> 2 One finds in the records that the prophet Jeremiah ordered those who > were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been mentioned, 2 > and that the prophet, after giving them the law, instructed those who > were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, or to > be led astray in their thoughts on seeing the gold and silver statues > and their adornment. 3 And with other similar words he exhorted them > that the law should not depart from their hearts. > 4 It was also in the same document that the prophet, having received > an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, > and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had > seen the inheritance of God. 5 Jeremiah came and found a > cave-dwelling, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar > of incense; then he sealed up the entrance. 6 Some of those who > followed him came up intending to mark the way, but could not find it. > 7 When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The > place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again > and shows his mercy. 8 Then the Lord will disclose these things, and > the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in > the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be > specially consecrated.” - 2 Maccabees 2:1-8 This prophecy happened on Pentecost when 3000 Judeans from all nations were gathered into one place, and believed in Jesus (the remnant, the lost sheep of Israel) which was God showing them mercy, and fulfilled a ton of OT prophecies also, and also in Rev 11 the heavens open, and the ark can be seen which would of happened over Jerusalem in 70 AD (Rev 1-12 happened 70 AD Rev 13-22 is future) which means the author of this section of Maccabees is quoting from inspired scripture written by Jeremiah however a keyword search of tent, altar, fire, ark in Jeremiah, and 1,2,3,4,5 Baruch yields none of those prophecies. Is he quoting lost work of Jeremiah or something that still exists?

In the Old Testament, God is identified by many things. Among these are His name, His unique attributes and characteristics, his role or office relative to His creation, and His unique abilities and actions. Sometimes these are combined in scripture when referring to God. One such combination is God's totally unique abilities and actions and His role as the judge of men's hearts and His authority to reward them according to His own findings. This identifies God as omniscient (an attribute unique to God) and as the judge of their hearts (a role or authority unique to God alone). Jeremiah 17:10 says: > "I, the LORD, **search the heart, I test the mind**, even > to give each man according to his ways, **According to the results of > his deeds.**" Please answer this simple question: who is it that Jeremiah addresses as the one that sees the hearts of men and Himself tests the mind? Who does the Old Testament repeatedly identify as this One who is so omniscient as to judge the hearts of men? (See 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, 29:17, 2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalm 7:9, 139:1, and others.) I ask this question because this is what Jesus Christ stated in Revelation 2:23: > "And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches > will know that I am He who searches **the minds and hearts**; and I > will give to each one of you **according to your deeds.**" So you suppose that in writing this passage where Jesus identifies Himself as the one who searches the hearts of men and rewards them according to His judgment that John might have had reason to think that Jesus is the *same one* as the one who so identifies Himself throughout the Old Testament?

What does Jeremiah 1:11 mean with regards to almond branch? The Lord’s response about watching is not clear with regards to almond trees. > 11 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Jeremiah, what do you > see?" And I said, "I see an almond branch." 12 Then the LORD said to > me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform > it." - Jeremiah 1:11-12 ESV Most commentators like Matthew Henry would posit some trait of almonds tree. Calvin and at least one other would prefer a “watcher” with reference to the root of the word being Hebrew verb ; because the Lords response is of watching instead of tree traits. NIV > 11 The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” “I > see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12 The Lord said to > me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching b to see that my word > is fulfilled.” Douay-Rheims Bible > And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What seest thou, > Jeremias? And I said: I see a rod watching. Young’s literal translation. > here is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, 'What art thou seeing, > Jeremiah?' And I say, 'A rod of an almond tree I am seeing. The word is rendered "a rod of almond" by the Septuagint, the Arabic version, and Theodotion; and also by Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, and Blayney; and "the rod of the watcher" by Sym., Aq., and the Vulgate The latter is no doubt more suitable in a translation. > It should be, "I see the rod, "or the staff, "of a watcher." Let us > grant that the almond is intended; yet the tree may be called > watchful, according to what etymology requires, and also the sense of > the passage, as all must see. God then caused his servant to see > the staff of a watcher. ~Calvin

I am reading *The Life & Glories of Saint Joseph*, by Edward Healy Thompson, which was first published in 1888. At the start of Chapter VII, in which the argument is made that Joseph was born without original sin (related, but not identical to how Mary was immaculately conceived), he says this: > From Holy Scripture we also learn that some souls through divine predilection, as those of Jeremias [a.k.a. Jeremiah] and [John] the Baptist, were sanctified before they saw the light of day. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn’t explain which parts of Holy Scripture he is referring to and seems to assume that the reader already knows. What is the biblical basis that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before birth (i.e. born without original sin)?

To me, the deity of Christ is seen all throughout *Revelation*, and for that matter, the Gospels (e.g. *John 1:1*) and Epistles, and all of Scripture, but for the purposes of the question, how do those who do not believe in the deity of Christ ('that Jesus is God in the flesh') view such passages as *Revelation 2:23*? >**Revelation 2:18,20-23** ... **These things says the Son of God,** whose eyes are like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like refined bronze1 ... But I have this against you [i.e. the congregation at Thyatira]: that you put up with that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches [falsely], and misleads my servants, seducing them into sexual promiscuity and the eating of things sacrifices to idols. And I have given her time that she might repent, but she was unwilling to repent of her sexual sin. Behold, I will cast her onto a bed of sickness, and those that commit adultery with her into great affliction, if they do not repent of their deeds. And her children I will strike with death; then will all the churches know that **I am he who searches the minds and the hearts, and [that] I render to each of you according to your works.** In light of this being the perogative of YHVH, God Almighty: >**Jeremiah 17:10** **I, YHVH,** search the heart and examine the mind, to render to each according to his conduct—according to the fruit of his doings.2 --- IMPORTANT EDIT As noted by another user *2 Chronicles 6:30* (cf. 1 Kings 8:39) teaches explicitly that **YHVH alone** knows the hearts of men: >**1 Chronicles 6:14, 30** **O YHVH, God of Israel,** ... So then, hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and forgive, and render to each one according to all his ways, [you] who know his heart: **for you alone** know the hearts of the sons of men. --- **Footnotes** 1 Fresh translations throughout for reasons of consistency; largely irrelevant for the purposese of the question. | cf. *1:10-18; 2:8* 2 cf. *Jer 11:20; 20:12; Wis 1:6-7; Rom 8:27* 3 cf. *Nahum 1:3; Rev 3:19; Prov 3:12; Heb 12:6*

In the Hebrew Aleppo, Leningrad And Cairo codices, there is a separation mark between Yahweh and Our Righteousness. This is how it looks: ״יהוה | צדקנו״, Separating God’s name from Our Righteousness. But, there are some English versions that say “The Lord Our Righteousness”, but I don’t know why. There is a Hebrew version online that says “the LORD Our Righteousness”, but the website says it’s based on the Leningrad codex, but the Leningrad codex has the separation mark. There is another version which is based on the Aleppo codex and “The manuscripts close to it”, and it also does not have the separation mark, but if we go to the Aleppo codex online, I think it has it. What is true and how? “The LORD will call him ‘Our Righteousness’” or “He shall be called: the LORD our Righteousness”?

God tells Jeremiah to preach to people that will not listen: > **Jeremiah 7:2,27 NIV** - Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message...[*long message*]...When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer. Later on in biblical history, Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God, tells his crowd to not waste words on people that won't listen: > **Matthew 7:6 NIV** - Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. What's an overview of Christian responses to how these two things can coexist without contradiction?

In the book of Jeremiah, God wants to punish Judah for different acts of sin like idolatry. God *will* use Babylon as the instrument to fulfill those prophecy and to stop them in worshipping their false gods. But in Chapter 51 of Jeremiah, God will also punish the Babylon because of doing like what Judah did by worshipping idols. Then why God allowed some of the captives/remnants from Judah to be at Babylon *(which is stated to be worshipping idols)* if God wants them to stop worshipping other idols or false gods?

Is it a title? And why is merodach written with a lower case "m"? PS: I came across this name from Jeremiah 52:31 of an NLT Bible

Is Jeremiah lying here? I know that Jeremiah had previously discussed not being sent back to Jonathan's house in Jeremiah 37:20, but that is not the conversation that the officials seem to be asking about in Jeremiah 38:24-27. Jeremiah 38:24-27 (NET): > Then Zedekiah told Jeremiah, “Do not let anyone know about the > conversation we have had. If you do, you will die. 25 The officials > may hear that I have talked with you. They may come to you and say, > ‘Tell us what you said to the king and what the king said to you. Do > not hide anything from us. If you do, we will kill you.’ 26 If they do > this, tell them, ‘I was pleading with the king not to send me back to > die in the dungeon of Jonathan’s house.’” 27 All the officials did > indeed come and question Jeremiah. He told them exactly what the king > had instructed him to say.

Many people come to different conclusions around the seventy year exile prophesied I. Jeremiah 25:11. Some say they were 360 day prophetic years, others say "seventy years" is a phrase to mean a generation. The dates for the captivity vary, ranging from 606 BC to 536 BC. Wikipedia and others say the exile lasted from 605 BC to 537 BC. That's 68 years. However, with those dates I've realised that, although it only makes 68 solar years, it makes 70 lunar years. I know the Hebrew calendar is lunar based, with a typical year consisting of twelve lunar months and having an additional 13th month once the first month drifted from Spring (when the first month is supposed to occur). These leap months are now mathematical, consistent, and predictable, but back in the time of ancient Israel these leap months were off the cuff, only occurring of the high priest said so at the end of the twelve months. Therefore I'm assuming there had to be some general idea of what a "year" actually was, time wise. Otherwise people will could make pledges for X years without any knowing of how many months they had pledged for. So maybe when Jeremiah prophesied the 70 year exile, the Jews at the time could've understood that as being a time duration of 70 typical years, or 70x12 months. Is this argument plausible? What are your opinions? I've looked into the Talmud for answers and it appears that there is a difference between someone making a pledge for "a year" or "this year" and someone making a pledge for "one year". "This/a year" would mean for the rest of the year, even if that year turned into a leap year, whereas "one year" indicates 12 lunar months. I don't know how "seventy years" would be viewed as in the Talmud.

Do messianic Jews say that the following is true in their lives?: > NIV Jer 31: 33b: ...“**I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts**. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34**No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,**” We are told in Hebrews 10:9-18 (and elsewhere) that Jesus ratified the new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah when he died. It appears that the new covenant speaks of a pan-Israeli supernatural knowledge of the Torah rather than individual knowledge involving teaching that I've not heard any express as being realized in modern times. What do messianic Jews say about the outworking of the new covenant? Was it fulfilled in apostolic times and now gone? Is it active now? Or will it be active in the future?

At Jeremiah 1: 4-5 we see the prophet speaking of his call: >Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Do the words of the Lord indicate that the soul of Jeremiah had existed even before he was conceived by his mother? Or, are they only meant to be a figurative expression? How do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the words of God to Jeremiah?

In Jer. 31:31-34 , it is written, >31 “Behold, the days are coming,” said Yahveh, “that I shall cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them,” said Yahveh. 33 “But this shall be the covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel. After those days,” said Yahveh, “**I shall put My Law within them, and I shall write it upon their hearts**, and I shall be their god, and they shall be My people. 34 And a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, and a man his brother, saying, “Know Yahveh!” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them even unto the greatest of them, for I shall forgive their iniquity, and I will no longer remember their sin.” In the New Covenant, the prophet Jeremiah states that Yahveh shall put His Law within the Israelites and write it upon their hearts. **According to Catholics, what is this Law that Yahveh puts within the Israelites?**

I've asked this question to several people over the years, only professing Christians and particularly those who tout them selves as 'New Testament Christians'. And this is an important question as Mathew 26:28 tells us that this is the Covenant offered in Christs very own blood: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant (testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Any one with apt comprehension can identify the parties to this Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jeramiah 31, yet even more so for some one with legal background such as a contract lawyer the party and terms here specified are clad tight: > Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, **saith the LORD**, that I will make a **new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah**:  Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with **their fathers** in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:  Jer 31:33  **But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law** in their **inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.**  > Jer 31:35  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:  Jer 31:36  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the **seed of Israel** also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.  Now this is repeated in Hebrews 8, as I had said. By expository bible study and exegeting this text to understand what Christ is affecting in his blood what do you all arrive at for the what, who, why, and how?

My understanding of the new covenant is that it was made ONLY with the houses of Israel, not with gentiles: >[Jer 31:31 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: > >[Heb 8:8 KJV] 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: It seems to me that they ascribe to the "anointed class" features of the "great army" of the new covenant Jews: >[Eze 37:10 KJV] 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them [IE: the regathered Israel in Jerusalem 33AD], and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Do they believe that the new covenant is in force today among them (gentile JWs) in any way?

> Jeremiah 7:22 > >A. New International Version
For when I brought your ancestors out of > Egypt and spoke to them, I did not **just** give them commands about burnt > offerings and sacrifices > >B. English Standard Version
For in the day that I brought them out of > the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them > concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. If all translations like A, there is no question. But there are quite many other translations (besides ESV) which like B where it leads to a conclusion that burnt offerings and sacrifices are traditions. Burnt offerings can be seen in Cain/Abel and Noah story. Assuming that the correct translation is something like B, is there any denomination who interpret as it read in B ?

I would like to know why Jeremiah is called the "weeping prophet" I have looked in Scripture, but I cannot find the answer.

So, I was interested in reading Jeremiah 10:1-5 as it referred to Christmas trees. I found the comparison is very striking in the King James Version. As I was looking into this, however, I noticed that some other bible translations compared the tree to a scarecrows in a cucumber field, which I found very odd. When and why was this changed? My other question is in regards to the first sentence of Jer 10:5. I get the first part, "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:", but I don't understand the second part "they must needs be born because they cannot go". What does this mean and how does it relate to a palm tree?

My Calvinist friend gave me Romans 9:21 and Jeremiah 18:4 to support his view that each individual since was born already either the object of His wrath or the object of His mercy. After I read Jeremiah 18:4, to me it seems Jeremiah is talking about nation, not individual. And also to me, the analogy in Jeremiah can not lead me to conclude that the potter deliberately make an ugly vessel because the potter has the intention to throw it into the garbage. Also in Jeremiah that in the future passing time (when the ugly and beautiful vessel already exist) an event of repeating process to both kind is possible. I propose my imagination about Jeremiah potter story to my friend. But my friend explanation, to me is not clear. That's why I ask here, because I found a difference between Jeremiah and Romans about the potter. - Jeremiah talk about a nation - Romans talk about an individual - Jeremiah potter doesn't deliberately make an ugly vessel - Romans potter deliberately make an ugly vessel. - Jeremiah 18:7-8 show a possibility that something change to the ugly vessel in the future - Romans show the ugly vessel is fixed from the start until the end. So the first thing I need to know is whether Romans potter story is based on Jeremiah potter story or not in the point of view Calvinist. If not, then I don't need to propose my imagination of Jeremiah potter story. If yes, how do I correct my imagination of Jeremiah potter story in order to "agree" with Romans potter story ? Thank you.