Semantic Analysis: Jeremiah (Full Book)

Original-Language Note (Important Correction to Standard Template)

Jeremiah is a Hebrew (with a few Aramaic-influenced administrative terms) Old Testament book, not a Koine Greek New Testament book. This analysis therefore treats the Masoretic Hebrew text as the original-language authority, citing the Septuagint (LXX) Greek only where the LXX’s substantially shorter and differently-ordered text of Jeremiah (roughly one-eighth shorter than the MT; oracles against the nations, chs. 46–51 MT, appear earlier and in different sequence in the LXX) creates a live citation or cross-testament consistency risk for French translation. This matters concretely: the French Bible tradition this project follows (Segond / TOB / Bible de Jérusalem register, per the Romans baseline) versifies Jeremiah according to the Hebrew/MT order, which is also what modern French study Bibles print — but the New Testament sometimes quotes Jeremiah via the LXX wording (see Jeremiah 31:31–34 below, quoted in Hébreux 8:8–12 and 10:16–17). Any curriculum cross-referencing Jeremiah with its NT citations must flag and reconcile these two textual streams rather than silently harmonizing them.

All French renderings below reuse the baseline Romans translation_memory.json entries exactly wherever the same term recurs (e.g., alliance, justice, péché, saint, prophète, prophétie, gloire, Israël, Dieu, Père, David, loi, appel/appelé). New terms required by Jeremiah’s distinct vocabulary (idolatry-as-adultery, new covenant, righteous Branch, etc.) are assigned fresh risk tiers using the same Critical/High/Medium/Low framework and are compiled in 08_core_glossary.md.

---

CORE PASSAGE: Jeremiah 31:31-34 — Verse-by-Verse Analysis

Jeremiah 31:31

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים (hinneh yamim ba’im)

• Literal meaning: “Behold, days are coming”
• Semantic range: A fixed prophetic eschatological formula marking a decisive future divine act, used repeatedly across Jeremiah (7:32; 16:14; 23:5; 30:3; 31:27, 31, 38; 33:14) to structure the whole “Book of Consolation” (chs. 30–33).
• English variants: “Behold, the days are coming”; “The days are coming”; “The time is coming”
• Contextual theological meaning: Signals that what follows is not a conditional possibility but a certain future divine initiative — grounding “God’s Sovereign Plans for His People.”
• French rendering & risk: « Voici, les jours viennent » — Low risk. Stable formulaic French rendering across Segond/TOB/BJ. Risk only in flattening the formula into generic future-tense narration rather than preserving it as a recognizable prophetic marker readers should learn to notice across chapters 30–33.

נְאֻם־יְהוָה (ne’um-YHWH)

• Literal meaning: “utterance/declaration of YHWH”
• Semantic range: The most frequent prophetic authentication formula in the OT (occurs over 175 times in Jeremiah alone); marks direct divine speech, distinct from the prophet’s own commentary.
• English variants: “declares the LORD”; “says the LORD”; “thus says the LORD” (distinct formula, כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, koh amar YHWH, used for introducing rather than sealing an oracle)
• Contextual theological meaning: Authenticates the New Covenant promise as God’s own guaranteed word, not Jeremiah’s private hope — foundational to “True Prophecy” as a doctrine distinct from human speculation.
• French rendering & risk: « dit l’Éternel » (Segond-register) or « — oracle du SEIGNEUR » (TOB/BJ-register) — Low risk, but flag for translator consistency: this curriculum should fix ONE register (recommend “dit le SEIGNEUR” to match the “Seigneur” convention already fixed in the Romans baseline for kyrios, rather than the archaic “l’Éternel,” which the Romans package explicitly avoids as too Segond-1910-archaic). [TRANSLATOR NOTE: reuse “Seigneur” register from Romans baseline rather than reverting to archaic “l’Éternel” for tetragrammaton contexts, for cross-curriculum consistency.]

כָּרַת בְּרִית (karat berit)

• Literal meaning: “to cut a covenant” (from an underlying ritual of cutting/sacrificing an animal to seal a binding agreement; cf. Jeremiah 34:18’s calf cut in two)
• Semantic range: The standard Hebrew idiom for covenant-making throughout the OT (Genesis 15; Exodus 24).
• English variants: “make a covenant”; “enter into a covenant”; “conclude a covenant”
• Contextual theological meaning: Frames the New Covenant not as a vague spiritual aspiration but as a formal, binding divine-human relationship comparable in structural weight to Sinai.
• French rendering & risk: « conclure une alliance » (idiom-appropriate; a literal “couper une alliance” would be unintelligible in French) — Medium risk. The literal “cutting” imagery is lost in French as in most modern translations; teaching materials should recover the ritual background explicitly so the blood-sealed, binding force of “alliance” is not read as merely contractual.

בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה (berit chadashah — “new covenant”)

• Literal meaning: “new covenant/binding agreement”
• Semantic range: חָדָשׁ (chadash) means genuinely new, not merely renewed or repaired; the noun berit already carries the baseline’s established “alliance” doctrine-freight from Romans (Davidic covenant, etc.).
• English variants: “new covenant”; “new testament” (archaic English rendering, source of the NT canon’s very name)
• Contextual theological meaning: THE anchor doctrine of this curriculum. Not a replacement covenant erasing Israel, but the promised covenant that internalizes the Law, secures permanent forgiveness, and grounds the New Testament’s own self-understanding (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8–9).
• French rendering & risk: « nouvelle alliance » — CRITICAL risk. (1) Must reuse baseline “alliance” exactly (not “contrat,” per baseline’s own rejection). (2) In French Catholic and Protestant usage alike, “Nouvelle Alliance”/“Nouveau Testament” is the standard name for the entire New Testament canon — creates a strong risk that French readers will collapse “new covenant” into “the New Testament as a book” rather than the specific covenant reality Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 describe as inaugurated in Christ’s blood. (3) Supersessionism risk: given the baseline’s flagged sensitivity around “Israël” and France’s significant Jewish community, this term requires explicit framing that the New Covenant fulfills rather than nullifies God’s promises to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” not a Marcionite discarding of the Old Covenant or ethnic Israel. Human theologian review required for every occurrence.

בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל / בֵּית יְהוּדָה (beit Yisra’el / beit Yehudah — “house of Israel / house of Judah”)

• Literal meaning: “house of Israel,” “house of Judah”
• Semantic range: Corporate designations for the northern and southern covenant kingdoms, both addressed together — the whole covenant people, post-schism, reunified in the promise.
• English variants: “people of Israel,” “nation of Israel,” “kingdom of Judah”
• Contextual theological meaning: The New Covenant is made explicitly with the whole historic covenant people, not a newly invented religious community — critical for “Unity of Jews and Gentiles” continuity into Romans 9–11.
• French rendering & risk: « maison d’Israël » / « maison de Juda » — Medium risk, reusing baseline “Israël” exactly; must retain the historical/theological referent per the baseline’s existing caution against conflating biblical Israel with the modern nation-state.

Jeremiah 31:32

“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, for they broke my covenant, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.”

פָּרַר (parar — “to break/annul”)

• Literal meaning: “to break, frustrate, annul”
• Semantic range: Used specifically of covenant violation (Leviticus 26:15; Judges 2:1); stronger than simple disobedience — active nullification of a binding relationship.
• English variants: “broke,” “violated,” “annulled”
• Contextual theological meaning: Names the fundamental problem the New Covenant solves: the Sinai covenant’s structural vulnerability to being broken by the human party — the theological premise behind “Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness.”
• French rendering & risk: « rompre » (l’alliance qu’ils ont rompue) — Low-Medium risk. Standard and adequate; ensure it is not softened to “négliger” (neglect), which would understate the deliberate rupture in view.

אָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם (anochi ba’alti vam — “I was their husband/master”)

• Literal meaning: From the verbal root ב-ע-ל (b-ʿ-l), “to be master/owner of,” “to be husband to”; the same consonantal root as the god-name “Baal,” a deliberate irony given Jeremiah’s relentless polemic against Baal worship.
• Semantic range: Ambiguous between “I was their husband” (marital covenant fidelity image, consistent with Jeremiah 2–3’s marriage/adultery metaphor) and “I was their master/lord” (covenant sovereignty image). Major textual/versional crux: the LXX reads κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, “and I disregarded/had no concern for them” (a different underlying reading or interpretive choice), and this LXX wording is what Hebrews 8:9 quotes in the Greek New Testament.
• English variants: “I was their husband” (ESV, NASB, following MT); “I turned away from them” / “I had no concern for them” (NIV footnote, following LXX/Hebrews)
• Contextual theological meaning: Either reading indicts covenant unfaithfulness, but the marital reading reinforces Jeremiah 2–3’s spiritual-adultery theme, while the LXX/Hebrews reading emphasizes divine withdrawal in response to the breach.
• French rendering & risk: HIGH risk, requires an explicit translator note. Recommend « quoique je fusse leur époux » (marital reading, matching MT and Jeremiah’s marriage-covenant theme) for the Jeremiah 31 text itself, while flagging that the French New Testament’s Hébreux 8:9 (Segond: “et que je ne me suis pas soucié d’eux”) will read differently. [TRANSLATOR NOTE: rendered as “époux” over “maître” to preserve the marital-covenant metaphor central to Jeremiah 2–3; flag the resulting divergence from the French NT’s Hébreux 8:9 wording for reviewer awareness — this is a genuine LXX/MT versional difference, not a translation error.] Human theologian review required.

Jeremiah 31:33

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

תּוֹרָה (torah — “law/instruction”)

• Literal meaning: “instruction, teaching, law” (from י-ר-ה, “to teach/direct”)
• Semantic range: Reuses baseline TM entry for “law” exactly — the Mosaic Torah, capitalized “la Loi” in this curriculum’s convention.
• English variants: “law,” “instruction,” “teaching”
• Contextual theological meaning: The New Covenant does not abolish Torah but relocates its site of operation — from external tablets to the internal heart. This must not be read as Law-versus-Gospel Marcionite replacement, nor collapsed into a vague “principle of love” divorced from concrete moral content.
• French rendering & risk: « loi » (reuse baseline exactly, “ma loi”) — High risk (inherited from baseline). Catholic natural-law theological freight and Reformed law-gospel emphasis diverge here as they do throughout Romans; keep the referent Mosaic/covenantal, consistent with baseline guidance.

כָּתַב עַל־לֵב (katav al-lev — “write on the heart”)

• Literal meaning: “to write upon the heart”
• Semantic range: לֵב (lev, “heart”) in Hebrew denotes the whole inner person — mind, will, and moral center, not merely emotion (unlike the narrower modern French/English “heart” = feelings).
• English variants: “write it on their hearts”; “engrave it on their hearts”
• Contextual theological meaning: The defining mark of the New Covenant versus the Old: internalized, Spirit-enabled obedience rather than externally imposed and externally violable law (cf. Jeremiah 17:1’s opposite image — sin engraved on the heart with an iron pen).
• French rendering & risk: « l’écrire sur leur cœur » — Medium risk. French “cœur” carries a strong sentimental/emotional connotation (romantic love, feeling) that can narrow the Hebrew’s fuller sense of the whole inner person including intellect and will; teaching content should clarify this breadth explicitly.

הָיָה לְ… אֱלֹהִים / עָם (the covenant formula: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people”)

• Literal meaning: “[I] will become to them for God, and they will become to me for a people”
• Semantic range: The classic OT “Bundesformel” (covenant formula), recurring from Exodus 6:7 through Ezekiel 37:27 and into Revelation 21:3 — one of the most stable theological formulas across the whole Bible.
• English variants: “I will be their God, and they will be my people”
• Contextual theological meaning: The relational goal of every covenant, old and new alike — not merely forgiveness transactionally considered, but restored relational belonging. Anchors “The New Covenant” doctrine in relational rather than merely legal terms.
• French rendering & risk: « je serai leur Dieu, et ils seront mon peuple » — Low-Medium risk. Reuse baseline “Dieu” exactly; ensure “peuple” here is not confused with “Église” (avoid anachronistic ecclesial substitution) — this is covenant-people language prior to and underlying, not equivalent to, the New Testament church.

Jeremiah 31:34

“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

יָדַע (yada — “to know”)

• Literal meaning: “to know” — but in Hebrew relational/experiential usage, far more intimate than propositional knowledge (used of covenant intimacy, even marital intimacy, Genesis 4:1)
• Semantic range: Knowledge by relationship and experience, not merely cognitive information; cf. Jeremiah 9:24, “let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me.”
• English variants: “know,” “acknowledge,” “have relationship with”
• Contextual theological meaning: Under the New Covenant, relational knowledge of God becomes universal among covenant members (“from the least to the greatest”) rather than mediated through a teaching class — a democratization of direct access to God, without denying the ongoing teaching office elsewhere in Scripture.
• French rendering & risk: « connaître » — Medium risk. Secular/academic French “connaître” (to know facts about) can flatten this to intellectual acquaintance; must be glossed as covenantal, relational, experiential knowing, distinct from mere doctrinal literacy — directly parallel to the baseline’s caution on “foi” drifting toward generic religiosity.

סָלַח (salach — “to forgive/pardon”)

• Literal meaning: “to forgive, pardon”
• Semantic range: A distinctly divine prerogative verb in the Hebrew Bible — almost exclusively God is the subject of salach in the OT (unlike the more general “to bear/carry away,” nasa, or priestly “to atone,” kaphar).
• English variants: “forgive,” “pardon”
• Contextual theological meaning: God’s forgiveness under the New Covenant is total, final, and unilaterally granted — the basis, not the byproduct, of the internalized law and universal knowledge of God just described.
• French rendering & risk: « pardonner » — Medium risk. Distinguish carefully in teaching materials from “expier” (to atone, a priestly/sacrificial category) — salach is the divine act of pardon itself, not the sacrificial mechanism that makes pardon possible; conflating the two flattens Levitical/priestly theology into forgiveness-language alone.

עָוֹן (avon — “iniquity”)

• Literal meaning: “iniquity, guilt,” from a root suggesting moral crookedness or a bent/twisted state
• Semantic range: One of three principal Hebrew sin-vocabulary words distinct from each other in the OT: chatta’ah/chet (חַטָּאָה/חֵטְא, “sin,” missing a mark or standard — the closest cognate to the NT’s hamartia already in the Romans baseline as “péché”); avon (עָוֹן, “iniquity,” a bent moral condition and its resulting guilt); pesha (פֶּשַׁע, “transgression,” willful rebellion against rightful authority). Jeremiah 31:34 pairs avon and chatta’ah (“their sin,” at the verse’s close) deliberately.
• English variants: “iniquity,” “guilt,” “wrongdoing”
• Contextual theological meaning: The New Covenant’s forgiveness reaches the deep, twisted moral condition (avon), not only isolated acts (chet) — total, not partial, remission.
• French rendering & risk: « iniquité » — Medium-High risk. Standard French Bible translations render avon, chet, and pesha with a limited set of French nouns (“iniquité,” “péché,” “faute,” “transgression,” “crime”) that do not map one-to-one onto the three Hebrew terms; teaching content should note this OT three-fold sin vocabulary explicitly rather than letting all three collapse silently into the baseline’s single “péché” entry, or nuance will be lost. Recommend supplementing the glossary with “iniquité” (avon) and “transgression” (pesha) as distinct entries alongside baseline “péché” (chet/hamartia).

זָכַר (zachar — “to remember”)

• Literal meaning: “to remember, call to mind”
• Semantic range: In Hebrew covenant contexts, “remembering” is active and consequential (God “remembering” a covenant means acting on it), so “I will remember their sin no more” is a judicial declaration of non-prosecution, not merely a claim of forgetfulness.
• English variants: “remember no more,” “no longer hold against them”
• Contextual theological meaning: Legally and relationally final — the sin will never again be the basis of judgment. This is the emotional and doctrinal climax of the New Covenant promise, matched in the NT by Hebrews 10:17’s direct quotation.
• French rendering & risk: « je ne me souviendrai plus de leur péché » — Low-Medium risk. Ensure French does not render this as a claim of literal amnesia (a common misreading risk in any language); this is judicial non-prosecution, an act of will, not a cognitive limitation in God.

---

CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER STUDY OF THE WHOLE BOOK

Chapter 1 — The Call of Jeremiah

• נָבִיא (navi, “prophet”) — Literal: “spokesman, one called.” Semantic range: God’s authorized messenger, not a diviner. English variants: “prophet.” Theological meaning: establishes Jeremiah’s office and, by extension, the doctrine of “False Prophets versus True Prophecy” that runs through the whole book. French: reuse baseline « prophète » exactly — Low risk.
• קָדַשׁ / יָדַע (qadash / yada, “consecrate/set apart” and “know” — 1:5, “before I formed you… I knew you… I set you apart”) — Literal: “to know beforehand,” “to sanctify for a purpose.” Semantic range: divine foreknowledge and appointment prior to birth. English variants: “I knew you,” “I set you apart,” “I ordained you.” Theological meaning: grounds “God’s Sovereign Plans” in individual, pre-natal divine purpose. French: « je t’ai connu » / « je t’ai consacré » — Medium risk; must not be read as mere foreknowledge-as-prediction but as sovereign, purposive appointment.
• נָתַשׁ / נָטַע (nataš / nata, “to pluck up” / “to plant” — 1:10) — Literal: “uproot” and “plant.” Semantic range: the paired commissioning verbs (with “break down/build,” “destroy/build up”) define Jeremiah’s whole prophetic task of judgment-then-restoration. Theological meaning: structures the entire book’s two-part message (judgment, then hope of restoration). French: « déraciner » / « planter » — Low risk, vivid and directly translatable.
• צָפוֹן (tsafon, “north”) — proper directional term marking the coming Babylonian invasion; Low risk, geographic.

Chapter 2 — Israel’s Spiritual Adultery

• זָנָה (zanah, “to commit harlotry/prostitute oneself”) — Literal: “to be a prostitute, to commit fornication.” Semantic range: used both literally and as Israel’s central OT metaphor for covenant unfaithfulness/idolatry (also Hosea, Ezekiel 16, 23). English variants: “played the harlot,” “prostituted herself,” “was unfaithful.” Theological meaning: names idolatry as covenant infidelity, not mere rule-breaking — the emotional register of “Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness and Idolatry.” French rendering & risk: « se prostituer » — High risk. French readers may hear this as a literal accusation of sexual sin against ancient Israel rather than recognizing the deliberate marital metaphor for idolatry; requires explicit glossing every time it appears, similar to how the baseline glosses “saints.” Recommend consistent footnoting: “métaphore de l’infidélité à l’alliance.”
• עָזַב (azav, “to forsake, abandon”) — Literal: “to leave, abandon.” Theological meaning: Israel abandoning God as covenant partner (paired with 2:13 below). French: « abandonner » — Low risk.
• מְקוֹר מַיִם חַיִּים / בֹּארֹת נִשְׁבָּרִים (fountain of living water / broken cisterns, 2:13) — Literal: “spring of living waters” vs. “cracked/broken pits [that] cannot hold water.” Semantic range: contrastive image of God as the only true, self-sustaining life-source versus futile self-made religion. French: « source d’eau vive » / « citernes fendues » — Low risk, vivid and directly translatable; connects forward to John 4/7’s “living water” language in the NT for cross-curriculum resonance.
• בַּעַל (Ba’al) — proper name of the Canaanite storm-god; Low risk as a proper name, but flag for teaching context: the wordplay with ba’al (“husband/master,” see 31:32 above) is theologically deliberate throughout Jeremiah and should be preserved in commentary even though it cannot be reproduced in the French translation of the divine name itself.

Chapter 3 — The Call to Return

• שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn, return”) — Literal: “to turn back, return.” Semantic range: Jeremiah’s single most theologically loaded verb — used over 111 times in the book for both Israel’s unfaithfulness (“turning away”) and the possibility/command of repentance (“turning back,” 3:12, 14, 22; “Return, O Israel”). English variants: “return,” “repent,” “turn back,” “come back.” Theological meaning: the verbal center of “Individual Responsibility” and repentance throughout Jeremiah — covenant restoration is always framed as a summons to return, not a demand for ritual performance. French rendering & risk: « revenir » as the primary rendering (preferred over “se repentir,” which in French Catholic usage strongly connotes the sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession, and over “se convertir,” which can imply a one-time conversion event rather than the repeated, relational “turning” Jeremiah describes) — High risk, requiring human theologian review at every major occurrence given the doctrinal weight riding on this single verb across the book.
• גֵּרוּשִׁין (gerushin, “divorce,” 3:1, 8) — Legal-covenantal term for the formal severing of a marriage; used to frame (and then startlingly override, by God’s own initiative to still call Israel back) the seriousness of the breach. French: « divorce » — Medium risk; ensure the surprising grace of God’s continued pursuit after “legal” grounds for divorce is not lost.
• אָב (av, “father,” 3:19 — “You shall call me, My Father”) — reuse baseline « Père » exactly. Medium risk per baseline (relational, not the deist-abstraction risk, but here specifically the tender parental-restoration image after judgment).

Chapter 4 — Circumcise Your Hearts

• מוּל לֵב (mul lev, “circumcise the heart”) — Literal: “to circumcise” applied metaphorically to the heart (also 9:26; cf. Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6; Romans 2:29 in the NT). Semantic range: moves the covenant sign from the flesh to the inner moral disposition. Theological meaning: anticipates the internalized-law theme of the New Covenant (31:33) three chapters early. French: « circoncire votre cœur » — Medium risk; French readers with no OT circumcision background may need the ritual sign explained before the metaphor can land.
• שׁוֹפָר (shofar, “ram’s horn trumpet,” 4:5) — proper cultural/ritual object; Low risk, transliterate or gloss as “trompette/cor.”

Chapter 5 — None Righteous, None Faithful

• No new load-bearing theological terms beyond ch. 1–4’s vocabulary of covenant-breaking (shuv, avon-family sin terms) and baseline “justice”/“péché.” Reuses those terms; notable only for intensifying the universal indictment later echoed in Romans 3:10-12’s “none is righteous” (a direct conceptual, though not verbal, link worth flagging for cross-curriculum consistency with the Romans baseline’s “universal_human_accountability” doctrine).

Chapter 6 — “Peace, Peace,” When There Is No Peace

• שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) — reuse baseline « paix » exactly (Low risk in Romans). Semantic range here: covenantal wholeness/well-being. Contextual theological meaning: Jeremiah 6:14/8:11’s famous indictment of false prophets who declare “peace, peace” when God has pronounced judgment — this is a new sense-context for “paix” not present in the Romans baseline (which treats peace as the fruit of justification). Here shalom-language is being falsely claimed by corrupt religious leaders. French rendering & risk: still « paix », but flag as Medium-High risk in this specific context: teaching material must make clear this is an example of false, self-serving prophetic speech, not a positive use of the term — otherwise readers may confuse Jeremiah’s critique of false “paix” with the baseline’s positive doctrine of “peace with God.”

Chapter 7 — The Temple Sermon

• בֵּית תְּפִלָּה / מְעָרַת פָּרִצִים (“house of prayer” / “den of robbers,” combined by Jesus in Matthew 21:13 from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11) — Jeremiah’s phrase alone: מְעָרַת פָּרִצִים (me’arat paritsim), “cave/den of robbers/violent men.” Theological meaning: indicts empty ritual religion that presumes on the temple’s presence without covenant faithfulness. French: « caverne de voleurs » — Low-Medium risk; note the cross-testament link to the Gospels for consistency ([TRANSLATOR NOTE: this exact French phrase should match whatever rendering the Gospels curriculum uses for Matthew 21:13/Mark 11:17, for cross-document consistency per the baseline’s Theological Consistency Rules.]).
• הֵיטִיבוּ דַרְכֵיכֶם (“amend your ways,” 7:3, 5) — Literal: “make your ways good.” Theological meaning: ethical repentance as covenant-fidelity evidence. French: « améliorez votre conduite/vos voies » — Low risk.
• Ritual-sacrifice vocabulary (זֶבַח, עוֹלָה — zevach, “sacrifice”; olah, “burnt offering”) appears but functions to critique sacrifice divorced from obedience (7:21-23) — Low new-translation risk; theologically important for “individual responsibility” framing but lexically low-risk.

Chapter 8 — “Is There No Balm in Gilead?”

• צֳרִי (tsori, “balm/medicinal resin”) and רֹפֵא (rofe, “physician,” 8:22) — Literal: “balm” and “healer.” Semantic range: rhetorical question exposing the absence of any remedy for Judah’s wound apart from God. French: « baume » / « médecin » — Low risk; a well-known devotional image (also the source of the spiritual “There Is a Balm in Gilead”) worth preserving intact.

Chapter 9 — Jeremiah’s Lament; True Boasting

• בָּכָה / קִינָה (bakah, “to weep” / qinah, “lament, dirge”) — Literal: “to weep”; “a funeral dirge.” Semantic range: professional mourning-women’s ritual lament genre (9:17-20) applied to the nation’s coming devastation. Theological meaning: the lexical root of the curriculum doctrine “The Weeping Prophet and the Cost of Faithful Ministry.” French: « pleurer » / « complainte / lamentation » — Low risk, directly translatable; note that the entire biblical book of Lamentations (traditionally attributed to Jeremiah in Jewish and Christian tradition) shares this qinah genre.
• חֶסֶד, מִשְׁפָּט, צְדָקָה (chesed, mishpat, tsedaqah — “steadfast love/covenant loyalty,” “justice,” “righteousness,” 9:24) — see chesed treated fully below (glossary); mishpat/tsedaqah reuse baseline “justice” family. Contextual theological meaning: true boasting is in knowing (yada, cf. 31:34) a God characterized by these three covenant virtues, not in wisdom, might, or riches (9:23) — an important positive doctrinal counterpart to the book’s judgment oracles. French: « bonté, justice, et droiture » or « amour fidèle, justice, droiture » for chesed/mishpat/tsedaqah — High risk for chesed specifically (see glossary entry); mishpat/tsedaqah Medium, reusing baseline conventions.

Chapter 10 — The Folly of Idols

• פֶּסֶל / אֱלִילִים / הֶבֶל (pesel, “carved image”; elilim, “worthless idols,” a Hebrew pun on el/elohim, “god”; hevel, “vanity, emptiness, breath”) — Literal: “carved/graven image”; “worthless-gods” (a deliberately mocking coinage); “vapor, breath, futility.” Semantic range: Jeremiah 10:1-16’s extended satire contrasts inert, man-made, powerless idols with the “living God” (אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, elohim chayyim) who made the heavens. English variants: “idol,” “image,” “worthless things,” “vanity.” Theological meaning: central to “Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness and Idolatry” as a doctrine, and foundational OT idol-polemic reused throughout Scripture (Isaiah 44, 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Thessalonians 1:9). French rendering & risk: « idole » for pesel/elilim; « vanité / néant » for hevel — High risk, France-specific. French Catholic devotional practice includes statues and images of Christ, Mary, and the saints as aids to prayer (not, per Catholic doctrine, objects of worship in themselves). Teaching material must take care that Jeremiah’s polemic against idols — worthless images worshiped as gods — is not read by French audiences as an implicit Protestant-polemical commentary on Catholic sacred art or the veneration of saints/images, which is a live and sensitive ecumenical topic in exactly the way the baseline already flags for “les saints.” A precise gloss (worship of an image as a substitute deity, versus devotional use of an image pointing to the true God) is needed. Human theologian review recommended for any teaching passage that draws this comparison explicitly or implicitly.
• אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים (elohim chayyim, “the living God”) — reuse baseline « Dieu », qualified « le Dieu vivant » — Low-Medium risk, contrastive with the idols above.

Chapter 11 — The Broken Covenant, A Plot Against Jeremiah

• Reuses בְּרִית (berit, “covenant” — baseline “alliance”) and קֶשֶׁר (qesher, “conspiracy,” 11:9) — no major new doctrinal term; the covenant-lawsuit genre (11:1-17) formalizes chs. 2–10’s charges. French: reuse baseline exactly; Low new-term risk, though doctrinal weight remains High (covenant-breaking).

Chapter 12 — Jeremiah’s Complaint: Why Do the Wicked Prosper?

• מַדּוּעַ דֶּרֶךְ רְשָׁעִים תִּצְלָח (“why does the way of the wicked prosper?” 12:1) — a theodicy question, structurally identical to Job 21 and Psalm 73. No new glossary term required (reuses “righteousness”/“wicked” vocabulary); flag as a doctrinal touch-point for “Individual Responsibility” and the cost of faithful ministry (Jeremiah’s honest complaint to God). Low new-term risk.

Chapter 13 — The Linen Loincloth Sign-Act

• אֵזוֹר (ezor, “loincloth/waistband”) and the enacted-prophecy genre (Jeremiah buries it, retrieves it ruined) — Literal: “waistband, belt.” Theological meaning: the first of several “sign-act” prophecies (also chs. 18, 19, 27, 32) that dramatize the message rather than merely speaking it, underscoring “the Cost of Faithful Ministry” (public, humiliating obedience). French: « pagne/ceinture de lin » — Low risk, concrete object; note the genre itself (mimed prophecy) for teaching purposes rather than any single lexical risk.
• גַּאֲוָה (ga’avah, “pride”) — Low risk, reuses general moral vocabulary.

Chapter 14 — Drought and False Comfort

• Reuses שָׁלוֹם (false “peace,” ch. 6) and נָבִיא שֶׁקֶר-family vocabulary (see ch. 23 below) in embryonic form (14:13-16, prophets who prophesy falsely). No new term beyond what chs. 6 and 23 establish; noted here explicitly as reuse.

Chapter 15 — Jeremiah’s Lament and God’s Reassurance

• Reuses qinah/bakah (ch. 9) and shuv (ch. 3) vocabulary; introduces no new theological term. Notable content point (not a lexical one): Jeremiah’s raw complaint (“cursed be the day I was born,” 15:10) is theologically important for “the Weeping Prophet” doctrine but requires no new glossary entry — reuses established lament vocabulary.

Chapter 16 — The Sign of Enforced Celibacy and Mourning

• אֵבֶל (evel, “mourning [rites],” forbidden to Jeremiah as a sign-act, 16:5-7) — Literal: “mourning, lamentation rites.” Theological meaning: the prohibition itself is the message — God’s judgment will be so total that customary mourning and covenant celebration (marriage) alike are suspended as signs. French: « deuil » — Low risk; theologically significant as sign-act, lexically simple.

Chapter 17 — The Deceitful Heart; Trust in the LORD; the Sabbath

• עָקֹב הַלֵּב (aqov halev, “the heart is deceitful/twisted,” 17:9) — Literal: “the heart is crooked/deceitful above all things.” Semantic range: root אָקַב shares the wordplay with the patriarch “Jacob” (Ya’aqov) elsewhere in Scripture, “the crooked one.” Theological meaning: a foundational OT anthropology text for total human depravity, directly relevant to “Individual Responsibility” and to Romans 3’s universal indictment. French: « Le cœur est tortueux/rusé par-dessus tout » — Medium risk; ensure “cœur” here again carries the full OT sense of the inner moral self (see 31:33 note above), not merely feelings.
• בָּטַח (batach, “to trust,” 17:5, 7 — “Cursed is the man who trusts in man… Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD”) — Literal: “to trust, rely on, feel secure in.” Semantic range: parallels but is lexically distinct from the New Testament’s πίστις/foi; batach emphasizes reliance/security rather than assent or fidelity per se, though the theological overlap with the baseline’s “faith” doctrine is substantial. English variants: “trust,” “rely on,” “have confidence in.” Theological meaning: an OT faith-versus-self-reliance contrast that anticipates Romans’ faith-versus-works argument. French rendering & risk: « se confier / mettre sa confiance » (rather than “foi,” which the baseline reserves for New Testament pistis) — Medium risk; recommend keeping batach’s French rendering distinct from “la foi” to avoid collapsing two related-but-distinct terms, while noting the doctrinal continuity for teaching purposes.
• שַׁבָּת (shabbat, “Sabbath,” 17:19-27) — reuse standard French « sabbat » — Low risk, proper covenant-sign term.

Chapter 18 — The Potter and the Clay

• יָצַר (yatsar, “to form, shape, fashion”) — Literal: “to form” (the same verb used of God forming Adam from dust, Genesis 2:7). Semantic range: skilled, purposeful shaping, not accidental process. Theological meaning: grounds “God’s Sovereign Plans for His People” in the potter’s active, responsive authority over the nation (18:1-11) — importantly, a responsive sovereignty (the potter reshapes the clay based on its response), balancing sovereignty with the possibility of repentance. French: « façonner » — Low-Medium risk; ensure the responsive/conditional dimension of 18:7-10 (a nation’s repentance can avert pronounced judgment) is preserved, not flattened into pure determinism.
• חֶמֶר / כְּלִי (chemer, “clay”; keli, “vessel”) — Low risk, concrete vocabulary supporting the potter image.

Chapter 19 — The Broken Flask; Topheth

• בַּקְבֻּק (baqbuq, “flask, jug”) — sign-act object (Jeremiah smashes it publicly); Low risk, concrete. Reuses judgment vocabulary otherwise established.
• תֹּפֶת (Topheth) and גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם (Ge Ben-Hinnom, “Valley of the Son of Hinnom”) — proper place names associated with child sacrifice to Molech and, later, with the Greek/NT “Gehenna” (hell). Low translation risk as proper names, but Medium doctrinal/background significance: flag for teaching cross-reference to the New Testament’s Gehenna-based imagery for judgment, useful background for “Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness.”

Chapter 20 — Persecution of Jeremiah; “A Fire Shut Up in My Bones”

• אֵשׁ עֲצֻרָה בְּעַצְמֹתָי (“a fire shut up in my bones,” 20:9) — Literal: “a burning fire restrained in my bones.” Theological meaning: Jeremiah’s compulsion to speak God’s word despite the personal cost — a defining text for “the Weeping Prophet and the Cost of Faithful Ministry.” French: « un feu dévorant, enfermé dans mes os » — Low risk, vivid, directly translatable; no new glossary term needed beyond noting this as the doctrine’s key proof-text.

Chapter 21 — Zedekiah’s Inquiry

• No new theological vocabulary; reuses covenant-judgment and siege vocabulary from earlier chapters. Explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapter 22 — Kings Judged by Justice and Righteousness

• מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה (mishpat u-tsedaqah, “justice and righteousness,” 22:3, 15) — reuse baseline “justice” doctrine vocabulary, applied specifically here to royal governance (a king’s legitimacy is measured by doing justice for the poor and vulnerable, not by dynastic privilege). Medium risk: ensure French “justice” is not read only in the legal-system sense the baseline already flags, but also its social-ethical dimension (defending the poor, the fatherless, the widow, 22:3).

Chapter 23 — False Shepherds, False Prophets, and the Righteous Branch

• רֹעִים (ro’im, “shepherds”) — Literal: “shepherds” (of the flock, i.e., the kings/leaders of Judah, 23:1-4). Theological meaning: leadership indictment paired with the promise of God himself gathering the flock and raising up faithful shepherds. French: « bergers » — Low risk, but note the important positive counter-image later applied to Christ (Jean 10) for cross-curriculum consistency.
• צֶמַח צַדִּיק (tsemach tsaddiq, “righteous Branch,” 23:5) — Literal: “a righteous sprout/shoot/branch.” Semantic range: a technical messianic-dynastic term (also 33:15; cf. Isaiah 11:1, Zechariah 3:8, 6:12) for a future ideal Davidic king who will do what Judah’s actual kings failed to do. English variants: “righteous Branch,” “righteous shoot.” Theological meaning: directly relevant to “God’s Sovereign Plans” and to the New Covenant’s messianic horizon — the concrete, royal-Davidic figure through whom covenant faithfulness will finally be realized. French rendering & risk: « le germe juste » (BJ/TOB-style) or « le rejeton juste » (Segond-style) — Critical risk; requires human theologian review, both for consistent messianic framing and to avoid the term being read merely as “a future good king” divorced from its fulfillment in Christ.
• יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ (YHWH Tsidkenu, “The LORD is our righteousness,” 23:6) — Literal: “YHWH [is] our righteousness” — a divine-name-style title applied directly to this Davidic Branch. Theological meaning: attributes God’s own covenant name/character directly to the coming king — an early and striking OT witness to the deity of the messianic figure, directly parallel in weight to the baseline’s “son_of_god” Critical entry. French rendering & risk: « le Seigneur notre justice » — Critical risk; must not be softened into a merely honorific title (“the Lord will give us justice”) but preserved as an identity-claim naming the Branch with God’s own covenant name. Human theologian review required for every occurrence, paralleling the baseline’s deity-of-Christ escalation rule.
• חֲלוֹם / דָּבָר (chalom, “dream” vs. davar, “word,” 23:25-32) — Literal: “dream” vs. “word.” Theological meaning: Jeremiah’s explicit criterion for distinguishing false from true prophecy — dreams claimed by self-appointed prophets versus the LORD’s actual word, “like fire” and “like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces” (23:29). Central proof-text for “False Prophets versus True Prophecy.” French: « rêve » / « parole » — Medium risk; ensure the contrast (not all claimed revelation is authoritative) is preserved clearly for a modern audience unfamiliar with ANE prophetic conventions.

Chapter 24 — The Vision of Good and Bad Figs

• תְּאֵנִים (te’enim, “figs”) — sign-act vision object contrasting the Babylonian exiles (good figs, destined for restoration) with those remaining under Zedekiah/fleeing to Egypt (bad figs, destined for further judgment). Low lexical risk; theologically significant for reversing expectation (exile itself becomes the path to future good) — relevant to “Hope of Restoration after Exile.”

Chapter 25 — The Cup of Wrath; Seventy Years

• כּוֹס חֲמַת יְהוָה (kos chamat YHWH, “the cup of the LORD’s wrath/fury,” 25:15-29) — Literal: “cup of the heat/wrath of YHWH.” Semantic range: an image of compelled, inescapable judgment administered to nation after nation; reused extensively in later prophetic and NT literature (Revelation 14:10; and, notably, Jesus’ own “cup” in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:39). Theological meaning: universalizes judgment beyond Judah to “all the nations” (25:15), reinforcing God’s sovereign rule over history. French rendering & risk: « la coupe de la fureur/colère du SEIGNEUR » — Medium risk; flag the cross-testament resonance with Gethsemane for teaching purposes ([TRANSLATOR NOTE: align “coupe” wording with however the Gospels curriculum renders Matthew 26:39 for consistency.]).
• שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה (shiv’im shanah, “seventy years,” 25:11-12) — a concrete prophetic timetable for the Babylonian exile’s duration (fulfilled per 2 Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2, Ezra 1:1). Theological meaning: grounds “God’s Sovereign Plans for His People” in verifiable, time-bound historical fulfillment, not vague future hope. French: « soixante-dix ans » — Low risk, numeral.

Chapter 26 — Jeremiah on Trial; Uriah the Prophet Killed

• No new theological vocabulary; the chapter narratively dramatizes “the Cost of Faithful Ministry” (Jeremiah nearly executed) and “False Prophets versus True Prophecy” (contrast with the prophet Uriah, killed for the same message) using vocabulary already established (navi, davar-YHWH). Explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapters 27–28 — The Yoke of Babylon; Hananiah’s False Prophecy

• עֹל (ol, “yoke”) — Literal: “a wooden yoke” (worn as a sign-act by Jeremiah, ch. 27, then broken by the false prophet Hananiah, ch. 28, who is then told a yoke of iron will replace it). Semantic range: submission to a ruling power; here startlingly used positively — submitting to Babylonian rule is, for a time, submission to God’s own sovereign discipline, not a failure of faith. Theological meaning: a hard case for “God’s Sovereign Plans,” since it requires accepting Babylon as God’s chosen instrument (echoed by “my servant Nebuchadnezzar,” 27:6, below). French: « joug » — Medium risk; the positive framing (temporary submission to judgment as itself faithfulness) needs careful teaching context so it is not read as political quietism divorced from its specific historical setting.
• עֶבֶד (eved, “servant,” applied to Nebuchadnezzar, 27:6 — “my servant Nebuchadnezzar”) — Literal: “servant, slave.” Semantic range: startling application of covenant-servant language to a pagan foreign king as God’s chosen instrument of judgment (paralleling Isaiah’s use of “my servant” for Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1). Theological meaning: God’s sovereignty extends over pagan rulers, who serve his purposes even unknowingly. French: « mon serviteur » — Medium risk: must be explicitly distinguished in teaching from the technical “Servant of the LORD” messianic title-family (Isaiah 42, 49, 52-53) to avoid conflating a pagan king’s instrumental role with the Suffering Servant’s redemptive one.
• Ch. 28 reuses the chalom/davar (dream/word) true-versus-false-prophecy contrast from ch. 23; explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapter 29 — The Letter to the Exiles: Plans for Welfare

• מַחְשָׁבוֹת שָׁלוֹם (machshavot shalom, “thoughts/plans of peace/welfare,” 29:11 — “For I know the plans I have for you… plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope”) — Literal: “thoughts of peace/wholeness.” Semantic range: one of the most widely quoted (and widely decontextualized, in both English and French devotional culture) verses in Jeremiah — originally addressed corporately to the 70-year exile community, not a private individual promise of personal prosperity. Theological meaning: the single clearest OT proof-text for “God’s Sovereign Plans for His People” — but its popular use as a personal-blessing verse divorced from its exile context is a significant interpretive risk. French rendering & risk: « des projets de paix… un avenir et une espérance » — High risk, not primarily lexical but interpretive/contextual: French devotional culture (like English) frequently quotes this verse as an individualized promise of prosperity; teaching material must restore the corporate, exile-specific, patience-requiring (70-year) context (29:10) alongside the promise, or the doctrine of “God’s Sovereign Plans” will be reduced to a decontextualized comfort-slogan. Native speaker and theologian review both recommended.
• דָּרַשׁ / בָּקַשׁ (darash / baqash, “to seek,” 29:13 — “you will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart”) — Low-Medium risk, standard seeking-vocabulary; reinforces the heart-vocabulary (lev) established at 31:33.

Chapter 30 — Restoration Begins (“Book of Consolation,” chs. 30–33)

• שׁוּב שְׁבוּת / שִׁיבַת שְׁבִי (shuv shevut / shivat shevi, “to restore/return the captivity,” i.e., “reverse the fortunes” of exile, 30:3, 18) — Literal: “to turn/return a captivity.” Semantic range: a fixed idiom for national restoration after exile, distinct from but related to the personal-repentance shuv of ch. 3. Theological meaning: the technical term for “Hope of Restoration after Exile” as a doctrine. French: « rétablir / ramener de la captivité » — Medium risk; keep distinct in teaching from the repentance-shuv of ch. 3, though both share the root.
• רְפוּאָה (refu’ah, “healing,” 30:17, echoing 8:22’s “balm”) — Low-Medium risk; reinforces restoration-after-judgment theme.

Chapter 31 — Rachel’s Weeping, Ephraim’s Return, and the New Covenant

(Verses 31-34 receive full treatment above as the Core Passage. The surrounding verses supply essential immediate context and share load-bearing vocabulary.)

• בְּכִי רָחֵל (the weeping of Rachel, 31:15, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children”) — quoted directly in Matthew 2:18 regarding Herod’s slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem. French rendering & risk: « Rachel pleure ses enfants » — Medium risk, primarily a cross-testament consistency issue: [TRANSLATOR NOTE: this rendering must match whatever the Matthew curriculum uses for Matthew 2:18, per the baseline’s cross-document consistency rules.]
• אַהֲבַת עוֹלָם (ahavat olam, “everlasting love,” 31:3 — “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you”) — Literal: “love of eternity/everlasting love.” Theological meaning: the immediate motivational ground, one chapter before the New Covenant oracle, for why God initiates restoration at all — unmerited, prior, permanent divine love, conceptually adjacent to the baseline’s “grace” doctrine though lexically distinct. French: « un amour éternel » — Medium-High risk; avoid collapsing into the baseline’s “grâce” term wholesale (distinct Hebrew concept, chesed-adjacent but here explicitly “ahavah,” love) while preserving the doctrinal continuity of unmerited divine initiative.
• אֶפְרַיִם (Ephraim, poetic name for the northern kingdom/Israel, 31:9, 18-20 “Is Ephraim my dear son… my heart yearns for him”) — proper name; Low risk, background note that “Ephraim” = Israel (northern tribes) throughout prophetic literature.

Chapter 32 — Jeremiah Buys a Field: A Sign-Act of Hope

• גְּאֻלָּה (ge’ulah, “right of redemption/repurchase”) — Literal: “redemption,” specifically the legal-kinship right/duty to redeem (repurchase) family land (cf. Leviticus 25; the book of Ruth). Semantic range: a specific legal-economic institution, distinct from but a rich background image for the New Testament’s broader soteriological “redemption.” Theological meaning: Jeremiah’s purchase of a field in a besieged, soon-to-fall city is an enacted prophecy of certain future restoration — hope expressed in a concrete financial-legal act, not mere sentiment. French rendering & risk: « droit de rachat » — Medium risk; must be distinguished in teaching from the broader soteriological “rédemption” (which this curriculum should note as conceptually related but institutionally distinct background) to avoid anachronistic over-reading of NT atonement theology into this specific legal transaction.

Chapter 33 — The Davidic Branch and the Covenant with Day and Night

• Reuses צֶמַח (tsemach, “Branch”) from ch. 23, here צֶמַח צְדָקָה (tsemach tsedaqah, “Branch of righteousness,” 33:15) — same Critical-risk entry as ch. 23; consistent rendering required.
• בְּרִית הַיּוֹם וּבְרִית הַלַּיְלָה (“my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night,” 33:20, 25) — Literal: “covenant of the day, covenant of the night,” referring to the fixed, unbreakable natural order (sun, moon, seasons) as a guarantee-analogy for the certainty of the Davidic and Levitical covenant promises. Theological meaning: God’s faithfulness to his covenant people is as fixed as the cosmic order itself — a striking creation-covenant analogy reinforcing “God’s Sovereign Plans.” French: « l’alliance du jour et l’alliance de la nuit » — Low-Medium risk, reusing baseline “alliance” exactly; vivid and directly translatable.

Chapter 34 — Covenant-Breaking over the Release of Slaves

• דְּרוֹר (deror, “release, freedom,” of Hebrew slaves per Sabbatical-year law, 34:8-17) — Literal: “liberty, release.” Theological meaning: Judah’s leaders formally “cut a covenant” (karat berit, reusing the 31:31 idiom) to free their slaves under pressure of siege, then treacherously re-enslave them — an object lesson in covenant hypocrisy directly relevant to “Judgment for Covenant Unfaithfulness.” French: « libération / affranchissement » — Low-Medium risk. The chapter’s ritual detail (a calf cut in two, 34:18, echoing the karat berit “cutting” idiom literally) is a valuable teaching illustration of the covenant-cutting background noted at 31:31 above.

Chapter 35 — The Rechabites’ Obedience

• No new theological vocabulary; the Rechabites’ multi-generational obedience to their ancestor’s simple command is used by contrast to indict Judah’s disobedience to God’s far weightier commands. Reuses established obedience/covenant vocabulary. Explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapter 36 — Baruch Writes the Scroll; Jehoiakim Burns It

• מְגִלָּה (megillah, “scroll”) — Literal: “scroll, roll [of writing material].” Theological meaning: dramatizes that destroying the written word does not destroy the word’s power or truth (the scroll is simply rewritten, 36:32) — relevant background for “Inspiration of Scripture” (a doctrine already defined in the Romans baseline registry) applied here to the OT prophetic corpus itself. French: « rouleau » — Low risk, concrete object.

Chapters 37–39 — The Siege and Fall of Jerusalem

• Narrative chapters reusing established judgment, siege, and persecution-of-the-prophet vocabulary (navi, shuv, the covenant-unfaithfulness indictments of chs. 1-25). No new theological terms; historically load-bearing but lexically a reuse of prior chapters’ glossary. Explicitly noted as reuse. (Ch. 39 records the literal historical fulfillment of judgments announced from ch. 1 onward — a strong teaching point for “God’s Sovereign Plans,” though requiring no new glossary entry.)

Chapters 40–43 — Aftermath: Gedaliah, Flight to Egypt

• Reuses established vocabulary (shuv, shalom, remnant themes anticipated more fully in ch. 44). No major new theological term. Ch. 42’s “seek the LORD” (darash, baqash) reuses 29:13’s vocabulary. Explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapter 44 — Idolatry Persists Among the Remnant in Egypt

• שְׁאֵרִית (she’erit, “remnant, what is left”) — Literal: “remainder, remnant.” Semantic range: a technical prophetic-theological term throughout the OT (Isaiah 10:20-22; Micah 5:7-8; Zephaniah 3:12-13) for the surviving, purified minority who will carry forward God’s covenant purposes — here used ironically, since this particular “remnant” in Egypt persists in idolatry and is itself warned of further judgment (44:12, 14, 28). Theological meaning: complicates any simplistic “remnant = automatically faithful” assumption; ties directly to “Individual Responsibility” (each person within the surviving group is accountable for their own continued idolatry, not shielded by having survived exile). French rendering & risk: « un reste » — Medium-High risk; French readers may assume “remnant” always denotes an automatically faithful minority (a common devotional shorthand); this chapter’s ironic usage should be taught explicitly to avoid over-simplification of the doctrine.

Chapter 45 — A Brief Word of Comfort to Baruch

• No new theological vocabulary; personal encouragement to Jeremiah’s scribe amid national catastrophe, reusing established covenant-preservation vocabulary. Explicitly noted as reuse.

Chapters 46–51 — Oracles Against the Nations

(Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar/Hazor, Elam, Babylon)

• Important textual note: in the LXX, these oracles appear earlier in the book (after 25:13) and in a different internal order than in the MT (followed by the French Bible tradition used in this curriculum). No lexical action is required, but this is a citation-consistency flag for any cross-reference work: [TRANSLATOR NOTE: if any teaching material cites LXX-based patristic or Orthodox-tradition commentary on these chapters, expect a different chapter/order reference than the French Bible’s MT-based numbering.]
• These chapters largely reuse established judgment vocabulary (kos chamah/“cup of wrath” from ch. 25; parar/“break,” shuv, etc.) applied to foreign nations rather than Judah, reinforcing God’s sovereignty over all nations, not Judah alone — theologically significant for “God’s Sovereign Plans” but low new-lexical-risk.
• נְקָמָה / גְּמוּל (neqamah, “vengeance”; gemul, “recompense/what is deserved,” especially in the extended Babylon oracle, chs. 50-51) — Literal: “vengeance, retribution”; “recompense, requital.” Semantic range: judicial retribution language, God repaying Babylon in kind for what Babylon did to others (50:29, 51:6, 24, 56). Theological meaning: divine justice operating even over history’s great imperial powers — no nation, however dominant, escapes accountability. French rendering & risk: « vengeance » / « rétribution » — Medium risk; ensure “vengeance” is understood as righteous judicial recompense by a sovereign God, not petty or vindictive retaliation — a distinction French readers accustomed to secular “vengeance” (personal revenge) will need made explicit.

Chapter 52 — Historical Appendix: The Fall of Jerusalem Recounted; Jehoiachin Released

• No new theological vocabulary. This closing chapter (closely paralleling 2 Kings 24–25) narrates the historical fulfillment of the judgments announced from chapter 1 onward, and closes with King Jehoiachin’s unexpected release and honor in Babylonian exile (52:31-34) — a small, deliberately hope-shaped closing note that echoes “Hope of Restoration after Exile” without requiring any new glossary term. Explicitly noted as reuse; theologically it functions as the book’s final, understated confirmation that God’s sovereign word (both of judgment and of future hope) does not fail.

---

Summary of Full-Book Coverage

All 52 chapters of Jeremiah have been reviewed. Chapters introducing new load-bearing theological vocabulary (1–4, 6–10, 13, 16–20, 22–25, 27–34, 36, 44, 46–51) receive full term treatment above. Chapters contributing no new theological vocabulary (5, 12, 14–15, 21, 26, 35, 37–43, 45, 52) are explicitly noted as reusing terms established in earlier chapters, per the full-coverage mandate. See 08_core_glossary.md for the consolidated, per-term glossary table compiled from this analysis.