Jer 47:5-7 | KD | STEP | The prophet sees, in the spirit, the threatened desolation as already come upon Philistia, and portrays it in its effects upon the people and the country. "Baldness (a sign of the deepest and most painful sorrow) has come upon Gaza;" cf. Mic 1:16. נדמתה is rendered by the Vulgate conticuit . After this Graf and Nägelsbach take the meaning of being "speechless through pain and sorrow;" cf. Lam 2:10. Others translate "to be destroyed." Both renderings are lexically permissible, for דּמה and דּמם have both meanings. In support of the first, the parallelism of the members has been adduced; but this is not decisive, for figurative and literal representations are often interchanged. On the whole, it is impossible to reach any definite conclusion; for both renderings give suitable ideas, and these not fundamentally different in reality the one from the other. שׁארית עמקם, "the rest of their valley" (the suffix referring to Gaza and Ashkelon), is the low country round about Gaza and Ashkelon, which are specially mentioned from their being the two chief fortresses of Philistia. עמק is suitably applied to the low-lying belt of the country, elsewhere called שׁפלה, "the low country," as distinguished from the hill-country; for עמק does not always denote a deep valley, but is also sometimes used, as in , etc., of the plain of Jezreel, and of other plains which are far from being deeply-sunk valleys. Thus there is no valid reason for following the arbitrary translation of the lxx, καὶ τὰ κατάλοιπα ̓Ενακείμ, and changing עמקם into ענקים, as Hitzig and Graf do; more especially is it utterly improbable that in the Chaldean period Anakim were still to be found in Philistia. The mention of them, moreover, is out of place here; and still less can we follow Graf in his belief that the inhabitants of Gath are the "rest of the Anakim." In the last clause of , Philistia is set forth as a woman, who tears her body (with her nails) in despair, makes incisions on her body; cf. ; Jer 41:5. The question, "How long dost thou tear thyself?" forms a transition to the plaintive request, "Gather thyself," i.e., draw thyself back into thy scabbard. But the seer replies, "How can it rest? for Jahveh hath given it a commission against Ashkelon and the Philistine sea-coast." For תּשׁקטי, in , we must read the 3rd pers. fem. תּשׁקט, as the following להּ shows. The form probably got into the text from an oversight, through looking at תּשׁקטי in Jer 47:6. חוף, "the sea-coast," a designation of Philistia, as in Eze 25:16. The prophecy concludes without a glance at the Messianic future. The threatened destruction of the Philistines has actually begun with the conquest of Philistia by Nebuchadnezzar, but has not yet culminated in the extermination of the people. The extermination and complete extirpation are thus not merely repeated by Ezek; Eze 25:15., but after the exile the threats are once more repeated against the Philistines by Zechariah (Zec 9:5): they only reached their complete fulfilment when, as Zechariah announces, in the addition made to Isa 14:30., their idolatry also was removed from them, and their incorporation into the Church of God was accomplished through judgment. Cf. the remarks on Zep 2:10. Concerning Moab The Moabites had spread themselves on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, where the Emims dwelt in former times ( ). But previous to the immigration of the Israelites into Canaan, the Amorites, under King Sihon, had already taken forcible possession of the northern portion of this territory as far as the Arnon (Num 21:13). The Israelites, on their march through the desert, were not to treat the Moabites as enemies, nor touch their territory ( ; cf. Jdg 11:15, Jdg 11:18). But when Sihon, king of the Amorites, had been slain by the Israelites, and his kingdom subdued, the Israelites took possession of the territory north of the Arnon, that had formerly belonged to the Moabites, but had been conquered by Sihon: this was given to the tribe of Reuben for an inheritance (Num 21:24.; ; Jos 13:15.). The Moabites could not get over this loss of the northern half of their country. The victory of the Israelites over the powerful kings of the Amorites, viz., Sihon in Heshbon and Og of Bashan, inspired them with terror for the power of this people; so that their king Balak, while the Israelites were encamped in the steppes of Moab opposite Jericho, fetched Balaam the sorcerer from Mesopotamia, with the design of destroying Israel through the power of his anathema. And when this plan did not succeed, since Balaam was obliged, against his will, to bless Israel instead of cursing them, the Moabites sought to weaken them, and to render them powerless to do any injury, by seducing them to idolatry (cf. Num 22-25). Such malicious conduct was shown repeatedly afterwards. Not long after the death of Joshua, Eglon the king of Joab, aided by the Ammonites and Amalekites, crossed the Jordan and took Jericho, which he made the centre of operations for keeping the Israelites under subjection: these were thus oppressed for eighteen years, until they succeeded in defeating the Moabites and driving them back into their own land, after Ehud had assassinated King Eglon (Jdg 3:12.). At a later period, Saul made war on them ( ); and David completely subdued them, severely chastised them, and made them tributary ( ). But after the death of Ahab, to whom King Mesha had paid a very considerable yearly tribute (2Ki 3:4), they revolted from Israel (2Ki 1:1; 2Ki 3:5). In the time of Jehoshaphat, in conjunction with the Ammonites and a portion of the Edomites, they even invaded Judah, with the design of taking Jerusalem; but they ruined themselves through mutual discords, so that Jehoshaphat obtained a glorious victory over them (2 Chron 20). It was possibly also with the view of taking revenge for this exhibition of malicious spirit that the king of Judah afterwards, in conjunction with Joram king of Israel, carried war into their country, and defeated them (2 Kings 3:6-27). Still later, mention is made of an invasion of Israel by Moabite hosts during the reign of Joash (2Ki 13:20); and in the time of Hezekiah, we find them once more in possession of their ancient territory to the north of the Arnon, at a time when the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel had been carried away by the Assyrians into exile. Judging from these aphoristic notices, the Moabites, on the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death, seem to have remained tributary to the kingdom of the ten tribes until the death of Ahab; then they revolted, but soon afterwards were once more reduced to subjection by Joram and Jehoshaphat. Still later, they certainly made several invasions into Israel, but without permanent result; nor was it till the carrying away of the trans-Jordanic tribes by the Assyrians that they succeeded in regaining permanent possession of the depopulated land of Reuben, their former territory. This account, however, has been modified in several important respects by the recent discovery of an inscription on a monument raised by King Mesha after a victory he had gained; this "Moabite stone" was found in the neighbourhood of the ancient Dibon. The deciphering of the long inscription of thirty-four liens on this memorial stone, so far as success has followed the attempts hitherto made, has issued in its giving important disclosures concerning the relation of Moab to Israel. From these we gather that Omri, king of Israel, had taken possession of the district of Medeba, and that the Moabites were heavily oppressed by him and his successor for forty years, until King Mesha succeeded, through the help of his god Chemosh, in regaining the territory that had been seized by the Israelites. We may further with certainty conclude, from various statements in this inscription, that the Moabites were by no means exterminated by the Israelites, when they took possession of the country to the north of the Arnon, which had been seized by the Amorites; they continued to live beside and among the Israelites. Moreover, since the tribe of Reuben was chiefly engaged in the rearing of cattle, and thus appropriated the pastoral districts of the country, the Moabites were not utterly, at least not permanently subdued, but rather took every opportunity of weakening the Israelites, in order not merely to reclaim their old possessions, but also to make themselves independent of Israel. This object they seem to have actually attained, even so soon as immediately after the death of Solomon. They continued independent until the powerful Omri restored the supremacy of Israel in the territory of Reuben; and Moab continued subject for forty years, at the end of which King Mesha again succeeded in breaking the yoke of Israel after the death of Ahab. Thenceforward, Israel never again got the upper hand, though Jeroboam II (as we are entitled to conclude from 2Ki 14:25) may have disputed the supremacy with the Moabites for a time. Amos ( ) and Isaiah (Jer 15 and 16) have already, before Jeremiah, threatened Moab with destruction, because of the acts of hostility against Israel of which they have been guilty. We have no historical notice concerning the fulfilment of these threatenings. Inasmuch as the power of the Assyrians in Eastern Asia was broken through the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem, the Moabites may possibly have asserted their independence against the Assyrians. Certainly it seems to follow, from the remark in (that the families of Gad were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah), that some of the Israelites on the east of Jordan came for a time under the sway of Judah. But even though this were allowed to hold true of the tribe of Reuben also, such a mastery could not have lasted long, since even towards the end of Jotham’s reign, Pekah the king of Israel joined with Hazael king of Syria in war against Judah (2Ki 15:37); and during the reign of Ahaz, Rezin invaded Gilead, and penetrating as far as the seaport of Elath, took it from Judah (2Ki 16:6). At all events, up till the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the threats of Amos and Isaiah had attained only the feeblest beginnings of fulfilment; and (as is abundantly evident from the prophecy in this chapter) the Moabites were then more powerful than ever they had been before, and in undisturbed possession also of that portion of their ancient territory lying north of the Arnon, which had been taken from them by Sihon the Amorite; and after his defeat, the victorious Israelites had again apportioned it to the tribe of Reuben. This prophecy of Jeremiah concerning Moab is to be explained on the ground of these historical relations. The day of ruin was to begin with the appearance of the Chaldeans in Palestine; this day had been predicted not merely by Amos and Isaiah, but even by Balaam, on the occasion of the first conflict of the Moabites with Israel. Jeremiah accordingly takes up anew the utterances of the old prophets regarding Moab which had not yet been fulfilled, but were now about to receive their accomplishment: these he reproduces in his own peculiar manner, taking as his foundation the oracular sentences of Isaiah concerning Moab, and combining these by means of the utterances of Amos and Balaam, not only regarding Moab, but also regarding the whole heathen world now ripe for judgment; and out of all this he frames a comprehensive announcement of the ruin to fall on this people, so haughty, and so filled with hatred against Israel. The contents of this announcement are as follow: - The chief cities of Moab are perished, and with them their fame. Plans are being concocted for their destruction. On all sides there is a crying over the devastation, and wailing, and flight; Chemosh, with his priests and princes, wanders into exile, and country and city are laid waste ( ). Let Moab escape with wings, in order to avoid the destruction; for although they have, in all time past, lived securely in their own land, they shall now be driven out of their dwellings, and come to dishonour with their god Chemosh, in spite of the bravery of their heroes ( ). The destruction of Moab draws near, their glory perishes, the whole country and all its towns are laid waste, and the power of Moab is broken ( ). All this befalls them for their pride and loftiness of spirit; because of this they are punished, with the destruction of their glorious vines and their harvest; and the whole land becomes filled with sorrow and lamentation over the desolation, and the extermination of all those who make offerings to idols ( ). Meanwhile the prophet mourns with the hapless people, who are broken like a despised vessel ( ). Moab becomes the laughing-stock and the horror of all around: the enemy captures all their fortresses, and none shall escape the ruin ( ). Fire goes out from Heshbon and destroys the whole land, and the people must go into captivity; but at the end of the days, the Lord will turn the captivity of Moab ( ). According to this view of the whole, this prophecy falls into seven strophes of unequal length, of which every one concludes either with אמר יהוה or נאם. The middle one, which is also the longest ( ), forms an apparent exception, inasmuch as נאם יהוה does not stand at the end, but in the middle of ; while in the second last strophe ( ), the last two verses ( and ) end with this formula.

‏ Jeremiah 47:5-7

The prophet sees, in the spirit, the threatened desolation as already come upon Philistia, and portrays it in its effects upon the people and the country. "Baldness (a sign of the deepest and most painful sorrow) has come upon Gaza;" cf. Mic 1:16. נדמתה is rendered by the Vulgate conticuit. After this Graf and Nägelsbach take the meaning of being "speechless through pain and sorrow;" cf. Lam 2:10. Others translate "to be destroyed." Both renderings are lexically permissible, for דּמה and דּמם have both meanings. In support of the first, the parallelism of the members has been adduced; but this is not decisive, for figurative and literal representations are often interchanged. On the whole, it is impossible to reach any definite conclusion; for both renderings give suitable ideas, and these not fundamentally different in reality the one from the other. שׁארית עמקם, "the rest of their valley" (the suffix referring to Gaza and Ashkelon), is the low country round about Gaza and Ashkelon, which are specially mentioned from their being the two chief fortresses of Philistia. עמק is suitably applied to the low-lying belt of the country, elsewhere called שׁפלה, "the low country," as distinguished from the hill-country; for עמק does not always denote a deep valley, but is also sometimes used, as in Jos 17:16, etc., of the plain of Jezreel, and of other plains which are far from being deeply-sunk valleys. Thus there is no valid reason for following the arbitrary translation of the lxx, καὶ τὰ κατάλοιπα ̓Ενακείμ, and changing עמקם into ענקים, as Hitzig and Graf do; more especially is it utterly improbable that in the Chaldean period Anakim were still to be found in Philistia. The mention of them, moreover, is out of place here; and still less can we follow Graf in his belief that the inhabitants of Gath are the "rest of the Anakim." In the last clause of Jer 47:5, Philistia is set forth as a woman, who tears her body (with her nails) in despair, makes incisions on her body; cf. Jer 16:6; Jer 41:5. The question, "How long dost thou tear thyself?" forms a transition to the plaintive request, "Gather thyself," i.e., draw thyself back into thy scabbard. But the seer replies, "How can it rest? for Jahveh hath given it a commission against Ashkelon and the Philistine sea-coast." For תּשׁקטי, in Jer 47:7, we must read the 3rd pers. fem. תּשׁקט, as the following להּ shows. The form probably got into the text from an oversight, through looking at תּשׁקטי in Jer 47:6. חוף, "the sea-coast," a designation of Philistia, as in Eze 25:16.

The prophecy concludes without a glance at the Messianic future. The threatened destruction of the Philistines has actually begun with the conquest of Philistia by Nebuchadnezzar, but has not yet culminated in the extermination of the people. The extermination and complete extirpation are thus not merely repeated by Ezek; Eze 25:15., but after the exile the threats are once more repeated against the Philistines by Zechariah (Zec 9:5): they only reached their complete fulfilment when, as Zechariah announces, in the addition made to Isa 14:30., their idolatry also was removed from them, and their incorporation into the Church of God was accomplished through judgment. Cf. the remarks on Zep 2:10. Concerning Moab

The Moabites had spread themselves on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, where the Emims dwelt in former times (Deu 2:10). But previous to the immigration of the Israelites into Canaan, the Amorites, under King Sihon, had already taken forcible possession of the northern portion of this territory as far as the Arnon (Num 21:13). The Israelites, on their march through the desert, were not to treat the Moabites as enemies, nor touch their territory (Deu 2:9; cf. Jdg 11:15, Jdg 11:18). But when Sihon, king of the Amorites, had been slain by the Israelites, and his kingdom subdued, the Israelites took possession of the territory north of the Arnon, that had formerly belonged to the Moabites, but had been conquered by Sihon: this was given to the tribe of Reuben for an inheritance (Num 21:24.; Deu 2:32-36; Jos 13:15.). The Moabites could not get over this loss of the northern half of their country. The victory of the Israelites over the powerful kings of the Amorites, viz., Sihon in Heshbon and Og of Bashan, inspired them with terror for the power of this people; so that their king Balak, while the Israelites were encamped in the steppes of Moab opposite Jericho, fetched Balaam the sorcerer from Mesopotamia, with the design of destroying Israel through the power of his anathema. And when this plan did not succeed, since Balaam was obliged, against his will, to bless Israel instead of cursing them, the Moabites sought to weaken them, and to render them powerless to do any injury, by seducing them to idolatry (cf. Num 22-25). Such malicious conduct was shown repeatedly afterwards. Not long after the death of Joshua, Eglon the king of Joab, aided by the Ammonites and Amalekites, crossed the Jordan and took Jericho, which he made the centre of operations for keeping the Israelites under subjection: these were thus oppressed for eighteen years, until they succeeded in defeating the Moabites and driving them back into their own land, after Ehud had assassinated King Eglon (Jdg 3:12.). At a later period, Saul made war on them (1Sa 14:47); and David completely subdued them, severely chastised them, and made them tributary (2Sa 8:2). But after the death of Ahab, to whom King Mesha had paid a very considerable yearly tribute (2Ki 3:4), they revolted from Israel (2Ki 1:1; 2Ki 3:5). In the time of Jehoshaphat, in conjunction with the Ammonites and a portion of the Edomites, they even invaded Judah, with the design of taking Jerusalem; but they ruined themselves through mutual discords, so that Jehoshaphat obtained a glorious victory over them (2 Chron 20). It was possibly also with the view of taking revenge for this exhibition of malicious spirit that the king of Judah afterwards, in conjunction with Joram king of Israel, carried war into their country, and defeated them (2 Kings 3:6-27). Still later, mention is made of an invasion of Israel by Moabite hosts during the reign of Joash (2Ki 13:20); and in the time of Hezekiah, we find them once more in possession of their ancient territory to the north of the Arnon, at a time when the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel had been carried away by the Assyrians into exile.

Judging from these aphoristic notices, the Moabites, on the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death, seem to have remained tributary to the kingdom of the ten tribes until the death of Ahab; then they revolted, but soon afterwards were once more reduced to subjection by Joram and Jehoshaphat. Still later, they certainly made several invasions into Israel, but without permanent result; nor was it till the carrying away of the trans-Jordanic tribes by the Assyrians that they succeeded in regaining permanent possession of the depopulated land of Reuben, their former territory. This account, however, has been modified in several important respects by the recent discovery of an inscription on a monument raised by King Mesha after a victory he had gained; this "Moabite stone" was found in the neighbourhood of the ancient Dibon. The deciphering of the long inscription of thirty-four liens on this memorial stone, so far as success has followed the attempts hitherto made, has issued in its giving important disclosures concerning the relation of Moab to Israel. ^{▼▼On the discovery of this memorial stone, of which Count de Vogüé gave the first account in a paper entitled "Le stêle de Mésa: Lettre à Mr. le Comte de Vogüé par Ch. Clermont-Ganneau," Paris 1870, cf. the detailed notice by Petermann in the Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morg. Gesell. xxiv. (for 1870), S. 640ff. The stone was broken to pieces by the Arabs; thus, unfortunately, the whole of the inscription has not been preserved. So much, however, of the fragments has been saved, that from these the contents of the inscription may be substantially obtained with tolerable certainty. The work of deciphering has been undertaken by Konst. Schlottmann (Ueber die Siegessäule Mesa’s, Königs der Moabiter, Hall. Osterprogr. 1870, with these additions: "Die Inschrift Mesa's; Transcription u. Uebersetzung revidirt," in the Zeitschr. der Morg. Gesell. xxv. S. 253ff.; "Additamenta" in the same periodical, S. 415ff., 438ff., 645ff.; and "Der Moabiterkönig Mesa nach seiner Inschrift und nach den bibl. Berichten," in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1871, S. 587ff.), also by Theod. Nöldeke "(Die Inschrift des K. Mesa," Keil 1870), Ferd. Hitzig ("Die Inschrift des Mesha," Heidelb. 1870), Himpel (in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1870, H. 4, and in Merx' Archiv, ii. S. 96ff.), Diestel ("Die moabit. Gedenktafel," in the Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol. 1871 (H. 4), S. 215ff.), Rabbi Dr. Geiger "(Die Säule des Mesa," in the Zeitschr. der Morg. Ges. xxiv. S. 212ff.), Dr. Ginsburg ("The Moabite Stone," Lond. 1870), Ganneau (in the Révue archéol.); by Derenburg and others (in German, English, and French periodicals). In addition to the work of Dr. Ginsburg, mentioned above, the English reader may consult an able article by Professor Wright in the North British Review for October 1870; one by W. H. Ward in the Bibliotheca Sacra of the same date; and another by Prof. A. B. Davidson in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1871. - Tr.]}

From these we gather that Omri, king of Israel, had taken possession of the district of Medeba, and that the Moabites were heavily oppressed by him and his successor for forty years, until King Mesha succeeded, through the help of his god Chemosh, in regaining the territory that had been seized by the Israelites. We may further with certainty conclude, from various statements in this inscription, that the Moabites were by no means exterminated by the Israelites, when they took possession of the country to the north of the Arnon, which had been seized by the Amorites; they continued to live beside and among the Israelites. Moreover, since the tribe of Reuben was chiefly engaged in the rearing of cattle, and thus appropriated the pastoral districts of the country, the Moabites were not utterly, at least not permanently subdued, but rather took every opportunity of weakening the Israelites, in order not merely to reclaim their old possessions, but also to make themselves independent of Israel. This object they seem to have actually attained, even so soon as immediately after the death of Solomon. They continued independent until the powerful Omri restored the supremacy of Israel in the territory of Reuben; and Moab continued subject for forty years, at the end of which King Mesha again succeeded in breaking the yoke of Israel after the death of Ahab. Thenceforward, Israel never again got the upper hand, though Jeroboam II (as we are entitled to conclude from 2Ki 14:25) may have disputed the supremacy with the Moabites for a time.

Amos (Amo 2:1-3) and Isaiah (Jer 15 and 16) have already, before Jeremiah, threatened Moab with destruction, because of the acts of hostility against Israel of which they have been guilty. We have no historical notice concerning the fulfilment of these threatenings. Inasmuch as the power of the Assyrians in Eastern Asia was broken through the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem, the Moabites may possibly have asserted their independence against the Assyrians. Certainly it seems to follow, from the remark in 1Ch 5:17 (that the families of Gad were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah), that some of the Israelites on the east of Jordan came for a time under the sway of Judah. But even though this were allowed to hold true of the tribe of Reuben also, such a mastery could not have lasted long, since even towards the end of Jotham’s reign, Pekah the king of Israel joined with Hazael king of Syria in war against Judah (2Ki 15:37); and during the reign of Ahaz, Rezin invaded Gilead, and penetrating as far as the seaport of Elath, took it from Judah (2Ki 16:6). At all events, up till the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the threats of Amos and Isaiah had attained only the feeblest beginnings of fulfilment; and (as is abundantly evident from the prophecy in this chapter) the Moabites were then more powerful than ever they had been before, and in undisturbed possession also of that portion of their ancient territory lying north of the Arnon, which had been taken from them by Sihon the Amorite; and after his defeat, the victorious Israelites had again apportioned it to the tribe of Reuben.

This prophecy of Jeremiah concerning Moab is to be explained on the ground of these historical relations. The day of ruin was to begin with the appearance of the Chaldeans in Palestine; this day had been predicted not merely by Amos and Isaiah, but even by Balaam, on the occasion of the first conflict of the Moabites with Israel. Jeremiah accordingly takes up anew the utterances of the old prophets regarding Moab which had not yet been fulfilled, but were now about to receive their accomplishment: these he reproduces in his own peculiar manner, taking as his foundation the oracular sentences of Isaiah concerning Moab, and combining these by means of the utterances of Amos and Balaam, not only regarding Moab, but also regarding the whole heathen world now ripe for judgment; and out of all this he frames a comprehensive announcement of the ruin to fall on this people, so haughty, and so filled with hatred against Israel. ^{▼▼This reproduction Gesenius (on Isaiah, p. 511) characterizes as "a feeble imitation, by which the text of the older author is made quite diffuse and watery, frequently mixed through in a wonderful manner, made into a kind of patchwork, and enlivened now and again by a stiff turn." Movers and Hitzig have spoken still more deprecatingly of this chapter, and excised a great number of verses, on the ground of their having been introduced later by way of touching up; in this manner, Hitzig rejects as spurious verses which Movers recognises as exhibiting marks of Jeremiah’s peculiar style, - a method of procedure which Graf has already denounced as arbitrary criticism. We hope to show in the commentary the total want of foundation for this pseudo-critical mode of dealing; we only make the further remark here by anticipation, that Keuper (on Jeremiah, p. 83ff.) has very clearly accounted for and vindicated the conduct of Jeremiah in making use of the expressions of previous prophets, while Movers and Hitzig have paid no regard to this thorough kind of work.}

The contents of this announcement are as follow: - The chief cities of Moab are perished, and with them their fame. Plans are being concocted for their destruction. On all sides there is a crying over the devastation, and wailing, and flight; Chemosh, with his priests and princes, wanders into exile, and country and city are laid waste (Jer 48:1-8). Let Moab escape with wings, in order to avoid the destruction; for although they have, in all time past, lived securely in their own land, they shall now be driven out of their dwellings, and come to dishonour with their god Chemosh, in spite of the bravery of their heroes (Jer 48:9-15). The destruction of Moab draws near, their glory perishes, the whole country and all its towns are laid waste, and the power of Moab is broken (Jer 48:16-25). All this befalls them for their pride and loftiness of spirit; because of this they are punished, with the destruction of their glorious vines and their harvest; and the whole land becomes filled with sorrow and lamentation over the desolation, and the extermination of all those who make offerings to idols (Jer 48:26-35). Meanwhile the prophet mourns with the hapless people, who are broken like a despised vessel (Jer 48:36-38). Moab becomes the laughing-stock and the horror of all around: the enemy captures all their fortresses, and none shall escape the ruin (Jer 48:39-44). Fire goes out from Heshbon and destroys the whole land, and the people must go into captivity; but at the end of the days, the Lord will turn the captivity of Moab (Jer 48:45-47). According to this view of the whole, this prophecy falls into seven strophes of unequal length, of which every one concludes either with אמר יהוה or נאם. The middle one, which is also the longest (Jer 48:26-35), forms an apparent exception, inasmuch as נאם יהוה does not stand at the end, but in the middle of Jer 48:35; while in the second last strophe (Jer 48:39-44), the last two verses (Jer 48:43 and Jer 48:44) end with this formula.