Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 37:11

When Seeking To Take Possession Of His Land In Benjamin During The Lull In The Siege Jeremiah Is Falsely Accused Of Treachery And Thrown Into Prison ( Jer 37:11-15 ).

Jeremiah’s family appears to have had much land in Anathoth, and with the siege of Jerusalem temporarily lifted it gave him the opportunity to once again take possession of it and its produce. This lifting of the siege would also give an opportunity to all the people of Jerusalem to resupply themselves with food, and Jeremiah may well also have had this in mind. But on going out through the Benjamin gate he was seized by the officer in charge of the gate whose duty it was to watch who went in and out. Being one of those who were antagonistic towards Jeremiah (whom he no doubt saw as undermining the morale of the people) he convinced himself that Jeremiah was slipping out in order to join the Babylonians, as others had previously done (Jer 38:19; Jer 39:9; Jer 52:15). So he handed him over to the authorities, no doubt making clear to them his opinion of what the situation was, and they in turn threw him into prison. These were the new authorities who had replaced the previous ones when the latter were exiled to Babylon in 597 BC. (It was now around 587 BC).

Jer 37:11

‘And it came about that, when the army of the Chaldeans was decamped from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh’s army,’

The decamping of the Chaldeans as they went off to meet the Egyptian threat opened up the opportunity for people to take advantage of the situation in order to see to their possessions outside Jerusalem, and in order to reprovision themselves. The opportunity would especially be taken by those who believed Jeremiah’s words that the enemy would be returning to renew the siege.

Jer 37:12

‘Then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to receive his portion there, in the midst of the people.’

In the course of this Jeremiah decided to go to his lands at Anathoth to ‘receive his share there’ among the people. This may indicate his taking over the family lands from those who were watching over it, or indeed his claiming his ‘rents’ in the form of provisions. It was a matter of sorting out his affairs while the opportunity offered. No doubt many others were leaving for the same reason. ‘In the midst of the people’ stresses his good intentions. There was nothing surreptitious about his actions.

Jer 37:13

‘And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah, and he laid hold on Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “You are falling away to the Chaldeans.” ’

But when he reached ‘the gate of Benjamin’, which was the gate that led out onto ‘the way to Benjamin’, he was spotted by Irijah, the officer of the gate. It was his responsibility to observe who sought to use the gate and to deal with any irregularities. His view on seeing Jeremiah was stated to be that he was sneaking out in order to join the Chaldeans, although as the city as a whole probably thought that they had seen the last of the Chaldeans that may well simply have been a means of getting his own back on the prophet for being ‘a troublemaker’ who had constantly weakened the morale of the troops.

Jer 37:14

‘Then Jeremiah said, “It is false. I am not falling away to the Chaldeans.” But he did not listen to him. So Irijah laid hold on Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes.’

Jeremiah immediately stressed that he was wrong, and that he was not ‘falling away’ to the Chaldeans, but the officer refused to listen to him, and arrested him and brought him before the authorities.

Jer 37:15

‘And the princes were furious with Jeremiah, and smote him, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the scribe, for they had made that the prison.’

These authorities were not the ones mentioned in the previous chapter, who would have been carried off to Babylon ten years previously, but were their replacements from among the lower levels of society who were left in Jerusalem once the cream of the inhabitants had been taken away. They were small-minded men who were filled with hatred at Jeremiah because of his prophesying, and they took the word of the officer and had him beaten and placed in prison in the house of Jonathan the scribe, which had seemingly been made into a prison. Such prisons were unpleasant places, and this one probably had subterranean dungeons into which prisoners would be lowered. It would appear from what follows that there he was badly treated.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jeremiah’s Arrest and Imprisonment

v. 11. And it came to pass that when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem, withdrawing for the time being in order to await developments or call for reinforcements, for fear of Pharaoh’s army, so that the land, for a little while, was clear of enemies,

v. 12. then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, the country of his own tribe, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people, literally, “to make a division of inheritance,” his business probably consisting in his taking away the personal property which he had inherited.

v. 13. And when be was in the Gate of Benjamin, the northern gate of Jerusalem, which led to the country of Benjamin and the northern province, a captain of the ward was there, one of the watchmen of the city of Jerusalem, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took Jeremiah, the prophet, placing him under arrest, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans. Since the Chaldeans had undoubtedly retired in a northerly direction, the accusation of Irijah had a semblance of right, although it was, as a matter of fact, nothing but base slander.

v. 14. Then said Jeremiah, feeling a just resentment on account of the unjust accusation which was brought against him, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans. But he hearkened not to him; so Irijah took Jeremiah and brought him to the princes, to the king’s counselors, who sat in judgment with him.

v. 15. Wherefore the princes, evidently of a different type from those who had taken his part under Jehoiakim, were wroth with Jeremiah and smote him, apparently without so much as a hearing, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan, the scribe, the chancellor, or secretary of state, for they had made that the prison, very likely because it contained subterranean cells, or cellars, which could readily be used for that purpose.

v. 16. When Jeremiah was entered into the dungeon and into the cabins, or underground vaults, and Jeremiah had remained there many days, in this unjust imprisonment,

v. 17. then Zedekiah, the king, sent and took him out; and the king asked him secretly in his house, probably because he was ashamed to be seen by his courtiers, and said, Is there any word from the Lord? any revelation from Jehovah favorable to his cause. And Jeremiah said, There is, but not in the sense which Zedekiah had in mind; for, said he, thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.

v. 18. Moreover, Jeremiah said unto King Zedekiah, What have I offended against thee or against thy servants or against this people that ye have put me in prison? He protested against the injustice of an imprisonment without so much as an attempt at a trial.

v. 19. Where are now your prophets which prophesied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon shall not come against you nor against this land? Since the predictions of the false prophets had been found to be falsehoods, and since, on the other hand, the event prophesied by Jeremiah had come to pass, this, therefore, was a further argument for the fact that his arrest and imprisonment were acts of injustice.

v. 20. Therefore hear now, I pray thee, O my lord the king, let my supplication, I pray thee, be accepted before thee, his plea, according to the strongly figurative language of the Orient, being represented as falling down in supplication, that thou cause me not to return to the house of Jonathan, the scribe, lest I die there, for the cells of the dungeon were anything but healthful places to live in for any length of time.

v. 21. Then Zedekiah, the king, yielding at least to this extent, commanded that they should commit Jeremiah into the court of the prison, where he at least had the advantages of light and air, and that they should give him daily a piece of bread out of the bakers’ street, for in the Orient persons of the same trade or business often occupied their own streets and even their own quarters, until all the bread in the city were spent. Zedekiah either continued to feel resentful against Jeremiah for his prophetic sayings, or he, at least, did not have the courage of his convictions in setting him at liberty. Thus Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison. As in the case of Jeremiah, so today fearless testifying for and of the truth of the Lord is demanded of all who bear the name of His servants.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Probably the poor despised Prophet, grieving to see that all his labours for his people were so completely useless, intended to retire to Anathoth, there to mourn in secret over the impending desolations. Alas! what can be more painful to a faithful servant of the Lord, than to discover all his preaching useless!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jer 37:11 And it came to pass, that when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh’s army,

Ver. 11. For fear of Pharaoh’s army.] Or rather, Because of Pharaoh’s army, whom now they drew off to encounter.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jeremiah

THE WORLD’S WAGES TO A PROPHET

Jer 37:11 – Jer 37:21 .

SOME sixteen years had passed since Jehoiakim had burned the roll, during all of which the slow gathering of the storm, which was to break over the devoted city, had been going on, and Jeremiah had been vainly calling on the people to return to Jehovah. The last agony was now not far off. But there came a momentary pause in the siege, produced by the necessity of an advance against a relieving army from Egypt, which created fallacious hopes in the doomed city. It was only a pause. Back came the investing force, and again the terrible, lingering process of starving into surrender was resumed. Our text begins with the raising of the siege, and extends to some point after its resumption. It needs little elucidation, so clearly is the story told, and so natural are the incidents; but perhaps we shall best gather its instruction if we look at the three sets of actors separately, and note the hostile authorities, the patient prophet and prisoner, and the feeble king. The play of these strongly contrasted characters is full of vividness and instruction.

I. We have that rough ‘captain of the ward,’ who laid hands on the prophet at the gate on the north side of the city, leading to the road to the territory of Benjamin. No doubt there was a considerable exodus from Jerusalem when the Assyrian lines were deserted, and common prudence would have facilitated it, as reducing the number of mouths to be fed, in case the siege were renewed; but malice is not prudent, and, instead of letting the hated Jeremiah slip quietly away home to Anathoth, and so getting rid of his prophecies and him, Irijah ‘the Lord is a beholder’ arrested him on a charge of meditating desertion to the enemy. It was a colourable accusation, for Jeremiah’s constant exhortation had been to ‘go out to the Chaldeans,’ and so secure life and mild treatment. But it was clearly false, for the Chaldeans were for the moment gone, and the time was the very worst that could have been chosen for a contemplated flight to their camp.

The real reason for the prophet’s wish to leave the city was only too simple. It was to see if he could get ‘a portion’-some of his property, or perhaps rather some little store of food-to take back to the famine-scourged city, which, he knew, would soon be again at starvation-point. There appears to have been a little company of fellow-villagers with him, for ‘in the midst of the people’ Jer 37:12 is to be construed with ‘to go into the land of Benjamin.’ The others seem to have been let pass, and only Jeremiah detained, which makes the charge more evidently a trumped-up excuse for laying hands on him. Jeremiah calls it in plain words what it was-’a lie’-and protests his innocence of any such design. But the officious Irijah knew too well how much of a feather in his cap his getting hold of the prophet would be, to heed his denials, and dragged him off to the princes.

Sixteen years ago ‘the princes’ round Jehoiakim had been the prophet’s friends; but either a new generation had come with a new king, or else the tempers of the men had changed with the growing misery. Their behaviour was more lawless than the soldiers’ had been. They did not even pretend to examine the prisoner, but blazed up at once in anger. They had him in their power now, and did their worst, lawlessly scourging him first, and then thrusting him into ‘the house of the pit’-some dark, underground hole, below the house of an official, where there were a number of ‘cells’-filthy and stifling, no doubt; and there they left him. What for?

The charge of intended desertion was a mere excuse for wreaking their malice on him. They hated Jeremiah because he had steadily opposed the popular determination to fight, and had foretold disaster. Add to this that he had held up a high standard of religion and morality to a corrupt and idolatrous people, and his ‘unpopularity’ is sufficiently explained.

Would that the same causes did not produce the same effects now! Individuals still think an honest rebuke of their faults an insult, and a plain statement of their danger a sign of ill-feeling. Try to warn a drunkard or a profligate by telling him of the disease and misery which will dog his sins, or by setting plainly before him God’s law of purity and sobriety, and you will find that the prophet’s function still brings with it, in many cases, the prophet’s doom. But still more truly is this the case with masses, whether nations or cities. A spurious patriotism resents as unpatriotic the far truer love of country which sets a trumpet to its mouth to tell the people their sins. In all democratic communities, whether republican or regal in their form of government, a crying evil is flattery of the masses, exalting their virtues and foretelling their prosperity, while hiding their faults and slurring over the requirements of morality and religion, which are the foundations of prosperity. What did England do with her prophets? What did America do with hers? What wages do they get to-day? The men who dare to tell their countrymen their faults, and to preach temperance, peace, civic purity, personal morality, are laid hold of by the Irijahs who preside over the newspapers, and are pilloried as deserters and half traitors at heart.

II. We see the patient, unmoved prophet. One flash of honest indignation repels the charge of deserting, and then he is silent. ‘As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.’ It is useless to plead before lawless violence. A silent martyr eloquently condemns an unjust judge. So, without opposition or apparent remonstrance, Jeremiah is cast into the foul den where he lies for ‘many days,’ patiently bearing his fate, and speaking his complaint to God only. How long his imprisonment lasted does not appear; but the context implies that during it the siege was resumed, and that there was difficulty in procuring bread. Then the king sent for him secretly.

Zedekiah’s temper at the time will be considered presently. Here we have to do with Jeremiah’s answer to his question. In it we may note, as equally prominent and beautifully blended, respect, submission, consciousness of peril and impending death, and unshaken boldness. He knew that his life was at the disposal of the capricious, feeble Zedekiah. He bows before him as his subject, and brings his ‘supplication’; but not one jot of his message will he abate, nor smooth down its terribleness an atom. He repeats as unfalteringly as ever the assurance that the king of Babylon will take the city. He asserts his own innocence as regards king and courtiers and people; and he asks the scornful question what has become of all the smooth-tongued prophets of prosperity, as if he were bidding the king look over the city wall and see the tokens of their lies and of Jeremiah’s truth in the investing lines of the all but victorious enemy.

Such a combination of perfect meekness and perfect courage, unstained loyalty to his king, and supreme obedience to his God, was only possible to a man who lived in very close communion with Jehovah, and had learned thereby to fear none less, because he feared Him so well, and to reverence all else whom He had set in places of reverence. True courage, of the pattern which befits God’s servants, is ever gentle. Bluster is the sign of weakness. A Christian hero-and no man will be a Christian as he ought to be, who has not something of the hero in him-should win by meekness. Does not the King of all such ride prosperously ‘because of truth and meekness,’ and must not the armies which follow Him do the same? Faithful witnessing to men of their sins need not be rude, harsh, or self-asserting. But we must live much in fellowship with the Lord of all the meek and the pattern of all patient sufferers and faithful witnesses, if we are ever to be like Him, or even like His pale shadow as seen in this meek prophet. The fountains of strength and of patience spring side by side at the foot of the cross.

III. We have the weak Zedekiah, with his pitiable vacillation. He had been Nebuchadnezzar’s nominee, and had served him for some years, and then rebelled. His whole career indicates a feeble nature, taking the impression of anything which was strongly laid on it. He was a king of putty, when the times demanded one of iron. He was cowed by the ‘princes.’ Sometimes he was afraid to disobey Jeremiah, and then afraid to let his masters know that he was so. Thus he sends for the prophet stealthily, and his first question opens a depth of conflict in his soul. He did believe that the prophet spoke the word of Jehovah, and yet he could not muster up courage to follow his convictions and go against the princes and the mob. He wanted another ‘word’ from Jehovah, by which he meant a word of another sort than the former. He could not bring his mind to obey the word which he had, and so he weakly hoped that perhaps God’s word might be changed into one that he would be willing to obey. Many men are, like him, asking, ‘Is there any word from the Lord?’ and meaning, ‘Is there any change in the condition of receiving His favour?’

He had interest enough in the prophet to interfere for his comfort, and to have him put into better quarters in the palace and provided with a ‘circle’ a round loaf of bread out of Baker Street, as long as there was any in the city-not a very long time. But why did he do so much, and not do more? He knew that Jeremiah was innocent, and that his word was God’s; and what he should have done was to have shaken off his masterful ‘servants,’ followed his conscience, and obeyed God. Why did he not? Because he was a coward, infirm of purpose, and therefore ‘unstable as water.’

He is another of the tragic examples, with which all life as well as scripture is studded, of how much evil is possible to a weak character. In this world, where there are so many temptations to be bad, no man will be good who cannot strongly say ‘No.’ The virtue of strength of will may be but like the rough fence round young trees to keep cattle from browsing on them and east winds from blighting them. But the fence is needed, if the trees are to grow. ‘To be weak is to be miserable,’ and sinful too, generally. ‘Whom resist’ must be the motto for all noble, God-like, and God-pleasing life.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 37:11-16

11Now it happened when the army of the Chaldeans had lifted the siege from Jerusalem because of Pharaoh’s army, 12that Jeremiah went out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin in order to take possession of some property there among the people. 13While he was at the Gate of Benjamin, a captain of the guard whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah the son of Hananiah was there; and he arrested Jeremiah the prophet, saying, You are going over to the Chaldeans! 14But Jeremiah said, A lie! I am not going over to the Chaldeans; yet he would not listen to him. So Irijah arrested Jeremiah and brought him to the officials. 15Then the officials were angry at Jeremiah and beat him, and they put him in jail in the house of Jonathan the scribe, which they had made into the prison. 16For Jeremiah had come into the dungeon, that is, the vaulted cell; and Jeremiah stayed there many days.

Jer 37:12 to take possession of some property there among the people The Hebrew is ambiguous but possibly somehow related to Jer 32:1 ff, although this chapter predates that account.

Jer 37:13 Gate of Benjamin This was the gate of Jerusalem to the north.

You are going over to the Chaldeans This accusation was not unreasonable when one compares Jer 21:8-10.

Jer 37:15 the officials This is a different group of officials than is mentioned in Jer 36:11-12.

beat. . .put in jail Jeremiah had no easy life. His messages from YHWH were viewed as treason by most Judeans, even his own family in Anathoth.

Jonathan the scribe This position was like modern America’s Secretary of State.

Jer 37:16

NASBthe dungeon, that is, the vaulted cell

NKJVthe dungeon and the cells

NRSVthe cistern house, in the cells

TEVan underground cell

NJBan underground vault

JPSOAthe pit and the cells

REBa vaulted pit beneath the house

This (BDB 333, KB 333, occurs only here in the OT) is possibly a cistern, converted into a place of solitary confinement.

stayed there many days Jeremiah thought he would die there (cf. Jer 37:20).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Jer 37:11-15

Jer 37:11-15

And it came to pass that, when the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaoh’s army, then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to receive his portion there, in the midst of the people. And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he laid hold on Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou art falling away to the Chaldeans. Then said Jeremiah, It is false; I am not falling away to the Chaldeans. But he hearkened not to him; so Irijah laid hold on Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes. And the princes were wroth with Jeremiah, and smote him, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the scribe; for they had made that the prison.

Jeremiah went forth. to go into the land of Benjamin …..

(Jer 37:12) Jeremiah’s home was in Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin, only a short distance from Jerusalem; and there were many excellent reasons which might have prompted Jeremiah to make that short trip. It is impossible for men to know exactly why he attempted to do so, for God’s Word does not tell us.

To receive his portion there…

(Jer 37:12) This is ambiguous and has been variously understood as a reference to his seeking a supply of bread, or attending to that business about buying a field, or (following the KJV) merely seeking to find a place of retirement. Able scholars have supported all of these suppositions.

In the midst of the people…

(Jer 37:12). Does this refer to the people in the midst of whom Jeremiah would receive his portion, or to the throng of people in the gate of Benjamin rushing out into the country during the intermission in the siege of the city in order to procure supplies to last through the siege? Again, no one can be sure of the meaning; but Dummelow’s comment seems to be fully justified. There was naturally a rush to get out of the city on account of the confinement as well as the scarcity of provisions.

Thou art falling away to the Chaldeans…

(Jer 37:13). This charge of Irijah was a fabrication of his own evil mind, there being no evidence whatever to support his false allegation. The charge was vicious and nonsensical; and some have suggested that Irijah’s charge was motivated by his desire for revenge against Jeremiah for predicting the death of his grandfather Hananiah (Jer 28:16).

Irijah… brought him to the princes…

(Jer 37:14). And what a dishonorable reprobate gang of princes these proved to be! Without mercy, reason, or honor, they scourged and imprisoned the man of God! They were a different group altogether from those princes who, at an earlier time, had treated Jeremiah with favor upon the occasion of Jehoiachim’s having the scroll read to him and then cutting it in pieces and burning it.

THE PROPHET CONFINED Jer 37:11 to Jer 38:28

Jeremiah experienced a great deal of suffering at the hands of the national leaders during those last dark days before the fall of Jerusalem. He was arrested about the middle of the Chaldean siege. He spent the last nine months or so before the fall of the city being bounced around from one detention area to another as the king and his advisers tried to determine what to do with this troublesome prophet. Five phases of Jeremiahs prison experiences are recorded: (1) He was arrested in the gate and committed to a dungeon on the false charge of treason (Jer 37:11-15); (2) he was released from the dungeon, but restrained in the court of the prison; (3) he was imprisoned in the miry dungeon of Malchiah (Jer 38:1-6); (4) he was again released from the dungeon and kept in the prison court (Jer 38:13-28) until the capture of the city; (5) he was carried in chains from the city by Nebuzaradan, an officer of the Chaldean army, and was finally released at Ramah (Jer 40:1-4). On more than one occasion the prophet was given opportunity to change his message, to deliver some favorable oracle, and thereby improve his miserable lot. If ever a man had reason to compromise his message Jeremiah had it. The fact that through all his personal suffering he refused to alter his basic message authenticates him as a genuine prophet of God.

Arrested by the Guard Jer 37:11-15

When the Chaldeans lifted the siege of Jerusalem in order to deal with the Egyptian threat to their flank, Jeremiah decided to visit his home in Anathoth a few miles north of Jerusalem. He never reached his destination; he was arrested at the Benjamin Gate (north gate) by the sentry and charged with deserting to the Chaldeans (Jer 37:13). The language of the accusation, you are falling away, is perhaps an allusion to Jeremiahs declaration (Jer 21:9) that he that fails away to the Chaldeans . shall live. On the surface the accusation had some degree of plausibility. Jeremiah had openly preached since the beginning of the siege that desertion was the only road to self-preservation (Jer 21:9-10). On the other hand, if Jeremiah now was intending to desert to the Chaldeans, he could not have chosen a more inopportune time. The Chaldeans were gone! They were headed south; Jeremiah was headed north. Thus the charge against the prophet was not only false but somewhat foolish.

Why was Jeremiah leaving the city? The question is not easy to answer mainly because the Hebrew verb used to describe his action can be interpreted in more than one way. According to one view, Jeremiah was about to change his residence back to his home town at Anathoth. This seems to have been the view of the King James translators who render the verb to separate himself thence in the midst of the people. But if Jeremiah was seeking to move his residence to Anathoth, why? Was it that he was attempting to leave Jerusalem the doomed city for the sake of his personal safety? Such motivation would be incongruous with the circumstances and the character of Jeremiah. Less objectionable would be the view that Jeremiah now regarded his ministry in Jerusalem as completed. The crucial phrase in Jer 37:12 can be translated in another way: to take his portion from thence. On this view Jeremiah had some personal business to take care of in Anathoth. A reasonable conjecture is that his business had to do with the purchase of the field mentioned in Jer 32:6-12. Two objectives have been raised against this interpretation: (1) the field in chapter 32 was not to be apportioned or divided as this verb implies, but merely purchased and (2) that purchase had not yet taken place. The former argument is not particularly weighty and the latter argument is completely negated if in fact chapter 32 chronologically precedes chapter 37 as has previously been argued.

Commentators are also divided in their interpretation of the phrase in the midst of the people. Did Jeremiah go out of the city in the midst of the people or did he take his portion in the midst of the people? Some commentators see in the people a reference to others who might have been involved in some way in the business transaction which was conducted at Anathoth. But it is better to connect the phrase in the midst of the people with the verb went out. The idea would then be that Jeremiah did not leave the city secretly and alone but publicly and in company with many others, perhaps of those who believed in his prophetic utterances.

Jeremiah protested his arrest; he denied the accusation that he was deserting to the Chaldeans. But Irijah, the chief officer of the guard, brought Jeremiah before the princes of the land for further action. These were not the same princes who had evidenced their respect for Jeremiah on former occasions (e.g. chapter Jer 26:16; Jer 36:19). They had been hauled off to Babylon in the deportation of 597 B.C. along with the king Jehoiachin (Jer 24:1; Jer 28:3; Jer 29:2). Zedekiahs princes would be of a lower origin and type who would be anxious to accept any charge against an unpopular person without proper examination. They remembered the blistering sermons Jeremiah had preached, how he had compared them to a basket of rotten figs (chapter 24), how he had openly advocated surrender to the enemy and individual desertion. Now was their chance to rid themselves of this annoying pest. They ordered the prophet to be beaten and cast into a dungeon in the house of Jonathan, a royal secretary. Actually it is impossible to tell from the Hebrew verb whether the princes had Jeremiah flogged or struck with the hand in the face. It is not even clear whether the princes caused others to smite Jeremiah or whether they administered the blows themselves. Just why his house was used as a prison is not revealed. Perhaps other places of detention were full; or perhaps the secretarys house was a maximum security prison for those considered dangerous political offenders. At any rate there were parts of this house that were more than adequate for the purposes of detention. Two words are used to describe the place of imprisonment. The first word is bor, translated dungeon. The word implies a subterranean cavity. The second word is chanuyot, a word which occurs only here and probably means cells. The soft limestone beneath Jerusalem is honeycombed with vaults, caverns, cisterns, tunnels and the like. For many days Jeremiah the prophet of God was confined in this dark, damp, unventilated cell beneath the house of Jonathan the scribe.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

And it came to pass

Five phases of Jeremiah’s prison experiences are recorded:

(1) He is arrested in the gate and committed to a dungeon on the false charge of treason Jer 37:11-15.

(2) he is released from the dungeon, but restrained to the court of the prison;

(3) he is imprisoned in the miry dungeon and kept in prison court Jer 38:1-6.

(4) he is again released from the dungeon and kept in the prison court Jer 38:13-28 until the capture of the city;

(5) carried in chains from the city by Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, he is finally released at Ramah. Jer 40:1-4.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

that: Jer 37:5

broken: Heb. made to ascend

Reciprocal: Jer 1:19 – And they Mat 24:16 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jer 37:11. This refers to the time when the Babylonians withdrew from the siege of Jerusalem to meet the Egyptians, mentioned in verse 5 and illustrated with a quotation from Josephus.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jer 37:11-21. Jeremiah, during the interval in the siege, is leaving the city by a northern gate on private business (perhaps connected with the earlier incident of Jer 32:6 ff.), when he is arrested by the officer on duty under charge of desertion (plausible in view of Jer 21:9; cf. Jer 38:19). His denial is disregarded, and he is beaten and imprisoned by the princes (those friendly to him, cf. Jer 26:16, Jer 36:19, were now probably exiles). After a lengthy imprisonment, the king sends for him secretly (Jer 38:5 suggests the reason) to ask about the future; Jeremiah prophesies his captivity, declares his own innocence, reminds him of the falsity of the prophets of peace (cf. Jer 28:2; Jer 28:11), and asks not to be sent back to his dungeon. Accordingly, the king places him in the guard-court (Jer 32:2), giving him daily bread (the bakers, cf. Hos 7:4, were grouped in a common quarter, as Eastern trades often are).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Jeremiah’s arrest and imprisonment 37:11-21

The text records five steps in Jeremiah’s prison experiences. First, he was arrested in the gate and committed to a dungeon on a false charge of treason (Jer 37:11-15). Second, he was released from the dungeon but restricted to the courtyard of the prison (Jer 37:16-21). Third, he was imprisoned in Malchijah’s miry dungeon in the prison courtyard (Jer 38:6). Fourth, he was released from this dungeon but restricted to the prison courtyard again until Jerusalem fell (Jer 38:17-28). Fifth, Nebuzaradan, the captain of the Babylonian guard, took him in chains to Ramah, where he released Jeremiah (Jer 40:1-4). [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 812.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The reason for his arrest and imprisonment 37:11-16

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

During the lifting of the siege of Jerusalem just described (Jer 37:5), Jeremiah left the city to conduct some personal business concerning the purchase of some property in the territory of Benjamin. This may have been the land in Anathoth that his cousin Hanamel later wanted him to buy (cf. Jer 32:6-15).

Since Jeremiah was imprisoned in the court of the guard when Hanamel approached him about buying this property, Jeremiah may have left the city to view the land anticipating that his cousin would make the offer. The present incident closes with Jeremiah confined in the court of the guard (Jer 37:21). This indicates that the present incident occurred before Hanamel’s offer, which he made when Jeremiah was confined there. Or these may be two unrelated incidents.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XII

JEREMIAHS IMPRISONMENT

Jer 37:11-21, Jer 38:1-28, Jer 39:15-18

“Jeremiah abode in the court of the guard until the day that Jerusalem was taken.”- Jer 38:28

“WHEN the Chaldean army was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of Pharaohs army,

Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin “to transact certain family business at Anathoth. {Cf. Jer 32:6-8}

He had announced that all who remained in the city should perish, and that only those who deserted to the Chaldeans should escape. In these troubled times all who sought to enter or leave Jerusalem were subjected to close scrutiny, and when Jeremiah wished to pass through the gate of Benjamin he was stopped by the officer in charge-Irijah ben Shelemiah ben Hananiah-and accused of being about to practise himself what he had preached to the people: “Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans.” The suspicion was natural enough; for, although the Chaldeans had raised the siege and marched away to the southwest, while the gate of Benjamin was on the north of the city, Irijah might reasonably suppose that they had left detachments in the neighbourhood, and that this zealous advocate of submission to Babylon had special information on the subject. Jeremiah indeed had the strongest motives for seeking safety in flight. The party whom he had consistently denounced had full control of the government, and even if they spared him for the present any decisive victory over the enemy would be the signal for his execution. When once Pharaoh Hophra was in full march upon Jerusalem at the head of a victorious army, his friends would show no mercy to Jeremiah. Probably Irijah was eager to believe in the prophets treachery, and ready to snatch at any pretext for arresting him. The name of the captains grandfather-Hananiah-is too common to suggest any connection with the prophet who withstood Jeremiah; but we may be sure that at this crisis the gates were in charge of trusty adherents of the princes of the Egyptian party. Jeremiah would be suspected and detested by such men as these. His vehement denial of the charge was received with real or feigned incredulity; Irijah “hearkened not unto him.”

The arrest took place “in the midst of the people.” The gate was crowded with other Jews hurrying out of Jerusalem: citizens eager to breathe more freely after being cooped up in the overcrowded city; countrymen anxious to find out what their farms and homesteads had suffered at the hands of the invaders; not a few, perhaps, bound on the very errand of which Jeremiah was accused, friends of Babylon, convinced that Nebuchadnezzar would ultimately triumph, and hoping to find favour and security in his camp. Critical events of Jeremiahs life had often been transacted before a great assembly; for instance, his own address and trial in the Temple, and the reading of the roll. He knew the practical value of a dramatic situation. This time he had sought the crowd, rather to avoid than attract attention; but when he was challenged by Irijah, the accusation and denial must have been heard by all around. The soldiers of the guard, necessarily hostile to the man who had counselled submission, gathered round to secure their prisoner; for a time the gate was blocked by the guards and spectators. The latter do not seem to have interfered. Formerly the priests and prophets and all the people had laid hold on Jeremiah, and afterwards all the people had acquitted him by acclamation. Now his enemies were content to leave him in the hands of the soldiers, and his friends, if he had any, were afraid to attempt a rescue. Moreover mens minds were not at leisure and craving for new excitement, as at Temple festivals; they were preoccupied, and eager to get out of the city. While the news quickly spread that Jeremiah had been arrested as he was trying to desert, his guards cleared a way through the crowd, and brought the prisoner before the princes. The latter seem to have acted as a Committee of National Defence; they may either have been sitting at the time, or a meeting, as on a previous occasion, {Jer 26:10} may have been called when it was known that Jeremiah had been arrested. Among them were probably those enumerated later on: {Jer 38:1} Shephatiah ben Mattan, Gedaliah ben Pashhur, Jucal ben Shelemiah, and Pashhur ben Malchiah. Shephatiah and Gedaliah are named only here; possibly Gedaliahs father was Pashhur ben Immer, who beat Jeremiah and put him in the stocks. Both Jucal and Pashhur ben Malchiah had been sent by the king to consult Jeremiah. Jucal may have been the son of the Shelemiah who was sent to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch after the reading of the roll. We note the absence of the princes who then formed Baruchs audience, some of whom tried to dissuade Jehoiakim from burning the roll; and we especially miss the prophets former friend and protector, Ahikam ben Shaphan. Fifteen or sixteen years had elapsed since these earlier events; some of Jeremiahs adherents were dead, others in exile, others powerless to help him. We may safely conclude that his judges were his personal and political enemies. Jeremiah was now their discomfited rival. A few weeks before he had been master of the city and the court. Pharaoh Hophras advance had enabled them to overthrow him. We can understand that they would at once take Irijahs view of the case. They treated their fallen antagonist as a criminal taken in the act: “they were wroth with him,” i.e., they overwhelmed him with a torrent of abuse; “they beat him, and put him in prison in the house of Jonathan the secretary.” But this imprisonment in a private house was not mild and honourable confinement under the care of a distinguished noble, who was rather courteous host than harsh gaoler. “They had made that the prison,” duly provided with a dungeon and cells, to which Jeremiah was consigned and where he remained “many days.” Prison accommodation at Jerusalem was limited; the Jewish government preferred more summary methods of dealing with malefactors. The revolution which had placed the present government in power had given them special occasion for a prison. They had defeated rivals whom they did not venture to execute publicly, but who might be more safely starved and tortured to death in secret. For such a fate they destined Jeremiah. We shall not do injustice to Jonathan the secretary if we compare the hospitality which he extended to his unwilling guests with the treatment of modern Armenians in Turkish prisons. Yet the prophet remained alive “for many days”; probably his enemies reflected that even if he did not succumb earlier to the hardships of his imprisonment, his execution would suitably adorn the looked for triumph of Pharaoh Hophra.

Few however of the “many days” had passed before mens exultant anticipations of victory and deliverance began to give place to anxious forebodings. They had hoped to hear that Nebuchadnezzar had been defeated and was in headlong retreat to Chaldea; they had been prepared to join in the pursuit of the routed army, to gratify their revenge by massacring the fugitives, and to share the plunder with their Egyptian allies. The fortunes of war belied their hopes: Pharaoh retreated, either after a battle or perhaps even without fighting. The return of the enemy was announced by the renewed influx of the country people to seek the shelter of the fortifications, and soon the Jews crowded to the walls as Nebuchadnezzars vanguard appeared in sight and the Chaldeans occupied their old lines and reformed the siege of the doomed city.

There was no longer any doubt that prudence dictated immediate surrender. It was the only course by which the people might be spared some of the horrors of a prolonged siege, followed by the sack of the city. But the princes who controlled the government were too deeply compromised with Egypt to dare to hope for mercy. With Jeremiah out of the way, they were able to induce the king and the people to maintain their resistance, and the siege went on.

But though Zedekiah was, for the most part, powerless in the hands of the princes, he ventured now and then to assert himself in minor matters, and, like other feeble sovereigns, derived some consolation amidst his many troubles from intriguing with the opposition against his own ministers. His feeling and behaviour towards Jeremiah were similar to those of Charles IX towards Coligny, only circumstances made the Jewish king a more efficient protector of Jeremiah.

At this new and disastrous turn of affairs, which was an exact fulfilment of Jeremiahs warnings, the king was naturally inclined to revert to his former faith in the prophet-if indeed he had ever really been able to shake himself free from his influence. Left to himself he would have done his best to make terms with Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin had done before him. The only trustworthy channel of help, human or divine, was Jeremiah. Accordingly he sent secretly to the prison and had the prophet brought into the palace. There in some inner chamber, carefully guarded from intrusion by the slaves of the palace, Zedekiah received the man who now for more than forty years had been the chief counsellor of the kings of Judah, often in spite of themselves. Like Saul on the eve of Gilboa, he was too impatient to let disaster be its own herald; the silence of Heaven seemed more terrible than any spoken doom, and again like Saul he turned in his perplexity and despair to the prophet who had rebuked and condemned him. “Is there any word from Jehovah? And Jeremiah said, There is: thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.”

The Church is rightly proud of Ambrose rebuking Theodosius at the height of his power and glory, and of Thomas a Becket, unarmed and yet defiant before his murderers; but the Jewish prophet showed himself capable of a simpler and grander heroism. For “many days” he had endured squalor, confinement, and semi-starvation. His body must have been enfeebled and his spirit depressed. Weak and contemptible as Zedekiah was, yet he was the prophets only earthly protector from the malice of his enemies. He intended to utilise this interview for an appeal for release from his present prison. Thus he had every motive for conciliating the man who asked him for a word from Jehovah. He was probably alone with Zedekiah, and was not nerved to self-sacrifice by any opportunity of making public testimony to the truth, and yet he was faithful alike to God and to the poor helpless king-“Thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.”

And then he proceeds, with what seems to us inconsequent audacity, to ask a favour. Did ever petitioner to a king preface his supplication with so strange a preamble? This was the request:-

“Now hear, I pray thee, O my lord the king: let my supplication, I pray thee, be accepted before thee; that thou do not cause me to return to the house of Jonathan the secretary, lest I die there.”

“Then Zedekiah the king commanded, and they committed Jeremiah into the court of the guard, and they gave him daily a loaf of bread out of the bakers street.”

A loaf of bread is not sumptuous fare, but it is evidently mentioned as an improvement upon his prison diet: it is not difficult to understand why Jeremiah was afraid he would die in the house of Jonathan. During this milder imprisonment in the court of the guard occurred the incident of the purchase of the field of Anathoth, which we have dealt with in another chapter. This low ebb of the prophets fortunes was the occasion of Divine revelation of a glorious future in store for Judah. But this future was still remote, and does not seem to have been conspicuous in his public teaching. On the contrary Jeremiah availed himself of the comparative publicity of his new place of detention to reiterate in the ears of all the people the gloomy predictions with which they had so long been familiar: “This city shall assuredly be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon.” He again urged his hearers to desert to the enemy: “He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence; but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live.” We cannot but admire the splendid courage of the solitary prisoner, helpless in the hands of his enemies and yet openly defying them. He left his opponents only two alternatives, either to give up the government into his hands or else to silence him. Jeremiah in the court of the guard was really carrying on a struggle in which neither side either would or could give quarter. He was trying to revive the energies of the partisans of Babylon, that they might overpower the government and surrender the city to Nebuchadnezzar. If he had succeeded, the princes would have had a short shrift. They struck back with the prompt energy of men fighting for their lives. No government conducting the defence of a besieged fortress could have tolerated Jeremiah for a moment. What would have been the fate of a French politician who should have urged Parisians to desert to the Germans during the siege of 1870? The princes former attempt to deal with Jeremiah had been thwarted by the king; this time they tried to provide beforehand against any officious intermeddling on the part of Zedekiah. They extorted from him a sanction of their proceedings.

“Then the princes said unto the king, Let this man, we pray thee, be put to death: for he weakeneth the hands of the soldiers that are left in this city, and of all the people, by speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.” Certainly Jeremiahs word was enough to take the heart out of the bravest soldiers; his preaching would soon have rendered further resistance impossible. But the concluding sentence about the “welfare of the people” was merely cheap cant, not without parallel in the sayings of many “princes” in later times. “The welfare of the people” would have been best promoted by the surrender which Jeremiah advocated. The king does not pretend to sympathise with the princes; he acknowledges himself a mere tool in their hands. “Behold,” he answers, “he is in your power, for the king can do nothing against you.”

“Then they took Jeremiah, and cast him into the cistern of Malchiah ben Hammelech, that was in the court of the guard; and they let Jeremiah down with cords. And there was no water in the cistern, only mud, and Jeremiah sank in the mud.”

The depth of this improvised oubliette is shown by the use of cords to let the prisoner down into it. How was it, however, that, after the release of Jeremiah from the cells in the house of Jonathan, the princes did not at once execute him? Probably, in spite of all that had happened, they still felt a superstitious dread of actually shedding the blood of a prophet. In some mysterious way they felt that they would be less guilty if they left him in the empty cistern to starve to death or be suffocated in the mud, than if they had his head cut off. They acted in the spirit of Reubens advice concerning Joseph, who also was cast into an empty pit, with no water in it: “Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him.” {Gen 37:22-24} By a similar blending of hypocrisy and superstition, the mediaeval Church thought to keep herself unstained by the blood of heretics, by handing them over to the secular arm; and Macbeth having hired some one else to kill Banquo, was emboldened to confront his ghost with the words:-

“Thou canst not say I did it. Never shake

Thy gory locks at me.”

But the princes were again baffled; the prophet had friends in the royal household who were bolder than their master: Ebed-melech the Ethiopian: a eunuch, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the cistern. He went to the king, who was then sitting in the gate of Benjamin, where he would be accessible to any petitioner for favour or justice, and interceded for the prisoner:-

“My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the cistern; and he is like to die in the place where he is because of the famine, for there is no more bread in the city.”

Apparently the princes, busied with the defence of the city and in their pride “too much despising” their royal master, had left him for a while to himself. Emboldened by this public appeal to act according to the dictates of his own heart and conscience, and possibly by the presence of other friends of Jeremiah, the king acts with unwonted, courage and decision.

“The king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying, Take with thee hence thirty men, and draw up Jeremiah the prophet out of the cistern, before he die. So Ebed-melech took the men with him, and went into the palace under the treasury, and took thence old cast clouts and rotten rags and let them down by cords into the cistern to Jeremiah. And he said to Jeremiah. Put these old cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords. And Jeremiah did so. So they drew him up with the cords, and took him up out of the cistern: and he remained in the court of the guard.”

Jeremiahs gratitude to his deliverer is recorded in a short paragraph in which Ebed-melech, like Baruch. is promised that “his life shall be given him for a prey.” He should escape with his life from the sack of the city “because he trusted” in Jehovah. As of the ten lepers whom Jesus cleansed only the Samaritan returned to give glory to God, so when none of Gods people were found to rescue His prophet, the dangerous honour was accepted by an Ethiopian proselyte. {Jer 39:15-18}

Meanwhile the king was craving for yet another “word with Jehovah.” True, the last “word” given him by the prophet had been, “Thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.” But now that he had just rescued Jehovahs prophet from a miserable death (he forgot that Jeremiah had been consigned to the cistern by his own authority), possibly there might be some more encouraging message from God. Accordingly he sent and took Jeremiah unto him for another secret interview, this time in the “corridor of the bodyguard,” a passage between the palace and the Temple.

Here he implored the prophet to give him a faithful answer to his questions concerning his own fate and that of the city: “Hide nothing from me.” But Jeremiah did not respond with his former prompt frankness. He had had too recent a warning not to put his trust in princes. “If I declare it unto thee,” said he, “wilt thou not surely put me to death? and if I give thee counsel, thou wilt not hearken unto me.” So Zedekiah the king sware secretly to Jeremiah, As Jehovah liveth, who is the source and giver of our life, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life.

“Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts, the God of Israel: If thou wilt go forth unto the king of Babylons princes, thy life shall be spared, and this city shall not be burned, and thou and thine house shall live; but if thou wilt not go forth, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand.”

“Zedekiah said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that have deserted to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me.”

He does not, however, urge that the princes will hinder any such surrender; he believed himself sufficiently master of his own actions to be able to escape to the Chaldeans if he chose.

But evidently, when he first revolted against Babylon, and more recently when the siege was raised, he had been induced to behave harshly towards her partisans: they had taken refuge in considerable numbers in the enemys camp, and now he was afraid of their vengeance. Similarly, in “Quentin Durward,” Scott represents Louis XI on his visit to Charles the Bold as startled by the sight of the banners of some of his own vassals, who had taken service with Burgundy, and as seeking protection from Charles against the rebel subjects of France.

Zedekiah is a perfect monument of the miseries that wait upon weakness: he was everybodys friend in turn-now a docile pupil of Jeremiah and gratifying the Chaldean party by his professions of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar, and now a pliant tool in the hands of the Egyptian party, persecuting his former friends. At the last he was afraid alike of the princes in the city, of the exiles in the enemys camp, and of the Chaldeans. The mariner who had to pass between Scylla and Charybdis was fortunate compared to Zedekiah. To the end he clung with a pathetic blending of trust and fearfulness to Jeremiah. He believed him, and yet he seldom had courage to act according to his counsel.

Jeremiah made a final effort to induce this timid soul to act with firmness and decision. He tried to reassure him: “They shall not deliver thee into the hands of thy revolted subjects. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of Jehovah, in that which I speak unto thee: so it shall be well with thee, and thy life shall be spared.” He appealed to that very dread of ridicule which the king had just betrayed. If he refused to surrender, he would be taunted for his weakness and folly by the women of his own harem:-

“If thou refuse to go forth, this is the word that Jehovah hath showed me: Behold, all the women left in the palace shall be brought forth to the king of Babylons princes, and those women shall say, Thy familiar friends have duped thee and got the better of thee; thy feet are sunk in the mire. and they have left thee in the lurch.” He would be in worse plight than that from which Jeremiah had only just been rescued, and there would be no Ebed-melech to draw him out. He would be humiliated by the suffering and shame of his own family: “They shall bring out all thy wives and children to the Chaldeans.” He himself would share with them the last extremity of suffering: “Thou shalt not escape out of their hand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon.”

And as Tennyson makes it the climax of Geraints degeneracy that he was not only-

“Forgetful of his glory and his name,”

but also-

“Forgetful of his princedom and its cares,”

so Jeremiah appeals last of all to the kings sense of responsibility for his people: “Thou wilt be the cause of the burning of the city.”

In spite of the dominance of the Egyptian party, and their desperate determination, not only to sell their own lives dearly, but also to involve king and people, city and temple, in their own ruin, the power of decisive action still rested with Zedekiah: if he failed to use it, he would be responsible for the consequences.

Thus Jeremiah strove to possess the king with some breath of his own dauntless spirit and iron will.

Zedekiah paused irresolute. A vision of possible deliverance passed through his mind. His guards and the domestics of the palace were within call. The princes were unprepared; they would never dream that he was capable of anything so bold. It would be easy to seize the nearest gate, and hold it long enough to admit the Chaldeans. But no! he had not nerve enough. Then his predecessors Joash, Amaziah, and Amon had been assassinated, and for the moment the daggers of the princes and their followers seemed more terrible than Chaldean instruments of torture. He lost all thought of his own honour and his duty to his people in his anxiety to provide against this more immediate danger. Never was the fate of a nation decided by a meaner utterance. “Then said Zedekiah to Jeremiah, No one must know about our meeting, and thou shalt not die. If the princes hear that I have talked with thee, and come 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: declare unto us what the king said unto thee: then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication unto the king, that he would not cause me to return to Jonathans house, to die there.”

“Then all the princes camie to Jeremiah, and asked him; and he told them just what the king had commanded. So they let him alone, for no report of the matter had got abroad.” We are a little surprised that the princes so easily abandoned their purpose of putting Jeremiah to death, and did not at once consign him afresh to the empty cistern. Probably they were too disheartened for vigorous action; the garrison were starving, and it was clear that the city could not hold out much longer. Moreover the superstition that had shrunk from using actual violence to the prophet would suspect a token of Divine displeasure in his release.

Another question raised by this incident is that of the prophets veracity, which, at first sight, does not seem superior to that of the patriarchs. It is very probable that the prophet, as at the earlier interview, had entreated the king not to allow him to be confined in the cells in Jonathans house, but the narrative rather suggests that the king constructed this pretext on the basis of the former interview. Moreover, if the princes let Jeremiah escape with nothing less innocent than a suppressio veri, if they were satisfied with anything less than an explicit statement that the place of the prophets confinement was the sole topic of conversation, they must have been more guileless than we can easily imagine. But, at any rate, if Jeremiah did stoop to dissimulation, it was to protect Zedekiah, not to save himself.

Zedekiah is a conspicuous example of the strange irony with which Providence entrusts incapable persons with the decision of most momentous issues; It sets Laud and Charles I to adjust the Tudor Monarchy to the sturdy self-assertion of Puritan England, and Louis XVI to cope with the French Revolution. Such histories are after all calculated to increase the self-respect of those who are weak and timid. Moments come, even to the feeblest, when their action must have the most serious results for all connected with them. It is one of the crowning glories of Christianity that it preaches a strength that is made perfect in weakness.

Perhaps the most significant feature in this narrative is the conclusion of Jeremiahs first interview with the king. Almost in the same breath the prophet announces to Zedekiah his approaching ruin and begs from him a favour. He thus defines the true attitude of the believer towards the prophet.

Unwelcome teaching must not be allowed to interfere with wonted respect and deference, or to provoke resentment. Possibly, if this truth were less obvious men would be more willing to give it a hearing and it might be less persistently ignored. But the prophets behaviour is even more striking and interesting as a revelation of his own character and of the true prophetic spirit. His faithful answer to the king involved much courage, but that he should proceed from such an answer to such a petition shows a simple and sober dignity not always associated with courage. When men are wrought up to the pitch of uttering disagreeable truths at the risk of their lives, they often develop a spirit of defiance, which causes personal bitterness and animosity between themselves and their hearers, and renders impossible any asking or granting of favours. Many men would have felt that a petition compromised their own dignity and weakened the authority of the divine message. The exaltation of self-sacrifice which inspired them would have suggested that they ought not to risk the crown of martyrdom by any such appeal, but rather welcome torture and death. Thus some amongst the early Christians would present themselves before the Roman tribunals and try to provoke the magistrates into condemning them. But Jeremiah, like Polycarp and Cyprian, neither courted nor shunned martyrdom; he was as incapable of bravado as he was of fear. He was too intent upon serving his country and glorifying God, too possessed with his mission and his message, to fall a prey to the self-consciousness which betrays men, sometimes even martyrs, into theatrical ostentation.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary