Matthew Poole and continuators on Jeremiah 31:20

20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child , for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him, I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.

Interpreters run into a very great variety in their explications of this Text, that which seemeth to be the cause of it, is that amongst the Hebrews affirmative Interrogations are notes of the vehement denial of the thing, as to which the question is propounded▪ which leads some to interpret these words into a denyal, that E[illegible: 1 letter]hraim was his de[illegible: 1 letter]r Son, or a pleasant Child, and denying the truth of his professed Repentance, but certainly this is quite contrary to the whole scope of the Prophet. The Reverend A[illegible: 1 letter]thor of the English Ann[illegible: 1 letter]tations hath observed, that the affirmative Interrogation somet[illegible: 1 letter]me[illegible: 1 letter] in Scripture doth imply a Neg[illegible: 1 letter]tive, or the negative particle is suppressed▪ and [non-Latin text not transcribed] is put for [non-Latin text not transcribed]; so that is Ephraim my dear son here, is the same with Is not Ephraim my dear Son? He gives for instances 1 Sam 2.27, 28. where did I? plainly is the same with did I not? so Iob 20.4. where we have supplied Not, Knowest thou not? &c. So chap: 3.6. where Hast thou seen? is the same with Hast thou not seen. So Ezek. 20.30. Amos 6.2. So that though the particle prefixed [non-Latin text not transcribed], be an affirmative particle, yet it is often put for [non-Latin text not transcribed] and signifieth Negatively, the Negative being suppressed and to be understood. I have also sometimes thought that even here it may be fairly enough interpreted. Is Ephraim now become my dear Son, is he a pleasant Child? is his heart turned? so is mine.

For since I spake against him, or with him, or of him, I do earnestly remember him, [non-Latin text not transcribed] A[illegible: 1 letter]. Montanus translateth it, from the sufficiency of my speaking with him; the reason of the difference is, [non-Latin text not transcribed] signifies to suffice, and it signifies time. I see no reason to vary from our Translation, since or from the time as the same particle signifieth, 1 Sam. 18.30. 1 King. 14.28. Isa. 28.19. I spake against him by my threatnings▪ I do remember him with the affection and compassion of a Father.

My bowels are troubled for him, is as much as I have pitied him; as the Bowels of Parents are turned and troubled for their children in Calamities; therefore saith God,

I will certainly shew him Favour.

Marginal references: Deu 32.36. Isa. 63.1[illegible: 1 letter]. Hos. 11.8.; Heb. sou[illegible: 1 letter]d.