Jeremiah 40:16

See Jeremiah 9:7; Jeremiah 10:18; Jeremiah 16:16. This is not the case here. Besides, when a verb, and the same verb as a gerund are put together, which is no uncommon thing, the gerund in general, if not always, precedes the verb; not so here, if we take nsyty, as most do, to be from ns'. These anomalies are evident in the text as it now stands. Suppose the misplacing of one word, and put ns' after hnny, and the sentence will be perfectly grammatical, and the version would be as follows, — Therefore, behold, I will carry off and let you go; Yea, I will dismiss you and the city, Which I gave to you and to your fathers, From my presence. Alluding to burden, he says that he would carry them off as one carries a burden, and then let them go, or throw them down: the verb nsh means to loosen, to disengage one's self from a thing, to remit, to let go. Then nms has a similar meaning, to set loose, to relax, to set free, to dismiss, to cast off; which intimates that he would not suffer them to continue as it were in his presence. It is the same verb as in Jeremiah 23:33 — Ed Jeremiah 23:40 40. And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten. 40.

40:7-16 Jeremiah had never in his prophecies spoken of any good days for the Jews, to come immediately after the captivity; yet Providence seemed to encourage such an expectation. But how soon is this hopeful prospect blighted! When God begins a judgment, he will complete it. While pride, ambition, or revenge, bears rule in the heart, men will form new projects, and be restless in mischief, which commonly ends in their own ruin. Who would have thought, that after the destruction of Jerusalem, rebellion would so soon have sprung up? There can be no thorough change but what grace makes. And if the miserable, who are kept in everlasting chains for the judgment of the great day, were again permitted to come on earth, the sin and evil of their nature would be unchanged. Lord, give us new hearts, and that new mind in which the new birth consists, since thou hast said we cannot without it see thy heavenly kingdom.

But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam said unto Johanan the son of Kareah,.... In answer to his request, and the motion made by him: thou shalt not do this thing; or, "do not do this thing" (z); dissuading him from it, as being unlawful to take away a man's life in such a secret manner, without any legal process against him; though it seems to carry more in it, that he laid his commands upon him not to do it, and threatened him if he did: for thou speakest falsely of Ishmael; or "a lie" (a); a falsehood, a mere calumny; which was not using Johanan well, neither kindly nor genteelly, who had expressed such a concern for him, and for the public good. The event related in the following chapter shows that the information was good, and that it was no lie or calumny that was told; and it would have been well for Gedaliah, and the people of the Jews, had he given credit to it; but the time was not come for the Jewish commonwealth to be restored; and things were thus suffered to be, for the further punishment of the sins of that people. (z) "noli facere hoc verbum", V. L. "ne facias verbum hoc", Pagninus, Montanus, Schmidt. (a) "mendacium", Schmidt; "falsum", Pagninus, Montanus.

Ch. Jeremiah 40:1-6 . Jeremiah is released and returns to Gedaliah Du., Co. and Erbt agree in the view that there were different legendary accounts in connexion with Jeremiah’s fortunes immediately subsequent to the capture of the city and that this section represents one of them. It is certainly difficult, in the absence of further information, to reconcile satisfactorily Jeremiah 39:11-14 with the present passage. It is, however, possible that, in the absence of his protector Gedaliah from Jerusalem, he was again put in fetters through ignorance of his right to immunity and only set free after reaching Ramah, when the mistake was rectified by the intervention of Gedaliah or otherwise. In any case Jeremiah 40:1 is a later addition, as no utterance from the Lord follows. The captain of the guard’s words in Jeremiah 40:2-3 are obviously unsuited to the speaker, although they are such as a Hebrew writer would put into Nebuzaradan’s mouth. Cp. 2 Kings 18:25 . The section may be summarized thus. Jeremiah 40:1-6 . Jeremiah is taken in chains to Ramah. There Nebuzaradan, after declaring that Jerusalem’s fall was a just consequence of the people’s sins, gives the prophet his choice between going with him to Babylon, and dwelling with Gedaliah or elsewhere as he may choose. Jeremiah decides on going to Gedaliah at Mizpah. Jeremiah 40:16

It is difficult to say what object Baalis can have had in murdering Gedaliah. As an ally of Zedekiah Jeremiah 27:3 , he may have had a spite against the family of Ahikam for opposing, as most probably they did at Jeremiah's instigation, the league proposed Jeremiah 27 . Ishmael's motive was envy and spite at seeing a subject who had always opposed the war now invested with kingly power, in place of the royal family.

Thus God dementates those whom he designeth to destroy. Gedaliah in this showeth an excellent temper, not to be over-credulous and suspicious, Charity thinks no ill , but not that prudence which became a chief magistrate. He ought to have been watchful against one against whom he had received such an information, which we shall in the next chapter find he was not, but was slain by him.

Gedaliah is forewarned of Ishmael's intention to murder him. - After the return of those who had taken refuge in Moab, etc., Johanan the son of Kareah, together with the rest of the captains who were scattered here and there through the country, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, to say to him: "Dost thou know indeed that Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to take thy life?" The words "that were in the country" are neither a gloss, nor a thoughtless repetition by some scribe from Jeremiah 40:7 (as Hitzig and Graf suppose), but they are repeated for the purpose of distinguishing plainly between the captains with their men from the Jews who had returned out of Moab, Ammon, and Edom. הכּות, "to strike the soul, life" equals to kill; cf. Genesis 37:21 ; Deuteronomy 19:6 . What induced the king of Ammon to think of assassination - whether it was personal hostility towards Gedaliah, or the hope of destroying the only remaining support of the Jews, and thereby perhaps putting himself in possession of the country, - cannot be determined. That he employed Ishmael for the accomplishment of his purpose, may have been owing to the fact that this man had a personal envy of Gedaliah; for Ishmael, being sprung from the royal family ( Jeremiah 40:1 ), probably could not endure being subordinate to Gedaliah. - The plot had become known, and Gedaliah was secretly informed of it by Johanan; but the former did not believe the rumour.

Johanan then secretly offered to slay Ishmael, taking care that no one should know who did it, and urged compliance in the following terms: "Why should he slay thee, and all the Jews who have gathered themselves round thee be scattered, and the remnant of Judah perish?" Johanan thus called his attention to the evil consequences which would result to the remnant left in the land were he killed; but Gedaliah replied, "Do not this thing, for thou speakest a lie against Ishmael." The Qeri needlessly changes אל־תּעשׂ into אל־תּעשׂה; cf. Jeremiah 39:12 .

(22-26) An extract from Jeremiah 40-63, relating to the people left in the land. (22) Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.—Ahikam was one of Josiah’s princes (2Kings 22:12). In the reign of Jehoiakim he saved the prophet Jeremiah from the popular fury (Jeremiah 26:24). Nebuzaradan committed the prophet to the care of Gedaliah, who probably, like his father, sympathised with Jeremiah’s views (Jeremiah 39:13-14). After hesitating whether to accompany Nebuzaradan to Babylon or not, the prophet finally decided upon repairing to Gedaliah at Mizpah (Jeremiah 40:1-6). Gedaliah’s magnanimous behaviour in regard to Ishmael (Jeremiah 40:16 seq.) shows that he was not a traitor and deserter as some have misnamed him. Rather he was a disciple of Jeremiah, and did his utmost to induce the remnant over which he was appointed governor to submit with patience to their divinely-ordered lot, as the prophet urged them to do.

Instead of "Johanan the son of Kareah," we have in Jeremiah 40:8 "Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah;" but it is uncertain whether ויונתן has crept into the text of Jeremiah from the previous יהוחנן merely through a mistake, and this mistake has brought with it the alteration of בּן into בּני (Ewald), or whether ויונתן has dropped out of our text through an oversight, and this omission has occasioned the alteration of בני into בן (Thenius, Graf, etc.). The former supposition is favoured by the circumstance that in Jeremiah 40:13; Jeremiah 41:11, Jeremiah 41:16, Johanan the son of Kareah alone is mentioned. In Jeremiah 40:8 עופי וּבני (Chethb עיפי) stands before הנּטפתי, according to which it was not Seraiah who sprang from Netophah, but Ophai whose sons were military commanders. He was called Netophathite because he sprang from Netopha in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem (Nehemiah 7:26; Ezra 2:22), the identity of which with Beit Nettif is by no means probable (see at 2 Samuel 23:28). The name יאזביהוּ is written יזניהוּ in Jeremiah; he was the son of the Maachathite, i.e., his father sprang from the Syrian district of Maacah in the neighbourhood of the Hermon (see at Deuteronomy 3:14).