Jeremias 1:9
And the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth: and the Lord said to me: Behold I have given my words in thy mouth:
Open Jeremias 1:9 in the Motif Searcher, word by word across all five texts →Show on the spiral →The verse in its languages
- Vulgate (Clementine)
- Et misit Dominus manum suam, et tetigit os meum, et dixit Dominus ad me : Ecce dedi verba mea in ore tuo :
- Septuagint (Swete)
- καὶ ἐξέτεινεν Κύριος τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ πρὸς μὲ καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ στόματός μου, καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς μέ Ἰδοὺ δέδωκα τοὺς λόγους μου εἰς τὸ στόμα σου.
- Hebrew (WLC)
- וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יְהוָה֙ אֶת יָד֔וֹ וַיַּגַּ֖ע עַל פִּ֑י וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י הִנֵּ֛ה נָתַ֥תִּי דְבָרַ֖י בְּפִֽיךָ
Haydock's commentary
Mouth; perhaps (Haydock) with a coal, by means of an angel, (Isaias vi. 5.) in a sort of dream. He found himself changed into a new man.
From Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859, in the transcription made by Todd Easton and kept online by John Paul Wohlschied at johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock.
The Fathers on this verse
Tertullian Against Praxeas, Sundry Passages of St. John Quoted, to Show the Distinction Between the Father and the Son. Even Praxeas' Classic Text--I and My Father are One--Shown to Be Against Him
Again, whose doctrine does He announce, at which all were astonished? Was it His own or the Father’s? So, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (not as being the Father, of course but as the Son), He says to them “You are not ignorant whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know Him, because I am from Him.” He did not say, Because I myself am He; and, I have sent mine own self: but His words are, “He hath sent me.” When, likewise, the Pharisees sent men to apprehend Him, He says: “Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go unto Him that sent me.” When, however, He declares that He is not alone, and uses these words, “but I and the Father that sent me,” does He not show that there are Two, Two, and yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum and substance of what He was teaching them, that they were …
St John Chrysostom A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily IV on Acts ii. 1, 2
But let us look over what has been said from the beginning. (Recapitulation.) “And when the day of Pentecost,” etc. “It filled,” he says, “the house.” That wind πνοὴ was a very pool of water. This betokened the copiousness, as the fire did the vehemence. This nowhere happened in the case of the Prophets: for to uninebriated souls such accesses are not attended with much disturbance; but “when they have well drunken,” then indeed it is as here, but with the Prophets it is otherwise. ( Ez. iii. 3 .) The roll of a book is given him, and Ezekiel ate what he was about to utter. “And it became in his mouth,” it is said, “as honey for sweetness.” (And again the hand of God touches the tongue of another Prophet; but here it is the Holy Ghost Himself: ( Jer. i. …
St John Chrysostom The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John, John 12.42,43
Surely these things were said for their sakes, that they might have no pretense of excuse. Since if this were not the case, what shall He have more than Isaiah? for he too saith the very same thing, “The Lord God giveth me the tongue of the learned, that I should know when I ought to speak a word.” ( Isa. l. 4 , LXX.) What more than Jeremiah? for he too when he was sent was inspired. ( Jer. i. 9 .) What then Ezekiel? for he too, after eating the roll, so spake. ( Ezek. iii. 1 .) Otherwise also, they who were about to hear what He said shall be found to be causes of His knowledge. For if when He was sent, He then received commandment what He should say, thou wilt then argue that before He was sent He knew not. …