John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 34

It is no wonder, nor should it be considered useless, that the Prophet so often repeats the same things, for we know how great was the hardness of the people with whom he had to deal. Here, then, he tells us that he was sent to King Zedekiah when the city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and his whole army. The Prophet mentions the circumstances, by which we may understand how formidable that siege was, for Nebuchadnezzar had not brought a small force, but had armed many and various peoples. Therefore, the Prophet here expressly mentions the kingdoms of the earth and the nations who were under his dominion.

Zedekiah was then the king at Jerusalem, and there remained two other cities safe, as we shall see later; but it is evident how ill-equipped he must have been to contend with an army so large and powerful. Nebuchadnezzar was a monarch; the kingdom of Israel had been cut off, which far exceeded in number the kingdom of Judah; and he had subdued all the neighboring nations.

Such a siege then should have immediately taken away from the Jews every hope of deliverance; and yet the Prophet shows that the king was still resolute, and there was still a greater obstinacy among the people. But Zedekiah was not overbearing; we find that he was not as proud and cruel as tyrants usually are. Since, then, he was not of a ferocious disposition, we therefore see how great must have been the pride of the whole people, and also their perverseness against God, when they provoked the king to such anger against the Prophet.

Yet the state of things as described should have subdued his passion; for as ungodly men are elevated by prosperity, so they should be humbled when oppressed with adversity. The king himself, as well as the people, were reduced to the greatest extremities, and yet they would not be admonished by God’s Prophet. Therefore, it is expressly said in 2 Chronicles 36:16, that Zedekiah did not regard the word of the Prophet, though he spoke from the mouth of the Lord, by whom he had been sent.

The sum of this prophecy is as follows: — He first says that the word was given him by Jehovah; and secondly, he points out the time, for the reason we have already stated. For if he had reproved Zedekiah when there was peace and quietness, and when there was no fear of danger, the king might have been easily provoked, as is usual, against the Prophet.

But when he saw the city surrounded on every side by such a large and powerful army—when he saw so many gathered from the kingdoms of the earth, so many nations, that he could hardly muster a thousandth part of his enemies' force—that he still could not and would not, despite all this, submit to God and acknowledge His vengeance as just, this was an instance of extreme blindness. It was also a proof that he had become, as it were, mentally estranged. But God had thus blinded him because His purpose was, as it is said elsewhere, to bring an extreme punishment on the people. The blindness, then, and the madness of the king, were evidence of God’s wrath towards the whole people, for Zedekiah might have appeased God if he had repented. It was then God’s will that he should be of an intractable disposition, so that by such perverseness and obstinacy he might bring utter ruin upon himself.

He mentions Nebuchadnezzar and his whole army; he afterward describes the army more particularly, with all the kingdoms under his dominion, and all nations. When Jerusalem was in this condition, the Prophet was sent to the king. The substance of the message follows: that the city was doomed to destruction because God had resolved to deliver it into the hand of the enemy. This was a very sad message for Zedekiah.

Hypocrites, we know, seek flattery in their calamities. While God spares them, they will not bear to be reproved, and they reject wise counsels, and even become exasperated when God’s Prophets exhort them to repent. But when God begins to strike them, they wish all to partake of their misfortunes; and then they also accuse God’s servants of cruelty, as though they were insulting their misery by setting their sins before them.

This is what we are taught by daily experience. When anyone among the common people, at a time when God does not chasten them either by disease or poverty, or any other adversity, is admonished, the petulant answer is, “What do you mean? In what respect am I worthy of blame? I am conscious of no evil.” Thus hypocrites boast as long as God bears with them, and though His kindness spares them. But when any adversity happens to them—when one is laid on his bed, when another is bereaved of a son or a wife, or is in any way visited with affliction—if then God’s judgment is set before them, they think that a grievous wrong is done to them: “What! Do I not have evils enough without any addition? I expected comfort from God’s servants, but they exaggerate my calamities.” In short, hypocrites are never in a fit condition to receive God’s reproofs.

There is then no doubt that Jeremiah knew that his message would be intolerable to King Zedekiah and to his people. However, he boldly declared, as we shall see, what God had committed to him. And we further perceive how stupid and hardened Zedekiah must have been, for he did not hesitate to cast God’s Prophet into prison, even at the time when the situation had become extreme. It was the same as though God, with an outstretched arm and a drawn sword, had shown Himself to be his enemy; yet Zedekiah did not cease to manifest his rage against God. And as he could do nothing worse, he cast God’s servant into prison. Although he did this not so much from his own impulse as from that of others, he still could not be excused from blame.

Now the Prophet says, Behold, I will deliver this city into the hand of the king of Babylon. If he had simply said that the city would soon be taken, it would have been a general truth, not effective but cold. It was therefore necessary to add this—that the ruin of the city was a just punishment inflicted by God. And Zedekiah was also thus reminded that even if he were stronger than his enemy, he still could not effectively resist him, for the war was carried on under the authority of God. It was as though God had said, “You think that you contend with men; it would be difficult enough for you, and more than enough, to contend with the eastern monarchy and so many nations and kingdoms. Beyond this, God Himself is your enemy; pay attention to Him, so that you may learn to dread His judgment.” And so that the words might be more forceful, God Himself speaks in His own person, Behold, He says, I will deliver this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire. This last declaration was a dreadful aggravation, for it often happens that cities are taken, and the conquerors are satisfied with the spoils. When, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar came against the city of Jerusalem with such rage that he burned it, it was a proof of the dreadful vengeance of God.

As Zedekiah saw the people still doing their duty, he despised his enemy; for as the city was very strongly fortified, he hoped to be able to preserve it a little time longer. This was the source of his false hope of deliverance, for he thought that the enemy, being weary, would return to Chaldea.

He was deceived by this expectation. But the Prophet immediately assailed him and declared that he would become a captive, which Zedekiah indeed deserved through his ingratitude: for Nebuchadnezzar had put him in the place of his nephew when Jeconiah was led away to Babylon and had made him king.

He later revolted from the king of Babylon, to whom he had pledged his faith and to whom he became tributary. But the Prophet did not regard these intermediate causes, but the primary cause, the fountain—namely, because the people had not ceased to add sins to sins, because they had been wholly untamable and had rejected all promises, and had also closed their ears against all wise counsel.

Then God, resolving to inflict extreme punishment on a people so perverse and desperate, blinded their king, as we have said before, so that he revolted from the king of Babylon and thus brought destruction on himself, the city, and the whole country. Thus God overruled the intermediate causes which are apparent to us; but He had His hidden purpose which He executed through external means.

He then says, Thou shalt not be freed from his hand, for thou shalt be taken; and then he adds, Thou shalt be delivered into his hand. What he says in many words might have been expressed in one sentence, but it was necessary to rouse the king’s stupor, by which he was intoxicated, so that he might be awakened to dread the punishment which was near. This, however, was not the case; but he was thereby rendered more inexcusable.

Thus the threats which God repeats by His servants are never useless; for if the ears of those who are reproved are deaf, yet what God declares will be a testimony against them, so that every excuse on the ground of ignorance is removed.

He says later, Thine eyes shall see the eyes of the king of Babylon. And this happened, but his eyes were afterward pulled out. He met, indeed, with exceptional disgrace, for he was taken to Riblah and tried as a criminal. He was not treated as a king, nor did he retain any of his former dignity; but he was taken before the tribunal of the king of Babylon as a thief or a wrongdoer.

Then after he was convicted of ingratitude and treachery, the Chaldean king ordered his children to be slain before his eyes, and also his chief men and counselors, and himself to be bound with chains and his eyes to be pulled out; and he brought him to Babylon. It was, then, a most cruel punishment which the king of Babylon inflicted on Zedekiah.

And the Prophet seems to have indirectly referred to what happened, Thine eyes, he says, shall see the eyes of the king of Babylon: he was forced to look with his eyes on the proud conqueror, and then his eyes were pulled out; but he had first seen his own children slain.

He adds, and his mouth shall speak to thy mouth, that is, “You shall hear the dreadful sentence pronounced upon you, after you are convicted of a capital offense; the king himself shall degrade you with all possible disgrace.”

Now, this was a harder fate than if Zedekiah had been secretly put to death. He was dragged into the light; he then underwent many terrible things when led into the presence of his enemy.

This, then, the Prophet related, so that Zedekiah might understand that he in vain defended the city, for its miserable end was near. He later adds—

Here Jeremiah adds some comfort: that Zedekiah himself would not be killed by the sword, but that he would die in his bed and, as they commonly say, yield to his fate. It was indeed some mitigation of punishment that God extended his life and did not allow him to be immediately struck with the sword.

And yet, if we consider all circumstances, it would have been a lesser evil to be put to death at once than to prolong life only to be doomed to pine away in constant misery. When the eyes are pulled out, we know that the principal part of life is lost. When, therefore, this punishment was inflicted on Zedekiah, was not death desirable? And then he was not only deprived of his royal dignity but was also bereaved of all his offspring and was afterwards bound with chains. From this, we see that what remained for him was not so desirable; indeed, he might have preferred to die ten or a hundred times over. God, however, intended it as a favor that he was not killed by the sword.

A question may be raised here: Should violent death be so much dreaded? We indeed know that some pagans have wished for it. They tell us of Julius Caesar that, the day before he was killed, he discussed at supper what death was the best, and that he considered it the easiest death (εὐθανασίαν) when one is suddenly deprived of life—the very thing that happened to him the next day.

Thus, he seemed to have gained his wish, for he had said that it was a happy kind of death to be suddenly extinguished. There is, however, no doubt that natural death is always easier to bear, other things being equal, as they say. For it is natural that people always dread a bloody death, and it is regarded as a monstrous thing when human blood is shed; but when anyone dies quietly from disease, as is common, we do not feel so much horror.

Then the sick are granted time to think of God’s hand, to reflect on the hope of a better life, and also to flee to God’s mercy, which cannot be done in a violent death. When, therefore, all these things are duly weighed, it should not be considered strange that God, willing to mitigate Zedekiah’s punishment, should say, Thou shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in peace. To die in peace is to die a natural death, when no violence is used, but when God himself calls people, as though he stretched out his hand to them.

It is indeed certain that it is much better for some to be killed by the sword than to pine away from disease. For we see that many are either seized with frenzy on their bed, or rage against God, or remain obstinate; in short, there are dreadful examples that occur daily where the Spirit of God does not work or rule.

For then there is no tenderness in a person, especially when facing the fear of death; he then flares up, as it were, into a rage against God. But, on the other hand, many who are brought into affliction acknowledge that they are justly condemned and, at the same time, acknowledge the punishment inflicted to be medicine, so that they may obtain mercy before God. To many, then, it is better to die a violent death than to die in peace; but this happens through people's own fault. At the same time, natural death, as I have said, justly deserves to be greatly preferred to a violent and bloody death, and I have briefly stated the reasons. The subject might indeed be discussed more fully, but it is enough to briefly touch on the main point as the passage requires.

In peace, he says, shalt thou die, and then adds, with the burnings of thy fathers shall they burn thee, and lament over thee, “Alas! Lord.” Here another comfort is added: that when Zedekiah died, there would be some to bury him, not only humanely but also honorably.

And burial in many places is counted as one of God’s favors, just as in life God shows himself kind and bountiful to us when we are in health and vigor. For as health and food sufficient for the necessities of life are evidence of God’s love, so is burial after death; for burial distinguishes humans from animals.

When a wild beast dies, its carcass is left to putrefy. Why are people buried, except in hope of the resurrection, as though they were laid up in a safe place until the time of restoration? Burial, then, as it is a symbol of our immortality, makes a distinction between us and animals after death.

In death itself there is no difference; the death of a human and the death of a dog have no certain marks to distinguish the one from the other. Then it is God’s will that there should be some monument, so that people might understand how much more excellent their condition is than that of animals.

Thus, when God favors us with a burial, he shows his paternal care towards us. On the contrary, when the body of anyone is cast away, it is in itself a sign of God’s displeasure, as it appeared before, when the Prophet said of Jehoiakim that his burial would be that of an ass (Jeremiah 22:19). Just as Jehoiakim was threatened with the burial of an ass, so now he promises an honorable burial to Zedekiah.

I said that this is true when the matter is considered in itself. For it sometimes happens that the most wicked are buried with honor and great pomp, while the children of God are either burned or torn by wild beasts. That complaint of the Psalmist is well known, that the bodies of the saints were cast away and became food for birds and wild beasts (Psalms 79:2).

And it is said of the rich man, who lived in splendor, that he died and was buried, but there is no mention made of the burial of Lazarus (Luke 16:22). We should not, then, simply conclude that those who are not buried are miserable, and that those who obtain the honor of a burial are blessed.

As the sun is said to rise on the children of God and on strangers, so also after death, since burial is a temporal benefit, it may be considered as belonging indiscriminately to the good and to the bad. On the contrary, it may be that God deprives his children of a burial; yet still, that truth remains fixed: that burial in itself is evidence of God’s favor, and that when anyone is cast away and denied a burial, it is a sign of God’s displeasure.

Yet when we come to individuals, the Lord turns a temporal punishment into a benefit for his own people, and makes his temporal blessings serve for a heavier condemnation to all the reprobate and ungodly. Hence, those who dared to deride burial, as the Cynics did, who treated burial with contempt, were barbarous. This was inhumanity.

But we ought to hold these points: that as God supplies us with bread, wine, water, and other necessities of life, in order to feed us and to preserve us in health and vigor, so we should also regard burial. But when the faithful are exposed to hunger, when they die from cold or exposure, or when they are subjected to other evils, and when they are treated ignominiously after death, all this turns out for their salvation, for the Lord intends their good even when he seems to afflict them with adversities.

This, then, is the reason why the Prophet now in some measure mitigates Zedekiah’s sorrow by saying, They shall bury thee, and with the burnings of thy fathers shall they burn thee. This was not a common but a royal mode of burial. He then promises that after many degradations and reproaches, God would at length show him, when dead, some favor.

But one may say, what good would this do Zedekiah? For his body would then be without sense or feeling. But it was well to hear of this kindness of God, for he might thereby conclude that God would at last be merciful to him, if he really humbled himself. There is then no doubt that a hope of pardon was promised to him, though he was to be sharply and severely chastised even until his death.

God then intended that Zedekiah should always remember this symbol, so that he might not wholly despair. So now we understand why the Prophet promised this to Zedekiah: not that it would be of material benefit to him to be buried with honor, but that he might have some conception of God’s kindness and mercy.

Now we know that the dead bodies of kings were subject to burnings at great expense; many precious aromatics were procured, a fire was kindled, and the bodies were dried—not that they were reduced to ashes (for this was not the custom, as it was among the Romans and other nations who burned the bodies of the dead and gathered the ashes). But among the Jews, the body was never cremated; they only kindled a fire around the dead body to prevent putrefaction. The bodies of the dead were dried by a slow fire. This was not indeed commonly done, but only at the burials of kings, as it appears from the case of Asa and others (2 Chronicles 16:14).

Then he says, With the burnings of thy fathers shall they burn thee, and they shall lament thee, “Alas! Lord.” It may be asked whether these lamentations were approved by God. To this there is a ready answer: the Prophet does not here commend immoderate mourning, crying, and exclamations when he says, they shall lament thee; but he took the expression from what was commonly done, as though he had said, “They shall perform for you this act of humanity, such as is usually done for the remains of kings in full power, in the day of their prosperity.” God, then, in speaking here of lamentation and mourning, does not commend them as virtues or as worthy of praise, but refers only to what was then commonly done.

But we know what Paul especially teaches us: that we are to moderate our sorrow, so as not to be like the unbelieving, who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13), for they think that death is the death of the soul as well as of the body. They therefore lament their dead as forever lost; and they also murmur against God and sometimes utter horrid blasphemies. Paul then would have us be moderate in our sorrow. He does not condemn sorrow altogether, but only requires it to be moderate, so that we may show what influence the hope of resurrection has over us.

And yet there is no doubt that people, in this respect, exceed moderation. It has commonly been the case in almost all ages to mourn ostentatiously for the dead. For they are not only without genuine feeling when lamenting their friends or relatives, but they are also carried away by a sort of ambition while burying the dead with great noise and lamentation.

When they are alone, they control themselves, so that at least they make no noise; but when they go out before others, they break forth into noisy lamentations. Hence, it appears that, as I have said, mourning is often ostentatious. But as people have gone astray in this respect from the beginning, we ought to take greater care, so that each of us may check and restrain himself.

Still, as I have said, it is natural to weep for the dead; but doubtless, it may be said, the exclamations mentioned by the Prophet cannot be approved. For what purpose was there in crying, “Alas, Lord! Our king is dead,” and things of the same kind? But we ought to bear in mind that Eastern nations were always excessive in this respect, and we find them to be so to this day.

The warmer the climate, the more people are given to gestures and ceremonies. In these cold regions, gesticulations and crying out, “Alas, Lord! Alas, father!” would be considered impertinent and foolish. But where they tear off their hair, and also cut themselves and tear their cheeks not only with their nails but also with knives—where they do these things, they also utter these exclamations spoken of by the Prophet.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as it is always fitting for us to be often chastised by your hand—O grant that we may learn to bear your scourges patiently and with quiet minds. May we so acknowledge our sins that we do not at the same time doubt that you will be merciful to us. And may we with this confidence always flee to seek pardon, and may it also serve to increase our repentance, so that we may strive more and more to put off all the vices of the flesh and to put on the new man, so that your image may be renewed in us, until at last we come to partake of that eternal glory which you have prepared in heaven for us, through Christ your Son. Amen.

Here Jeremiah only relates that he had delivered the message entrusted to him. Here the Prophet’s magnanimity is seen, for as was previously apparent, he was an unwelcome messenger. Although there was danger, Jeremiah still performed his duty, because he knew that God would not allow the king to do anything to him unless it was for some benefit. There is then no doubt that he placed his life in God’s hand and offered himself, as it were, a sacrifice, when he dared to openly threaten the king, which could not have been done without offending him; and

“the wrath of a king,” as Solomon says,
“is the messenger of death.” (Proverbs 16:14).

Here, then, the Prophet’s firmness is deserving of praise, for he dreaded no danger when he saw that a necessity was imposed on him by God.

He again repeats that Jerusalem was then surrounded by the army of the king of Babylon, as well as the other cities of Judah, which he names—namely, Lachish and Azekah. He seems, therefore, to indirectly rebuke Zedekiah’s arrogance, for he still retained his high spirits, even though he was reduced to such dire straits.

All the cities of Judah—how many were they? Two, says the Prophet. This, then, was no unsuitable way of indirectly exposing to ridicule the king’s vain confidence, as he still thought he could overcome the enemy, though he was master of only three cities: Jerusalem, Lachish, and Azekah.

But the Prophet gives a reason why these cities did not immediately fall into the hands of the king of Babylon: because they were fortified. It therefore follows that the other cities were taken without trouble or surrendered of their own accord.

King Zedekiah was then deprived of his power, yet he had not relinquished the ferocity of his mind, nor was he terrified by the Prophet’s threats. This was a proof of extreme madness.

For from this it appears that he was mentally estranged; because the dreadful hand of God was extended against him, and yet, like a wild beast devoid of reason, he rushed headlong to his own ruin. Let us proceed—

Though we do not read that what the Prophet relates here was done by God’s command, yet we may easily gather that Zedekiah the king had been warned to liberate the servants according to the Law, as written in Exodus 21:2. It was God’s will that there should be some difference between the people he had adopted and other nations; for God had chosen the seed of Abraham as his special treasure, and other nations were in this respect aliens.

It was therefore his will to establish this law among the people of Israel, that servitude should not be perpetual, unless one bound himself willingly, of his own accord, for his whole life, according to what we read in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. For when one of an ignoble mind deprived himself of the benefit of this law, his master bored his ear with an awl; and having this mark, he could no longer become free, except, perhaps, he lived to the jubilee year.

By the words of the Prophet we learn that this command of the Law had been disregarded, for at the end of the seventh year the servants were not made free. Therefore King Zedekiah, having been warned on the subject, called the people together, and by the consent of all, liberty was proclaimed, according to what God had commanded.

But this was done in bad faith, for soon after the servants were sent back, and thus treachery was added to cruelty. They had before unjustly oppressed their brethren, but now perjury was heaped on wickedness. Thus we see that they not only wronged their own brethren by imposing on them perpetual servitude, but they also wickedly profaned the sacred name of God, having thus violated a solemn oath.

Now, Jeremiah says that he was sent at the time when, by a wicked perjury, the people began again to oppress their servants and their female servants. He therefore says that the word of Jehovah came to him after the covenant was made. He calls a covenant that solemn agreement when God’s Law was revived, that servitude should not be perpetual among the people of Israel.

And he expresses the same thing when he says that a covenant was made with all the people who were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them. Some take “to them,” להם, laem, as referring to the servants and female servants, but we may take it as meaning among them, so that the Law should be in force, not only for the present, but perpetually.

Then follows what sort of liberty it was to be, even that every one should let free his servant, and every one should let free his maid, a Hebrew or a Hebrew woman, so that they should not serve. Some take the verb עבר, ober, in an intransitive, and others in a transitive sense, as we say in French, Qu’ils ne leur fussent plus serfs, ou, Qu’ils ne se servissent plus d’eux. As to the main point there is not much difference. If we take עבר, ober, in the sense of serving, we must read thus, “That they may not serve,” or, “That they may not be their servants.” But if we take עבר, ober, in the sense of ruling, it must be read thus, That no man, that is, that no one may rule over them, that is, over his Jewish brother, or, That no man among them should serve, that is, his Jewish brother.

Here a question arises: Is perpetual servitude so displeasing to God that it ought not to be deemed lawful? To this the answer is easy—Abraham and other fathers had servants or slaves according to the common and prevailing custom, and it was not deemed wrong in them. Before the Law was given, there was nothing to forbid one who had servants or female servants to exercise power over them throughout life; and then the Law, mentioned here, was not given indiscriminately and generally, but it was a special privilege in favor of the chosen people.

Therefore, it is without reason that anyone infers that it is not lawful to exercise power over servants and female servants. For, on the contrary, we may reason thus: That since God permitted the fathers to remain servants and female servants, it is a lawful thing; and further, as God permitted the Jews also, under the Law, to rule over aliens and to keep them perpetually as servants, it follows that this cannot be disapproved.

And still clearer evidence may be presented; for since the Gentiles have been called to the hope of salvation, no change has in this respect been made. For the Apostles did not constrain masters to liberate their servants, but only exhorted them to use kindness towards them and to treat them humanely as their fellow-servants (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1).

If, then, servitude were unlawful, the Apostles would never have tolerated it; but they would have boldly denounced such a profane practice had it been so. Now, as they commanded masters only to be humane towards their servants, and not to treat them violently and reproachfully, it follows that what was not denied was permitted, that is, to retain their own servants. We also see that Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon (Philemon 1:12). Philemon was not only one of the faithful, but a pastor of the Church. He ought, then, to have been an example to others. His servant had fled from him; Paul sent him back, commended him to his master, and implored his master to forgive his theft. Thus we see that the thing in itself is not unlawful.

Our servitudes have been abolished, that is, that miserable condition when one had no right of his own, but when the master had power over life and death; that custom has ceased, and the abolition cannot be blamed. Some superstition might have been at the beginning; and I certainly think that the commencement of the change arose from superstition. It is, however, by no means to be wished that there should be slaves among us, as there were formerly among all nations, and as there are now among barbarians. The Spaniards know what servitude is, for they are near neighbors to the Africans and the Turks; and then those they take in war they sell. And as one evil proceeds from another, so they retain miserable men as slaves throughout life. But as no necessity constrains us, our condition, as I have said, is better, that is, in having hired servants and not slaves; for those called servants today are only hired servants.

When heathens commended humanity and kindness towards servants, they said, "Let them not be treated as servants, but as those who are hired." So also Cicero said (De Officiis 1). He distinguished between servants and such as were hired; he calls the first slaves, that is, those who were under the power of another, and those hired servants who undertook to work for hire, as is the case with us.

But as I have already said, the practice among the chosen people was unique. For it was the Lord’s will that those whom he had redeemed should remain free and enjoy in this respect the benefits of freedom. That there might then be a memorial of God’s favor among the people of Israel, it was the Lord’s will that servitude among them should be temporary, even for six years only.

And as the law had been disregarded, Zedekiah exhorted the people to set free their servants. But there is no doubt that God at the same time made it known that external enemies justly exercised cruelty towards the people, because they themselves showed no compassion towards their own brethren. For when they ruled over their servants according to their own arbitrary will, they in vain complained of the Chaldeans or of the Assyrians; they in vain proclaimed that they were unjustly oppressed, or that the people of God were harassed by the violence of a tyrannical power. For the first originators of cruelty were themselves, and not the Chaldeans or the Assyrians. It was then on this account that Zedekiah was induced to call the people together, and that by a public act all the servants were set free.

He says that all the princes and all the people heard, who had come to the covenant, that every one should let his servant free, etc.; and then he adds, And they obeyed. The verb שמע, shemo, is to be taken in a twofold sense: at the beginning of the verse it refers to the simple act of hearing, and at the end of the verse, to obedience.

Then he says that they obeyed, and that every one set free his servant. By saying that the princes, as well as all the people, heard, he took away every pretext of ignorance, so that they could not make an excuse that they relapsed through want of knowledge or through thoughtlessness.

How so? Because they had heard. And undoubtedly, the Law of God to which we have referred had been set before them, that they might be ashamed of the iniquity and tyrannical violence which they had exercised towards their servants. The hearing then mentioned here proves that the Jews were wholly inexcusable, for they saw that God’s Law had long been disregarded by them. And thus we learn that each of them had sinned more grievously, as he had been taught what was right and had, as it were, designedly cast off the yoke. So also Christ teaches us that the servant who knows his master’s will and does not do it, shall be more severely punished than one who offends through ignorance (Luke 12:47).

He then adds, And they afterwards turned, that is, after they had heard and obeyed. The turning refers to a change of purpose, for they immediately repented of what they had done. They had felt some fear of God, and then equity and kindness prevailed; but they soon turned or changed. The word is taken sometimes in a good, and sometimes in a bad sense. He says that they turned, or returned, because they receded or turned back after having commenced a right course. And they remanded; there is a correspondence between the verbs ישובו, ishibu, they turned, and ישיבו, ishibu, they remanded, or made to return the servants and maids whom they let go free, and brought them under as servants and maids. There is no doubt that the Jews alleged some excuse when they thus sent back their servants and robbed them of the privilege of freedom. But God designed that they should act in sincerity and without disguise. Whatever, then, subtle men may contrive as an excuse for oppressing the miserable, and however they may disguise things before men, yet God, who requires integrity, does not allow such disguises, for he condemns all craftiness.

Now follows the message: The Prophet had, indeed, said that the word of God had been committed to him, but he inserted this narrative so that we might know for what reason God had sent this message to the Jews. For if he had thus begun, “The word came to Jeremiah from Jehovah,” and then added, “Thus says Jehovah, the God of Israel, I have made a covenant,” etc., the passage would have been more obscure. It was therefore necessary that the narrative should come first, and with this the Prophet’s message was connected: that the Jews had added perjury to cruelty, and thus had committed a heinous iniquity. The Prophet now comes to close quarters with them and introduces God as the speaker: I made a covenant with your fathers the day I brought them up from the land of Egypt, from the house of servants.

God reminded the Jews of their own law; and though he might have justly required whatever he pleased, yet he proved that the Israelites were bound to him, because he brought them out of the house of servants. Who can dare to claim for himself dominion over others, who is himself a servant? For there cannot be dominion where there is no liberty.

Anyone may be free, though without a servant; but no one can be a master unless he is free. So God declares that the Israelites were not free at first, for they were in a miserable state of servitude when he stretched out his hand to them.

From where then came liberty to the Israelites? Even from the free mercy of God, who made them free, who brought them forth from tyranny in Egypt. It therefore follows that they could not be masters over others, since they themselves were servants. This is the reason why he says that he made a covenant the day he brought them up from the house of servants, as if he had said that they came forth from their prisons because he had been pleased to draw them out, not that they might domineer forever over their brethren, but only for a time.

He relates here the law given by Moses in Exodus 21, as we have stated. At the end of seven years every one shall set free his brother, a Hebrew, who had been sold to him, and him who has served him six years he shall let free from him, that is, that he should not be with him; but your fathers hearkened not to me, nor inclined their ear. The Israelites at first, no doubt, submitted to what God had commanded, but shortly after the law was disregarded.

When, therefore, he complains here that his voice was not listened to, it ought not to be so generally understood, as that the Law had been at all times disregarded; but it is the same as if he had said, “Your fathers formerly were disobedient, because they did not set free their servants within the prescribed time, at the end of the sixth year.”

This passage, like many others, clearly shows the great perverseness of the people. Certainly, the Law spoken of here ought to have been well approved by the Jews, for they found that they were by a privilege exempted from the common lot of men, and had been preferred before all nations.

As, then, they saw that it was a clear evidence of God’s bounty towards the seed of Abraham, this ought to have allured them to observe the Law, since they found in it what was especially suitable to them. But as everyone became addicted to his own private advantage, the poor were oppressed, and a temporary servitude was changed into what was perpetual.

There is no wonder then that men soon forgot what was right, though they seemed to have listened for a short time to God. It has been the common vice of all ages that the laws of God soon became forgotten and disregarded; so the law of freedom, though especially excellent, became, as we see, neglected.

He adds, Nor inclined their ear. We have stated elsewhere that this phrase is emphatic when added to the expression of not listening; for it is a proof of deliberate wickedness when men close up their ears and do not listen to what is right. It is possible for one to neglect what is said, or not to understand it; but when one intentionally closes his ears, it is a proof of hopeless obstinacy.

God, then, is accustomed to express by this mode of speaking the perverseness and hardness that prevailed in the ancient people, through which they rejected all sound doctrine. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for where the word of God is made clearly known, in vain we excuse ourselves for not following what he commands, for he speaks not obscurely, as he says by Isaiah (Isaiah 45:19).

Why is it, then, that doctrine does not produce fruit in us? Even because we willfully reject it, closing our ears and disregarding God himself when he speaks. Now the reason why God brings a charge against the fathers is that the comparison might enhance the wickedness of their children, who, after having professed that they had some regard for religion and some feeling of mercy, soon returned to their old ways, according to what follows.

And ye now turned, and did what was right in my eyes, by proclaiming liberty every one to his neighbor: God seems at first to commend the people. And no doubt it ought to have been deemed praiseworthy that the people, after having been reminded that they had perversely disregarded God’s law, willingly engaged in doing their duty. But as they gave but a false proof of repentance, and did not really perform what they had promised, it was, as I have said, a great aggravation of their crime.

So then God commended the repentance of the people in order to show how detestable hypocrisy is; for they showed for a short time some feeling of humanity, but soon after proved that it was nothing but dissimulation. He therefore says that they did what was right by proclaiming liberty. And thus it also appears that they had not gone astray through ignorance, for God had required this kindness from them: to restore what had been wickedly taken away from servants and female servants, and to let them free again. Unless they had been constrained by the clear testimony of the Law, they would have never thus given up their private advantages.

But after having made a pretense that they wished to obey God, they again soon sent back their servants and their female servants. It therefore appears evident that they trifled with God, and that it was a mere fraud to set free their servant only for a short time.

He says that they made a covenant in the house on which his name had been called, and also, that they had profaned his name. All this added to their wickedness; for not only had liberty been proclaimed and confirmed by an oath, but this had also been done in the Temple. Therefore, he aggravates the sin of the people by this circumstance—that they had made the covenant which they afterwards violated in the presence of God.

For though the eyes of God penetrate into the most hidden recesses, yet the wickedness of the people became greater. It was an evidence of men lost to all shame that they dared to violate their pledged faith and thus to show no regard for the Temple, as if they had lost all reverence for God and all fear. It is therefore evident how profane they had become, that they dared to come to the Temple and to make an oath before God, and then immediately to forfeit their faith.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since we have been redeemed by your only-begotten Son, not only from temporal servitude, but also from the miserable tyranny of the devil and death—O grant, that we may acknowledge you as our Deliverer, and so wholly devote ourselves to you, that we may also labor to serve one another, and by mutual acts of kindness so cherish among ourselves brotherly love, that it may appear that you indeed rule among us, and that we are subject to you through the same your Son.—Amen.