Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Jeremiah 38:1 - 38:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Chap. 38
17Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], the God of hosts, the God of Israel: If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon’s princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; 18and thou shalt live, and thine house: but if thou wilt not go forth to the king of Babylon’s princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, 19and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand. And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me..
20But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice 21of the Lord [Jehovah], which I speak unto thee: so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live.21 But if thou refuse to go forth, this is the word that the 22Lord [Jehovah] hath showed me: And, behold, all the women that are left in the king of Judah’s house shall be brought forth to the king of Babylon’s princes, and those women [they] shall say, Thy friends [men of thy place] have set thee on [over-persuaded] and have prevailed against thee: thy feet are sunk in the 23mire, and they are turned away back. So they shall bring out all thy wives and thy children to the Chaldeans: and thou shalt not escape out of their hand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon: and thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.
24Then said Zedekiah unto Jeremiah, Let no man know of these words, and thou 25shalt not die. But if the princes hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee, and say unto thee, Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king, hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; also what the king 26said unto thee: then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication before the king, that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan’s house, to die there.
27Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah, and asked him: and he told them according to all these words that the king had commanded. So they left off speaking 28with him [lit.: were silent from him]; for the matter was not perceived. So Jeremiah abode in the court of the prison [guard] until the day that Jerusalem was taken.
Jer_38:1-6. Then Shephatiah … in the mire. Jeremiah, brought back into the court of the guard, has further opportunity of intercourse with the people, and uses it again and again to counsel voluntary surrender as the only means of escape.—Of the four princes, who hear the prophet’s discourse, Shephatiah, son of Mattan, and Gedaliah, son of Pashur, are not further mentioned; Jucal, son of Shelemiah, is evidently identical with Jehucal, son of Shelemiah, Jer_37:3. Pashur son of Malchiah, has been mentioned in Jer_21:1. Pashur was of sacerdotal (comp. rems. on Jer_21:1), Jucal of Levitic descent (comp. 1Ch_26:1-2; 1Ch_26:9; 1Ch_26:14). These “princes” were thus neither “raised from a lower rank,” as Graf supposes (on Jer_37:15), nor do their former relations to the prophet lead us to conclude that they were inimically disposed towards him. We do not send, to present petitions, as is the case in Jer_21:1-2; Jer_37:3, personas ingratas. The intended departure of Jeremiah (Jer_37:12) seems thus to have awakened suspicion against him.—On Jer_38:3 comp. Jer_21:10.—Seeketh not the welfare. On the subject-matter comp. Jer_29:7; Deu_23:7; Ezr_9:12.—The charge against the prophet is unjust. He has the true welfare of the people in view, viz. that which is in accordance with the divine will, and the confidence which he seeks to break, is not a fully satisfied heroic courage, founded on genuine trust in God, but carnal obstinacy, which must lead to destruction. It is inconceivable how any one can fail to see this and take the part of the prophet’s opponents. Comp. Duncker, I. S. 831. The king, fearing on the one hand the higher power supporting the prophet, and on the other not having the courage openly to oppose the princes standing in corpore before him, delivers the prophet into their hands. That he expected the prophet would be merely taken back to the house of Jonathan (Graf) I do not believe. The princes had decisively demanded Jeremiah’s death (Jer_38:4). Their not having him executed at once, but thrown into a pit, where his escape would appear possible only by a miracle, may have been due either to their wickedness or to a certain fear of shedding the blood of the prophet. Comp. Gen_37:22-24.
Jeremiah is now thrown into a cistern, which bears the name of an otherwise unknown prince, Malkiah (comp. rems. on Jer_36:26), probably because he had it dug. The pit may have been often used as the severest imprisonment. The princes in letting down Jeremiah into it may have intended either his most painful death, or an evasion on their part, that they had not shed his blood, but only thrown him into a prison appropriate to such traitors. If he perished there the guilt would not be theirs. In the central point of the theocracy, opposed to prophets and priests who are filled with diabolical hatred and a weak king led by them, this solitary “servant of Jehovah” is at the lowest stage of humiliation and of suffering. All the hatred of Jerusalem, “that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee” (Mat_23:37), culminates at this time in this behaviour to wards Jeremiah, by which the measure of guilt was fulfilled and the sentence of destruction was pronounced over the unhappy city. The fulfilling and completing antitype of this historical event is certainly not what happened to John the Baptist (as Hengstenberg supposes, Christol., II. S. 400 [Eng. Tr., II., 403]), but what our Lord Himself suffered, who was also the object of the most intense hatred on the part of carnal Israel, as being the prophet of its final overthrow (Matthew 23, 24).—Comp. Psalms 69.
Jer_38:7-13. Now when Ebed-melech … court of the guard. The expression “one of the eunuchs” (comp. Jer_52:25) seems to intimate that a real eunuch is here meant. As the Mosaic law forbade such mutilation (comp. Deu_23:1) and, on the other hand, it is not improbable that eunuchs were then employed in the service of the harem (2Ki_24:15), it is not very strange to find a foreign eunuch in the service of a Jewish king, with whom, as we infer from Jer_38:22-23, the harem occupied an important position. That Ethiopians were preferred for such service seems to be indicated by some traces (comp. Dan_11:43; Terent. Eun., I. 2, 85), as at the present day most of these people come from upper Egypt. (Comp. Winer, R.-W.-B. s. v., Verschnittene. [Smith’sDict., I. 590]). Ebed-melech [servant of the king] (N. B. not äַîֶìֶê ) is the proper name of the man, chosen with reference to his function. This name is so purely Hebrew and in accordance with the man’s position at the Jewish court, that it is not to be conceived how Euerst could come to suppose that it is a Hebraized from an Ethiopic name. Comp. H.-W.-B., S. 583.—This Ebed-melech is moreover a proof that the called are not always the chosen, that on the contrary the last are often the first. A stranger, a heathen, a Moor feels compassion for the prophet and horror at the crime committed on him, while in Israel not a hand or tongue is moved in his favor. Comp. Luk_4:25; Luk_19:40; Mat_8:10.—Who was in the king’s house. A relative sentence which expresses that Ebed-melech received the news, while he was present in the palace, but the king was absent, sitting in the gate of Benjamin. Comp. Jer_37:13.—Have done evil, Jer_38:9. Comp. Jer_44:5; Mic_3:4; 2Ki_21:11.— åéîú úçúéå . This may certainly mean grammatically, “and he had died,” etc. But Ebed-melech does not wish to blame them, that instead of death by famine, which he would have suffered without this, they had inflicted on him another death, but that they had placed him in a position in which he must die at any rate, but I must inevitably before all succumb to the famine. As is well known the Imperfect with Vau consecutive may represent any action which is not really past, but only represented as such, while in reality it is present or future, or even merely the wish, command, or assumed possibility of it. So here, that is related as an accomplished fact which is merely undoubtedly to be expected. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 88, 5; Jer_8:16; Jer_9:2; Jer_20:17.—Ebed-melech pre-supposes two things, (1) That the detention in the pit is not in itself absolutely fatal; (2) but that Jeremiah must at all events die of hunger in the pit. The latter pre-supposition is evidently founded on this fact, that in the general scarcity of means of subsistence one who was thrown into a pit might least of all expect to be provided for.
Jer_38:14-16. Then Zedekiah … seek thy life. How long after the liberation from the pit the following conference took place, is not stated. Hitzig supposes that Zedekiah sent for the prophet very soon after his liberation, perhaps on the same day, since otherwise the evasion in Jer_38:26 would have lost all probability, for “days or weeks later, being let alone in the meantime, Jeremiah must have been set at rest with respect to the king’s designs.” But with a king of so weak and vacillating character Jeremiah could not, even after weeks, be safe from cruel measures towards his person. All that can be said is, that immediately after showing a favor a contrary treatment was less to be feared than some time afterwards. Nothing more exact can be determined. At all events, in the interval between the deliverance from the pit and the conference no remarkable event occurred.—Third entry. What entrance to the temple this was is unknown. At any rate, it must have afforded a suitable place for a secret conference.—Hitzig, by the use of 2Ki_16:18; 2Ki_23:11; 1Ch_26:18, has attempted a clever combination, which is, however, based on too insecure premises to be satisfactory. [The outer entrance (“the king’s entry without,” 1Ki_16:18) leading from the citadel and after the time of Ahaz from the temple into the ðñïÜóôåéïí , where there was the cell of a royal eunuch, 2Ki_23:11.—S. R. A.]—From the prophet’s answer we see that he neither trusted the king with respect to his own person, in spite of the favors he had received from him, nor with respect to the subject in hand did he expect any receptivity to the divine communications. Proudly and boldly he at first declines to answer the question. But the king swears to him that he will neither put him to death himself nor surrender him to his enemies.—Zedekiah swears by the God of life that he will preserve the prophet’s life. Comp. Jer_16:14-15.
Jer_38:17-23. Then said Jeremiah … to be burned with fire. Jeremiah again offers the king the alternative which had been so frequently presented before, either voluntary surrender to the Chaldean generals ( ùָׂøִéí , comp. Jer_39:3; Jer_39:13, Nebuchadnezzar himself was in Riblah, Jer_39:5) and at least the safety of his life and preservation of the city, or continued resistance and destruction of the city and the endangering of his own person. Observe the negative expression, “thou shalt not escape,” in Jer_38:18. Comp. Jer_32:4-5; Jer_34:2-5. Zedekiah, however, cannot make up his mind to follow the advice of the prophet. He alleges that he fears ill-treatment from the Jews who had already gone over to the Chaldeans. It can scarcely be supposed that this fear was seriously intended, though those transfugæ might represent a party, which was discontented with the government of Zedekiah and ascribed all the calamities of the State to him. For even the quieting assurance of Jeremiah, Jer_38:20, makes no impression, which would have been the case if the king had had no other reason. There was really no reason to distrust the prophet’s assurance.—In case Zedekiah, from fear of the insults of his fugitive subjects, refuses to follow the admonition of the prophet, the prospect of insult to his wives is set before him.—This is the word that Jehovah hath showed me. This does not logically follow as apodosis to the protasis if thou refuse, etc. A middle clause is wanting expressing the thought, thus shalt thou know, or I have to announce to thee as follows. Further, åְäִðֵּä is the standing formula with which the subject of the vision is introduced, Jer_24:1; Amo_7:1; Amo_7:4-7; Amo_8:1. Accordingly Jer_38:21 b seems to be contracted from “hear now the word which I speak in thine ears, which Jehovah,” etc. (Jer_28:7). It is not, however, denied that the expression in itself is admissible as it stands. Comp. Eze_11:25.—The prophet’s setting before the king the prospect of the deportation of all his remaining wives, seems to intimate that these were a specially esteemed part of his household, in other words, that he had a large and to him very dear harem. The expression “the women that are left in the king of Judah’s house,” in distinction from “thy wives” in Jer_38:23, indicates that there were still wives of former kings as fixtures in the royal household (comp. 2Sa_12:8; Michaelis, Mos. Recht., I. S. 207; Saalschuetz, Mos. Recht., S. 85), and that even the deportation under Jehoiachin (2Ki_24:15), had by no means exhausted the supply of these fixtures. I do not think that by the “women that are left,” are to be understood the maidens, as distinguished from the wives, as Graf supposes. For their being taken forth to the princes, points to higher rank and estimation. A satirical speech is placed in the mouths of these women, the first part of which is found verbatim (with the exception of äִùִּׁéàåּê instead of äִñִּéúåּêָ ) in the prophecy of Obadiah (Jer_38:7). On the indications that, Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah, and not the reverse, comp. Caspari, Obadja, S. 8, and the article Obadja in Herzog, R.-Enc.—Turned away back. Comp. Jer_46:5; Isa_42:17; Psa_35:4; Psa_40:15; Psa_129:5. As in the first clause, so also in the second two verbs are employed to express the thought, of which the second expresses the result of the first. The warrior sinking in the mire must fall back. The words are characteristic of Zedekiah. They represent him distinctly as a weak man, dependent on the influence of others. No wonder then that instead of a victor’s pæan, with which the women usually receive a conqueror (1Sa_18:7), a song of mockery awaits him. Observe also, that this satirical song is not put into the mouths of Zedekiah’s own wives, for these (in Jer_38:23) are evidently distinguished from the other occupants of the royal harem.—Taken by the hand. As úָּôַùׂ signifies only “to seize,” the words can mean only: thou wilt be taken by the hand, or into the hand of the king, etc. The former would be a mode of expression foreign to the style of the prophet (comp. Jer_20:4; Jer_21:7; Jer_27:6; Jer_29:21; Jer_32:3-4; Jer_34:3, etc. The second construction (Constr. prægnans. Comp. Naegelsb.Gr., § 112, 7) is frequent in Jer_4:31; Jer_11:7; Jer_14:2; Jer_25:34; Jer_32:20; comp. also infra, Jer_38:24; Jer_38:27. The sentence is to be regarded as the contraction of two thoughts into one, according to the example of Jer_34:3.—The following sentence is also strange. For Jeremiah to say to Zedekiah, Thou wilt burn the city, although correct in a certain sense, is contrary to his usual mode of expressing himself. The LXX., Syr., Chald., read úִּùָּׂøֵó . The punctuation úִּùְøֹó may be occasioned by àú . The latter is, however, not seldom used to emphasize an antithetical new conception, for which we should say: but as to, etc. Comp. Ewald, § 277, d, and especially the passages Eze_17:21; Eze_44:3; Jer_36:22; 2Ki_6:5. So Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, Meier and others.
Jer_38:24-28. Then said Zedekiah … was taken. The king feared that if the import of his conversation with Jeremiah were known, he would be regarded as vacillating and be suspected of inclining to the view of the prophet. Though he knew that the fact of the conversation could not remain concealed, he wished, however, that it might be represented as occasioned by Jeremiah himself, and as relating purely to his personal interests.—And thou shalt not die, may be regarded as a threat on the part of the king, but at the same time also as a reference to the danger threatening from the princes. For the king would say: I will have you put to death if you betray me, and the princes will kill you if they learn that you have summoned me again to surrender. In the supposed inquiry of the princes, Jer_38:25, the words hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death, are a parenthesis, the latter expressing the threat, which Zedekiah presupposes in case the prophet should refuse to make a satisfactory statement.—I presented, etc. Comp. rems. on Jer_36:7. The pit is not mentioned here. Zedekiah seems thus to presuppose that Jeremiah need’ not fear a taking back to the pit, from which he had been liberated at the king’s command, but that a return to the prison of Jonathan (Jer_37:15), to avert which he had already offered a petition, might be regarded as possible. The latter seems to have been an ordinary place of confinement, while the pit was only an extraordinary one.—The princes really come to Jeremiah. The fact of the conference thus did not remain concealed, but concerning the import of it, nothing had become known (the matter was not perceived). They must have regarded the declaration of Jeremiah made in accordance with the king’s command as probable, for they do not urge the prophet further, but withdraw in silence. After this Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard till the capture of the city. On that which further occurred between Jeremiah and Zedekiah during this last stage of his confinement comp rems on Jer_32:2-5; Jer_34:1-5.
Footnotes:
Jer_38:2.—The same words as in Jer_21:9. Only here åְðָôַì and äַöָּøִéí òֲìֵéëֶí are wanting, and instead we have at the close a repeated åָçָé . The Chethibh éִçְéֶä is here as in Jer_21:9 the more correct reading, agreeing better with the order of the sentence ( éîåּú ). åָçָé in sense superfluous, but in accordance with the verbose style of the prophet, is construed like Deu_4:42 coll. Jer_19:4; Eze_18:13; Eze_20:11; Naegelsb. Gr., § 84, i. On the form comp. Olsh., S. 480, 482, 460.
Jer_38:4.— éåîúÎðà àú äàéùå × /he>. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. § 100, 2.
Jer_38:4.—On ëִּé òַìÎëֵּï Comp. rems. on Jer_29:28.
Jer_38:4.— îְøַëֵà for îְøַëּä Comp. Olsh., § 243, a; Naegelsb. Gr., § 39 Anm.
Jer_38:4.— ìãáø . Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 95, e.
Jer_38:4.—The construction with ìְ , as in Job_10:6; Deu_12:30; 1Ch_22:19; 2Ch_15:13; 2Ch_17:4, etc.
Jer_38:5.—Since àֶúְëֵí can be only the nota Acc. with suffix (not on account of the meaning, but the form), éåּëַì ’ must be taken in the meaning “overpower” (comp. Psa_13:5), àִéï as purely adverbial with emphatic significance (comp. Job_35:15; 1Sa_21:9; Naegelsb. Gr., § 106, 3), ãָּáָּø as accusative of more exact definition: the king can not go beyond you in any matter.
Jer_38:6.—On the article’s position in äַáּåֹø î× comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 71, 5 Anm. 1, b.
Jer_38:9.— úçúéå . The preposition is to be taken in its original meaning as a substantive, and as accusative of place: in its underspace, i. e. as we say, on the spot. Comp. 2Sa_2:23; Exo_10:23; Exo_16:29; Jdg_7:21; 1Sa_14:9; 2Sa_7:10; 1Ch_17:9.
Jer_38:10.—Hitzig (and alter him Ewald, Graf, Meier) would read ùְׁìùָׁä ; because thirty men is too many and àֲðָùֵׁéí is contrary to the syntax, and also in 2Sa_23:13 the same correction is made by the Keri. This alteration does not appear to me to be necessary. Zedekiah might not have ordered the larger number for the sake of the drawing up (for which four men would suffice, as Hitzig reckons), but for greater security and to hinder any resistance. The syntax is not opposed to this. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 76, 4; Gesen. § 120, 2; 2Sa_3:20; 2Ki_2:16 coll. 17.—In 2 Samuel 23 the text is corrupt in many places.
Jer_38:10.— áéãê . Comp. Gen_30:35; Gen_32:17; Num_31:49; Jdg_9:29.
Jer_38:11.— áְּìåֹéִí from áְּìåֹ , vetustate tritum (comp. Jos_9:4-5), occurs here only. Comp. Olsh., § 173, 9. So also îְäָáåֹú from ñָçַá , to rend, to tear (Jer_15:3; Jer_22:19; Jer_49:20). They are shreds, tatters, rags. The article, which the Keri exscinds, is abnormal and probably occasioned by äַîְּçָðåֹú , Jer_38:12. îְìָçִéí also is not found elsewhere. The root îָìַç is found only in Isa_51:6, in the meaning of diffluere, unless we assume another îָìַç , synonymous with îָøַç (Isa_38:21; Lev_21:20), to rub, rub away, and îָøַ÷ , to rub, polish (Jer_46:4; Lev_6:21; 2Ch_4:16).
Jer_38:12.—From the connection this must be the mean
Jer_38:14.—On the construction comp, Naegelsb. Gr., § 73, 2 Anm. [The LXX render: åἰò ïἰêßáí ̓ ÁóåëåéóÞë , regarding it as a proper name, but this is no authority for a punctuation îְáåֹà äֵùָּׁìִéùִׁé , entry of the ôñéóôÜôáé —Hitzig
Jer_38:14.—The sense is the same as in the former question, Jer_37:17. The Part. ùֹׁàֵì is to be taken as future: quæsiturus sum. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 97, 1 a.
Jer_38:14.—The second óָáָø (observe that îְּëַçֵã does not stand simply with a suffix) belongs to the negation, in the sense of ne quid. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 82, 2.
Jer_38:10.— àú àùׁø . If the Chethibh is correct, which is favored by the greater difficulty of the reading, these words simply=eum qui. The relative frequently includes the idea of the demonstrative pronoun (comp. Jer_6:18; Naegelsb. Gr., § 80, 5). Since now äַé éְäåָֹä is in the accusative, the pronoun relating to it must also be in the accusative; since, however, àֲùֶׁø must at the same time be the nominative to òָùָׂä , it evidently involves the double conception of eum qui, which is only rendered possible by the àֶú . In Latin it would be impossible to say quem in such a case.
Jer_38:19.— ãàâ . Comp. Jer_17:8; Jer_42:16.
Jer_38:19.— åäúòììå áé . Comp. Num_22:29; Jdg_19:25; 1Sa_31:4 coll. Lam_1:22; Lam_2:20; Lam_3:51. In the Hithp. the meanings of “to gratify, indulge one’s self” and “to mock” appear to be united, the LXX. usually rendering the word by ἐìðáßæù , in this place, however, by êáôáìùêÜïìáé .
Jer_38:20.— ìְ . ìàùׁø =in respect to. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., S. 227; Gen_17:20; Gen_27:8.
Jer_38:20.— åְéִéèַּá åּúְçִé are Jussives with the signification of intended effect. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 89, 3, b, 2.
Jer_38:22.—Comp. Jer_20:10; Psa_41:10.
Jer_38:22—Comp. Jer_43:3; Isa_36:18. The two verbs together express the idea of successful seduction.
Jer_38:22.— áֹּõ ἄð . ëåã . Comp. áִּöָּä Job_8:11; Job_40:21.—The form øַâְìֶêָ is indeed irregular, but not without analogy. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 44, 4 Anm.
Jer_38:23.—On the absence of a subject comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 97, 2, b.
Jer_38:24.—Comp. Gen_19:33; Gen_19:35; 1Sa_22:15; Job_35:15. This also seems to be a pregnant construction, the prefix áְּ accordingly being dependent on the idea of penetrating latent in éָãַò . That it would be regarded as partitive I cannot believe. We should then expect îּï .
Jer_38:27.—This inf. ( ìîåú ) depends on ìְáִìְúִּé . äֲùִׁéáֵðִé , and ìְ designates here not the subjective purpose, but the objective result. Comp. Gen_19:21; Num_11:11.
Jer_38:27.—On the construction comp. rems. on Jer_38:23.
2. On Jer_37:5-10. Nothing is more bitter than in time of greatest need to see apparent help again disappear. Raised from the depths, one is then cast back into a still profounder deep. The Jews had invoked the aid of the Egyptians on their own responsibility. It was a triumph of worldly policy. The Lord disappoints their calculations. He is not to be so easily put out. The Chaldeans withdraw, but only to defeat the Egyptians, and then return. And Jeremiah must be the prophet of this disappointed hope. A few mortally wounded men, he must proclaim, would suffice to execute the Lord’s decree on Jerusalem. Comp. 2Sa_5:6.
3. On Jer_37:10. This passage is also adduced as an instance, of the so-called scientia media or de future conditionato (Vide Budde, Inst Dogm., pag. 228), together with 1Sa_23:11-12; Jer_38:17; Eze_3:6; Mat_11:21-22; Mat_24:22; Act_27:31. Starke.
4. On Jer_37:11-12. If Jeremiah really wished to leave Jerusalem, because in the city he no longer hoped to secure safety or any success to his ministry (comp. Starke: “It appears that the prophet would betake himself to the country-people, because he hoped from them better results in penitence and the averting of the divine judgments, since hitherto he had been mostly hindered in his office by the priests and the court”), he was in error and took an arbitrary step. For in the first place the servant of God, who is at his post, is under divine protection, and in the second, he had to proclaim the will of God again and again to the stubborn people. There was then still the possibility of their obedient submission to the divine will. Jeremiah did afterwards repeatedly show that deliverance was still possible on the condition of submission (Jer_38:2-3; Jer_38:17), and also, as he had to proclaim ruin unconditionally (Jer_32:3-5; Jer_34:2-5), this testimony was necessary, partly as a proof of the inviolability of the divine counsel, partly to cut off all excuse for the Jews afterwards, partly as a foil to the glorious Messianic prophecies (chh. 32. and 33.) which pertain to this last stage before the destruction of the city. If then Jeremiah really had the purpose at that lime to leave the city, it was an arbitrary step, which was not to succeed, and for which his arrest and what followed was a just punishment. In this sense Diedrich also says (S. 120), “The saints also err, and God deals with them punctiliously, so they also must be docile under the divine chastisements.”
5. On Jer_37:15. “Jeremiah’s prophecies applied to the whole situation (political), and he thus could not avoid the appearance, which his disposition to recommend to the king the surrender of the city occasioned. God be praised! our Lord’s kingdom is not of this world. His servants may renounce the matters, which pertain thereto, with full freedom, and this the more because the Lord raises the instruments who are to labor for the amelioration of the State and the circumstances of mankind also from this kingdom, but gives the prophets of the New Testament a complete dispensation therefrom; of which we have a living example in Jesus and all His Apostles, who did not meddle by a word in any of the civil matters of the authorities, under whom they taught. Justice and chastity were Paul’s themes with the procurator Felix, which were matters of the interior, and that is enough.” Zinzendorf.
6. On Jer_37:17. The king was commanded to put the book of the law before him, and always have it with him, Deu_17:19. As now he did not do this, he must be in awe even of his own servants: sometimes he must look at his counsellors through his fingers and let them do as they will, and though he might have been a master, he must be a servant. For God poureth contempt upon princes and looseth the covenant of the mighty (Job_12:21).” Cramer.
7. On Jer_37:18-20. In the consciousness of his official dignity the prophet proudly appears before the king, saying, Although it has come out clearly that I was right and your prophets wrong, you have done me injustice. Nevertheless he applies with humble and earnest petition to the king in behalf of his person, that he may not betaken back again to the dreadful prison. “After Jeremiah’s example, one may well petition tyrannical magistrates for a mitigation of persecution, but not speak to please them for the sake of the mitigation.” Cramer.
8. On Jer_38:1-4. Jeremiah is like a running spring, which has an abundance of water. The mouth of the tube may be stopped. But no sooner is a slight temporary opening afforded, than the water breaks forth with full power. Although he knew what was before him, he was not silent. For he could not be silent (Jer_20:9). Even if they had beaten him to death on the spot with clubs, yet dying he would have cried: he that goeth forth shall live. Jeremiah was, however, no arch traitor, but the truest patriot in all Israel. Is not this proved by the courage, with which he inflexibly repeated his apparently so unpatriotic counsel? Certainly his opponents regard him as the most dangerous man among the people, just as Ahab accused. Elijah of troubling Israel (1Ki_18:18), Amaziah Amos (Jer_7:10), the Jews Paul (Act_16:20).
9. On Jer_38:5. Legal right to carry out their will, in opposition to that of the king, the princes had none. Zedekiah’s speech, therefore, displays only his individual weakness. He also shows by it how little he was subject to God. For had he been faithful to God, he would have found means to compel the obedience of his princes. He who has the right, has also the Lord on his side. If this was manifest in the case of the poor priest Jeremiah, how much more so in that of the king. But this king was no Jeremiah.
10. On Jer_38:6. No prophet was ever maltreated so pitiably as Jeremiah. He represents the culminating point in the humiliation of the servant of Jehovah, but also the extreme point in the alienation from God of the theocracy, which was immediately followed as a merited punishment by the deepest outward decline. Therefore in Jeremiah also must “Christ’s resurrection become visible (Diedrich).”
11. On Jer_38:7-13. A Moor, a heathen, must have compassion and raise his voice against. the enormity. while all Israel was silent. Thus is completed the testimony to Israel’s decline, and the guilt appears to be a common one.
12. On Jer_38:14-15. This seems to be the manner of princes. They say: I wish to hear the truth, the truth only, the whole truth. And when one tells them the truth, he draws upon himself their highest displeasure. For these lords, accustomed to a Homeric life of the gods ( èåïὶ ῥåῖá æïῶíôåò ), do not like to be disturbed in this their bliss. Nothing, however, affects them more rudely than the truth. Zedekiah even does not seem to have been in earnest with his “pray, hide nothing from me,” for otherwise he would at least have done what he could to follow the prophet’s counsel.
13. On Jer_38:19-23. Zedekiah gives as a pretext his dread of mocking and maltreatment from the fugitive Jews. For these, the malcontents, who attributed all the blame to his government and had therefore fled, might possibly have him delivered over to them, and then take their revenge on him. Jeremiah assures him that he has no insult to fear from them. But he will be exposed to the most sensible insults from a quarter where he would least expect it, viz., from the women of his own harem. To be received by his own wives with insulting songs, instead of songs of victory—what greater disgrace could be conceived for a man and a prince? Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim.
14. On Jer_38:24-27. Did Jeremiah participate in a prevarication, or not? The opinions on this point are divided. Förster says: Non quidem disertis verbis mentitus est Jeremias; interim tamen hoc ejus factum speciem quondam mendacii habet, vel carte est dissimulatio, quæ non omni ex parte excusanda. Others on the other hand call attention to two points: 1. Although in Jer_38:15-17, no such request is mentioned as, according to Jer_38:26, Jeremiah is said to have made, it is yet implied, both in the words of the prophet in Jer_38:15, and in the answer of the king, Jer_38:16. It follows from what is said by both of them, that Jeremiah wished that he might neither be put to death nor brought into such a condition as would inevitably involve his death. Consequently, he at any rate, cherished the same wish, which he expressed to the king in Jer_38:20. 2. If then the declaration of Jer_38:26 does not contain the whole truth, it contains no untruth. The princes, however, had no right to demand the whole truth from Jeremiah. For they were simply murderers. No one, however, is bound to a murderer to expose himself to his knife, by the confession of the truth. This latter view may well be the correct one. [Comp. Wordsworth and Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 524.—S. R. A.]
2. On Jer_37:5-10. Instructive example of the difference between man’s help and God’s help. Man’s help self-sought, self-made, shows at first indeed a joyous hopeful countenance, but it is hollow and vacuous, and confidence therein is self-deception. In due course it shows itself perfectly powerless, indeed it turns to the contrary, to destruction. God’s help on the other hand is announced at first under gloomy aspects and hard conditions (surrender to the Chaldeans), but these hard conditions are wholesome chastisement, from which proceed life and salvation.
3. On Jer_37:11-13. “It is the manner of God’s enemies, that they shamefully misinterpret the acts of His servants, when these indeed justify themselves, but when they find no hearing they suffer and are silent; only from the confession of the truth they will not forbear.” The Major Prophets, by Heim and Hoffmann.
4. On Jer_38:4. “Worldly people are still disposed to reproach the preachers of the Gospel with the injury which they inflict on the commonwealth, because they seek to hinder the God-forgotten course of the commonwealth, as the worldly people wish it to be. One must not be put out by this, but go on.” Heim and Hoffmann.
5. On Jer_38:4-13. As at the time of Christ the external theocracy was approaching its final overthrow, so at the time of Jeremiah it was its precursory overthrow. Christ was the prophet of the former, Jeremiah of the latter. As Christ was accused of being an arch-traitor and corrupter of the people (Joh_11:48; Joh_11:50), so also Jeremiah. The true ground here, as there, was diabolical hatred to the divine truth and carnal dependence on outward supports and their own excellence. The princes, who threw Jeremiah into the pit, correspond to the rulers of the people at the time of Christ, the weak Zedekiah to the weak Pontius Pilate, Ebed-melech to those believers from the heathen (the ruler of Capernaum, the Canaanitish woman, the Samaritans) who put Israel to shame by their faith. And as Jeremiah is delivered from the pit, so Christ after three days rises from the grave.
6. On Jer_38:19-23. Our ways and God’s ways 1. Our ways: (a) preserve us not from that which we feared (Jer_38:22): (b) they lead to destruction (Jer_38:23). God’s ways: (a) preserve us from that which we feared (Jer_38:19-20): (b) they lead to safety and life (Jer_38:20)