Jer 11:17 | KD | STEP | Neither entreaty on their behalf nor their hypocritical worship will avert judgment. - Jer 11:14. "But thou, pray not for this people, neither lift up for them cry or prayer; for I hear them not in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. Jer 11:15. What would my beloved in my house? they who practise guile? Shall vows and holy flesh remove they calamity from thee? then mayest thou exult. Jer 11:16. A green olive, fair for its goodly fruit, Jahveh called thy name; with the noise of great tumult He set fire to it, and its branches brake. Jer 11:17. And Jahveh of hosts, that planted thee, hath decreed evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah which they themselves have done, to provoke me, in that they have offered odours to Baal." We have already, in , met with the declaration that the Lord will not accept any intercession for the covenant-breaking people ( ); the termination of this verse differs slightly in the turn to takes. - בּעד רעתם the ancient commentators have almost unanimously rendered: tempore mali eorum , as if they had read בּעת (this is, in fact, the reading of some codd.); but hardly on sufficient grounds. בּעד gives a suitable sense, with the force of the Greek ἀμφί, which, like the German um , passes into the sense of wegen , as the English about passes into that of concerning . - In we have the reason why the Lord will hear neither the prophet’s supplication nor the people’s cry in their time of need. is very obscure; and from the Masoretic text it is hardly possible to obtain a suitable sense. "The beloved" of Jahveh is Judah, the covenant people; cf. , where Benjamin is so called, and , where the Lord calls His people ידידוּת נפשׁי. "What is to my beloved in my house?" i.e., what has my people to do in my house - what does it want there? "My house" is the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, as appears from the mention of holy flesh in the second clause. The main difficulty lies in the words עשׂותהּ המזמּתה הרבּים. Hitz. takes עשׂותהּ to be the subject of the clause, and makes the suffix point back to ידידי, which, as collective, is to be construed generis faem .: what should the accomplishment of his plans be to my beloved in my house? But as adverse to this we must note, a . the improbability of ידיד as used of the people being feminine; b . the fact that even if we adopt Hitz.'s change of המזמּתה into המזמּות, yet the latter word does not mean plans or designs to bring offerings. The phrase is clearly to be taken by itself as a continuation of the question; and the suffix to be regarded, with Ew., Umbr., etc., as pointing, in the Aramaic fashion, to the object following: they who practise guile. מזמּה, a thinking out, devising, usually of hurtful schemes, here guile, as in ; Job 21:27. What is meant is the hypocrisy of cloaking their apostasy from God by offering sacrifices in the temple, of concealing their idolatry and passing themselves off as worshippers of Jahve. On the form מזמּתה, see Ew. §173, g , Gesen. §80, Rem. 2,f. הרבּים makes no sense. It belongs manifestly to the words which follow; for it can neither be subject to עשׂותהּ, nor can it be joined to המזמּתה as its genitive. The lxx render: μὴ εὐχαὶ καὶ κρέα ἅγια ἀφελοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ τὰς κακίας σου; and following this, Dathe, Dahl., Ew., Hitz. hold הנדרים to be the original reading. On the other hand, Maur., Graf, and Näg. think we should read הרנּים (after ) or הרנּים myinirah, crying, loud supplication; on the ground of Buxtorf’s hint, Anticrit . p. 661, that probably the Alexandrians had הרבּים in their text, but, changing the ב for נ, read הרנים. We must make our choice between these two conjectures; for even if הרבּים did not stand in the codex used by the Alexandrians, it cannot have been the original word. The form רנּים is, indeed, sufficiently attested by רנּי פלט, ; but the meaning of exultation which it has there is here wholly out of place. And we find no case of a plural to רנּה, which means both exultation and piteous, beseeching cry (e.g., ). So that, although רנּה is in the lxx occasionally rendered by δέησις ( ; , etc.) or προσευχή (1Ki 8:28), we prefer the conjecture הנדרים; for "vow" is in better keeping with "holy flesh," i.e., flesh of sacrifice, Hag 2:12, since the vow was generally carried out by offering sacrifice. - Nor do the following words, 'יעברוּ מעליך וגו, convey any meaning, without some alteration. As quoted above, they may be translated: shall pass away from thee. But this can mean neither: they shall be torn from thee, nor: they shall disappoint thee. And even if this force did lie in the words, no statement can begin with the following כּי רעתכי gniwollo. If this be a protasis, the verb is wanting. We shall have to change it, after the manner of the lxx, to יעברוּ מעליכי רעתכי: shall vows and holy flesh (sacrifice) avert thine evil from thee? For the form יעברוּ as Hiph. cf. ידרכוּ, Jer 9:2. "Thine evil" with the double force: thy sin and shame, and the disaster impending, i.e., sin and (judicial) suffering. There is no occasion for any further changes. אז, rendered ἤ by the lxx, and so read או by them, may be completely vindicated: then, i.e., if this were the case, if thou couldst avert calamity by sacrifice, then mightest thou exult. Thus we obtain the following as the sense of the whole verse: What mean my people in my temple with their hypocritical sacrifices? Can vows and offerings, presented by you there, avert calamity from you? If it could be so, well might you shout for joy.

‏ Jeremiah 11:17

Jer 11:14-17 Neither entreaty on their behalf nor their hypocritical worship will avert judgment. - Jer 11:14. "But thou, pray not for this people, neither lift up for them cry or prayer; for I hear them not in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. Jer 11:15. What would my beloved in my house? they who practise guile? Shall vows and holy flesh remove they calamity from thee? then mayest thou exult. Jer 11:16. A green olive, fair for its goodly fruit, Jahveh called thy name; with the noise of great tumult He set fire to it, and its branches brake. Jer 11:17. And Jahveh of hosts, that planted thee, hath decreed evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah which they themselves have done, to provoke me, in that they have offered odours to Baal."

We have already, in Jer 7:16, met with the declaration that the Lord will not accept any intercession for the covenant-breaking people (Jer 11:14); the termination of this verse differs slightly in the turn to takes. - בּעד רעתם the ancient commentators have almost unanimously rendered: tempore mali eorum, as if they had read בּעת (this is, in fact, the reading of some codd.); but hardly on sufficient grounds. בּעד gives a suitable sense, with the force of the Greek ἀμφί, which, like the German um, passes into the sense of wegen, as the English about passes into that of concerning. - In Jer 11:15-17 we have the reason why the Lord will hear neither the prophet’s supplication nor the people’s cry in their time of need. Jer 11:15 is very obscure; and from the Masoretic text it is hardly possible to obtain a suitable sense. "The beloved" of Jahveh is Judah, the covenant people; cf. Deu 33:12, where Benjamin is so called, and Jer 12:7, where the Lord calls His people ידידוּת נפשׁי. "What is to my beloved in my house?" i.e., what has my people to do in my house - what does it want there? "My house" is the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, as appears from the mention of holy flesh in the second clause. The main difficulty lies in the words עשׂותהּ המזמּתה הרבּים. Hitz. takes עשׂותהּ to be the subject of the clause, and makes the suffix point back to ידידי, which, as collective, is to be construed generis faem.: what should the accomplishment of his plans be to my beloved in my house? But as adverse to this we must note, a. the improbability of ידיד as used of the people being feminine; b. the fact that even if we adopt Hitz.'s change of המזמּתה into המזמּות, yet the latter word does not mean plans or designs to bring offerings. The phrase is clearly to be taken by itself as a continuation of the question; and the suffix to be regarded, with Ew., Umbr., etc., as pointing, in the Aramaic fashion, to the object following: they who practise guile. מזמּה, a thinking out, devising, usually of hurtful schemes, here guile, as in Psa 139:20; Job 21:27. What is meant is the hypocrisy of cloaking their apostasy from God by offering sacrifices in the temple, of concealing their idolatry and passing themselves off as worshippers of Jahve. On the form מזמּתה, see Ew. §173, g, Gesen. §80, Rem. 2,f. הרבּים makes no sense. It belongs manifestly to the words which follow; for it can neither be subject to עשׂותהּ, nor can it be joined to המזמּתה as its genitive. The lxx render: μὴ εὐχαὶ καὶ κρέα ἅγια ἀφελοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ τὰς κακίας σου; and following this, Dathe, Dahl., Ew., Hitz. hold הנדרים to be the original reading. On the other hand, Maur., Graf, and Näg. think we should read הרנּים (after Psa 32:7) or הרנּים myinirah, crying, loud supplication; on the ground of Buxtorf’s hint, Anticrit. p. 661, that probably the Alexandrians had הרבּים in their text, but, changing the ב for נ, read הרנים. We must make our choice between these two conjectures; for even if הרבּים did not stand in the codex used by the Alexandrians, it cannot have been the original word. The form רנּים is, indeed, sufficiently attested by רנּי פלט, Psa 32:7; but the meaning of exultation which it has there is here wholly out of place. And we find no case of a plural to רנּה, which means both exultation and piteous, beseeching cry (e.g., Jer 7:16). So that, although רנּה is in the lxx occasionally rendered by δέησις (Jer 11:14; Jer 14:12, etc.) or προσευχή (1Ki 8:28), we prefer the conjecture הנדרים; for "vow" is in better keeping with "holy flesh," i.e., flesh of sacrifice, Hag 2:12, since the vow was generally carried out by offering sacrifice. - Nor do the following words, 'יעברוּ מעליך וגו, convey any meaning, without some alteration. As quoted above, they may be translated: shall pass away from thee. But this can mean neither: they shall be torn from thee, nor: they shall disappoint thee. And even if this force did lie in the words, no statement can begin with the following כּי רעתכי gniwollo. If this be a protasis, the verb is wanting. We shall have to change it, after the manner of the lxx, to יעברוּ מעליכי רעתכי: shall vows and holy flesh (sacrifice) avert thine evil from thee? For the form יעברוּ as Hiph. cf. ידרכוּ, Jer 9:2. "Thine evil" with the double force: thy sin and shame, and the disaster impending, i.e., sin and (judicial) suffering. There is no occasion for any further changes. אז, rendered ἤ by the lxx, and so read או by them, may be completely vindicated: then, i.e., if this were the case, if thou couldst avert calamity by sacrifice, then mightest thou exult. Thus we obtain the following as the sense of the whole verse: What mean my people in my temple with their hypocritical sacrifices? Can vows and offerings, presented by you there, avert calamity from you? If it could be so, well might you shout for joy.