John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 51:59

"The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was chief chamberlain." — Jeremiah 51:59 (ASV)

This is a remarkable sealing of all that we have until now found said concerning the destruction of Babylon. For the Prophet not only spoke and proclaimed what the Spirit of God had dictated, but also wrote it in a book. Not content with this, he delivered the book to Seraiah the son of Neriah, when he went to Babylon by the command of Zedekiah the king, so that he might read it there, cast it into the Euphrates, and strengthen himself in the hope of all those things which had been divinely predicted.

He says first that he commanded Seraiah what he was to do: to read the volume and to throw it into the Euphrates, as we shall later see. But he points out the time and mentions the disposition of Seraiah, so that we might not think it strange that the Prophet dared to give an authoritative command to the king’s messenger, which a man of a different character would have refused.

As for the time, it was the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah, seven years before the city was taken (it was besieged in the ninth year and taken in the eleventh). So, seven years before the destruction and ruin of the city, Seraiah was sent by the king to Babylon. There is no doubt that the message was sent to pacify the king of Babylon, who had been offended by the fickleness and perfidy of King Zedekiah; an ambassador was then sent to seek pardon.

However, what some Jews say—that Zedekiah himself went to Babylon—is entirely groundless. We know that Seder Olam, from where they have taken this, is full of all kinds of fables and trivialities. On such an important matter, sacred history would not have been silent, for it was an event of great significance. Furthermore, the particle את (at,) expresses no such thing, but may be interpreted in this sense: that the messenger was sent for, or by, or in the place of Zedekiah. Let us then be satisfied with this simple and obvious explanation: Seraiah was the king’s messenger, sent to resolve the offenses taken by the Babylonians. And this happened in the fourth year of Zedekiah.

Now, by calling Seraiah a prince of quietness, I have no doubt that a reference is made to his gentleness and meekness. I wonder that interpreters have labored so much on such a straightforward matter. The Chaldean paraphrase, for instance, renders it “the prince of the oblations,” as though he was responsible for examining the presents offered to the king.

Others imagine that he was a facetious man who amused the king during his fears, and still others think he was called “prince of quietness” because he preserved the city in a quiet state. But all these interpretations are groundless. Therefore, no other view seems right to me except that he was a prince of a quiet disposition.

Therefore, the word “quietness” should not be referred to any office, but is a noun in the genitive case used instead of an adjective. He was, then, a quiet prince, or one of a placid disposition. And this commendation was added for good reason, because we know how arrogantly the princes often rejected everything commanded them by the servants of God.

Seraiah might have objected, saying that he was sent to Babylon not by a private citizen or a commoner, but by the king himself. He might then have arrogantly reproved the Prophet for taking too much liberty with him: “Who are you that you dare to command me, when I represent the king? And when I am going in his name to the king of Babylon? And now you seek to create disturbances by ordering me to read this volume! What if it is found on me? What if someone were to suspect that I am carrying such a thing to Babylon? Would I not, in the first place, be risking my life? And would I not, in the second place, be treacherous to my king? For in this way my mission would be greatly jeopardized.”

Since Seraiah might have stated all these things and rejected the command Jeremiah gave him, his gentleness is expressly mentioned—namely, that he was a meek man who did not withhold his service and who, in short, was ready to obey God and his servant. What, in a word, is here commended, is the meekness of Seraiah: that he received the Prophet with such readiness, that he allowed himself to be commanded by him, and that he also did not hesitate to carry out what he had commanded.

He did this even though it might have been a capital offense and could have been especially detrimental to his mission, which was to reconcile the king of Babylon. Surely, this is an example worthy of note: Seraiah was not deterred by danger from rendering immediate obedience to the Prophet’s command. Nor did he regard himself or the office entrusted to him so as to reject the Prophet—as princes often do under the pretext of their own dignity.

Instead, laying aside his own honor and forgetting all his greatness, he became a disciple to Jeremiah, who, as is well known, had long been despised by the people and had sometimes nearly been put to death. It was, then, a remarkable instance of virtue in Seraiah that he received what the Prophet had said to him with such modesty and readiness, and that he obeyed his command, at the evident risk to his own life.