Jer 12:5 "If you have run with the footmen, and ...

[Guest]

As I was reading Jer 12:5 and comparing NKJV and KJV I am wondering why they seem to read differently. Also, the Septuig. apparently adds the word NOT before the word secure/trusted. What do you think the meaning of this verse is?

Thanks.

[_Steve]

In the KJV, Jeremiah 12:5 reads” If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? And if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of the Jordan?” My copy of the NKJV (there are various editions that are slightly different from one another) reads exactly like the KJV, with the exception of replacing the archaic English words with their modern equivalents, and exchanging the word “flooding” for the word “swelling” [of the Jordan], which is also equivalent. You may have a different edition of the NKJV than mine, which may read differently, but I don’t see the difference here.

Now the Septuagint, by contrast, reads significantly differently. It reads: “Thy feet run, and they cause thee to faint; how wilt thou prepare [to ride] upon horses? And thou hast been confident in the land of thy peace? How wilt thou do in the roaring of Jordan?” (1851 translation). This changes the verse considerably. So which is right?

A literal reading of the Hebrew is: “If with footmen you have run and they wearied you, then how can you compete with horses? And if in the land of peace you feel secure, then how will you do in the swelling of the Jordan?” (Green’s translation)

Thus the Hebrew text itself reads mostly like the KJV and the NKJV, with the exception that the KJV (followed by the NKJV), after the words “wherein thou trustedst,” inserts “they wearied thee” (in italics, acknowledging that this phrase is not found in the Hebrew text at this point, but it is thought to be implied, and is imported from the previous clause, where it is also found in the Hebrew text). Thus the only difference in meaning between our English versions and the Hebrew text is that the former imply that Jeremiah was wearied in the land of peace, while the Hebrew might suggest that he was not. In either reading, the point of the statement is not greatly altered. Whether Jeremiah was, or was not, wearied in the land of peace, the point is that the flooding of the Jordan would present greater challenges…and how would he do then?

What is the verse saying?

Jeremiah has just been complaining (respectfully) that God’s ways seem difficult to justify, in that the land is suffering dreadfully for the actions of wicked men, who themselves seem to be personally prospering and happy (vv.1-4). Why doesn’t God turn things around? In answering Jeremiah, God does not justify His actions up to this point, but only implies the situation is only going to deteriorate. If Jeremiah can’t cope with things the way they are now, how will he cope with worsening circumstances?

This, at least, has been the way I have always understood the passage. It has always spoken to me at times when my circumstances have been mildly annoying, and I have been tempted to be discontented. If I can’t handle today’s small trials, what will become of me if the future presents more severe challenges? The answer, of course, is that we are not expected to handle even the “little” difficulties of life in our own strength, but, for both the small and the great trials, we are expected to appropriate to ourselves the all-sufficient grace of God (2 Cor.12:7-10). If we are accustomed to coping with our present trials by the grace that God supplies, as we humbly trust in Him, then this habit will hold when trials become humanly unbearable as well—and the additional grace that is needed will be supplied—and will be sufficient.

[Guest]

Thank you for taking the time to answer this question. I think you have a good perspective on this passage.