that make against it, is rendered impossible by .יליד That expression never means the son of the house, but by unfailing usage the slave born in the house of his master. Now the people of Israel had not been born as serf in the land of Jahveh, but had become עבד, i.e., slave, in Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15); but Jahveh has redeemed it from this bondage and made it His people. The questions suppose a state of affairs that did not exist. This is shown by the next question, one expressing wonder: Why then is he it become a prey? Slaves are treated as a prey, but Israel was no slave; why then has such treatment fallen to his lot? Propheta per admirationem quasi de re nova et absurda sciscitatur. An servus est Israel? atqui erat liber prae cunctis gentibus, erat enim filius primogenitus Dei; necesse est igitur quaerere aliam causam, cur adeo miser sit (Calv.). Cf. the similar turn of the thought in Jeremiah 2:31. How Israel became a prey is shown in Jeremiah 2:15 and Jeremiah 2:16. These verses do not treat of future events, but of what has already happened, and, according to Jeremiah 2:18 and Jeremiah 2:19, will still continue. The imperff. ישׁאגוּ and ירעוּך alternate consequently with the perff. נתנוּ and נצּתה, and are governed by היה לבז, so that they are utterances regarding events of the past, which have been and are still repeated. Lions are a figure that frequently stands for enemies thirsting for plunder, who burst in upon a people or land; cf. Micah 5:7; Isaiah 5:29, etc. Roared עליו, against him, not, over him: the lion roars when he is about to rush upon his prey, Amos 3:4, Amos 3:8; Psalm 104:21; Judges 14:5; when he has pounced upon it he growls or grumbles over it; cf. Isaiah 31:4. - In Jeremiah 2:15 the figurative manner passes into plain statement. They made his land a waste; cf. Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 18:16, etc., where instead of שׁית we have the more ordinary שׂוּם. The Cheth. נצּתה from יצת, not from the Ethiop. נצה (Graf, Hitz.), is to be retained; the Keri here, as in Jeremiah 22:6, is an unnecessary correction; cf. Ew. 317, a. In this delineation Jeremiah has in his eye chiefly the land of the ten tribes, which had been ravaged and depopulated by the Assyrians, even although Judah had often suffered partial devastations by enemies; cf. 1-Kings 14:25.
A slave - Slave is here added to home - born to express the baseness of his service, because the master had power to make those slaves who were born of slaves in his house. Why - Why is he thus tyrannized over, as if strangers had the same right over him as owners over their slaves?
*More commentary available at chapter level.