Chapter 49 (2)

Chapter 49 (2)

Jeremiah 49:7

7. Concerning Edom, thus saith the LORD of hosts; Is wisdom no more in Teman? is counsel perished from the prudent? is their wisdom vanished?

7. Ad Edom (contra Edom) sic dicit Jehova exercituum, An non amplius sapientia in Theman? periitne consilium ab intelligentibus? computruit (vel, supervacua facta est) sapientia ipsorum?

Here Jeremiah turns to Idumeans, who were most inveterate enemies to the chosen people, though their origin ought to have disposed them to show kindness to them, for they had descended from the same father, even Abraham. The Idumeans also gloried in their holy descent, and had circumcision in common with the Jews. It was then a most impious cruelty that the Idumeans entertained such bitter hatred towards their own blood. Hence our Prophet most severely reproved them, as also did Ezekiel and Obadiah. (Ezekiel 25:12-14; Obadiah 1:1, 8.)

He says first, Is there not wisdom any more in Teman? By these words he intimates, that though the Idumeans thought themselves safe through their own counsels, because they excelled in acuteness, it yet would avail them nothing, for the Lord would blind them and deprive them of a sane mind; for what is put here interrogatively is declared plainly by Obadiah, (Obadiah 1:8.) even in God’s name,

“I will take away wisdom from Teman, and there shall be no understanding in Mount Esau.”

But as Obadiah had preceded Jeremiah, it was necessary that he should speak of this as of a future thing. But our Prophet, as the judgment of which Obadiah was a witness and a herald, was near at hand, boldly exults over the Idumeans, and laughs at their reproach, inasmuch as they were deprived of counsel and understanding when they had most need of them. Teman, no doubt, was the name of a mountain or of a region; and this we learn from the Prophet Habakkuk,

“God shall come from Teman, and the holy one from Mount Paran.” (Habakkuk 3:3)

It was also a chief city, as we learn form other places; and our Prophet sets it forth as the seat of the kingdom, when he says, Is there not wisdom in Teman? and then, Has counsel perished from the intelligent?

I wonder that interpreters, skillful in the language and conversant in it, should render the last word “sons,” for it is unsuitable to the place. The word, no doubt, is derived from בום, bun, to understand, and not from בנה, bene, to build, whence the word, בנים, benim, sons, comes. For how can it suit this passage to say, Is there no more wisdom in Teman? Has counsel perished from the children? that is, as they understand it, “from the children of Esau.” But this is frigid and forced; and the two clauses correspond much better when read thus, “Is there no more wisdom in Teman? has counsel perished from the intelligent?” that is, from those who have hitherto boasted of their intelligence and acuteness.

Note 34. So the Vulg. and the Targ., while the Sept. and the Syr., have “prudent,” or intelligent. The word is not in its regular form, the י iod being wanted, and the מ mem before it being omitted, which is not uncommon. Discerning rather than “prudent,” or “intelligent,” is its meaning. — Ed

He then adds, Rotten has become their wisdom. The verb סרח, sarech, means to be superfluous, but some render it here to be putrid, as it is in Niphal I know not whether they have done this, because they did not know another meaning suitable to the context; but we may fitly render it thus, that their wisdom had become superfluous, that is, useless. We may also adopt another meaning, that their wisdom had been hitherto overflowing, that is, superabounded; for they had such wisdom, so as not only to act wisely for themselves, but also to show to others what was right and useful. As then the Idumeans possessed so much wisdom as to direct others, and not to be wise only for themselves, the words would read well were they rendered, that their wisdom had abounded. But in that case the words would be ironical; for the Prophet seems to assign a reason for his astonishment.

I give then this explanation: he first says, Is there wisdom no more in Teman? He exclaims, as though the thing was very strange, “How can this be! is the very fountain of wisdom exhausted? Who could have thought that a city so renowned for wisdom would become so fatuitous as not to know her approaching calamity, so as to meet it, and apply in time the remedy?” And to the same effect he adds, Has counsel perished from the intelligent? At length he subjoins, Abounded has their wisdom; and this he says, in order to show a reason for his astonishment.

Note 35. Some maintain that the first clause only is a question, for there is no interrogatory particle prefixed to the other clauses, — Is wisdom no longer in Teman? Perished has counsel from the discerning, Vanished has their wisdom. Neither the versions nor the Targum put the two last lines as questions; nor the Sept. and the Syr. the first. The verb סרח is differently rendered, — by the Sept., “departed;” by the Vulg., “become useless;” by the Syr., “taken away;” by the Targ., “marred,” or corrupted. The verb means to spread, to stretch out; and spreading here is in the sense of dissipating or scattering, and the verb here is passive. So “vanished” would convey the meaning. The first line is a question, and the two following contain the answer. A tautology cannot be otherwise avoided. — Ed.

But we must notice the sameness and the difference between our Prophet and Obadiah. The latter foretold the blindness of that nation; but our Prophet, as though he wished to rouse from their torpor those who had been inattentive to the prophecy of Obadiah, exclaims, “How has wisdom perished from Teman, and counsel from the intelligent?” We must further observe, that this punishment was by God inflicted on the Idumeans, because they had applied all their thoughts to frauds and intrigues; and it seldom happens, but that they who excel in acuteness become very sharp and fraudulent. As then men are thus wont to abuse for the most part their knowledge, God blinds them, and shews that men cannot of themselves be wise, but as far as it is given them from above. As I have already said, the Prophet enlarges on this judgment, that he might the more effectually rouse the minds of men. For had the Idumeans been rustics, such as dwell among mountains, and had no report prevailed as to their wisdom, no one would have wondered that they were taken and subdued; for simple and unwary men are exposed to the intrigues of their enemies, and cannot escape them. But the Prophet, in order to set forth this judgment of God as wonderful, says that their wisdom had been as it were overflowing, that is, like an abundant treasure, for they administered counsel to others. As, then, the Idumeans so much excelled in intelligence, especially those who dwelt in the city Teman, the Prophet shews by this very circumstance that their blindness proceeded from the manifest vengeance of God, and that such a change did not happen by chance. It follows, —

Jeremiah 49:8

8. Flee ye, turn back, dwell deep, O inhabitants of Dedan; for I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him, the time that I will visit him.

8. Fugite, conversi sunt, profundaverunt habitationem incolae Dedan, quia interitum Esau adduxi super ipsum tempore visitationis ejus.

The Prophet shews here how great was the pride of that nation, and sets it as it were before their eyes. Flee, he says; the language is abrupt, yet the meaning is not ambiguous. The meaning is, that when any one warned the Idumeans to flee, none of them would move; nay, they would remain fixed in their own country, for they thought that they would have there a perpetual quietness. The citizens of Dedan have made deep their habitation He names another city not far from Teman. He then adds, in God’s name, But I will bring destruction on Esau in the time of his visitation

Note 36. The versions, (except the Syr. and the Targ.) have the verbs here in the imperative mood; and they are so regarded by most critics, “Flee ye, turn back, dwell deep,” etc.. This is necessary on account of כי, for, which follows. — Ed

We now understand the design of the Prophet, — that he wished to set before our eyes how proudly the Idumeans trusted in their defences, as they never could be persuaded to flee. The Prophet then, as God’s herald, declares that they would have to flee. But what did they do? They made deep their habitation, that is, they would remain quiet in their own country, as though they were fixed in the center of the earth, and therefore unassailable. By saying then that they made deep, he sets forth their obstinacy, so that no one could terrify them, though he announced extreme dangers. But it was his purpose thus to strengthen confidence in his prophecy, because the greatest part of the faithful could form no judgment but according to the present aspect of things; and the Idumeans proudly laughed at all threatenings. That the faithful then might not think that the Idumeans would be safe, he afterwards adds, in God’s name, “Behold, I will bring ruin on Esau.” He mentions their father, and the Idumeans, we know, descended from Esau the first-born of Isaac; and hence they were of the same blood with the Israelites. But the Prophet, by bringing forward the name of a reprobate man, intended, no doubt, to renew the memory of a curse, for Esau had been rejected, and his younger brother Jacob succeeded in his place. Hence the Prophet, that he might gain more credit to his words, brought before the people what was well known to them, that Esau had been rejected by God; for on the rejection of Esau depended their gratuitous election and adoption.

And he says that God would be the avenger of that nation at the time of visitation; for as I have before reminded you, what we have read was not immediately fulfilled. When, therefore, the Israelites suffered extreme calamities, their hope might a hundred times have failed them, on seeing the Idumeans remaining still as it were asleep in their pleasures, and these judgments of God as it were buried; for it might have come to their minds that all which Jeremiah had declared had passed away like smoke. Hence, to sustain their hope and patience, he sets before them here the time of visitation; as though he had said, that the Idumeans also would have their turn, after God had patiently borne with their impiety and spared them for a long time. But of this we shall hereafter see. Now, as I have shown elsewhere, the words which remind us of the time of God’s visitations, ought to be noticed, that we may not by hastening fall headlong, as it is usually the case; for they who are in a hurry, fall at the first step. That we may then learn to wait for the ripened time, let this remain fixed in our minds, that God has his settled seasons of visitations. It now follows —

Jeremiah 49:9

9. If grapegatherers come to thee, would they not leave some gleaning-grapes? if thieves by night, they will destroy till they have enough.

9. Si vindemiatores venissent contra to, non reliquissent uvas? si fures in nocte, nonne perdidissent quod sufficeret ipsis?

Interpreters have not only obscured, but also perverted this verse, and only said what is to no purpose, and have gone far from the meaning of the Prophet. How so? because it did not occur to them to compare this with a passage in Obadiah. Obadiah is the true interpreter; nay, our Prophet has borrowed what we read here from him. For there a question is asked, “If thieves were to come to thee, if robbers (שדדי, shaddi, is added there, but is omitted by Jeremiah) — if robbers by night, how wouldest thou have been reduced to nothing?” But in the first place the rendering ought to be, “Had thieves come to thee, how wouldest thou have been reduced to nothing?” then he adds, “Would they not have stolen what would suffice them?” He afterwards adds the second clause, “If the grape-gatherers had come to thee, would they not have left grapes.” There is now then no ambiguity in the Prophet’s words, if we read them interrogatively. But there is an implied contrast between the calamity threatened to the people and the other devastations. Were a thief of the night to plunder another’s house, he would depart, loaded with his prey, and leave something behind; for in all plunder some things remain: so also as to grape-gatherers, some grapes remain, which escape the gatherers.

Note 37. The interpreters probably referred to are the Sept. and the Vulg., where the interrogative form is not used; not so the Syr. and the Targ. — Ed.

Then the Prophet here shews, that so great would be the destruction of that nation, that it would exceed all kinds of plundering; for when one strips his vines, he leaves some grapes; and when a thief enters a house, he does not carry all things away with him, being satisfied with his booty. But nothing, he says, shall be left remaining with the Idumeans. We hence see why the Prophet brings forward the two comparisons, that of the grape-gatherers and of the thieves.

We must at the same time observe, that when God denounces his vengeance on the Israelites, he often adduces these comparisons, in order to show that nothing would be left them, “When the olives are shaken, yet some fruit remains on the top of the trees; but thou shalt be wholly emptied.” As God had said these things, the Israelites might have raised an objection and said, “What is our condition, and how miserable! for we are extremely afflicted; though God afflicts the Idumeans, yet he deals mildly with them, for God’s wrath is less inflamed against them than against us.” Lest then the faithful should be thus thrown into despair, our Prophet declares that the Idumeans would be wholly destroyed, so that not a grape would be left them, nor any of their furniture, for their enemies would lay desolate the whole land. Now follows a confirmation of this verse —

Jeremiah 49:10-11

10. But I have made Esau bare, I have uncovered his secret places, and he shall not be able to hide himself: his seed is spoiled, and his brethren, and his neighbour’s, and he is not.

10. Quia ego discooperio Esau, retego abscondita ejus, et occultari non poterit; vastatum est semen ejus (aut, vastabitur) et fratres ejus, et vicini, et non ipse (quanquam alii vertunt, et nemo erit, et contexunt proximum versum,)

11. Leave thy fatherless children, I will preserve them alive; and let thy widows trust in me.

11. Relinque pupillos tuos; ego vivificabo (hoc est, alam ipsos;) et viduae tuae in me sperent.

As to the beginning of the verse, the meaning of the Prophet is not obscure; for he means that such would be the destruction of the people of Edom, that they would be spoiled by enemies, that they would become wholly naked. But he speaks in the name of God: Behold, I uncover Esau, and make open his hidden things By hidden things he means treasures, as it is evident from Obadiah. He then says that he would so expose the Idumeans to plunder, that there would be no hidden thing but that their enemies would seize and plunder it. This is the meaning.

He then confirms what I have said, that this plundering would not be like grape-gathering, or theft, or common robbery, because God would altogether empty the Idumeans of all that they had, even of all that they hid in the ground.

With regard to the end of the verse, some give this explanation, “There will be none to say:” there is then a word to be understood, — “there will be none to say, Leave thy orphans to me, I will nourish or sustain them, or I will he a father to them; and thy widows, let them hope or trust in me, or rest on me.” For it is no small comfort to parents, when they know that their widows would have one to flee to, and also their orphans. When one dies and sees that his widow is destitute of every help, and sees that his orphans are miserable and needy, his paternal and conjugal love is grievously wounded. For is it more bitter than death itself, when the husband cannot provide any help for his widow, when he cannot provide any relief for his orphans. Hence some interpreters think that the ruin of this people is in this way exaggerated; that is, because no one would be found to bring comfort to parents, and to take as it were the place of the dead.

But the meaning would not be unsuitable, were the words deemed ironical, that the Prophet spoke in the person of God, Leave to me thy orphans, I will nourish them, and let thy widows rest on me, or trust in me: for it follows afterwards, Behold, they to whom there was no judgment, have drunk of the cup, etc. The passage then would not read amiss, if we consider that God taunts the Idumeans, and ironically declares that he would be a judge against them even after they were dead; for God’s vengeance, we know, reaches to the third and the fourth generation. As then he had before declared, that the Idumeans would be destroyed, their seed, their brethren, and their neighbors, so he now confirms the same thing, — “What! dost thou expect that I should be a father or a protector to thy orphans? that I should bring aid to thy widow? This thou expectest in vain from me.”

The Prophet, in a few words, very sharply goads the minds of the Idumeans, when God thus presents himself, and says by way of mockery, that he would be a protector to their orphans and widows; for they had indiscriminately vented their rage on orphans and women, and spared neither sex nor age. Then God shews here that there was no reason why they should expect any comfort as to their children, for he would be their avenger to the third and the fourth generation. And forced, no doubt, is what some say; at least I do not see how the words, I will nourish them, can comport with the rest of the context. This clause, then, I apply to God himself, because his vengeance would consume them with their brethren, their neighbors and their seed. And the irony is the most suitable to the whole passage; that is, that God meant to show, that he could bring no help to orphans or aid to widows, since they had been so cruel both to orphans and widows. Then follows a confirmation —

Note 38. Neither of the two explanations here given are satisfactory, though the first especially has been adopted by many, such as Henry and Scott. It is difficult to know the meaning of the Sept.; the Vulg. and the Syr. are literally our version. The Targ. goes wide astray, representing this verse as addressed to the people of Israel, of whom there is no mention here. Blayney supposes a typographical mistake, joins עזב to the preceding verse, and puts ה, to the next word, and gives this version, — And there is nothing of him left.
11. Shall I preserve the life of thy fatherless children?
Or shall thy widows trust in me? The questions he considers as strong negatives. The simpler view seems to be this: in the preceding verse the destruction not only of Esau, but also of his brethren and neighbours, is announced. His “seed” means his posterity, the nation, and he was was not to be, that is, as a kingdom. There would be still some “orphans” and “widows,” and as “brethren” and “neighbors” would be destroyed as well as Esau himself, as to all grown up people, forming the nation, and thus orphans and widows would be left helpless, God was pleased to give the promise here stated: Leave thy orphans, I will preserve them,
Thy widows also, in me let them trust. The last verb is both masculine and feminine, and refers both to the orphans and widows. This is substantially the explanation given by Venema, and is the most satisfactory. — Ed.