Jeremiah 13:4

Jer 13:4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which [is] upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.

Ver. 4. Arise, go to Euphrates.] A river which ran by Babylon, six hundred and fourscore miles from Jerusalem. The prophet’s journey therefore thither seemeth to have been but visional, as was Isaiah’s going barefoot, Hosea’s marriage with a whore, Ezekiel’s lying on one side three hundred and ninety days together; his journey from Chaldea to Jerusalem. {Eze 8:3-4}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jer 13:4. Arise, go to Euphrates — God commanded the prophet to go and hide the girdle on the bank of the Euphrates, to signify that the Jews should be carried captive over that river, called the waters of Babylon, Psa 137:1. In the margin of our ancient English Bibles, it is observed, that, “because this river Perath, or Euphrates, was far from Jerusalem, it is evident that this was done in a vision.” And the generality of the best commentators have been of this opinion; it not being probable that the prophet should have been sent twice upon a journey of such considerable length and difficulty, to the very great loss of his time, merely upon the errands here mentioned, namely, to carry the girdle to the Euphrates, and to fetch it back, when, it seems, every purpose would have been answered altogether as well if the transaction had been represented in vision. Several things, it must be observed, are related in Scripture as actually done, which yet were certainly only performed in visions. One instance we have Jer 25:15-29, where Jeremiah is commanded to take a cup of wine in his hand, and to cause several kings and nations, there enumerated, to drink of it: for it would be a perfect absurdity to believe that he actually went round to all those kings and nations, and made them drink of the contents of his cup. And yet he makes no more distinction in this latter case, than in that now before us, between mental and bodily action. Another remarkable instance we have Gen 15:5, where the text says, that God brought Abraham forth abroad, and bid him tell the stars; and yet it appears, by a subsequent verse, that the sun was not then gone down. Indeed, in all these cases, and in many more that might be mentioned of a similar kind, it made no difference as to the end God had in view, whether the transactions related were visionary or real; for either way they served equally to represent the events which it was God’s pleasure to make known. See Lowth and Blaney.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because this river Perath or Euphrates was far from Jerusalem, it is evident that this was a vision, whereby was signified that the Jews should pass over Euphrates to be captives in Babylon, and there for length of time should seem to be rotten, although they were joined to the Lord before as a girdle about a man.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Euphrates--In order to support the view that Jeremiah's act was outward, HENDERSON considers that the Hebrew Phrath here is Ephratha, the original name of Beth-lehem, six miles south of Jerusalem, a journey easy to be made by Jeremiah. The non-addition of the word "river," which usually precedes Phrath, when meaning Euphrates, favors this view. But I prefer English Version. The Euphrates is specified as being near Babylon, the Jews future place of exile.

hole--typical of the prisons in which the Jews were to be confined.

the rock--some well-known rock. A sterile region, such as was that to which the Jews were led away (compare Isa 7:19) [GROTIUS].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. Go to Euphrates, and hide it there] Intending to point out, by this distant place, the country into which they were to be carried away captive.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(4) Go to Euphrates.—The Hebrew word Phrath is the same as that which, everywhere else in the O.T., is rendered by the Greek name for the river, Euphrates. It has been suggested (1) that the word means “river” generally, or “rushing water,” applied by way of pre-eminence to the “great river” and therefore that it may have been used here in its general sense; and (2) that it may stand here for Ephratah, or Bethlehem, as the scene of Jeremiah’s symbolic actions, the place being chosen on account of its suggestive likeness to Euphrates. These conjectures, however, have no other basis than the assumed improbability of a double journey of two hundred and fifty miles, and this, as has been shown, can hardly be weighed as a serious element in the question. In Jeremiah 51 there can be no doubt that the writer means Euphrates. It may be noted, too, as a coincidence confirming this view, that Jeremiah appears as personally known to Nebuchadnezzar in Jer_39:11. Those who make Ephratah the scene of what is here recorded, point to the caves and clefts in the rocky region between Bethlehem and the Dead Sea as agreeing with the description. On the other hand, the form Prath is nowhere found as substituted for the familiar Ephratah.

A hole of the rock.—Better, cleft. In the lower part of its course the Euphrates flows through an alluvial plain, and the words point therefore to some part of its upper course above Pylæ, where its course is through a valley more or less rocky.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. hide it there] in such a way that moisture should have full access to it.

the rock] If an actual visit to the Euphrates is meant, the part referred to “cannot be anywhere near Babylon, where there are no ‘rocks,’ or rather ‘crags’—but in the upper part of its course, above Carchemish, or even above Samosata, where it still flows between rocky sides.” Dr.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Take the girdle which thou hast got, which is upon thy loins,.... Either he is bid to take it off his loins, on which it was; or to go with it on them; seeing the taking it off does not seem absolutely necessary; and go with it to the place directed to in the following words:

and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock; by the river side, where the waters, coming and going, would reach and wet it, and it drying again, would rot the sooner. This signifies the carrying of the Jews captive to Babylon, by which city the river Euphrates ran, and the obscure state and condition they would be in there; and where all their pride and glory would be marred, as afterwards declared.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

In a hole of the rock - “In a cleft of the rock.” As there are no fissured rocks in Babylonia, the place where Jeremiah hid the girdle must have been somewhere in the upper part of the river.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Euphrates, above 150 leagues distant. Some think this was only to be done in spirit: but it is generally supposed that the prophet made this long journey twice. Bochart suggests that Euphrates (Hebrew Peratha) may be put for Ephrata, or Bethlehem, as the first syllable is often cut off. (Calmet) --- Yet a journey to the Euphrates would represent more strikingly the destination of the people; and it would not be difficult for God to convey Jeremias thither in a short time, if requisite, as he sent Habacuc through the air to carry a dinner to Daniel; (xiv. 32.) though this supposition is not here necessary, as the labour to which Jeremias was repeatedly exposed, might shew the people their manifold transgressions and captivities. (Haydock) --- Such prophetic actions make a deeper impression than words, Hebrews i. The ingratitude of the people is here described, to chap. xxi. (Worthington)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

God having commanded the prophet to procure such a girdle as was before mentioned, and to tie it upon his loins, he a second time comes to him, and commandeth him to take this girdle, and carry it to Euphrates. This was one of the four great rivers that the river out of the garden of Eden divided itself into, Gen 2:10,14. It was the border of the Promised Land, Gen 15:18; Deu 1:7; 11:24; 1Ch 5:9. Reuben’s lot was bounded by it. The prophet was commanded to hide his girdle in the

hole of a

rock in that river. But why there? Were there not other places nearer where the prophet might have hid it? It is judged by some that this command was also to signify unto them that they should be carried out of their own borders into captivity; or rather, that they had corrupted, and were become rotten, by doing after the fashions and manners of the heathens, who lived on the other side of Euphrates always, but having (a hundred years before this) captivated the ten tribes, lived also on this side of it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Euphrates — The future scene of the captivity. In most other places in the Bible (Jer_51:63; 2Ch_35:20, and perhaps Gen_2:14, being the only exceptions) this name is associated with Nahar, (נהר,) hence some have conjectured that the name is here used in a special sense. For instance, some have conjectured that it is used for Ephrath — Bethlehem, with the first weak letter omitted, so that the command would be, Go to Bethlehem. But this is violent and without warrant, and misses the significance of the locality. Ewald conjectures that the word is from the Arabic for water-fissure; “a view,” says Keil, “requiring no serious refutation.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 4-6. After Jeremiah has worn the apron for some time, he is directed to take it to Prath, and hide it there in a cleft (not "hole") of the rock. A long interval elapses, and he is commanded to make a second journey to the same place, and fetch away the apron. What does this Prath mean? It is by no means easy to decide. Hardly "the Euphrates,

(1) because the common prefix, "the river," is wanting, though in so extraordinary a narrative it was peculiarly needed;

(2) because of the length of the journey to Babylonia, which has ex hyp. to be made twice; and

(3) because the Euphrates is not a rocky river. Ewald suggested that "some wet place near Jerusalem" probably had the name of Prath, and indicates a valley and spring called Forah, about six English miles north-east of Jerusalem. Mr. Birch appears to have hit independently on the same spot, which he identifies with the Parah of Jos_18:23, about three miles north-east of Anatbeth, and describes as a picturesque gorge between savage rocks, with a copious stream (Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, October, 1880, p. 236). This combination, however, involves an emendation of the text (P"rath into Parah)logically it involves this, as Mr. Birch has seen; Ewald"s comparison of the Arabic furat, sweet water, seems inconsistent with his reference to Parah for which there does not seem to be sufficient necessity; and it is better to adopt the view of the great old French Protestant scholar, Bochart, that P"rath is a shortened form of Ephrath, i.e. at once Bethlehem and the district in which Bethlehem lay. (see 1Ch_2:50 1Ch_4:4; and perhaps Psa_132:6) It need hardly be said that the limestone hills of this region afforded abundance of secluded rocks. There may, of course, be at the same time an allusion to the ordinary meaning of Prath, viz. Euphrates, on the analogy of the allusion in Isa_27:12. Those who hold the view here rejected, that Prath is equivalent to the Euphrates, sometimes suppose that the narrative is a parable or symbolical fiction, such as Luther, Calvin, and others find in Hos_1:3, the thing signified being in this case the carrying captive of the people to Babylon; and this seems the best way of making this interpretation plausible.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.