Jeremiah 38:1

JEREMIAH 38

JEREMIAH'S THIRD IMPRISONMENT

There are some similarities between the imprisonment mentioned in the preceding chapter and the one recounted here; but there is absolutely nothing that can justify the critical nonsense about these two chapters giving variable accounts of the same imprisonment. This was the third imprisonment of Jeremiah. The first was by Pashur (Jeremiah 21); the second is recorded in the preceding chapter, and the third imprisonment is the one recounted in this chapter.

TWO IMPRISONMENTS; NOT ONE

The great Jewish historian Josephus preserved a record of both of these imprisonments, (the two in Jeremiah 37 and Jeremiah 38) adding significant details to each, noting, for example, that, in the imprisonment given in this chapter, "Jeremiah stood in the mire up to his neck," and that, "The intention of the rulers was that he might be suffocated."[1]

The following irreconcilable differences deny that the two chapters refer to a single imprisonment: (1) The one occurred early in Nebuchadnezzar's attack on the city, during that intermission following the approach of the Egyptian army under Pharaoh-Hophra; the other took place almost at the very end of the siege, when supplies were low, defenders were few, and the fall of the city was imminent, about a year or more later than the other.

(2) The charges upon which Jeremiah was seized and imprisoned were different. In the first, he was charged with desertion to the Chaldeans; but in the second, he was charged with treason and with damaging the morale of the people.

(3) The prisons were different. The first was in the house of Jonathan; the second was within the court of the guard and belonged to Malchijah the king's son.

(4) Jeremiah's enemies in the first imprisonment acted without the king's permission; but, in the second, they forced the king to grant permission.

(5) The purposes of the imprisonments were not the same. In the first, they merely wanted to silence Jeremiah; but in the second they intended to destroy his life.

(6) The duration of the imprisonments were not the same. The first lasted "many days"; and the second lasted probably less than a single day.

(7) The first was terminated when the king sent for Jeremiah; and the second was terminated by Jeremiah's rescue at the hands of the Ethiopian eunuch Ebel-melech.

(8) There was plenty of water available in the first imprisonment, or Jeremiah could not have survived for "many days"; but there was no water at all in the miry pit which was the scene of the second imprisonment.

(9) The interviews with the king following each imprisonment were utterly unlike each other. Jeremiah spoke freely with Zedekiah in the first; but in the second Jeremiah did not respond at all until Zedekiah had sworn with an oath that he would neither put the prophet to death nor give him into the hands of those who would kill him. Note that this oath, if it had been in the first interview, would have prevented the king's giving Jeremiah into the hands of those who plotted to kill the prophet in this second imprisonment.

(10) The king's delegation leading to the first imprisonment was led by Jehucal; and the delegation seeking the life of Jeremiah was led by Shephatiah.

In this light, how could Thompson write that, "It is tempting to regard Jeremiah 37 and Jeremiah 38 as simply different accounts of the same course of events!"[2] And how could Anthony Ash declare that, "We consider it best to see them (the two chapters) as two accounts of the same series of events!"[3] This writer has found no satisfactory basis for the acceptance of such views as accurate. The text clearly speaks of two events. Significantly, none of the writers with such views attempts to give us the composite account of what really happened; nor do they attempt to reconcile the differences noted above. Our conclusion agrees with that of Green, writing in the Broadman Commentary, who declared that, "Jeremiah 37 and Jeremiah 38 present events in sequence and not in parallel accounts."

Jeremiah 38:1-4

THE DEATH OF JEREMIAH DEMANDED

"And Shephatiah the son of Mattan, and Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchijah, heard the words that Jeremiah spake unto all the people, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth forth to the Chaldeans shall live, and his life shall be unto him as a prey, and he shall live. Thus saith Jehovah, This city shall surely be given into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it. Then the princes said unto the king, Let this man, we pray thee, be put to death; forasmuch as he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt."

The leader of this delegation to the king, Shephatiah, is unknown except for what is written here. Pashur is the prince who cast Jeremiah into the stocks in Jeremiah 21. All of these appear to have been bitter enemies of Jeremiah.

"Let this man be put to death ..." (Jeremiah 38:4). From the ordinary viewpoint, this delegation appears to have been justified in their demand for the execution of Jeremiah; because, certainly, they were accurately reporting exactly what Jeremiah had prophesied; and there cannot be any doubt that such prophecies had destroyed the morale of the whole population, including that of the soldiers.

Was Jeremiah, then, a traitor? Did he deserve to be put to death? Indeed, NO. The whole nation of Israel was a theocracy, their first allegiance belonging to God, as revealed by his servants the prophets. Their "sinful kingdom," from its inception was a rebellion against God and was thus foreordained to destruction. The real welfare of the nation lay in their repentance and return to the God of their fathers who had delivered them from slavery in Egypt. The dire extremities in which the nation, at this time, found itself could have been alleviated if the people had heeded Jeremiah.

As Henderson noted, "The princes might have been correct in accusing Jeremiah of rebellion (1) IF he had not provided incontestable evidence that he held a divine commission, (2) and IF the government itself had not been in a false position."[4] Zedekiah himself, as a sworn servant of the king of Babylon, was the real traitor in their current situation; and he had completely betrayed the interests of his own nation by entering into a rebellion against Babylon, contrary to the will of God and totally impractical.

Jeremiah was no glib supporter of those in political power, supporting "his country right or wrong!" "He so loved his country that he was not content until it became the embodiment of the highest social, moral, and spiritual ideals; and he was a splendid example of the enlightened type of patriotism so badly needed today."[5]