Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryJeremiah 38

Gedaliah. He must be distinguished from the man with the same name who was the son of Ahikam, Jeremiah’s protector (see ch. 26:24; 39:14). Regarding Jucal, or Jehucal, and Pashur see chs. 21:1; 37:3. These four princes were among the foremost opponents of Jeremiah.

Put to death. The princes refused to accept the message of Jeremiah. They looked upon the prophet as a traitor, one that would desert to the Babylonians for personal safety. Compare ch. 37:11–15. They asked for the extreme penalty against Jeremiah.

He is in your hand. Zedekiah, whose weak character and vacillating spirit made it impossible for him to resist, gave his reluctant consent to the demand of his determined princes.

Dungeon. Literally, “pit,” or “cistern.” Malchiah is probably the one mentioned in v. 1. Hammelech means “the king.” Malchiah probably was “the son of the king” in the sense that he was a member of the royal house (see on ch. 36:26). No water, but mire. Either the water of the cistern had been cut off because of the siege or this may have been in October or November, when there would be little water left after the dry season (see Vol. II, p. 110). At any rate, nothing but a deposit of foul

mud remained in the cistern. Evidently the princes feared the effect upon the people if they publicly executed Jeremiah (see on vs. 4, 5). Therefore the prophet was lowered into the cistern to remain there until he died of starvation (v. 9). It is very likely that in Lam. 3:53–55 Jeremiah is referring to this time of misery and suffering.

Ebed-melech. Literally, “a king’s servant.” Inasmuch as the word is without the article in the Hebrew text, it is probably a proper name, and is so translated in the LXX and the Vulgate. Little is revealed about Ebed-melech, but it is plain from the narrative that he was close to the king as one of his favorites (see on v. 8), and that he used his influence fearlessly to protect Jeremiah. Gate of Benjamin. This is usually identified with the Sheep Gate in the northeast corner of Jerusalem.

Out of the king’s house. An indication of the close relationship between Ebed- melech and the king.

These men have done evil. Some LXX MSS read, “thou hast done evil,” thus placing the responsibility and the blame upon the king himself. No more bread. The siege of Jerusalem was reaching its final, desperate stages.

Thirty men. This seemingly large number may have been provided to meet any resistance to the prophet’s release that the princes might offer. One Hebrew MS has 3 in place of 30. The apparent ease with which Zedekiah made a decision, only to revoke it a little later, testifies to a fundamental weakness of character. Vacillation proved to be the king’s undoing. For further comment, see on ch. 37:2.

Treasury. Or, “storehouse.” Clouts. An Old English word meaning cloth patches, or rags. The thoughtfulness of Ebed-melech shines forth as a gem in this narrative. Ropes alone would have been sufficient to save Jeremiah. But Ebed-melech provided rags, so that the ropes would not cut into the flesh of the elderly prophet. Cords. That is, ropes.

Under thine armholes. See on v. 11.

Remained in the court. Again the vacillating character of Zedekiah stands revealed. He permitted Jeremiah to be taken out of the miry pit, but he did not dare release the prophet completely.

Into the third entry. Or, “at the third entrance.” It is impossible to identify the place of this secret meeting. I will ask thee a thing. It is plain that the king had a reluctant respect for the prophet’s counsel, and could not altogether tear himself away from listening to it (see ch. 37:17).

Put me to death. Jeremiah evidently found it difficult to keep from believing that the king had supported the severe treatment that the princes of Judah had meted out to him. Wilt thou not hearken? Or, “thou wilt not hearken.” The LXX reads, “Thou wilt not hearken to me,” with the strongest possible of Greek negatives (see on Matt. 5:18).

That made us this soul. Or, “who made our souls” (RSV). Zedekiah used this strong oath to remove from the prophet any lingering doubt as to the sincerity of his purpose.

The God of hosts. See on ch. 7:3.

Princes. Those commanding the army that surrounded Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar was at Riblah, on the Orontes River in Coele-Syria (see ch. 39:5).

Fallen to the Chaldeans. It seems that a number of Jews had given themselves up to the Chaldeans, either in response to the messages of Jeremiah or merely because their fear prompted this action to preserve their lives.

Women that are left. The wives and concubines of former kings who, with Zedekiah’s own wives and concubines, would be taken by “Babylon’s princes.” Thy friends. Literally, “the men of thy peace,” that is, those who deceptively assured the king that all would turn out well. The words of the women were made more significant by their seeming reference to the “mire” in which Jeremiah had been placed (v. 6).

Let no man know. The hopelessly weak and vacillating king was more afraid of the princes than he was of the God of heaven and His prophet.

To Jonathan’s house. See on ch. 37:15, 16. The weak king was afraid to have anyone know that he had had an interview with the prophet so he provided a cover-up for this interview.

He told them. Jeremiah acceded to the king’s request (see on v. 26), and told the princes what the king “had commanded” him. Jeremiah was no more wrong when he withheld from the princes some information that did not rightly belong to them, than was the prophet Samuel, who took a similar course of action under the direct command of God (see on 1 Sam. 16:2). Not perceived. Evidently the conversation between the king and the prophet had not been overheard, and the matter was dropped.

Court of the prison. See on v. 13. When Jerusalem was taken. Evidently not very long after Jeremiah’s final interview with Zedekiah (vs. 14–26).