Jeremiah 41 commentary

JEREMIAH 41 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 In the seventh month Ishmael son of Nethaniah,
the son of Elishama, who was of royal blood and
had been one of the king’s officers, came with ten
men to Gedaliah son of Ahikam at Mizpah. While
they were eating together there,
BARNES, "The seventh month - Gedaliah’s government lasted less than two
months.
Even - Rather, and. Ishmael was descended probably from Elishama the son of David
2Sa_5:16. Ten grandees each with his retinue would have aroused suspicion, but the
smallness of Ishmael’s following put Gedaliah completely off his guard.
CLARKE, "Now - in the seventh month - Answering to the first new moon in our
month of October.
There they did eat bread together - This was the same as making a solemn
covenant; for he who ate bread with another was ever reputed a friend.
GILL, "Now it came to pass in the seventh month,.... The month Tisri, which
answers to part of our September, and part of October; according to the Jewish (b)
chronicle, it was on the third day of this month, fifty two days after the destruction of the
temple, that Gedaliah was slain; on which day a fast was kept by the Jews, after their
return from captivity, on this occasion, called the fast of the seventh month, Zec_7:5;
though, according to Kimchi and Ben Melech, this event happened on the first day of the
month, the beginning of the new year; but the fast was kept the day following, because
the first day was a festival. Josephus (c) says it was thirty days after Johanan had
departed from Gedaliah, having given him information of the conspiracy against him:
that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah the son of Elishama, of the seed royal: not
the son of King Zedekiah, but one of the remoter branches of the family; whether
Elishama his father was the same with Elishama the scribe is not certain, Jer_36:12; the
Jews have a tradition that he descended from Jerahmeel, whose wife, Atarah, was the
daughter of a Heathen king, and was a proselyte, which Kimchi on the place relates; see
1Ch_2:26; this circumstance, of his being akin to the royal family, is mentioned, to show
1

that he envied the governor, and bore him a grudge for the honour he had, thinking that
he had a better title to it, as being of the seed royal:
and the princes of the king, even ten men with him; some of the nobles of
Zedekiah, who fled with him from Jerusalem, and deserted him when he was pursued
and taken, and ever since had remained in the land; even ten of these joined with
Ishmael in the conspiracy against Gedaliah, whom they bore an ill will to, for going over
to the Chaldeans, and envying the power he was now possessed of. Some think these
were ten ruffians, besides the princes of the king, since it may be rendered, "and the
princes of the king, and ten men with him"; whom Ishmael and the princes took with
them, as fit persons to assassinate the governor; and, besides, it is thought that eleven
men were not sufficient to slay the Jews and the Chaldeans, as afterwards related;
though it may be observed, that Ishmael, and these ten princes, did not come alone, as it
can hardly be imagined they should, but with a number of servants and soldiers with
them: these
came unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah: they had been with him
before, to whom he had swore, and given them assurance of security; and they departed
from him to their respective cities, seemingly satisfied; and now return, to pay him a
friendly visit, as they pretended:
and there they did eat bread together at Mizpah; had a feast, and kept holiday
together, it being a new moon, the first day of the month, and the beginning of the new
year too; so that it was a high festival: and perhaps this season was fixed upon the
rather, to cover their design, and to perpetrate it; pretending they came to keep the
festival with him, and who, no doubt, liberally provided for them; for bread here is put
for all provisions and accommodations.
HENRY 1-2, "It is hard to say which is more astonishing, God's permitting or men's
perpetrating such villanies as here we find committed. Such base, barbarous, bloody
work is here done by men who by their birth should have been men of honour, by their
religion just men, and this done upon those of their own nature, their own nation, their
own religion, and now their brethren in affliction, when they were all brought under the
power of the victorious Chaldeans, and smarting under the judgments of God, upon no
provocation, nor with any prospect of advantage - all done, not only in cold blood, but
with art and management. We have scarcely such an instance of perfidious cruelty in all
the scripture; so that with John, when he saw the woman drunk with the blood of the
saints, we may well wonder with great admiration. But God permitted it for the
completing of the ruin of an unhumbled people, and the filling up of the measure of their
judgments, who had filled up the measure of their iniquities. Let it inspire us with an
indignation at the wickedness of men and an awe of God's righteousness.
I. Ishmael and his party treacherously killed Gedaliah himself in the first place.
Though the king of Babylon had made him a great man, had given him a commission to
be governor of the land which he had conquered, though God had made him a good man
and a great blessing to his country, and his agency for its welfare was as life from the
dead, yet neither could secure him. Ishmael was of the seed royal (Jer_41:1) and
therefore jealous of Gedaliah's growing greatness, and enraged that he should merit and
accept a commission under the king of Babylon. He had ten men with him that were
princes of the king too, guided by the same peevish resentments that he was; these had
2

been with Gedaliah before, to put themselves under his protection (Jer_40:8), and now
came again to make him a visit; and they did eat bread together in Mizpah. he
entertained them generously, and entertained no jealousy of them, notwithstanding the
information given him by Johanan. They pretended friendship to him, and gave him no
warning to stand on his guard; he was in sincerity friendly to them, and did all he could
to oblige them. But those that did eat bread with him lifted up the heel against him. They
did not pick a quarrel with him, but watched an opportunity, when they had him alone,
and assassinated him, Jer_41:2.
JAMISON, "Jer_41:1-18. Ishmael murders Gedaliah and others, then flees to the
Ammonites. Johanan pursues him, recovers the captives, and purposes to flee to Egypt
for fear of the Chaldeans.
seventh month — the second month after the burning of the city (Jer_52:12, Jer_
52:13).
and the princes — not the nominative. And the princes came, for the “princes” are
not mentioned either in Jer_41:2 or in 2Ki_25:25 : but, “Ishmael being of the seed royal
and of the princes of the king” [Maurer]. But the ten men were the “princes of the king”;
thus Maurer’s objection has no weight: so English Version.
eat bread together — Ishmael murdered Gedaliah, by whom he was hospitably
received, in violation of the sacred right of hospitality (Psa_41:9).
K&D 1-3, "Murder of Gedaliah and his followers, as well as other Jews, by
Ishmael. - Jer_41:1-3. The warning of Johanan had been only too well founded. In the
seventh month - only two months, therefore, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
appointment of Gedaliah as governor - Ishmael came with the men to Mizpah, and was
hospitably received by Gedaliah and invited to his table. Ishmael is here more exactly
described as to his family descent, for the purpose of throwing a stronger light upon the
exceeding cruelty of the murders afterwards ascribed to him. He was the son of
Nethaniah, the son of Elishama - perhaps the secretary of state mentioned Jer_36:12, or
more likely the son of David who bore this name, 2Sa_5:6; 1Ch_3:8; 1Ch_14:7; so that
Ishmael would belong to a lateral branch of the house of David, be of royal extraction,
and one of the royal lords. ‫י‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫ו‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ cannot be joined with Ishmael as the subject,
because in what follows there is no further mention made of the royal lords, but only of
Ishmael and his ten men; it belongs to what precedes, ‫ע‬ ַ‫ֶר‬‫זּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ה‬ָ‫לוּכּ‬ ְ‫מּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ so that we must
repeat ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ before ‫י‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ַ‫.ר‬ The objections of Nägelsbach to this view will not stand
examination. It is not self-evident that Ishmael, because he was of royal blood, was
therefore also one of the royal nobles; for the ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ certainly did not form a hereditary
caste, but were perhaps a class of nobles in the service of the king, to which class the
princes did not belong simply in virtue of their being princes. But the improbability that
Ishmael should have been able with ten men to overpower the whole of the Jewish
followers of Gedaliah, together with the Chaldean warriors, and (according to Jer_41:7)
out of eighty men to kill some, making prisoners of the rest, is not so great as to compel
us to take ‫י‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ in such a meaning as to make it stand in contradiction with the
statement, repeated twice, over, that Ishmael, with his ten men, did all this. Eleven men
who are determined to commit murder can kill a large number of persons who are not
3

prepared against such an attempt, and may also keep a whole district in terror.
(Note: There is still less ground, with Hitzig, Graf, and Nägelsbach, for assuming
that ‫י‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫ו‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ is a gloss that has crept into the text. The fact that ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ר‬ which is
used here, is elsewhere applied only to Chaldean nobles, is insufficient to show this;
and even Ewald has remarked that "the last king (Zedekiah) may well be supposed to
have appointed a number of grandees, after the example of the Chaldeans, and given
them, too, Chaldean names.")
"And they did eat bread there together," i.e., they were invited by Gedaliah to his table.
While at meat, Ishmael and his ten men rose and slew Gedaliah with the sword. On
account of ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ָמ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ ‫ת‬ֹ‫א‬, which comes after, Hitzig and Graf would change ‫ַכּוּ‬‫יּ‬ַ into ‫ַכּוּ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, he
slew him, Gedaliah; this alteration is possibly warranted, but by no means absolutely
necessary. The words '‫ת‬ ֶ‫ָמ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ ‫ת‬ֹ‫א‬ ‫,וגו‬ "and he killed him," contain a reflection of the
narrator as to the greatness of the crime; in conformity with the facts of the case, the
murder is ascribed only to the originator of the deed, since the ten men of Ishmael's
retinue were simply his executioners. Besides Gedaliah, Ishmael killed "all the Jews that
were with him, with Gedaliah in Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, the
men of war." The very expression shows that, of the Jews, only those are meant who
were present in the house with Gedaliah, and, of the Chaldean soldiers, only those
warriors who had been allowed him as a guard, who for the time being were his servants,
and who, though they were not, as Schmidt thinks, hausto liberalius vino inebriati, yet,
as Chr. B. Michaelis remarks, were tunc temporis inermes et imparati. The Jews of post-
exile times used to keep the third day of the seventh month as a fast-day, in
commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah; see on Zec_7:3.
CALVIN, "It was a detestable cruelty and barbarity in Ishmael to kill Gedaliah who
entertained him, and whom he found to possess a paternal regard towards him.
Heathens have ever deemed hospitality sacred; and to violate it has been counted by
them as the greatest atrocity; and hospitable Jupiter ever possessed among them the
right of taking vengeance, if any one broke an oath given when at table. Now
Ishmael had sworn, as we have seen, that he would be faithful to Gedaliah. He was
again received by him, and was treated hospitably; and from his table he rose up to
slay the innocent man, who was his friend, and had acted towards him, as it has
been stated, the part of a father. And hence he became not only a parricide, but also
the traitor of his own country; for he knew that it could not be but that
Nebuchadnezzar would become more and more incensed against that miserable
people, whom he had spared: but he made no account of his own fidelity, nor
shewed any regard for his own brethren, whom he knew he exposed to slaughter
and ruin.
But the cause of this madness is here indirectly intimated; the Prophet says, that he
was of the royal seed. The royal seed was then, indeed, in the greatest disgrace; the
king’s children had been slain; he himself had been taken away bound to Babylon
after Nebuchadnezzar had made him blind. But we see, that those who had been
once in any dignity, can hardly relinquish those high notions by which they are
inflated. So that when those of the royal seed are reduced to extreme poverty and
4

want, they still aim at something royal, and never submit to the power of God. The
fountain then of this madness the Prophet points out here, as by the finger, when he
says, that Ishmael was of the royal seed: for he thought that it was by no means an
honor to him, that Gedaliah was set over the Jews. He, no doubt, imagined that the
kingdom was to be perpetual, since God had so often promised, that the throne of
David would stand as long as the moon continued in the heavens. (Psalms 89:37) But
mere ambition and pride led him to commit this abominable murder: and thus it
was, that he suffered himself to be persuaded by the king of Ammon.
He then came together with the princes of the king, even those who were in the first
rank when Zedekiah reigned. Then the Prophet adds, that they did eat bread. This
phrase intimates that they were received hospitably, and were admitted to the table
of Gedaliah. And this kindness and benevolence ought to have induced Ishmael and
his associates to spare their host. But it follows, that they rose up. This
circumstance, as to the time, enhanced their crime; for it was at the time they were
eating that Ishmael slew Gedaliah; and thus he polluted his hands with innocent
blood at the sacred table, having paid no regard to the rights of hospitality. Now the
Prophet shews that this was fatal to the miserable remnant, who were permitted to
dwell in the land. For, first, it could not have been done without exciting the highest
indignation of the king of Babylon, for he had set Gedaliah over the land; and it was
not expressed without reason, but emphatically, that this slaughter roused the
displeasure of the king of Babylon, because the murder of Gedaliah was a manifest
contempt of his authority. And then there was another cause of displeasure, for the
Chal-deans in Mizpah, who had been given as protectors, were killed. For the
Prophet tells us, that they were men of war, that no one might think that Chaldeans
were sent there to occupy the place of the Jews, as it is sometimes the case when
colonists or some such men settle in a land: they were military men, who had been
chosen as a guard and protection to Gedaliah. Thus then was the wrath of the king
of Babylon provoked to. vent his rage on the remnant to whom he had shewed
mercy. It now follows, —
COFFMAN. "Verse 1
JEREMIAH 41
ISHMAEL'S MURDER OF GEDALIAH
All of the events of this chapter revolve around the shameful and treacherous
murder of the new governor Gedaliah by Ishmael. The chapter divisions are: (1) the
murder of the governor (Jeremiah 41:1-3); (2) the murder of the pilgrims (Jeremiah
41:4-7); (3) captives at Mizpah taken (Jeremiah 41:8-10); (4) Ishmael defeated,
escapes to Ammon (Jeremiah 41:11-15); and (5) the people gathered by Johanan to
go to Egypt (Jeremiah 41:16-18).
The length of Gedaliah's tenure as governor is disputed. In an earlier chapter, we
suggested that Jeremiah was enabled to enjoy the protection and peace of
5

Gedaliah's house for a period of some five years; and that was based upon the
recent conviction of Jewish and other scholars that Gedaliah's government lasted
until 582 B.C. In the previous chapter, we encountered the opinions of many of the
older scholars that his government lasted only a matter of two or three months. We
have no certain information on exactly how long it lasted.
Feinberg has this regarding the date: "Two dates have been given for the
assassination of Gedaliah: 586 B.C. and 583-582 B.C. Keil-Delitzsch and others
support the first date; but a number of more recent commentators prefer the
second. They point out that the text does not require that the events of this chapter
occurred in the same year as the fall of Jerusalem; and, upon the basis of Jeremiah
52:30, they believe that the Babylonian reaction to the assassination of Gedaliah
took place five years after the event."[1]
Bright, Hyatt, and others whom we have frequently quoted in this commentary
support the later date. We shall let the matter stand as not certainly known.
Jeremiah 41:1-3
THE MURDER OF THE GOVERNOR
"Now it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the
son of Elishama, of the seed royal, and one of the chief officers of the king, and ten
men with him, came unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and there they did
eat bread together in Mizpah. Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the
men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan
with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over
the land. Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, to wit, with Gedaliah, at
Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, the men of war."
"Of the seed royal ..." (Jeremiah 41:1). It is believed that Ishmael was descended
from David through Elishama (2 Samuel 5:16), and that this royal connection might
have originated Ishmael's vengeful hatred of Gedaliah, being bitterly jealous that
Nebuchadnezzar had passed over Ishmael, a member of the royal house of David, to
make Gedaliah governor!
In all the records of Israel's wickedness, there is hardly anything that surpasses the
dastardly deed of Ishmael here recorded. He not only violated God's law, but the
universal Eastern custom in the law of hospitality, that no man eats another man's
bread, and then murders him! Ishmael disappears from history in this chapter and
fully deserved the oblivion in which he was swallowed up.
The concern and sympathy of the Jewish people for their noble governor who was
cut down by the despicable Ishmael was crystallized and memorialized in the Jewish
fast of "the seventh month" (October) (Zechariah 7:5; 8:19), during the Inter-
testamental period of their history.
6

"Slew all the Jews that were with him ..." (Jeremiah 41:3). It is believed that this is a
reference, not all the Jews in Mizpah, but to all of those at the meal during which
Gedaliah was slain. Also, the men of war would appear to refer merely to Gedaliah's
personal bodyguard of Babylonian soldiers.
COKE, "Jeremiah 41:1. In the seventh month— Answering partly to our
September, and partly to October, two months after the taking of Jerusalem. The
murder of Gedaliah gave occasion to the fast of the seventh month, which the Jews
observed after their return from the captivity. See Zechariah 7:5; Zechariah 8:19.
Ishmael was of the family of David.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:1 Now it came to pass in the seventh month, [that] Ishmael
the son of Nethaniah the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, and the princes of the
king, even ten men with him, came unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and
there they did eat bread together in Mizpah.
Ver. 1. Now it came to pass in the seventh month.] Within two or three months after
the destruction of Jerusalem. So soon did this wicked wretch, so spurred on by
ambition, which ever rideth without reins, renew the miserable fate of his forlorn
country. And the like did Barcocab and his seditious complices after the last
devastation, thereby bringing upon themselves again the Roman forces, who
thereupon, under Adrian the emperor, utterly took away both their place and their
nation.
That Ishmael of the seed royal.] And therefore affecting the kingdom, or at least the
ruledom; and envying that Gedaliah - a new man, or mushroom rather, - should be
preferred before him.
And the princes of the king.] Who had been princes and grandees, as the Hebrew
hath it, in Zedekiah’s days, with whom likely they fled and escaped, stealing away
by night, though he could not. [2 Kings 25:4]
Even ten men with him.] Whom Ishmael had promised probably to restore their
principalities when he should be king, or viceroy at least under Baalis King of
Ammon, the great engineer of all the ensuing mischief wrought by Ishmael and
these ten desperadoes together with their retinue.
Came unto Gedaliah.] To whom before they had done homage, and now came
pretending to give him a friendly visit.
“ Tuta frequensque via est per amici fallere nomen:
Tuta frequensque licet sit via, crimen habet. ”
And there they did eat bread,] i.e., They feasted. Much treachery and cruelty hath
7

been exercised at feasts. Absalom slew Amnon at a feast; so did Zimri King Elah; so
did Alexander Philotas; so doth the Great Turk many of his bashaws; the black
gown is cast upon them as they sit with him at supper, and then they are strangled.
(a)
PETT, "Verses 1-3
Ishmael’s Plot Comes To Fruition And Gedaliah Is Assassinated (Jeremiah 41:1-3).
Gedaliah was to be proved wrong. Ishmael comes to Gedaliah with an offer of
friendship, something evidenced by his ‘eating bread’ with him. Thereby he was
giving a guarantee of loyalty, for ancient custom saw this as indicating a guarantee
of friendship. To eat bread with someone towards who you had evil intentions was
seen as unthinkable. So no doubt once this occurred Gedalaiah felt that he had been
justified in his faith in Ishmael. But then Ishmael and his men falsely turned on
Gedaliah and those who supported him and slew them without mercy. The enormity
of what he had done is emphasised by the phrase, ‘and slew him whom the king of
Babylon had made governor over the land.’ It was not only an act of treachery
against Gedaliah, but also against Nebuchadrezzar himself. And along with
Gedaliah Ishmael and his men slew the Babylonian representatives at the Judean
court and the token contingent of Babylonian soldiers who were stationed in
Mizpah. This demonstrates that Ishmael’s intention was not just against Gedaliah.
It was an act that invited repercussions from Babylon.
The immensity of Ishmael’s treachery does not come home to the modern reader,
but for an oriental to ‘eat bread together’ with someone was to make an absolute
guarantee of friendship and peace. Thus for Ishmael to eat bread with Gedaliah and
then to assassinate him would have been seen by all, friend and foe alike, as a crime
of the highest order. Ishmael’s action would therefore have been severely
disapproved of, even by those who might otherwise have sympathised with him.
His evil nature, and his antagonism against YHWH, will further be brought out by
his slaughter of some pilgrims who were passing by Mizpah on the way to
interceding before YHWH at the Temple site, which could only be seen as an act of
pure vindictiveness and of extreme anti-Yahwism, the latter possibly resulting from
what had happened to his family. It may well be that he had become a worshipper of
Melech (Molech - Milcom) the god of Ammon, a god who was also worshipped
widely throughout Canaan and was very bloodthirsty.
Jeremiah 41:1
‘Now it came about in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son
of Elishama, of the seed royal and one of the chief officers of the king, and ten men
with him, came to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah, and there they ate bread
together in Mizpah.’
8

‘In the seventh month.’ If this was the seventh month of the same year as mentioned
in Jeremiah 39:3 then all this happened within three months of Gedaliah’s
appointment. However, as we have seen, this is a new section of the prophecy, and it
is therefore probable that the two datings are unconnected. That being so we do not
have any reference to which year this was. The reason for mentioning the seventh
month is that it was the month in which the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated,
thus it would be quite normal to have a large celebratory feast in that month. Many
scholars would in fact date the year by the fact that in 582 BC Nebuchadrezzar
again sought retribution against Judah, resulting in further exiles (see Jeremiah
52:30). If this is so it would mean that Gedaliah had ruled for a number of years.
It is stressed here that Ishmael was ‘of the seed royal and one of the chief officers of
the king’. This would explain why he had fled to Ammon for refuge in order to
escape Nebuchadrezzar’s vengeance, and once there he had seemingly become
willingly involved in the intrigues of the king of Ammon. His important status in
Judah is brought out by the fact that he and his men alone were invited to the
governor’s feast. Note the underlining again of the fact that ‘they ate bread
together’. As all knew this should have been a guarantee of friendship and peace. To
agree to eat bread with someone against whom you had evil intentions went against
all codes of decency and honour in the eyes of an oriental.
‘Ten men’ probably indicates a small unit similar to a platoon. It was large enough
for the purpose that Ishmael had in mind whilst still not being suspicious. These
would be the ones who attended the feast. Ishmael had quite probably also brought
other men with him who acted under his orders outside the feast.
‘The son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama.’ This was perhaps the secretary of state
mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12, or more likely the son of David who bore this name (2
Samuel 5:6; 1 Chronicles 3:8; 1 Chronicles 14:7).
PULPIT, "Jeremiah 41:1-10
Assassination of Gedaliah and other Jews.
Jeremiah 41:1
In the seventh month; i.e. two months after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
appointment of Gedaliah. It seems strange, however, that the occurrences related in
Jeremiah 40:1-16; Jeremiah 41:1-18. should have taken so short a time. Gratz calls
in question the accuracy of the chronological statement. He quotes Ezekiel 33:24-29,
which shows that at least six months (according to his calculation) after the fall of
Jerusalem Jewish fugitives still lingered on, and hoped to obtain possession of their
fatherland, and points out that time was necessary for Gedaliah to erect a temple at
Mizpah (see on Ezekiel 33:5), for cities to arise out of their ruins, and for cultivation
of the soil to be resumed (Jeremiah 40:10). ‹je-3› Besides, according to Jeremiah
52:30, a third deportation of Jews is mentioned. How can this be accounted for, if,
9

only two months after the fall of Jerusalem, the remnant of the Jewish population
emigrated under Johanan ben Kareah to Egypt? Gratz shows reason for thinking
that this last deportation stands in close connection with Gedaliah's death, and that
consequently the interval between this latter event and the fall of Jerusalem lasted,
not two months, but five years. The son of Elishama. Perhaps the Elishama men.
tioned in Jeremiah 36:12 as a secretary of state; or perhaps a son of David of that
name (see 2 Samuel 5:18; 1 Chronicles 3:8; 1 Chronicles 14:7; "son" being taken
here in a wider sense). And the princes of the king; rather, and (one of) the princes
of the king. Even ten men; rather, and ten men. Elevon determined bravoes
overpower a crowd of unprepared men. Did eat bread together. Gedaliah, then, had
invited them to a friendly banquet.
BI 1-10, "Then arose Ishmael.
Devils incarnate
1. If ever there was such a one, this Ishmael was of whom these verses tell. His
atrocities remind us of the Indian Mutiny, its leader, and the well at Cawnpore (cf.
Verse 9). Treachery, ingratitude, murder, massacre, greed, cowardice,—all are
gathered in this detestable character (cf. Mr. Grove’s article “Ishmael,” Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible)
2. And such men are permitted to be. So clearly seen is this, that every drama has its
villain; they are recognised as having definite place and function in this poor life of
ours.
3. Can we explain this permission? Wherefore are such men created and preserved?
It is s part of the great question of moral evil, for the full solution of which we must
wait. But the existence of such men as this Ishmael is but one out of the many
terrible facts in God’s providence, such as plague, famine, earthquake, &c.
In regard to such men, we can see some purposes that they subserve.
1. They make evident the hideous capacities of evil which are in our nature, and the
need, therefore, for God’s restraining grace.
2. They are warnings to increased watchfulness on the part of those in whom the
tendencies to like evil exist.
3. They are God’s scourges for men’s sin (cf. Attila, the Scourge of God).
4. They weld together the people they oppress in one common league against them,
and thus out of scattered tribes a nation is formed.
5. They clear out much that is evil (cf. French Revolution; Napoleon). But,
sometimes as here, we cannot see what good they do; and then we can only wait. (W.
Clarkson, B. A.)
2 Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the ten men who
10

were with him got up and struck down Gedaliah
son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, with the
sword, killing the one whom the king of Babylon
had appointed as governor over the land.
GILL, "Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were
with him,.... After they had eat and drank well, they rose up from their seats at table:
and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword,
and slew him; they all drew their swords and thrust at him, and were assisting in the
murder of him; though it is probable that it was Ishmael that gave him the mortal
wound, since the phrase, "and slew him", is singular. Josephus (d) says that Gedaliah
prepared a splendid table, and made a sumptuous entertainment for them, and being
drunk himself, which they observed, took the opportunity and slew him, and all at table
with him:
whom the king Babylon had made governor over the land; which mentioned;
both to aggravate the crime they were guilty of, and to observe the reason of it, and what
it was that prompted them to it; for so the words may be rendered, "because the king of
Babylon had made him governor over the land" (e).
JAMISON, "slew him whom the king of Babylon had made governor — This
assigns a reason for their slaying him, as well as showing the magnitude of their crime
(Dan_2:21; Rom_13:1).
TRAPP, " Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with
him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and
slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land.
Ver. 2. Then arose Ishmael.] Taking the opportunity when Gedaliah and his guests
were mero graves, saith Josephus, merry with wine, and so less able to resist.
And the ten men that were with.] They and their followers being pugnaces et
audaces, barbarous and brutish persons, skilful to destroy. [Ezekiel 21:31]
And smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.] See on Jeremiah 41:1.
And slew him whom the king of Babylon had made governor.] Yea, for that very
11

cause, per invidiam et libidinem regnandi. So true is that of the tragedian, (a)
“ Simul ista mundi conditor posuit Deus,
Odium atque regnum. ”
{a} Sen. in Thebaide.
PETT, "Jeremiah 41:2
‘Then Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men who were with him, arose and
smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him
whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land.’
Once the feast had got under way Ishmael and his men revealed their hand. No
doubt waiting until most of the guests were drunk they rose up and assassinated
Gedaliah and his other guests, which would have included prominent Babylonian
officials and other Jewish leaders. But the emphasis here is on the fact that they slew
Nebuchadrezzar’s appointed representative, a heinous crime demanding certain
retribution. Nebuchadrezzar would not be able to overlook such an act. It was an
act of open rebellion.
Indeed this act had such devastating consequences that it became commemorated by
a special fast on ‘the 3rd of Tishri’ (see Zechariah 7:5; Zechariah 8:19). It was the
seeming end of Judah’s hopes of re-establishing itself.
PULPIT, "Smote Gedaliah. The day of the murder of Gedaliah (the third day of the
seventh month) was kept as a fast day by the post-Captivity Jews (see Zechariah
7:5; Zechariah 8:19). It was the day on which the hope of living a separate life in the
promised land, for a time at least, vanished; and the murder was avenged by a new
captivity (see above).
3 Ishmael also killed all the men of Judah who
were with Gedaliah at Mizpah, as well as the
Babylonian[a] soldiers who were there.
12

GILL, "Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, even with
Gedaliah, at Mizpah,.... Not only those that were at table, but that were in the city
also. Josephus (f) says, that having slain those that were at the feast with him, he went
out in the night, and slew all the Jews in the city, and the soldiers that were left by the
Babylonians in it; but this cannot be understood of all the individuals there, or of the
main body of the people, for they were carried captive by him, Jer_41:9; but of those
that opposed him, or were able to avenge the death of their governor, and he might
suspect would do it:
and the Chaldeans that were found there, and the men of war; or, "even the
men of war" (g); this describes more particularly who they were that were slain, those of
the Jews, and especially the Chaldeans, who were in military service; either the
bodyguards of the governor, or the city guards, or both, whom Ishmael thought it
advisable to cut off, lest they should fall upon him, and revenge the death of Gedaliah,
and prevent his further designs.
HENRY, "They likewise put all to the sword that they found in arms there, both Jews
and Chaldeans, all that were employed under Gedaliah or were in any capacity to
revenge his death, Jer_41:3. As if enough of the blood of Israelites had not been shed by
the Chaldeans, their own princes here mingle it with the blood of the Chaldeans. The
vine-dressers and the husbandmen were busy in the fields, and knew nothing of this
bloody massacre; so artfully was it carried on and concealed.
JAMISON, "slew all the Jews — namely, the attendants and ministers of Gedaliah;
or, the military alone, about his person; translate, “even (not ‘and,’ as English Version)
the men of war.” The main portion of the people with Gedaliah, including Jeremiah,
Ishmael carried away captive (Jer_41:10, Jer_41:16).
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:3 Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, [even]
with Gedaliah, at Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, [and] the men
of war.
Ver. 3. Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him.] Not the Chaideans only.
His sword knew no difference; but, being fleshed in blood, he killed all that came in
his way. And the rather that his wickedness might not be noticed - mortui non
mordent - but that he might carry on his bloody design the better.
‘Ishmael also slew all the Jews who were with him, to wit, with Gedaliah, at Mizpah,
and the Chaldeans who were found there, the men of war.’
How widespread the slaughter was we are not told in detail. The aim was clearly to
decimate the loyal Jewish leadership and to get rid of all traces of the Babylonians
left there by Nebuchadrezzar. The former suggests that the act was in order to
destabilise an already weakened Judah, and make it vulnerable to outside
13

interference, presumably by Ammon. The latter indicates a deliberate attempt to
incite retribution from Babylon.
4 The day after Gedaliah’s assassination, before
anyone knew about it,
GILL, "And it came to pass, the second day after he had slain Gedaliah,....
That is, the day following, for it was in the night, as Josephus relates, as before observed,
the murder was committed:
and no man knew it; not any out of the city, or in remote parts; for those that were in
the city must be sensible of it; but as yet the report of it had not reached the
neighbourhood, and much less distant parts; this is observed on account of the following
story, and to show how easily the persons after mentioned were drawn in by Ishmael.
JAMISON, "no man knew it — that is, outside Mizpah. Before tidings of the
murder had gone abroad.
K&D 4-5, "On the next day after the murder of Gedaliah, "when no man knew it," i.e.,
before the deed had become known beyond Mizpah, "there came eighty men from
Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria," having all the tokens of mourning, "with their beards
shaven, their clothes rent, and with cuts and scratches on their bodies (‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫גּד‬ ְֹ‫ת‬ ִ‫,מ‬ see on
Jer_16:6), and a meat-offering and frankincense in their hand, to bring them into the
house of Jahveh." The order in which the towns are named is not geographical; for
Shiloh lay south from Shechem, and a little to the side from the straight road leading
from Shechem to Jerusalem. Instead of ‫ל‬ ִ‫,שׁ‬ the lxx (Cod. Vat.) have Σαλήμ; they use the
same word as the name of a place in Gen_33:18, although the Hebrew ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ָ‫שׁ‬ is there an
adjective, meaning safe, in good condition. According to Robinson (Bibl. Res. iii. 102),
there is a village named Sâlim three miles east from Nablûs (Shechem); Hitzig and Graf,
on the strength of this, prefer the reading of the lxx, to preserve the order of the names
in the text. But Hitzig has renounced this conjecture in the second edition of his
Commentary, "because Sâlim in Hebrew would be ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ‫,שׁ‬ not ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ָ‫".שׁ‬ There is absolutely
no foundation for the view in the lxx and in Gen_33:18; the supposition, moreover, that
the three towns are given in their topographical order, and must have stood near each
other, is also unfounded. Shechem may have been named first because the greater
number of these men came from that city, and other men from Shiloh and Samaria
accompanied them. These men were pious descendants of the Israelites who belonged to
the kingdom of Israel; they dwelt among the heathen colonists who had been settled in
the country under Esarhaddon (2Ki_17:24.), but, from the days of Hezekiah or Josiah,
14

had continued to serve Jahveh in Jerusalem, where they used to attend the feasts (2Ch_
34:9, cf. Jer_30:11). Nay, even after the destruction of Jerusalem, at the seasons of the
sacred feasts, they were still content to bring at least unbloody offerings - meat-offerings
and incense - on the still sacred spot where these things used to be offered to Jahveh;
but just because this could now be done only on the ruins of what had once been the
sanctuary, they appeared there with all the signs of deep sorrow for the destruction of
this holy place and the cessation of sacrificial worship. In illustration of this, Grotius has
adduced a passage from Papinian's instit. de rerum divis. § sacrae: "Locus in quo aedes
sacrae sunt aedificatae, etiam diruto aedificio, sacer adhuc manet."
COFFMAN, "THE MURDER OF THE PILGRIMS
"And it came to pass the second day after he had slain Gedaliah, and no man knew
it, that there came men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, even
fourscore men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent, and having cut
themselves, with meal-offerings and frankincense in their hand, to bring them unto
the house of Jehovah. And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth from Mizpah to
meet them, weeping all along as he went: and it came to pass, as he met them, he
said unto them, Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam. And it was so, when they
came into the midst of the city, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them, and
cast them into the midst of the pit, and the men that were with him."
"Weeping all along as he went ..." (Jeremiah 41:6). The perfidious behavior of
Ishmael was totally wicked. His weeping was hypocrisy; his pretended intention of
helping the pilgrims was a lie; his murderous treachery was unlimited.
Scholars have attempted to guess why Ishmael destroyed those pilgrims, but the
only suggestion that makes a little sense is that Baalis the king of Ammonites had
instructed Ishmael, his partner in the plot, to terrorize the people with such
atrocities in order to prevent any order from prevailing in the land. Also, it has been
thought that Ishmael wanted to prevent any word of the murder from being carried
far and near into all countries by such a company as that of the pilgrims. Then too,
there is the supposition that Ishmael was merely a murderer who killed people for
the gratification of his sadistic blood-lust. In any case, it was indeed a deed of
infamy!
The shaven heads, the rent clothes, the cuts on their bodies, and the offerings in
their hands, "Symbolized the distress of the pilgrims over the desertion and the
destruction of the house of God."[2]
Some significant facts are implied by this account of the slain pilgrims. (1) The Jews
still honored the commandment to worship God at one altar only, namely, the One
in Jerusalem. (2) Also, even though the temple was destroyed, the ruins of it were
considered sacred and "holy unto the Lord." "By the Jewish people, the Western
wall of the temple in Jerusalem until this day is considered sacred."[3]
15

The senseless murder of those seventy pilgrims is utterly inexplicable, unless, as
stated by Smith, "Ishmael intended to fill the whole land with terror, utterly
frustrate Gedaliah's work, and destroy the last possibility of the land being in peace,
which was also very likely the object of Baalis the king of Ammon."[4]
PETT, "Verses 4-10
Ishmael Continues His Bloodthirsty Slaughter And Seeks To Escape To Ammon
(Jeremiah 41:4-10).
Having carried out his bloodbath Ishmael now learned of a party of pilgrims who
were approaching Mizpah, coming from the northern former Israelite towns of
Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria, all of which had been important religious
sanctuaries. They were in mourning, and their aim was apparently to intercede with
YHWH at the Temple site. The road that they were taking for Jerusalem led past
Mizpah which was close to the road leading from the north. The fact that he so
unnecessarily perpetrated evil against such men suggests that he was violently anti-
Yahwist and against all things Yahwist, perhaps as a reaction to the destruction of
Jerusalem and the royal house, although it may also be that he was fearful of what
the reaction of such good men would be to what he had done (news would inevitably
have filtered out into the countryside). He knew that what he had done in abusing
hospitality would inevitably be frowned on by all people of goodwill. Furthermore
he may also have seen their approaching Mizpah as evidence of their support for
Gedaliah. But the detail given about the men suggests that it was primarily to be
seen as an act of rebellion against YHWH. They were religious men connected with
recognised religious sanctuaries.
Jeremiah 41:4-5
‘And it came about on the second day after he had slain Gedaliah, and no man knew
it, that there came men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, even
fourscore men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent, and having cut
themselves, with meal-offerings and frankincense in their hand, to bring them to the
house of YHWH.’
It is apparent from this that the site of the ruined Temple of Solomon was still seen
as holy, and as ‘the house of YHWH’. Their aim may simply have been worship at
an especially holy site, or it may have been in order to pray for the restoration of the
Temple. The approximately eighty men in question would have had to pass near
Mizpah on the road leading from the north to Jerusalem. They would be pious
descendants of Israelites in the northern kingdom who had preserved their faith,
and were connected with the ancient sanctuaries. Indeed we know from what
happened later on that many in the northern kingdom had continued to serve
YHWH by coming to Jerusalem, where they used to attend the regular feasts (2
Chronicles 34:9; compare Jeremiah 30:11). They had possibly been inspired into
16

this action by their observance of the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the
month. It will be noted that here they brought meal offerings and frankincense
which could be offered within the ruins of the Temple. This was necessary because
there was now no altar of sacrifice. It can be seen that particular emphasis is being
laid on the piety of the men. Thus to attack them was to attack YHWH.
‘Having their beards shaven and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves.’
These were recognised signs of mourning. The paring of the beard and the cutting of
themselves was forbidden by the Law of Moses (Leviticus 19:28; Leviticus 21:5), but
they were still customs which were commonly practised. These men were thus not
totally orthodox. But they were unquestionably pious YHWH worshippers.
‘Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria’ are placed in the order in which they became
sanctuaries. They could be seen as summing up northern Israel’s religious history.
5 eighty men who had shaved off their beards,
torn their clothes and cut themselves came from
Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria, bringing grain
offerings and incense with them to the house of
the Lord.
BARNES, "These three towns all lay in the tribe of Ephraim, and in the district
planted by Salmaneser with Cuthites; but through the fact of these men having cut
themselves (see Jer_16:6 note), is suspicious, yet they were probably pious Israelites,
going up to Jerusalem, carrying the meat offering usual at the feast of tabernacles, of
which this was the season, and mourning over the destruction, not of the city, but of the
temple, to the repairs of which we find the members of this tribe contributing in Josiah’s
time 2Ch_34:9.
CLARKE, "Having their beards shaven - All these were signs of deep mourning,
probably on account of the destruction of the city.
GILL, "That there came certain from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from
Samaria,.... Places in the ten tribes, and which belonged to the kingdom of Israel; so
17

that it seems even at this distance of time, though the body of the ten tribes had been
many years ago carried captive, yet there were still some religious persons sons
remaining, and who had a great regard to the temple worship at Jerusalem:
even fourscore men, having their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and
having cut themselves; as mourners for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
captivity of the people. The two first of these rites, shaving the beard, and rending of
clothes, were agreeably to the law; but that of cutting themselves, their flesh with their
nails, or knives, was forbidden by it, Lev_19:28; so that these people seemed to have
retained some of the Heathenish customs of the places where they lived; for the king of
Assyria had placed colonies of Heathens in Samaria, and the cities of it, 2Ki_17:24; these
came
with offerings and incense in their hands: a meat offering made of fine flour, as
the word signifies; and incense, or frankincense, which used to be put upon such an
offering, Lev_2:1;
to bring them to the house of the Lord; but the temple was now destroyed;
wherefore either they thought there was a tabernacle or sanctuary erected at Mizpah for
divine service and sacrifice; or they intended to offer these offerings on the spot where
the temple of Jerusalem stood; and where they hoped to find an altar, if only of earth,
and priests to sacrifice; though the Jewish commentators, Jarchi and Kimchi, observe,
that when they first set out, they had not heard of the destruction of the temple, but
heard of it in the way; and therefore came in a mourning habit; but before knew nothing
of it; and therefore brought offerings with them, according to the former; but, according
to the latter, they had heard before they set out of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
captivity of the people; but not of the burning of the temple, until they were on their
journey.
HENRY 5-9, "Some good honest men, that were going all in tears to lament the
desolations of Jerusalem, were drawn in by Ishmael, and murdered with the rest.
Observe, 1. Whence they came (Jer_41:5) - from Shechem, Samaria, and Shiloh, places
that had been famous, but wee now reduced; they belonged to the ten tribes, but there
were some in those countries that retained an affection for the worship of the God of
Israel. 2. Whither they were going - to the house of the Lord, the temple at Jerusalem,
which, no doubt, they had heard of the destruction of, and were going to pay their
respects to its ashes, to see its ruins, that their eye might affect their heart with sorrow
for them. They favour the dust thereof, Psa_102:14. They took offerings and incense in
their hand, that if they should find any altar there, though it were but an altar of earth,
and any priest ready to officiate, they might not be without something to offer; if not, yet
they showed their good-will, as Abraham, when he came to the place of the altar, though
the altar was gone. The people of God used to go rejoicing to the house of the Lord, but
these went in the habit of mourners, with their clothes rent and their heads shaven; for
the providence of God loudly called to weeping and mourning, because it was not with
the faithful worshippers of God as in months past. 3. How they were decoyed into a fatal
snare by Ishmael's malice. Hearing of their approach, he resolved to be the death of
them too, so bloodthirsty was he. He seemed as if he hated every one that had the name
of an Israelite or the face of an honest man. These pilgrims towards Jerusalem he had a
spite to, for the sake of their errand. Ishmael went out to meet them with crocodiles'
18

tears, pretending to bewail the desolations of Jerusalem as much as they; and, to try how
they stood affected to Gedaliah and his government, he courted them into the town and
found them to have a respect for him, which confirmed him in his resolution to murder
them. He said, Come to Gedaliah, pretending he would have them come and live with
him, when really he intended that they should come and die with him, Jer_41:6. They
had heard such a character of Gedaliah that they were willing enough to be acquainted
with him; but Ishmael, when he had them in the midst of the town, fell upon them and
slew them (Jer_41:7), and no doubt took the offerings they had and converted them to
his own use; for he that would not stick at such a murder would not stick at sacrilege.
Notice is taken of his disposing of the dead bodies of these and the rest that he had slain;
he tumbled them all into a great pit (Jer_41:7), the same pit that Asa king of Judah had
digged long before, either in the city or adjoining to it, when he built or fortified Mizpah
(1Ki_15:22), to be a frontier-garrison against Baasha king of Israel and for fear of him,
Jer_41:9. Note, Those that dig pits with a good intention know not what bad use they
may be put to, one time or other. He slew so many that he could not afford them each a
grave, or would not do them so much honour, but threw them all promiscuously into one
pit. Among these last that were doomed to the slaughter there were ten that obtained a
pardon, by working, not on the compassion, but the covetousness, of those that had
them at their mercy, Jer_41:8. They said to Ishmael, when he was about to suck their
blood, like an insatiable horseleech, after that of the companions, Slay us not, for we
have treasurers in the field, country treasures, large stocks upon the ground, abundance
of such commodities as the country affords, wheat and barley, and oil and honey,
intimating that they would discover it to him and put him in possession of it all, if he
would spare them. Skin for skin, and all that a man has, will he give for his life. This
bait prevailed. Ishmael saved them, not for the love of mercy, but for the love of money.
Here were riches kept for the owners thereof, not to their hurt (Ecc_5:13) and to cause
them to lose their lives (Job_31:39), but to their good and the preserving of their lives.
Solomon observes that sometimes the ransom of a man's life is his riches. But those who
think thus to bribe death, when it comes with commission, and plead with it, saying,
Slay us not, for we have treasures in the field, will find death inexorable and themselves
wretchedly deceived.
JAMISON, "beards shaven, etc. — indicating their deep sorrow at the destruction
of the temple and city.
cut themselves — a heathen custom, forbidden (Lev_19:27, Lev_19:28; Deu_14:1).
These men were mostly from Samaria, where the ten tribes, previous to their
deportation, had fallen into heathen practices.
offerings — unbloody. They do not bring sacrificial victims, but “incense,” etc., to
testify their piety.
house of ... Lord — that is, the place where the house of the Lord had stood (2Ki_
25:9). The place in which a temple had stood, even when it had been destroyed, was held
sacred [Papinian]. Those “from Shiloh” would naturally seek the house of the Lord, since
it was at Shiloh it originally was set up (Jos_18:1).
CALVIN, "The Prophet skews here, that after Ishmael had polluted his hands, he
made no end of his barbarity. And thus wicked men become hardened; for even if
they dread at first to murder innocent men, when once they begin the work, they
rush on to the commission of numberless murders. This is what the Prophet now
19

tells us had happened; for after Gedaliah was killed, he says, that eighty men came
from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, who brought incense and offering,
to present them in the Temple, and that these were led by treachery to Mizpah,
there killed and cast into a pit, as we shall hereafter see.
It is not known by what cause Ishmael was induced to commit this cruel and
barbarous act, for there was no war declared, nor could he have pretended any
excuse for thus slaying unhappy men, who apprehended no such thing. They were of
the seed of Abraham, they were worshippers of God, and then they had committed
no offense, and plotted nothing against him. Why then he was seized with such rage
is uncertain, except that wicked men, as we have said, never set any bounds to their
crimes; for God gives theta the spirit of giddiness, so that they are carried away by
blind madness. It is, indeed, probable, that they were killed, because Ishmael
thought that they carne to Gedaliah, that they might live under his protection, and
that he could not have gained anything by the murder of one man, except he
obtained authority over the whole land. It was then suspicion alone, and that indeed
slight, which led him to such a cruelty. And the atrocity of the deed was enhanced
by what the Prophet says, that they came to offer to God incense and offering, ‫מנחה‬ ,
meneche: and he says also, that they had their beards shaven, and their garments
torn Such an appearance ought to have roused pity even in the most inveterate
enemies; for we know, that there is an innate feeling which leads us to pity
wretchedness and tears, and every mournful appearance. The fury then of Ishmael,
even if he had before determined to do some grievous thing to these men, ought to
have been allayed by their very sight, so as not to be even angry with them.
According then to every view of the case, we see that he must have been divested of
every sense of equity, and that he was more cruel than any wild beast.
But it may be asked, How did these men come for the purpose mentioned, since the
report respecting the destruction of the Temple must have spread everywhere? for
they are not said to have come from Persia, or from countries beyond the sea; but
that they came from places not afar off. They who answer that the report of the
Temple being destroyed had not reached them, only seek to escape, but the answer
is not credible, and it is only an evasion. The Temple was burnt in the fifth month;
could that calamity be unknown in Judea? And then we know that Shiloh was not
far from Jerusalem, nor was Samaria very distant. Since then the distance of these
places cannot account for their ignorance, it seems not to me probable, that these
came, because they thought that the Temple was still standing, nor did they bring
victims, but only incense and oblation. I then think that they came, not to offer the
ordinary sacrifice, but only that they might testify their piety in that place where
they had before offered their sacrifices. This conjecture has nothing inconsistent in
it; nor is there a doubt, but that before they left their homes, they had put on their
mean and torn garments. These were signs, as we have elsewhere seen, of sorrow
and mourning among the Orientals.
But here another question is raised, for the Prophet says, that they were torn or cut;
and this has been deemed as referring to the skin or body: but this was forbidden by
20

the Law. Some answer that they forgot the Law in their extreme grief, so that they
undesignedly tore or lacerated their bodies. But the prohibition of the Law seems to
me to have had something special in it, even that God designed by it to distinguish
his people from heathens. And we may gather from sacred history, that some
artifice was practiced by idolaters, when they cut their bodies; for it is said, that the
priests of Baal cut their bodies according to their usual manner or practice. God
then, wishing to keep his people from every corruption, forbade them to imitate the
rites of the heathens. And then there is no doubt but that God designed to correct
excess in grief and mourning. I therefore do not think that anything contrary to the
Law was done by these men, when they came to the ruins of the Temple with torn
garments and lacerated skin, for there was in them nothing affected, for so
lamentable a calamity drew forth such grief, that they spared neither themselves nor
their garments.
Jeremiah says, in the first of these verses, that the death of Gedaliah was concealed,
so that no one knew it; yet such a deed could have been hardly buried; for many of
the Jews were killed together with Gedaliah, and also the guarding soldiers, whom
Nebuchadnezzar had given to Gedaliah. But the Prophet means that it was hid,
because the report had not yet gone forth. He then speaks comparatively, when he
says that it was known to none. We have already stated the purpose for which the
eighty men came from Samaria and other places; it was not that they might offer
sacrifices, as when the Temple was standing, but only lament the destruction of the
Temple and of the city; and that as they had brought from home the greatest
sorrow, they might, on their return, humble themselves, after having seen so
grievous a punishment inflicted on the people for their sins.
COKE, "Jeremiah 41:5. Having their beards shaven, &c.— These were tokens of
great mourning, by which they expressed their grief for the destruction of their city
and temple: such expressions of sorrow were forbidden to be used at funeral
obsequies (see Leviticus 19:27-28.), but might be lawfully used upon other mournful
occasions. See Isaiah 15:2. Some suppose, that these devout persons brought their
oblations to the place where the altar formerly stood, which they looked upon as
consecrated ground; a custom which they think countenanced by the words of
Baruch, ch. Jeremiah 1:10 where the exiles of Babylon are supposed to send money
to buy offerings for the altar of the Lord, after Jerusalem was taken and burnt.
Compare Jeremiah 41:2. Others understand the house of the Lord, of an altar or
place of worship erected by Gedaliah at Mizpah, in imitation of that which was
formerly set up there by Samuel, 1 Samuel 7:7-9 which place continued to be a
proseucha or place of worship in after-times, as appears from 1 Maccabees 3:46.
There were many such sanctuaries or places of worship both in Judaea and
elsewhere among the Jewish dispersions. See Lowth and Calmet. Ishmael went
weeping along with them, as if he sympathised in their affliction, Jeremiah 41:6. He
appears to have been a thorough-paced hypocrite.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:5 That there came certain from Shechem, from Shiloh, and
from Samaria, [even] fourscore men, having their beards shaven, and their clothes
21

rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hand, to bring
[them] to the house of the LORD.
Ver. 5. That there came certain from Shechem and from Shiloh.] Innocent men, qui
ne verbulo quidem immanem bestiam offenderant, who had not so much as by the
least word offended this brutish, butcherly man; but came in the simplicity of their
hearts to worship God, and to wait upon Gedaliah by the way, which last seemeth to
be Ishmael’s main quarrel against them. See here Ecclesiastes 9:12. {See Trapp on
"Ecclesiastes 9:12"}
Having their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves.]
These might be well minded men, though partly through ignorance of the law in
those blind times, and partly through excess of passion, they went too far, heathen-
like, in their outward expressions of sorrow [Leviticus 19:27 Deuteronomy 14:1] for
the public calamity of their country.
To bring them to the house of the Lord,] i.e., To the place where God’s house lately
had been, though now razed and ruined, that there they might worship as they
could, and bewail the desolation of the city and temple, as Jerome saith the Jews did
yearly the destruction of the second temple, bribing the Roman soldiers that kept it
to let them come to the place and weep over it.
WHEDON, " 5. Shechem,… Shiloh,… and Samaria — These places are not named
in topographical order. The reason does not appear. It may be on account of
rhythm, or it may be that most of the men came from Shechem, and that the other
two places are simply mentioned as incidentally connected with the affair.
Cut themselves — This practice was strictly forbidden by the law, (Leviticus 19:28;
Leviticus 21:5; Deuteronomy 14:1,) and yet seems to have remained in common use.
(Jeremiah 7:29; Isaiah 22:12; Ezekiel 7:18, etc.) These signs of grief had reference to
the calamity which had befallen Jerusalem.
Offerings and incense — Notwithstanding their violating Jewish law as above, there
can be little doubt that they were Jews. Possibly in the region of Samaria. from
which they came, heathen practices had been fallen into to an unusual extent.
PULPIT, "There came certain from Shechem, etc. A number of pious pilgrims,
descend. ants of the old ten tribes, passed by on their way to the holy site of the
temple at Jerusalem (?). From Shiloh. The Vatican Codex of the Septuagint has a
plausible reading, "from Salem," which is apparently supported by Genesis 33:18,
"And Jacob cares to Shalem, a city of Shechem," and by its improvement thus
introduced into the geographical order (Shiloh is, in fact, nearer to Mizpah than
Shechem, and ought to be mentioned first). But though there is now a village called
Salim, to the east of Nablus (Shechem), we have no sufficient ground for assuming a
city of that name in the Old Testament, The rendering of Genesis, i.e. needs
correction ("came in peace to the city," etc.) Their beards shaven, etc. They had,
22

then, all the outward signs of mourning (for the public calamities); comp, Jeremiah
16:6; Jeremiah 48:37. To bring them to the house of the Lord. Yet the temple at
Jerusalem was destroyed. Hence Thenius and Gratz have conjectured that Gedaliah
had erected a provisional temple at Mizpah, which was already hallowed by its
association with the Prophet Samuel. This is confirmed by 1 Macc. 3:46, where it is
said of the pious Jews in the Maccabean rising, that they "assembled themselves …
and came to Maspha, over against Jerusalem; for in Maspha was the place where
they prayed aforetime in Israel."
6 Ishmael son of Nethaniah went out from Mizpah
to meet them, weeping as he went. When he met
them, he said, “Come to Gedaliah son of
Ahikam.”
BARNES, "Ishmael’s conduct seems to have been dictated by the malicious desire
utterly to frustrate Gedaliah’s work.
Weeping - By this artifice he lured them into Mizpah. The Septuagint: “as they
were ... weeping.”
CLARKE, "Weeping all along as he went - This felonious hypocrite pretended
that he also was deeply afflicted, and wished to bear them company in their sorrow.
Come to Gedaliah - He will appoint you vineyards and fields.
GILL, "And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth to Mizpah to meet
them,.... Hearing there was such a number of men upon the road to Jerusalem, in such
a habit, and upon such a design, he thought it advisable to go out and meet them, and
stop them, and decoy them into the city, and there destroy them; lest, if they should have
got any hint of what had been done by him, they should spread it, and raise the country
upon him, before he had executed his whole design:
weeping all along as he went; pretending equal concern for the destruction of the
land, city, and temple, as they had:
and it came to pass, as he met them; when he came up to them, and some
discourse had passed between them:
he said unto them, come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam; as if he was alive, and
23

for whom he had a great respect, and whose character was well known to these men; and
thought that this would be an inducement to come along with him: this he said either to
try them, whether they had heard anything upon the road of the death of him; or as an
argument to come into the city, suggesting the governor would gladly receive, and
liberally entertain them. This looks as if their design was not to come to Mizpah, but to
go on their way to Jerusalem, had they not been met with by him, and had he not thus
solicited them.
JAMISON, "weeping — pretending to weep, as they did, for the ruin of the temple.
Come to Gedaliah — as if he was one of Gedaliah’s retinue.
K&D 6-7, "Ishmael went out from Mizpah to meet these men, always weeping as he
went ( ֵ‫ֹל‬‫ה‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫ֹכ‬‫ב‬‫,וּ‬ cf. Ges. §131, ab; Ew. §280, b). If they came from Ephraim by way
of Gibeon (el Jîb), the road on to Jerusalem passed close by Mizpah. When Ishmael met
them, he asked them to come to Gedaliah (to Mizpah). But when they had entered the
city, "Ishmael slew them into the midst of the pit" (which was there), i.e., killed them
and cast their corpses into the pit.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:6 And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth from Mizpah
to meet them, weeping all along as he went: and it came to pass, as he met them, he
said unto them, Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.
Ver. 6. And Ishmael came forth of Mizpah to meet them.] This was another manner
of meeting than that at Mizpah in Samuel’s days. [1 Samuel 7:3-6] O tempora! O
mores!
Weeping all along as he went.] Oh deep dissimulation and crocodile’s tears! (a) That
creature, having killed some living beast, lieth upon the dead body, washeth the
head thereof with her warm tears, which she afterwards devoureth together with
the body. Tears, saith the author of the Turkish History, (b) speaking of
Andronicus, another Ishmael, by nature were ordained to express the heaviness of
the heart, flowing from the eyes as showers of rain from the clouds. In good men the
most certain signs of greatest grief and sure testimonies of inward torment; but in
Andronicus you are not so. You proceed of joy, you promise not to the distressed
pity or compassion, but death and destruction. How many men’s eyes have you put
out! How many have you drowned! How many have you devoured! Thus he; and
much more to like purpose.
Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.] This he saith fraudulently, like Sinon in the
poet, that he might fish and find out how they stood affected to Gedaliah, whom he
so deadly hated, that he slaughtered these poor folk for once owning him, or owing
him any service.
24

‘And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth from Mizpah to meet them, weeping
all along as he went, and it came about, as he met them, that he said to them, “Come
to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.”
It would appear that had Ishmael not gone out to these pious men they would have
passed Mizpah by. It may well, however, have been that Ishmael feared that they
would hear news of what he had done and would spread it abroad. On the other
hand the great emphasis on their religious status suggests that this was to be seen as
an open attack on YHWH. Whatever may be the case, he went out to them, making
a pretence of mourning along with them, in order to win their confidence. He then
deliberately lured them into Mizpah by inviting them to meet the governor, thus
once again abusing the laws of hospitality. The worshippers would see such an
invitation as one not to be refused, the equivalent of an official command. Thus he
obtained his way by trickery. His sole aim was murder, and that of pious
worshippers of YHWH.
7 When they went into the city, Ishmael son of
Nethaniah and the men who were with him
slaughtered them and threw them into a cistern.
BARNES, "The pit - the cistern, and in Jer_41:9.
CLARKE, "Slew them - He kept the murder of Gedaliah secret, and no doubt had a
band of his assassins lodged in Mizpah; and he decoyed these fourscore men thither that
he might have strength to slay them. He kept ten alive because they told him they had
treasures hidden in a field, which they would show him. Whether he kept his word with
them is not recorded. He could do nothing good or great; and it is likely that, when he
had possessed himself of those treasures, he served them as he had served their
companions. Grain is preserved to the present day in subterranean pits, called
mattamores, in different parts of the east.
GILL, "And it was so, when they came into the midst of the city,.... Where
Gedaliah's house was, to which he invited them; and as they went in, he shut up the
court, as Josephus (h) says, and slew them, as it here follows:
25

that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them, and cast them into the midst
of the pit; when he had slain them, the fourscore men he had enticed into the city,
except ten of them, he cast their dead bodies into a pit near at hand:
he, and the men that were with him; Ishmael and the ten princes, with what
servants they brought with them; these were all concerned in the death of these men.
JAMISON, "and cast them into ... pit — He had not killed them in the pit
(compare Jer_41:9); these words are therefore rightly supplied in English Version.
the pit — the pit or cistern made by Asa to guard against a want of water when
Baasha was about to besiege the city (Jer_41:9; 1Ki_15:22). The trench or fosse round
the city [Grotius]. Ishmael’s motive for the murder seems to have been a suspicion that
they were coming to live under Gedaliah.
CALVIN, "Here Jeremiah relates another circumstance in the nefarious conduct of
Ishmael, that by flatteries he enticed simple men, who feared no evil, and while
pretending kindness, slew them. The slaughter was in itself very detestable, but
added to it was the most abominable deceit, for he pretended to weep with them,
and offered an act of kindness, to bring them to Gedaliah, and then he traitorously
killed them! We hence see that it was an act of extreme wickedness. In saying that he
wept, it was no doubt a sign of feigned piety, (121) He saw these good men in torn
garments and in tears on account of the Temple being destroyed, he therefore
pretended that he had the same feeling. This was falsely to pretend a regard for
God, and his tears were those of the crocodile; for he shed tears as though he
lamented the ruin of the Temple and of the city. He thus gained the confidence of
the unwary men, and then after having led them into the middle of the city, he slew
them. The place also is mentioned, nigh to the middle of the pit, for so I render it,
rather than in the middle, for it is not credible that he killed them in the pit itself;
but when led to the pit they were killed and were cast into it, as we shall see. (122)
He then slew them at the outside of the pit, and immediately cast them in.
It may, however be asked, Whether he could with so few attack with success so
many men? for it seems strange, that as they were eighty men they did not resist;
they might at least have frightened their enemies. But we must, in the first place,
recollect that they were, as we have seen, unarmed; for they had brought only a
sacred offering with incense; but the others were armed and well trained for war;
they had also been reduced to a state of hopeless despair, so that they had doubtless
contracted great ferocity, as those who are continually in danger accustom
themselves to acts of cruelty. Ishmael, then, and his companions were armed, but the
others were without any arms, and were also simple men and in no degree
accustomed to war. Hence it was that they were killed like sheep, while Ishmael and
his associates were like wolves, altogether ferocious. It now follows, —
And Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, went out from Mizpah to meet them, walking,
walking and weeping, etc.
26

He went on foot, and wept as he went out.
— Ed.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:7 And it was [so], when they came into the midst of the city,
that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them, [and cast them] into the midst of the
pit, he, and the men that [were] with him.
Ver. 7. Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them.] This hell hound having once, as
other hounds, dipped his tongue in blood, can put no period to his unparalleled
cruelty.
He, and the men that were with him.] His slaughter slaves, his assassins to help him;
for he alone could not have done this bloody execution, unless he had taken as much
time thereunto as that Popish villain did in doing to death those poor Protestants of
Calabria, A.D. 1550. For as Ishmael here brought these eighty innocent men into the
midst of the city as into a pound, and there slew them, so eighty-eight poor
professors of the truth according to godliness, being all thrust up in one house
together, as sheep in a fold, the executioner comes in, saith Mr Foxe, and among
them takes one and blindfolds him with a muffler about his eyes, and so leads him
forth to a larger place, where he commandeth him to kneel down, which being done,
he cutteth his throat, and so leaving him half dead, and taking his butcher’s knife
and muffler all of gore blood, cometh again to the rest, and so leadeth them one
after another till he had despatched them all. (a)
‘And it was so, when they came into the midst of the city, that Ishmael the son of
Nethaniah slew them, and cast them into the midst of the pit, he, and the men who
were with him.”
But once the worshippers had innocently entered the city all but ten of them were
slain by Ishmael and his men, who then cast their bodies into a pit. The pit would be
an excavation in the form of a cistern, or subterranean storehouse, constructed in
the open country, for the purpose of storing grain and other produce. The opening
or entrance to it would be concealed so that it would not be perceived by those intent
on stealing the produce. Alternately it may have been the cistern which supplied the
city’s water supply in time of siege, and have been a deliberate attempt to make it
useless and ‘unclean’, thus preventing its use in any future defence of the city when
Nebuchadrezzar came seeking vengeance.
27

8 But ten of them said to Ishmael, “Don’t kill us!
We have wheat and barley, olive oil and honey,
hidden in a field.” So he let them alone and did
not kill them with the others.
BARNES, "Treasures - Hidden stores; which would be of great value to Ishmael in
his retreat back to Baalis.
GILL, "But ten men were found among them, that said unto Ishmael, slay us
not,.... They begged for their lives, using what follows as an argument to prevail upon
him:
for we have treasures in the field, of wheat, and of barley, and of oil, and of
honey; not that they had then a stock upon the ground at this time; for this being the
seventh month, not only the barley and wheat harvests had been over long ago, but the
rest of the fruits of the earth were gathered in: but this either means storehouses of such
things in the field; or else that these things were hid in cells under ground, the land
having been invaded, to secure them from the enemy, as is common to do in time of war;
and so Josephus says (i), they promised to deliver to him things hid in the fields,
household goods, clothes, and corn:
so he forbore, and slew them not among their brethren; but saved them, and
kept and carried them with him, in order to take these hidden treasures, which lay in his
way to Ammon; for between Gibeon, where he was found, Jer_41:12; and Ammon, lay
Samaria, Sichem, and Shiloh; at least it was not far out of his way to take that course;
and thus he appears to be a covetous man, as well as a cruel one.
JAMISON, "treasures — It was customary to hide grain in cavities underground in
troubled times. “We have treasures,” which we will give, if our lives be spared.
slew ... not — (Pro_13:8). Ishmael’s avarice and needs overcame his cruelty.
K&D 8-9, "Only ten men out of the eighty saved their lives, and this by saying to
Ishmael, "Do not kill us, for we have hidden stores in the field - wheat, and barley, and
oil, and honey." ‫ים‬ִ‫ֹנ‬‫מ‬ ְ‫ט‬ ַ‫מ‬ are excavations in the form of cisterns, or subterranean
storehouses in the open country, for keeping grain; the openings or entrances to these
are so concealed that the eye of a stranger could not perceive them. Such places are still
universally employed in Palestine at the present day (Robinson's Palestine, i. pp. 324-5),
and are also to be found in other southern countries, both in ancient and modern times;
see proofs of this in Rosenmüller's Scholia ad hunc locum. It is remarked, in Jer_41:9, of
28

the pit into which Ishmael threw the corpses, that it was the same that King Asa had
made, i.e., had caused to be made, against, i.e., for protection against, Baasha the king of
Israel. In the historical books there is no mention made of this pit in the account of the
war between Asa and Baasha, 1Ki_15:16-22 and 2Ch_16:1-6; it is only stated in 1Ki_
15:22 and 2Ch_16:6 that, after Baasha, who had fortified Ramah, had been compelled to
return to his own land because of the invasion of Benhadad the Syrian king, whom Asa
had called to his aid, the king of Judah ordered all his people to carry away from Ramah
the stones and timber which Baasha had employed in building, and therewith fortify
Geba and Mizpah. The expression ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫פּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫א‬ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ע‬ ַ‫ב‬ certainly implies that the pit had been
formed as a protection against Baasha, and belonged to the fortifications raised at that
time. However, ‫ר‬ ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ cannot mean the burial-place belonging to the city (Grotius), but
only a cistern (cf. 2Ki_10:14); and one such as could contain a considerable store of
water was as necessary as a wall and a moat for the fortification of a city, so that it might
be able to endure a long siege (Graf). Hitzig, on the other hand, takes ‫ר‬ ‫בּ‬ to mean a long
and broad ditch which cut off the approach to the city from Ephraim, or which, forming
a part of the fortifications, made a break in the road to Jerusalem, though it was bridged
over in times of peace, thus forming a kind of tunnel. This idea is certainly incorrect; for,
according to Jer_41:7, the "ditch" was inside the city ( ‫ת‬ ְ‫.)בּ‬ The expression ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫גּ‬
is obscure, and cannot be explained with any of certainty. ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ cannot mean "through the
fault of" Gedaliah (Raschi), or "because of" Gedaliah - for his sake (Kimchi, Umbreit), or
"coram" Gedaliah (Venema), but must rather be rendered "by means of, through the
medium of," or "at the side of, together with." Nägelsbach has decided for the rendering
"by means of," giving as his reason the fact that Ishmael had made use of the name of
Gedaliah in order to decoy these men into destruction. He had called to them, "Come to
Gedaliah" (Jer_41:6); and simply on the authority of this name, they had followed him.
But the employment of the name as a means of decoy can hardly be expressed by ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫.בּ‬
We therefore prefer the meaning "at the hand = at the side of" (following the Syriac, L.
de Dieu, Rosenmüller, Ewald), although this signification cannot be established from the
passages cited by Rosenm. (1Sa_14:34; 1Sa_16:2; Ezr_7:23), nor can the meaning
"together with" (Ewald) be shown to belong to it. On the other hand, a passage which is
quite decisive for the rendering "by the hand of, beside," is Job_15:23 : "there stands
ready at his hand ( ‫ָד‬‫י‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ i.e., close to him) a day of darkness." If we take this meaning for
the passage now before us, then ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫גּ‬ cannot be connected with ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ , in
accordance with the Masoretic accents, but with ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ "where Ishmael cast the
bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah;" so that it is not stated till
here and now, and only in a casual manner, what had become of Gedaliah's corpse.
Nothing that admits of being proved can be brought against this view.
(Note: Because the lxx have, for ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫גּ‬ ‫,הוּא‬ φρέαρ μέγα τοῦτό ἐστιν, J. D.
Michaelis, Dahler, Movers, Hitzig, and Graf would change the text, and either take
ryb lwdg 'wh (Dahler, Movers) or ‫יר‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ָד‬‫גּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫הוּא‬ (= ‫ר‬ ‫)בּ‬ as the original reading,
inasmuch as one codex of De Rossi's also has ‫.בור‬ But apart from the improbability
of ‫ר‬ ‫בּ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ָד‬‫גּ‬ or ‫ל‬ ‫ָד‬‫גּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ being incorrectly changed into ‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ד‬ְ‫,גּ‬ we find that ‫הוּא‬
stands provokingly in the way; for it would be superfluous, or introduce an improper
emphasis into the sentence. The lxx have but been attempting to guess at a
translation of a text they did not understand. What Hitzig further supposes has no
29

foundation, viz., that this "ditch" is identical with that mentioned 1Sa_19:22, in ‫כוּ‬ֵ‫,שׂ‬
and with τὸ φρέαρ τὸ μέγα of 1 Macc. 7:19; for the ditch at Sechu was near Ramah,
which was about four miles from Mizpah, and the large fountain 1 Macc. 7:19 was ἐν
Βηζέθ, an unknown place in the vicinity of Jerusalem.)
The ‫הוּא‬ which follows is a predicate: "the ditch wherein...was that which Asa the king
had formed."
The motive for this second series of assassinations by Ishmael is difficult to discover.
The supposition that he was afraid of being betrayed, and for this reason killed these
strangers, not wishing to be troubled with them, is improbable, for the simple reason
that these strangers did not want to go to Mizpah, but to Jerusalem. For the supposition
of Thenius (on 2Ki_25:23) and of Schmieder, that the people had intended going to
Mizpah to a house of God that was there, is very properly rejected by Hitzig, because no
mention is made in history of a place of worship at Mizpah; and, according to the
express statement of Jer_41:6., Ishmael had enticed them into this city only by inviting
them to come and see Gedaliah. Had Ishmael wished merely to conceal the murder of
Gedaliah from these strangers, he ought to have done anything but let them into Mizpah.
As little can we regard this deed (with Graf) as an act of revenge on these Israelites by
Ishmael for the murder of his relations and equals in rank by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer_
52:10), because these men, who had now for a long time been living together with
heathens, were Assyrian and Chaldean subjects. For we cannot comprehend how he
could look on these Israelites as friends of the Chaldeans, and vent his anger against the
Chaldean rule by murdering them; the mournful procession which they formed, and the
offerings they were carrying to present, proclaimed them faithful adherents of Judah.
Nägelsbach, accordingly, is of opinion that Ishmael had simply intended robbery. As it is
evident that he, a rough and wild man, had assassinated the noble Gedaliah from
personal jealousy, and in order to further the political interest of his Ammonite patron,
he must have been seeking to put himself in the position of his victim, or to flee. "When
we find, moreover, that he soon murdered a peaceable caravan of pilgrims, and
preserved the lives only of a few who offered to show him hidden treasures; when,
finally, we perceive that the whole turba imbellis of Mizpah were seized and carried off
into slavery, Ishmael proves himself a mere robber." But, though the fact that Ishmael
spared the lives of the ten men who offered to show him hidden treasures seems to
support this view, yet the supposition that nothing more than robbery was intended does
not suffice to explain the double murder. The two series of assassinations plainly stand
in the closest connection, and must have been executed from one and the same motive.
It was at the instigation of the Ammonite king that Ishmael murdered Gedaliah;
moreover, as we learn from the report brought to Gedaliah by Johanan (Jer_40:15), the
crime was committed in the expectation that the whole of Judah would then be
dispersed, and the remnant of them perish. This murder was thus the work of the
Ammonite king, who selected the royally-descended Ishmael as his instrument simply
because he could conveniently, for the execution of his plans, employ the personal envy
of one man against another who had been preferred by the king of Babylon. There can be
no doubt that the same motive which urged him to destroy the remnant of Judah, i.e., to
frustrate the attempt to gather and restore Judah, was also at work in the massacre of
the pilgrims who were coming to the temple. If Ishmael, the leader of a robber-gang, had
entered into the design of the Ammonite king, then everything that might serve for the
preservation and consolidation of Judah must have been a source of pain to him; and
this hatred of his towards Judah, which derived its strength and support from his
30

religious views, incited him to murder the Jewish pilgrims to the temple, although the
prospect of obtaining treasures might well cooperate with this in such a way as to make
him spare the ten men who pretended they had hidden stores. With this, too, we can
easily connect the hypocritical dealing on the part of Ishmael, in going forth, with tears,
to meet these pious pilgrims, so that he might deceive them by making such a show of
grief over the calamity that had befallen Judah; fore the wicked often assume an
appearance of sanctity for the more effectual accomplishment of their evil deeds. The lxx
evidently did not know what to make of this passage as it stands; hence, in Jer_41:6,
they have quite dropped the words "from Mizpah," and have rendered ֵ‫הֹל‬ ָ‫ה‬ by
αὐτοὶ ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἔκλαιον. Hitzig and Graf accept this as indicating the original text,
since Ishmael had no ostensible ground for weeping. But the reasons which are
supposed to justify this conjecture are, as Nägelsbach well remarks, of such a nature that
one can scarcely believe they are seriously held.
CALVIN, "We here see that the barbarity of Ishmael was connected with avarice,
he was indeed inflamed with ferocious madness when he slew simple and innocent
men; but when the hope of gain was presented to him, he spared some of them. Thus
then we see that he was a lion, a wolf, or a bear in savageness, but that he was also a
hungry man, for as soon as he smelt the odor of prey, he spared ten out of the
eighty, who, it is probable, thus redeemed their life and returned home. So in one
man we see there were many monsters; for if he hated all those who favored
Gedaliah, why did he suffer these to escape? even because avarice and rapacity
prevailed in him.
It is then added, that he slew them not in the midst of their brethren, that is, when
they were exposed to death and were mixed with the others, so that their condition
seems to have been the same. The Prophet says, that they were spared, even because
Ishmael sought nothing else but gain. And it is probable that in a state of things so
disturbed he was not furnished with provisions and other things. As, then, want
urged him, so he became moderate, lest his cruelty should cause a loss to him.
Here also is set before us the inscrutable purpose of God, that he suffered unhappy
men to have been thus slain by robbers. They had left. their houses to lament the
burning of the Temple. As then the ardor of their piety led them to Jerusalem, how
unworthy it was that they should become a prey to the barbarity of Ishmael and his
associates? But as we said yesterday, God has hidden ways by which he provides for
the salvation of his people. He took away Gedaliah; his end indeed was sad, having
been slain by Ishmael whom he had hospitably entertained. Thus God did not suffer
him to be tossed about in the midst of great troubles. For John, the son of Kareah,
who yet was a most faithful man, would have become soon troublesome to the holy
man; for he became soon after the head and ringleader of an impious faction, and
ferociously opposed Jeremiah. Had then Gedaliah lived, he would have been
assailed on every side by his own people. It was then God’s purpose to free him at
once from all these miserable troubles. The same thing also happened to the seventy
who were slain; for the Lord removed them to their rest, that they might; not be
31

exposed to the grievous evils and calamities which afterwards soon followed; for
none could have been in a more miserable state than the remnant whom
Nebuchadnezzar had spared. We have then reason in this instance to admire the
secret purpose of God, when we see that these unhappy men were killed, who yet
had gone to Jerusalem for the sake of testifying their piety. It was, in short, better
for them to have been removed than to have been under the necessity of suffering
again many miseries. It now follows, —
COFFMAN, "THE TAKING OF PRISONERS AT MIZPAH
"But ten men were found among them that said unto Ishmael, Slay us not for we
have stores hidden in the field, of wheat, and of barley, and of oil, and of honey. So
he forbare, and slew them not among their brethren. Now the pit wherein Ishmael
cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah (the
same was that which Asa the king had made for the fear of Baasha the king of
Israel), Ishmael the son of Nethaniah filled it with them that were slain. Then
Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were at Mizpah, even
the king's daughters, and all the people that remained in Mizpah, whom
Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had committed to Gedaliah the son of
Ahikam; Ishmael the son of Nethaniah carried them away captive, and departed to
go over to the children of Ammon."
"Slay us not, for we have stores hidden ..." (Jeremiah 41:8). This was merely a
bribe, greedily accepted by Ishmael, the wondering being that he did not
immediately slay them also, as soon as he discovered their store of hidden supplies.
It was customary in those times to hide such supplies in excavations (cisterns and
the like) by covering them with a layer of earth.
"The same (pit, or cistern) was that which Asa the king had made ..." (Jeremiah
41:9). The purpose of this is to explain that the cistern which Ishmael filled with the
bodies of those whom he murdered was no ordinary cistern, but a very large one,
originally intended to supplement the water supply of the whole city. Now any
ordinary cistern would require several hundred men to fill it; and from this
revelation here, we are compelled to conclude that it was actually some tremendous
number of people who fell before the ruthless sword of this terminal rascal of the
house of David.
"Then Ishmael carried away captive ..." etc. (Jeremiah 41:10). There would appear
to have been a great many of these captives; and the prompt maneuver of Ishmael in
an attempt to carry them into the land of the Ammonites indicates, as Jamieson said,
that, "He probably meant to sell them all as slaves to the Ammonites."[5]
"The king's daughters ..." (Jeremiah 41:10). "These were not only the actual
children of Zedekiah, but such other female members of the royal entourage as the
Chaldeans had not cared to take away to Babylon."[6] It is not so stated in this
passage, but it appears likely that Jeremiah was among the captives whom Ishmael
32

was in the act of transporting to the land of the Ammonites.
COKE, "Jeremiah 41:8. We have treasures in the field— Dr. Shaw tells us that in
Barbary, when the grain is winnowed, they lodge it in mattamores or subterraneous
repositories; two or three hundred of which are sometimes close to each other, the
smallest holding four hundred bushels. These are very common in other parts of the
East, and are in particular mentioned by Dr. Russel, as being in great numbers near
Aleppo, about the villages; which renders travelling there in the night very
dangerous, the entrance into them being often left open, when they are empty. The
like method, it should seem, of keeping corn, obtains in the Holy Land; for Le
Bruyn speaks of deep pits at Ramah, which he was told were designed for corn; and
Rauwolf talks of three very large vaults at Joppa, actually used for the laying up of
grain, when he was there. The treasures in the field of wheat, &c. which the ten men
here proposed to Ishmael as the ransom for their lives, were doubtless laid up in the
same kind of repositories. Dr. Shaw only speaks of the Arabs hiding corn in these
mattamores. But as these ten Jews mentioned their having honey and oil in these
repositories, so the author of the history of the piratical states of Barbary tells us,
that it is usual with the Arabs, when they expect the armies of Algiers, to secure
their corn, and other effects which are not portable, in subterraneous repositories,
wandering about with their flocks till the troops are returned to their quarters. See
the Observations, p. 420.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 41:8 But ten men were found among them that said unto
Ishmael, Slay us not: for we have treasures in the field, of wheat, and of barley, and
of oil, and of honey. So he forbare, and slew them not among their brethren.
Ver. 8. But there were ten men found among them.] Qui miro astu sibi ab indigna
morte provident, who pleaded for their lives, were spared.
Slay us not, for we have treasures in the field.] And these we will willingly part with
for the redemption of our lives. They knew that soldiers would do much for money,
and what is wealth in comparison with life? Wicked worldlings would say the like to
death, if their tale might be heard. Henry Beaufort, Cardinal, Bishop of Winchester,
and Chancellor of England, in the reign of Henry VI, perceiving that he must die,
murmured at death, that his riches could not reprieve him till a further time. (a)
So he forbare, and slew them not.] Ambition covetousness strove for mastery in this
man, and here covetousness conquereth cruelty. This also was it that put him upon
carrying his poor countrymen captive, as hoping to make prize of them.
‘But ten men were found among them who said to Ishmael, “Do not kill us, for we
have stores hidden in the countryside, of wheat, and of barley, and of oil, and of
honey.” So he forbore, and did not kill them among their brethren.’
33

Ten of the men were spared, but the only reason for this was that they offered to
divulge the whereabouts of hidden stores as a bribe in return for their lives, possibly
requiring confirmation of the agreement by oath so as to make it binding. Ishmael’s
greed was even greater than his hatred of YHWH.
PULPIT, "Slay us not, etc. Bishop Callaway refers to this passage in his 'Zulu
Nursery Tales' (1.242), in illustration of a Zulu form of deprecating death on the
ground of having some important work in hand which absolutely requires the life of
the person in danger. But the "ten men" do not, as the bishop supposes, beg their
lives on the ground that they had not yet harvested, but rather offer a bribe. We
have treasures (literally, hidden things) in the field. The allusion is to the "wells or
cisterns for grain," in which "the farmers store their crops of all kinds after the
grain is threshed and winnowed. These cisterns are cool, perfectly dry, and tight.
The top is hermetically sealed with plaster, and covered with a deep bed of earth;
and thus they keep out rats, mice, and even ants, the latter by no means a
contemptible enemy ….These ten men had doubtless thus hid their treasures to
avoid being plundered in that time of utter lawlessness". Honey. Probably that
obtained from wild bees.
9 Now the cistern where he threw all the bodies of
the men he had killed along with Gedaliah was the
one King Asa had made as part of his defense
against Baasha king of Israel. Ishmael son of
Nethaniah filled it with the dead.
BARNES, "Because of Gedaliah - By the side “of Gedaliah.” Ishmael now cast
beside Gedaliah’s body those of the pilgrims.
CLARKE, "Now the pit - was it which Asa the king had made for fear of
Baasha - See 1Ki_15:22. Asa made this cistern as a reservoir for water for the supply of
the place; for he built and fortified Mizpah at the time that he was at war with Baasha,
king of Israel.
34

Jeremiah 41 commentary

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (13)

Semelhante a Jeremiah 41 commentary

Semelhante a Jeremiah 41 commentary (20)

Mais de GLENN PEASE

Mais de GLENN PEASE (20)

Último

Último (20)

Jeremiah 41 commentary