The forecast is plainly of a Messianic nature; it recognises in Iahvah the Saviour, not of a nation, but of the world. It perceives that the disunion and mutual hatred of peoples, as of individuals, is a breach of Divine law; and it proclaims a general return to God, and submission to His guidance in all political as well as private affairs, as the sole cure for the numberless evils that flow from that hatred and disunion. It is only when men have learnt that God is their common Father and Lord, that they come to see with the clearness and force of practical conviction that they themselves are all members of one family, bound as such to mutual offices of kindness and charity; it is only when there is a conscious identity of interest with all our fellows, based upon the recognition that all alike are children of God and heirs of eternal life, that true freedom and universal brotherhood become possible for man.
[42] But perhaps it is rather the prophet's love for his people, which fervently prays that the oath of blessing may be observed, and Judah maintained in the goodly land.
[43] Hitzig supposed that the "vows" and "hallowed flesh" were thank-offerings for the departure of the Scythians. "It is plain that the people are really present in the temple; they bring, presumably after the retreat of the Scythians, the offerings vowed at that time." But, considering the context, the reference appears to be more general. I have partly followed the LXX. in emending an obviously corrupt verse; the only one in the chap. which presents any textual difficulty. Read: יַעְֽבַרוּ קדש ובשר הַנְּדָרִים הַֽמְזִמָּתָהּ עֲשׂוֹתָהּ בביתי לידידי מה ׃ זִי תַּֽעֲלְֹ אָז רָעָתֵכִי מֵעָלַיְכִי. The article with a noun with suffix, and the peculiar form of the 2 pers. pron. f., are found elsewhere in Jer. But I incline to correct further thus: "What avail to My beloved is her dealing (or sacrificing: עשה 2 Kings xvii. 32) in My house?" וגו קדש ובשר הָרַבִּים הֲמִזְבְּחוֹת. "Can the many altars (ver. 13) and hallowed flesh cause thine evil to pass away from thee (or pass thee by)?" This seems very apposite to what precedes. The Hebrew, as it stands, cannot possibly mean what we read both in the A. V. and R. V., nor indeed anything else.
[44] Reading בְּלֵחוֹ, with Hitzig, instead of בְּלַחְמוֹ, which is meaningless. Deut. xxxiv. 7; Ezek. xxi. 3. Perhaps it would be better to keep _all_ the letters, and point בְּלֵחָמוֹ, understanding עֵץ as collective, "the trees."
[45] Not a vocative: xx. 12, xvii. 10.
[46] That "the swelling" or "the pride of Jordan" should rather be read "the wilds" or "jungles of Jordan," is clear from xlix. 19; Zech. xi. 3; quoted by Hitzig. גאון means "growth," "overgrowth," among other things; and the Heb. phrase coincides with the Ἰάρδην δρυμὸς of Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, vii. 6, 5).
[47] The form of the Heb. verbs implies the _certainty_ of the event. Hitzig supposes that ver. 6 simply explains the expression "land of peace" in ver. 5. At Anathoth the prophet was at home; if he "ran away" (reading בורח "fleest" for בוטח "art confident") there, what would he do, when he had gone forth as a "sheep among wolves" (St. Luke x. 3)? But I think it is much better to regard ver. 6 as explaining the _whole_ of ver. 5 in the manner suggested above.
[48] Or perhaps rather the holy land itself, as Hitzig suggested: Hos. ix. 15.
[49] Lit. "Is my domain vultures, hyenas, to me?" The dative expresses the interest of the speaker in the fact (dat. ethic.). The Heb. term צבוע only occurs here. It is the Arabic _dhabu`_, "hyena" (so Sept.). St. Jerome renders _avis discolor_. So the Targum: "a strewn" "sprinkled," or "spotted fowl".