Heb. le’mor, literally, “saying.” The connection of this verb form with the context is not indicated. Commentators have offered various explanations for this anomalous construction:

 (1) It is connected with “hath rejected” (ch. 2:37).

 (2) A line originally reading, “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying,” has dropped out of the original text, leaving only the one word.

 (3) The Hebrew is an unusual equivalent for, “that is to say,” or, “for example.”

 (4) There is an ellipsis, and the word should be rendered by some such phrase as, “It is commonly said,” or, “I might say.” Whatever translation is adopted, the interpretation of what follows remains unaffected. No translation of the word appears in the LXX or the Syriac.

 An allusion to the law of Deut. 24:1-4. If this prophetic message was delivered after the discovery of the book of the law and the resultant revival of interest in the contents of the book (2 Kings 22:10, 11), the illustration would have special force. However, the date of the message cannot be definitely established. At the same time Jeremiah may be alluding to the experience and message of his predecessor, Hosea. As an illustration of God’s dealings with a wayward people Hosea had taken back his wayward wife (Hosea 2:14, 16, 19, 20; 3:1). Jeremiah had the difficult task of convincing the people of his day that God could not take them back as His own until they experienced a deep change of heart.

The verb may be understood potentially, “ought he to return?”

 See on Deut. 24:4.

Because Judah had been joined in solemn covenant relationship with God, her act of going after other gods was regarded as spiritual adultery. She was guilty not only of a single case of infidelity but of persistent and repeated wanderings after numerous gods.

 There is some uncertainty as to the correct translation of the verb form (shob) thus rendered. The Syriac, Targums, Vulgate, and KJV translate shob as an imperative. This makes the Lord say in effect, Although according to legal regulations, I ought not to receive you, yet return to Me. The call to return is a fundamental idea in this discourse (Jer. 3:12, 14, 22; 4:1; Zech. 1:3), and so would not be out of place here. However, shob is masculine in form, whereas God is addressing His people by the figure of a woman. The feminine pronoun occurs earlier in the verse, and since the figure has not changed, it would be natural to expect a feminine form of the verb. On the other hand, most modern scholars, following the LXX, translate the clause as a question, evidently regarding shob as an infinitive “to return.” The statement then expresses wonder or surprise that Judah would expect to return. The RSV reads “would you return?” and the ASV, margin, has “thinkest thou to return?” This interpretation seems to accord better with v. 2. Certainly before God could take these wanderers back there would have to be some evidence of a change on their part, and of seriousness of purpose.