Having Set Free Their Hebrew Slaves In Accordance With The Sinai Covenant The Inhabitants Of Jerusalem Renege On Their Commitment, Bringing Down On Themselves The Wrath Of YHWH And The Certainty Of Babylonian Subjection (Jeremiah 34:8-22).
In the face of the Babylonian threat King Zedekiah managed to persuade the people of Jerusalem that it was in their interests to ‘proclaim freedom' to their Hebrew slaves, in accordance with the requirements of the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21:2 ff.; see also Deuteronomy 15:12-18). The idea of ‘proclaiming freedom' en masse is usually connected with the year of Yubile where both Israelite bondmen and property were freed (Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1). This may thus have been a year of Yubile, or it may have had the aim of fulfilling such a year which had previously been ignored. This proclamation of ‘freedom' may have had a number of purposes in Zedekiah's eyes:
1. In order to impress YHWH with their obedience to His covenant in the hope that He would then unbend towards them (this would explain the solemnity of the covenant into which they entered before YHWH).
2. In order to give the ex-slaves a greater reason to defend Jerusalem as freemen.
3. In order to enable the ex-slaves to fend for themselves in the siege, rather than their being the responsibility of their owners who would have problems enough fending for themselves.
The seriousness of the covenant into which they entered, which was by ‘cutting' a covenant, that is by binding themselves through the slaughter of a sacrifice, and stepping between the divided parts (compare Genesis 15:9-17), suggests that an appeal for YHWH's clemency was very much in mind. It suggests that it was He Who had to be impressed with their genuineness.
Note on Bondage in Israel.
There were different ways and different reasons why men and women should become bondmen and bondwomen in Israel. The Law in fact distinguished at least two different types of bondage. The first was of ‘Hebrews'. ‘Hebrews' were originally landless people who had no other way to live. They lived at the time that the Law was given by entering into seven year contracts of ‘bondage' (they were called Habiru elsewhere, such as at Nuzi), but in Israel were to be released at the end of the sixth year, and sent away fully provisioned for the seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:12-18; Exodus 21:2 ff). They could thus have one year's ‘rest'. The second was of Israelite debtors who had to sell themselves into bondage to pay their debts. They were to be treated as servants and not as bondservants, and they automatically received their freedom in the year of Yubile, which came after each forty nine year period (Leviticus 25:39-42). Thus in Israel, theoretically at least, no Israelite could become a permanent slave. However, over the centuries the practise had no doubt altered, and it would appear that Hebrew bondpersons were at this time being kept in bondage beyond the stipulated six year, perhaps permanently. Furthermore at this time most of these Hebrews, if not all, would be Israelites/Jews. It is possible also that the year of Yubile was being ignored for debtors who had become bondpersons. This would explain why a general ‘proclamation of freedom' (Leviticus 25:10) could be made. The idea would be that it was to be a time of setting right the failure to do what should have been done in the past, the effects of which still continued. The aim would be to gain YHWH's favour and to demonstrate that they were observing the covenant. Had the Law been properly observed in the past it would not have been necessary.
End of note.
The fact that Jeremiah speaks of ‘Hebrews' only here and nowhere else, and clearly relates it to Deuteronomy 15:12-18, suggests that these distinctions between different classes of bondmen had been to some extent maintained. A certain class called ‘Hebrews' (landless persons) was still recognised, which as a result of land takeovers, and the ignoring of the redemption at the year of Yubile, had become quite large. They had seemingly lost all rights. If the year of Yubile had ceased to apply to debtors they also would be seen as ‘Hebrews' as they would then have had no family land.
‘The word that came to Jeremiah from YHWH, after the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were at Jerusalem, to proclaim freedom to them, that every man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant, who is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free, that none should make bondmen of them, that is, of a Jew his brother.'
With the Babylonians at the gates it would appear that Zedekiah sought to win YHWH's favour by calling on the people to ‘declare freedom' for all their bondpersons who would, if the Law had not been observed, at this stage all have been ‘Hebrews'. The people had seemingly agreed, partly because it would relieve them of the responsibility of feeding the bondpersons, partly because it would mean that there were more free persons available to defend the city, and partly because they did hope that it might sway YHWH in their favour.
‘And all the princes and all the people obeyed, who had entered into the covenant that every one should let his man-servant, and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none should make bondmen of them any more. They obeyed, and let them go,'
So all the princes and all the people entered into solemn covenant to release their bondpersons, both men and women, and let them go permanently. They did it by means of the ancient custom of dividing an animal and stepping between its parts, probably as an indication that if they went back on their covenant they were to be treated like the slaughtered animal (compare Genesis 15:9-17). And having made the covenant they had done precisely what they had agreed, and had let their bondpersons go. So far, so good.
‘But afterwards they turned, and made the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, return, and brought them into subjection as servants and as handmaids.'
However, when the Babylonians withdrew from outside the city wall because of the approach of Pharaoh Hophra's Egyptian army they changed their minds, presumably because they felt that it was no longer necessary. With the siege lifted they felt that they could carry on as before. They had got their way and so obedience was no longer necessary. And so they once again enslaved their bondmen and bondwomen, totally disregarding their covenant.
‘Therefore the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah from YHWH, saying,'
Not surprisingly YHWH was not pleased at this, and He sent His word to Jeremiah to make clear His thoughts.
“Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel. I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying, “At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother who is a Hebrew, who has been sold to you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you. But your fathers did not listen to me, nor inclined their ear.”
Through Jeremiah He pointed out the law that He had previously made at Sinai about freeing Hebrew bondpersons at the end of seven years, once they had served for six years, and had had a year's sabbatical, which was to be in the light of the fact that He had delivered His people as a whole from slavery in Egypt. He then pointed out that their fathers had not listened or taken notice, and thus had not observed the law.
“And you were now turned, and had done what is right in my eyes, in proclaiming freedom every man to his neighbour, and you had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name,”
However, He had noted with pleasure that they themselves had changed their minds and had done what was right in YHWH's eyes. They had ‘proclaimed freedom' and had freed their bondpersons without obligation, and they had done it by a solemn covenant made before YHWH in the House that was called by His Name. It was the beginning of an attempt to return to observation of the full covenant. And YHWH had taken them seriously!
“But you turned and profaned my name, and made every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom you had let go free at their pleasure, return, and you brought them into subjection, to be servants and for handmaids to you.”
But now they had treated His Name lightly by assuming that they could just ignore what they had covenanted. Having released those of their bondservants who had desired freedom, they had once again brought those bondservants into bondage, so that they would have to serve them as bondservants once again. By this they were indicating to YHWH that they had not taken seriously the promises that they had made to Him. They were assuming that they could just ignore the significance of the covenant that they had made simply because circumstances had altered.
How easy it is for us also to make promises to God when we face times of difficulty, only to renege on them when the difficulty is passed. Do we think that we will escape similar condemnation?
“Therefore thus says YHWH, you have not listened to me, to proclaim freedom, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour. Behold, I proclaim to you a freedom, the word of YHWH, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will cause you to be tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth.”
As a result their disobedience was even greater than that of their fathers. For they had pretended to ‘declare freedom' every man to his brother under the most solemn oath, but had in fact prevented that freedom from taking effect. In effect they had insulted YHWH by treating Him in the most casual fashion.
Let them therefore take note that in response YHWH was going to ‘declare freedom' for them. But this would be the freedom to suffer under the sword, and pestilence and famine, and the freedom to be tossed about among the nations. And ironically this was because He had ‘set them free' so that they were no longer His servants and under His protection.
“And I will give the men who have transgressed my covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between its parts, the princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the high official (or eunuchs), and the priests, and all the people of the land, who passed between the parts of the calf. I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those who seek their life, and their dead bodies will be for food to the birds of the heavens, and to the beasts of the earth.”
We learn here for the first time the depths of their iniquity and folly. Their iniquity because they had made such a solemn oath and had broken it, and their folly because they had ignored the fact that by doing so they had called for retribution on themselves. By their actions they had actually called on YHWH to slaughter them. Well, He would grant them their request. They would be given into the hands of their enemies and into the hands of those who sought their lives. And they would suffer the further ignominy of having their bodies left unburied to be available to the scavengers who gathered around dead bodies, both birds and beasts. In those days that was seen as the most ignominious of ways to die.
This type of covenant in which an animal was slain and the parties to the covenant passed between the parts, was a common one practised throughout history. We have an example of it as early as Genesis 15:9-17. It was a most solemn covenant ceremony and was probably declaring them as worthy of death if they broke it, in the same way as the animal had died to seal the covenant. Compare the similar idea in 1 Samuel 11:7. In other circumstances it may also have included the thought that both parties to a covenant were being united by joint-participation in the released life of the victim, which they would lose in death if they broke it, but this would hardly have been seen as applying to YHWH Himself. Alternately it may have been seen as uniting the parties to the covenant in a sacrificial meal, although Genesis 15:9-17 would appear to be against that interpretation as there is no thought there of such a meal.
We can compare here the prayer offered by the priest to Jupiter in Livy 1:24. His prayer was, ‘O Jupiter, do you on that day (that they break the covenant) so smite the Roman people, as I this day smite this pig, yes so much the more smite them as you are mightier and more prevailing'. This would confirm the idea that the main significance was the death of those who broke the covenant.
The word often translated ‘eunuchs' probably simply refers to high officials regardless of whether they were eunuchs or not (compare Genesis 39:1 where it was used of Potiphar, who was married; 1 Samuel 8:15; etc.).
“And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of those who seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylon's army, which has gone away from you.”
And disaster was also to happen to King Zedekiah and his princes. They would be given into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who sought their lives, namely into the hands of the King of Babylon's army whom they had thought that they had seen the backs of. It was true that those armies had gone away to face the Egyptian threat, but they would return. The foolish people of Jerusalem had acted too precipitately.
“Behold, I will command, the word of YHWH, and cause them to return to this city, and they will fight against it, and take it, and burn it with fire, and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation, without inhabitant.”
For YHWH Himself would command their army to return (this was the sure word of YHWH), and they would fight against the city and burn it and make all the cities of Judah desolate and without inhabitant. (And could anyone deny in view of what had happened here, that they deserved it? They would actually be receiving what they had called down on themselves).