What is the context?
Those living among the ruins reason that Abraham was only one man, yet possessed the land. Since they are many, they conclude that it must surely belong to them.
The Lord answers by naming their conduct: eating meat with blood, idolatry, bloodshed, reliance on the sword, detestable practices and adultery. He repeats the question of whether people living this way should possess the land.
The announcement reaches the ruins, fields, strongholds and caves. The Lord will judge the abominations behind their false confidence and bring the land’s proud strength to an end.
The accusation addresses their claim and their behavior. Jeremiah 39:9–10 also records that Babylon deliberately left some poor people with vineyards and fields; remaining in the land did not by itself explain someone’s faithfulness or wrongdoing.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Henry understands the claim as presumption: people lay claim to blessings while their conduct contradicts the relationship they claim. Wesley explains their reasoning through descent from Abraham and their presence in the land.
Cambridge sees confidence in the promises without a true knowledge of the Lord whose promises they are. The challenge is not whether Abraham matters, but whether appealing to him can excuse continuing violence and unfaithfulness.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.