The Pulpit Commentary — Jeremiah — Volume 1 — Section 543

is an indefinit.c or round number (as in Isa. propheoies in the light of gospel timee, it xxiii. 17), equivalent to "a very long time." is almost impossible not to observe that This is supported by the analogy of eh. xxvii. "the Spirit of Christ which was in" the 7, where the c-aptivity is announce,\ ns last- prophets (I Pet. i. 11) hM overruled their ing through the reigns of Nebuchndrezzar, expressions, so thl\t they correspond more h:s son, and his grnndson-a statement evi- closely to facts thl\n could have been rea- dently vague and indefinite (see ad loc.), sonably l\Dticipo.ted. Such superabundant and in any case not answering to a period of favours to believers in inspiration occur re- seventy yenrs. Besides, we find the " seventy peatedly in tlrn pl'Opbecies respecting Obrist. years" again in eh. xxix. 10, a passage They may, of course, occur elsewhere for a written probably eleven years later. Others sufficient reason, but we have no right to be think the nnmbbr is to be taken literally, surprised if we do not meet with them. The and it is certainly true that from B.c. 606, general truth of the prophecy is that the the fourth year of J eboiakim, to the fall of empire of Babylon shall fall for ever. As Babylon, B.c. 539, sixty-seven yenrs elnpsed. Dr. Payne Smith remarks, it was practically :But is it desirable to press this against the the work of one man (Nebuchadrezzar), and internal evidence that Jeremiah himself after his death it only lasted for a few years, took the number indefinitely? during which its history is e. series of mur- Vers.12-29.-Thejudgmentupon Judah ders e.nd usurpations. and the nations. Ver. 13.-And I will bring, etc. Olearly Ver. 12.-l!'erpetue.1 desolations. Thus, too, this verse cannot he.ve formed part of the we read in Isa. xiii. 20, that Babylon" shall originl\l prophecy, but must have been added never be inho.bited.." There is a dispute whenever the collection of prophecies against between Dr. Keith and Dr. Kay on the one foreign nations finally assumed its present side, and ratioMlistic commentators (e.g. form (see introduction on eh. I., li.). It Kuenen) on the other, whether these pro- should be mentioned that the Septuagint phecies have received a circumstantial fulfil- separates the last clause of the verse, "that ment. The truth is that authorities are not which Jeremiah prophesied," etc., and makes entirely agreed on the arel\ covered by the it the bee.ding of the group of prophecies site of Babylon. General Chesney remarks age.inst the nations, which in the Hebrew that, so far from being uninhabited, "A town Bible stand at the end of Jeremio.h's pro- of considerable population, villages, date phecies, but which, beginning with "Elo.m," groves, and gardens, are found still on the the Alexe.ndrio.n Version inserts at ibis very site of ancient Babylon" (extracts from point. a pri vn.te letter in B. W . N cwton's • Baby- Ver. 14.-For ma.nf nations . , . she.11 lon: its Revival and Final Desolation,' pp. servo themselves of them e.lso ; i.e. put 38-42). Similarly M. Menant, a veteran forced labour upon them also. The same French Assyriologist, remerks that" Hillah, phro.se is uaed of the conduct of the according to M. Oppert, we.s a quarter of Egyptians to the Israelites (Exod. i. 14 ). Babylon, probably that which was inhabited Of them also; and "also" suggests that by the working population, without the pre- the calamity of tl.1e Chaldeans is II retri- cincts of the royal palaces. Nnmberless traces bution (comp. Isa. lxvi. 4), as the next of ancient habitations indicate this origin of clause, in harmony with eh. I. 29, Ii. 24, the modem town"(' Baby lone,' p. 177). Mr. emphatically deola1·es. George Smith, however, in his 'Assyrian Ver. 15.-J!'or thus sa.ith, etc. Out of Discoveries,' simply stntee that, " A little this verse e.nd the following, to the end of t.o the aonth rose the town of Hillah," ap- the chapter, tho Septu11gint m!l.kes tho parently assuming (whe.t is impossible to thit-ty-second chapter, eh. xxv. being com- prove, llB the wnlls of Babylon have not pleted by the prophecy against Elam (eh. yet been discovered) tlmt Hillah foy just xlix. 31-39). The symbolic act which tho outside the city enclosure. But evou he adds prophet is directed to perform is mentioned that it WllB " built with the briclcs found in in order to explain tho word of threatening the old capital,'' which ie, strictly speaking, just uttered. So, at lenst, we must under- inconsistent with the absolute abandonment ete.ncl it, if we accept the arrangement of of the site of Babylon implied iu !Ha. xiii. tho Hebrew text. But the connection is 20-22. The dispute is nu uufortnnate one, certt1i11ly improved if we follow Graf, and ns it tacitly implies that circumslantfal ful- omit vers. 11 b-14 ; vor. 15 thus becomes fihnents arc necessary to the veracity of an explanation of tho thre11t against Judnh prophecy. 'fhe truth seems to lie in the and tho other Mtions in vers. 9 -11 a. mean between two opposing views. As a The wine-oup of this fury; or, tliia wine-cup rule, the details of a prophetic description of fury. Tho wine with which the cup cannot be pressed; they are mainly imagina- id filled is tho wrath of God. The figure tive elaborations of a great centml truth or is not an unfrcquent ono with the prophets fact. Occasionally, however, regarding the e.nd tho psalmists (comp. eh. xlix. 12; Ii. 7; 011. xx.v. 1-38.J THE DOOK OJt' THE PROPHET JEREMIAH. 61H