Jer 23:5-6 | KD | STEP | When the Lord shall gather His people out of the dispersion, then will He raise up shepherds over them who will so feed them that they shall no longer need to fear or to be dismayed before enemies who might be strong enough to subjugate, slay, and carry them captive. The figurative expressions are founded on the idea that the sheep, when they are neglected by the shepherds, are torn and devoured by wild beasts; cf. Eze 34:8. They shall not be lacking; cf. for נפקד with this force, ; in substance = not be lost. לא יפּקדוּ is chosen with a view to לא פקדתּם אתם ( ): because the shepherds did not take charge of the sheep, therefore the sheep are scattered and lost. Hereafter this shall happen no more. The question as to how this promise is to be accomplished is answered by and Jer 23:6. The substance of these verses is indeed introduced by the phrase: behold, days come, as something new and important, but not as something not to happen till after the things foretold in Jer 23:4. According to Jeremiah’s usage throughout, that phrase does not indicate any progress in time as compared with what precedes, but draws attention to the weightiness of what is to be announced. There is also a suggestion of "the contrast between the hope and the existing condition of affairs, which does not itself justify that hope. However gloomy the present is, yet there is a time coming" (Hgstb.). The promise: I make to arise (raise up) to David a righteous branch, rests upon the promise, ; : I raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons-which the Lord will hereafter fulfil to David. Graf tries to show by many, but not tenable arguments, that צמח has here a collective force. That he is wrong, we may see from the passages Zec 3:8 and Zec 6:12, where the same "branch" foretold by Jeremiah is called the man whose name is צמח; and even without this we may discover the same from the context of the present passage, both from "He shall reign as king," and still more from: they shall call his name Jahveh Tsidkenu . Neither of these sayings can be spoken of a series of kings. Besides, we have the passages and Eze 34:23., , where the servant to be raised up to David by Jahveh is called "my servant David." Although then צמח has a collective force when it means a plant of the field, it by no means follows that "it has always a collective force" in its transferred spiritual signification. And the passage, , where the promise is explained by: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of Israel (cf. ), does not prove that the branch of David is a collective grouping together of all David’s future posterity, but only that this one branch of David shall possess the throne for ever, and not, like mortal men, for a series of years only; 2Sa 7:16. צמח denotes the Messiah, and this title is formed from צמח, (see Del. on this passage). Nor does the mention of shepherds in the plural, , at all oppose this. An untenable rendering of the sense is: first I will raise up unto you shepherds, then the Messiah; or: better shepherds, inprimis unum, Messiam (Chr. B. Mich.). The two promises are not so to be joined. First we have the raising up of good shepherds, in contrast to the evil shepherds that have destroyed the people; then the promise is further explained to the effect that these good shepherds shall be raised up to David in the "righteous branch," i.e., in the promised "seed" of his sons. The good shepherds are contrasted with the evil shepherds, but are then summed up in the person of the Messiah, as being comprised therein. The relation of the good shepherds to the righteous branch is not so, that the latter is the most pre-eminent of the former, but that in that one branch of David the people should have given to them all the good shepherds needed for their deliverance. The Messiah does not correspond to the series of David’s earthly posterity that sit upon his throne, in that He too, as second David, will also have a long series of descendants upon His throne; but in that His kingdom, His dominion, lasts for ever. In the parallel passage, , where the contrast to the evil shepherds is omitted, we therefore hear only of the one branch of David; so in Ezek 34, where only the one good shepherd, the servant of the Lord, David, stands in contrast to the evil shepherds ( ). Hence neither must we seek the fulfilment of our prophecy in the elevation of the Maccabees, who were not even of the race of David, nor understand, as Grot., Zerubbabel to be the righteous branch, but the Messiah, as was rightly understood by the Chald . He is צדּיק in contrast to the then reigning members of the house of David, and as He who will do right and justice in His realm; cf. , where the same is said of Josiah as contrasted with his ungodly son Jehoiakim. מלך is subjoined to מלך to bespeak His rule as kingship in the fullest sense of the word. Regnabit rex , i.e., magnifice regnabit, ut non tantum appareant aliquae reliquiae pristinae dignitatis, sed ut rex floreat et vigeat et obtineat perfectionem, qualis fuit sub Davide et Salomone ac multo praestantior (Calv.). השׂכּיל, deal prudently, rule wisely, as in , not: be fortunate, prosperous. Here the context demands the former rendering, the only one justified by usage, since the doing of right and justice is mentioned as the fruit and result of the השׂכיל. These words, too, point back to David, of whom it is in said, that he as king did right and justice to all his people.

‏ Jeremiah 23:5-6

When the Lord shall gather His people out of the dispersion, then will He raise up shepherds over them who will so feed them that they shall no longer need to fear or to be dismayed before enemies who might be strong enough to subjugate, slay, and carry them captive. The figurative expressions are founded on the idea that the sheep, when they are neglected by the shepherds, are torn and devoured by wild beasts; cf. Eze 34:8. They shall not be lacking; cf. for נפקד with this force, 1Sa 25:7; in substance = not be lost. לא יפּקדוּ is chosen with a view to לא פקדתּם אתם (Jer 23:2): because the shepherds did not take charge of the sheep, therefore the sheep are scattered and lost. Hereafter this shall happen no more. The question as to how this promise is to be accomplished is answered by Jer 23:5 and Jer 23:6. The substance of these verses is indeed introduced by the phrase: behold, days come, as something new and important, but not as something not to happen till after the things foretold in Jer 23:4. According to Jeremiah’s usage throughout, that phrase does not indicate any progress in time as compared with what precedes, but draws attention to the weightiness of what is to be announced. There is also a suggestion of "the contrast between the hope and the existing condition of affairs, which does not itself justify that hope. However gloomy the present is, yet there is a time coming" (Hgstb.). The promise: I make to arise (raise up) to David a righteous branch, rests upon the promise, 2Sa 7:12; 1Ch 17:12 : I raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons-which the Lord will hereafter fulfil to David. Graf tries to show by many, but not tenable arguments, that צמח has here a collective force. That he is wrong, we may see from the passages Zec 3:8 and Zec 6:12, where the same "branch" foretold by Jeremiah is called the man whose name is צמח; and even without this we may discover the same from the context of the present passage, both from "He shall reign as king," and still more from: they shall call his name Jahveh Tsidkenu. Neither of these sayings can be spoken of a series of kings. Besides, we have the passages Jer 30:9 and Eze 34:23., Eze 37:24, where the servant to be raised up to David by Jahveh is called "my servant David." Although then צמח has a collective force when it means a plant of the field, it by no means follows that "it has always a collective force" in its transferred spiritual signification. And the passage, Jer 33:17, where the promise is explained by: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of Israel (cf. Jer 33:21), does not prove that the branch of David is a collective grouping together of all David’s future posterity, but only that this one branch of David shall possess the throne for ever, and not, like mortal men, for a series of years only; 2Sa 7:16. צמח denotes the Messiah, and this title is formed from צמח, Isa 4:2 (see Del. on this passage). Nor does the mention of shepherds in the plural, Jer 23:4, at all oppose this. An untenable rendering of the sense is: first I will raise up unto you shepherds, then the Messiah; or: better shepherds, inprimis unum, Messiam (Chr. B. Mich.). The two promises are not so to be joined. First we have the raising up of good shepherds, in contrast to the evil shepherds that have destroyed the people; then the promise is further explained to the effect that these good shepherds shall be raised up to David in the "righteous branch," i.e., in the promised "seed" of his sons. The good shepherds are contrasted with the evil shepherds, but are then summed up in the person of the Messiah, as being comprised therein. The relation of the good shepherds to the righteous branch is not so, that the latter is the most pre-eminent of the former, but that in that one branch of David the people should have given to them all the good shepherds needed for their deliverance. The Messiah does not correspond to the series of David’s earthly posterity that sit upon his throne, in that He too, as second David, will also have a long series of descendants upon His throne; but in that His kingdom, His dominion, lasts for ever. In the parallel passage, Jer 33:15, where the contrast to the evil shepherds is omitted, we therefore hear only of the one branch of David; so in Ezek 34, where only the one good shepherd, the servant of the Lord, David, stands in contrast to the evil shepherds (Jer 23:23). Hence neither must we seek the fulfilment of our prophecy in the elevation of the Maccabees, who were not even of the race of David, nor understand, as Grot., Zerubbabel to be the righteous branch, but the Messiah, as was rightly understood by the Chald. He is צדּיק in contrast to the then reigning members of the house of David, and as He who will do right and justice in His realm; cf. Jer 22:15, where the same is said of Josiah as contrasted with his ungodly son Jehoiakim. מלך is subjoined to מלך to bespeak His rule as kingship in the fullest sense of the word. Regnabit rex, i.e., magnifice regnabit, ut non tantum appareant aliquae reliquiae pristinae dignitatis, sed ut rex floreat et vigeat et obtineat perfectionem, qualis fuit sub Davide et Salomone ac multo praestantior (Calv.). השׂכּיל, deal prudently, rule wisely, as in Jer 3:15, not: be fortunate, prosperous. Here the context demands the former rendering, the only one justified by usage, since the doing of right and justice is mentioned as the fruit and result of the השׂכיל. These words, too, point back to David, of whom it is in 2Sa 8:15 said, that he as king did right and justice to all his people. Jer 23:6-8

Jer 23:6 exhibits the welfare which the "branch" will, by His wise and just rule, secure for the people. Judah shall be blessed with welfare (נושׁע), and Israel dwell safely; that blessing will come into fulfilment which Moses set before the people’s view in Deu 33:28. יהוּדה as the totality of the inhabitants is construed as feminine, as in Jer 3:7; Jer 14:2, etc. Israel denotes the ten tribes. Under the just sceptre of the Messiah, all Israel will reach the destiny designed for it by the Lord, will, as God’s people, attain to full dignity and glory.

This is the name by which they shall call Him, the branch of David: Jahveh our Righteousness. The suffix in יקראו refers to "righteous branch." Instead of the 3 pers. sing. יקרא with the suffix ו, some codd. have the plur. יקראוּ. This some polemical authors, such as Raim., Martini, Galatin, hold to be the true reading; and they affirmed the other had proceeded from the Jews, with the design of explaining away the deity of the Messiah. The Jews translated, they said: This is the name whereby Jahveh will call him: Our Righteousness; which is indeed the rendering of R. Saad. Gaon apud Aben Ezra, and of Menasse ben Israel. But this rendering is rejected by most Jewish comm. as being at variance with the accents, so that the impugned reading could not well have been invented by the Jews for polemical purposes. יקראו is attested by most codd., and is rendered by the lxx, so that the sense can be none other than: they will call the righteous branch of David "Jahveh our Righteousness." Most comm., including even Hitz., admit that the suffix refers to צמח, the principal person in both verses. Only Ew., Graf, and Näg. seek to refer it to Israel, because in Jer 33:16 the same name is given to Jerusalem. But the passage cited does not prove the case. To call any one by a name universally denotes in the prophetic usage: to set him forth as that which the name expresses; so here: the branch of David will manifest Himself to the people of Israel as Jahve Tsidkenu. This name is variously expounded. The older Christian comm. understand that the Messiah is here called Jehovah, and must therefore be true God, and that He is called our righteousness, inasmuch as He justifies us by His merit. ^{▼▼Thus the Vulg. renders: Dominus justus noster; and even Calv. says: Quicunque sine contentione et amarulentia judicant, facile vident, idem nomen competer in Christum, quatenus est Deus, sicuti nomen filii Davidis respectu humanae naturae ei tribuitur. - Omnibus aequis et moderatis hoc constabit, Christum hic insigniri duplici elogio, ut in eo nobis commendet propheta tam deitatis gloriam, quam veritatem humanae naturae; and by the righteousness he understands justification by the merits of Christ.}

But the rabbinical interpreters, headed by the Chald., take the name to be an abbreviation of a sentence; so e.g., Kimchi: Israel vocabit Messiam hoc nomine, quia ejus temporibus Domini justitia nobis firma, jugis et non recedet. They appeal to Jer 33:17 and to other passages, such as Exo 17:15, where Moses calls the altar "Jahveh my Banner," and Gen 33:20, where Jacob gives to the altar built by him the name El elohe Jisrael. Hgstb. has rightly pronounced for this interpretation. The passages cited show who in such names an entire sentence is conveyed. "Jahveh my Banner" is as much as to say: This altar is dedicated to Jahveh my banner, or to the Almighty, the God of Israel. So all names compounded of Jahveh; e.g., Jehoshua = Jahveh salvation, brief for: he to whom Jahveh vouchsafes salvation. So Tsidkijahu = Jahve’s righteousness, for: he to whom Jahveh deals righteousness. To this corresponds Jahveh Tsidkenu: he by whom Jahveh deals righteousness. We are bound to take the name thus by the parallel passage, Jer 33:16, where the same name is given to Jerusalem, to convey the thought, that by the Messiah the Lord will make Jerusalem the city of Righteousness, will give His righteousness to it, will adorn and glorify it therewith. צדקנוּ is not to be referred, as it is by the ancient Church comm., to justification through the forgiveness of sins. With this we have not here to do, but with personal righteousness, which consists in deliverance from all unrighteousness, and which is bound up with blessedness. Actual righteousness has indeed the forgiveness of sins for its foundation, and in this respect justification is not to be wholly excluded; but this latter is here subordinate to actual righteousness, which the Messiah secures for Israel by the righteousness of His reign. The unrighteousness of the former kings has brought Israel and Judah to corruption and ruin; the righteousness of the branch to be hereafter raised up to David will remove all the ruin and mischief from Judah, and procure for them the righteousness and blessedness which is of God. - "What Jeremiah," as is well remarked by Hgstb., "sums up in the name Jehovah Tsidkenu, Ezekiel expands at length in the parallel Eze 34:25-31 : the Lord concludes with them a covenant of peace; rich blessings fall to their lot; He breaks their yoke, frees them from bondage; they do not become the heathen’s prey." These divine blessings are also to be conferred upon the people by means of the righteous branch. What the ancient Church comm. found in the name was true as to the substance. For as no man is perfectly righteous, so no mere earthly king can impart to the people the righteousness of Jahveh in the full sense of the term; only He who is endowed with the righteousness of God. In so far the Godhead of this King is contained implicite in the name; only we must not understand that he that bore the name is called Jahveh. But that righteousness, as the sum of all blessing, is set before the people’s view, we may gather from the context, especially from Jer 23:7 and Jer 23:8, where it is said that the blessings to be conferred will outshine all former manifestations of God’s grace. This is the sense of both verses, which, save in the matter of a trifling change in Jer 23:8, are verbally repeated from Jer 16:14 and Jer 16:15, where they have already been expounded. ^{▼▼The lxx have omitted both these verses here, and have placed them at the end of the chapter, after Jer 23:40; but by their contents they do not at all belong to that, whereas after Jer 23:6 they are very much in place, as even Hitz. admits. In the text of the lxx handed down, Jer 23:6 ends with the words: ̓Ιωσεδὲκ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; and ̓Ιωσεδὲκ may be said to correspond to יהוה צדקנוּ, and ἐν τοῖς προφήταις to לנּביאים, Jer 23:9. Hitz. and Gr. therefore infer that Jer 23:7 and Jer 23:8 were wanting also in the Heb. text used by the translator, and that they must have been added by way of supplement, most probably from another MS. This inference is thought to find support in the assumption that, because the Greek MSS have no point between ̓Ιωσεδὲκ and ἐν τοῦς προφήταις, therefore the Alexandrian translator must have joined these words together so as to make one - meaningless - sentence. A thoroughly uncritical conclusion, which could be defended only if the Alex. translators had punctuated their Greek text as we have it punctuated in our printed editions. And if a later reader of the lxx had added the verses from the Hebrew text, then he would certainly have intercalated them at the spot where they stood in the original, i.e., between Jer 23:6 and Jer 23:9. Their displacement to a position after Jer 23:40 is to be explained from the fact that in Jer 16:14 and Jer 16:15 they immediately follow a threatening: and is manifestly the work of the translator himself, who omitted them after Jer 23:6, understanding them as of threatening import, because a threatening seemed to him to be out of place after Jer 23:6.}

Against the False Prophets. - Next to the kings, the pseudo-prophets, who flattered the people’s carnal longings, have done most to contribute to the fall of the realm. Therefore Jeremiah passes directly from his discourse against the wicked kings to rebuking the false prophets; and if we may presume from the main substance, the latter discourse belongs to the same time as the former. It begins