Jeremiah 35:11

Translation
King James Version
But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar H5019 king H4428 of Babylon H894 came up H5927 into the land H776, that we said H559, Come H935, and let us go H935 to Jerusalem H3389 for fear H6440 of the army H2428 of the Chaldeans H3778, and for fear H6440 of the army H2428 of the Syrians H758: so we dwell H3427 at Jerusalem H3389.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
But when N'vukhadretzar king of Bavel came up to attack the land, we said, 'Come, let's go up to Yerushalayim,' because we were afraid of the army of the Kasdim and the army of Aram; hence we are living in Yerushalayim."
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
So when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched into the land, we said: ‘Come, let us go into Jerusalem to escape the armies of the Chaldeans and the Arameans.’ So we have remained in Jerusalem.”
Ask
American Standard Version
But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians; so we dwell at Jerusalem.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, we said, “Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Kasdim, and for fear of the army of the Syrians; so we will dwell at Jerusalem.”
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
But when Nebuchad-nezzar King of Babel came vp into the land, we said, Come, and let vs go to Ierusalem, from the hoste of the Caldeans, and from the host of Aram: so we dwel at Ierusalem.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
and it cometh to pass, in the coming up of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon unto the land, that we say, Come, and we enter Jerusalem, because of the force of the Chaldeans, and because of the force of Aram--and we dwell in Jerusalem.'
Ask
See also
Jeremiah 8:14Jeremiah 4:5Jeremiah 4:7Daniel 1:1Daniel 1:22 Kings 24:12 Kings 24:2
In the KJVVerse 19,835 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Jeremiah 35:11 records the pragmatic and temporary relocation of the Rechabites into Jerusalem. This decision was a direct and necessary response to the overwhelming military threat posed by the advancing armies of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his Syrian allies. Far from being a renunciation of their ancestral vow of nomadic life, this move highlights their vulnerability amidst geopolitical turmoil and their wise discernment in seeking immediate safety, while still maintaining their core commitments.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is strategically placed within Jeremiah chapter 35, a pivotal narrative designed to highlight the profound contrast between the unwavering obedience of the Rechabites to their human ancestor Jonadab and the persistent, covenantal disobedience of the people of Judah to the divine commands of Yahweh. The chapter commences with God's explicit instruction to Jeremiah to invite the Rechabites into the temple and offer them wine, serving as a direct test of their fidelity to their ancestral vow (see Jeremiah 35:2). Their resolute refusal, meticulously detailed in Jeremiah 35:6-10, powerfully underscores their steadfast adherence to their family tradition, which mandated abstinence from wine, rejection of settled agriculture (building houses, sowing seed, planting vineyards), and a perpetual nomadic existence in tents. Verse 11 then provides the critical external circumstance—the imminent military threat—that compelled their temporary deviation from their usual dwelling places, thereby making their continued, core adherence to their principles even more remarkable and commendable in God's eyes.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: The historical setting of Jeremiah 35:11 is the tumultuous late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE, a period characterized by immense geopolitical instability across the ancient Near East. The burgeoning Neo-Babylonian Empire, under the formidable and expansionist leadership of King Nebuchadnezzar, was aggressively extending its dominion, asserting its hegemonic power over Judah and its neighboring states. The "army of the Chaldeans" refers directly to the elite Babylonian forces, as "Chaldeans" was a common ethnonym for the dominant tribal group that formed the core of the Babylonian ruling class. The "army of the Syrians" likely designates Syrian contingents either allied with or subjugated by Babylon, who participated in Nebuchadnezzar's extensive military campaigns against Judah and other territories. This era was marked by successive invasions, sieges, and deportations, culminating in the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile. For the Rechabites, a distinct nomadic group accustomed to the open countryside, the existential threat posed by these powerful, organized invading armies would have been particularly acute, rendering the fortified city of Jerusalem a logical, albeit temporary, sanctuary for survival.
  • Key Themes: Jeremiah 35:11 significantly contributes to several profound theological and narrative themes within the book of Jeremiah and the broader biblical canon. Firstly, it powerfully illustrates the theme of Obedience Under Pressure. While the Rechabites were renowned for their rigorous adherence to their ancestral vows, this verse reveals their capacity for a practical, temporary adjustment—relocating to Jerusalem—necessitated by an overwhelming external threat. Crucially, their core vow of not settling permanently remained inviolate, demonstrating a nuanced yet faithful obedience that prioritizes survival without compromising fundamental principles. Secondly, the verse highlights the universal human instinct of Seeking Refuge in times of extreme peril. The profound fear of the invading armies directly motivated their decision to seek safety within the fortified city, underscoring the innate human desire for protection when confronted with existential threats. Lastly, it emphasizes the stark Reality of Imminent Threat and Divine Judgment. The tangible presence of the Babylonian and Syrian armies vividly underscores the escalating and very real danger that Judah faced, a central and recurring theme throughout Jeremiah's prophetic pronouncements of impending judgment due to Judah's persistent unfaithfulness, as vividly depicted in passages like Jeremiah 25.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Nebuchadrezzar (Hebrew, Nᵉbûwkadneʼtstsar', H5019): This name (H5019), often transliterated as Nebuchadnezzar, identifies the formidable king of Babylon who reigned from 605 to 562 BCE. His arrival "into the land" represents the concrete and terrifying manifestation of God's instruments of judgment against Judah, as prophesied by Jeremiah. His military campaigns were the direct catalyst for the Rechabites' forced relocation, underscoring the severity and immediacy of the external threat. As a "king" (H4428, melek'), his authority and power are central to the unfolding crisis.
  • army (Hebrew, chayil', H2428): This term (H2428) denotes a "force, whether of men, means or other resources; an army, wealth, virtue, valor, strength." In this context, it specifically refers to a formidable and destructive military force, highlighting the overwhelming power and destructive potential of the Babylonian and Syrian invaders. The repetition of "army" emphasizes the dual nature of the threat and the sheer magnitude of the military might arrayed against Judah, generating profound "fear" (H6440, pânîym' - face, presence, fear of).
  • dwell (Hebrew, yâshab', H3427): This primitive root (H3427) properly means "to sit down," but by implication, "to dwell, to remain; causatively, to settle." For the Rechabites, whose ancestral vow explicitly forbade building houses and settling permanently, their decision to "dwell at Jerusalem" was a significant, albeit temporary, departure from their usual practice. It signifies a necessary act of seeking shelter and remaining in a fixed location for survival, rather than a permanent change in their nomadic identity or a violation of their core commitment. This temporary "dwelling" was a response to the "coming up" (H5927, ʻâlâh') of the enemy into the "land" (H776, ʼerets').

Verse Breakdown

  • "But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land": This opening clause precisely sets the historical and narrative stage, establishing the immediate catalyst for the Rechabites' actions. The arrival of Nebuchadrezzar, the formidable sovereign of Babylon (H894, Bâbel'), signifies the direct and terrifying fulfillment of prophetic warnings concerning foreign invasion and divine judgment. His "coming up into the land" denotes a full-scale military incursion, bringing the conflict directly to the doorstep of Judah.
  • "that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem": This clause reveals the collective and decisive action taken by the Rechabites. Faced with an existential threat, they pragmatically chose to seek immediate safety. Their mutual invitation to "go to Jerusalem" (H3389, Yᵉrûwshâlaim') highlights their recognition of the city's fortified nature as a place of temporary refuge, despite their inherent cultural aversion to settled urban life. The verb "said" (H559, ʼâmar') indicates a deliberate, communal decision.
  • "for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians": This crucial phrase explicitly articulates the profound motivation behind their relocation: an overwhelming sense of fear (H6440, pânîym'). The "army of the Chaldeans" (H3778, Kasdîy') refers to the Babylonians, who were the primary aggressors and instruments of God's judgment, while the "army of the Syrians" (H758, ʼĂrâm') indicates an allied or concurrent threat from the north. The powerful repetition of "for fear" underscores the intensity, legitimacy, and rational basis of their apprehension, demonstrating a natural human response to overwhelming military power.
  • "so we dwell at Jerusalem.": This concluding clause states the direct outcome of their collective decision. Despite their ancestral vow to live exclusively in tents and not settle, the immediate and overwhelming danger compelled them to "dwell" (H3427, yâshab') or reside within the city of Jerusalem. This temporary dwelling was a strategic and necessary survival measure, not a permanent abandonment of their core identity or a violation of their fundamental commitment, a fact later commended by God Himself.

Literary Devices

Jeremiah 35:11 masterfully employs several literary devices to amplify its message and underscore its theological implications. Contrast is a primary device, as the pragmatic, fear-driven, yet temporary, relocation of the Rechabites to Jerusalem stands in stark opposition to the persistent spiritual wandering and stubborn disobedience of the people of Judah, who repeatedly refused to "return" to God despite His fervent and numerous warnings. There is also a potent element of Irony in the fact that the Rechabites, a distinct group defined by their nomadic lifestyle and explicit rejection of settled habitation, are compelled by dire external circumstances to seek refuge within a fortified city. This ironic situation serves to highlight the extreme nature of the threat and the universal human need for safety. Finally, Symbolism is present, with Jerusalem, typically revered as a symbol of divine protection and the sacred dwelling place of God's presence, here serving as a literal, physical refuge from an invading army. This literal refuge, sought out of fear, subtly foreshadows the ultimate spiritual refuge found solely in God, a refuge that Judah, tragically, largely ignored.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

Jeremiah 35:11 offers profound theological insights into the nature of faithful obedience, the reality of divine judgment, and the pragmatic wisdom required in times of crisis. The Rechabites' decision, born of fear yet executed within the boundaries of their core commitment, illustrates that true faithfulness is not a rigid, unthinking adherence to a rule regardless of circumstance, but rather a principled and discerning navigation of life's challenges. Their temporary dwelling in Jerusalem, while a deviation from their typical practice, was a necessary act of self-preservation in the face of God's instruments of judgment (the invading armies). This highlights that even the righteous are subject to the consequences of a fallen world and the broader judgments that sweep through nations. Their actions serve as a powerful indictment of Judah, who, despite God's covenant promises, failed to seek true refuge in Him, instead trusting in fleeting political alliances or false gods.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

The Rechabites' decision to enter Jerusalem, driven by the very real and immediate fear of invading armies, provides a powerful lens through which to examine our own responses to fear and external pressures. While their ancestral vow prohibited settled life, their temporary relocation was a wise and practical measure for survival. This narrative reminds us that faithfulness to God's commands or deeply held personal convictions does not negate the need for practical wisdom, discernment, and prudent action in dangerous times. We are called to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves," balancing unwavering commitment to truth with pragmatic action. In a world fraught with uncertainties, from economic instability to social unrest, we often face various "armies" that threaten our peace and security. How do we respond? Do we react with panic, or with a reasoned, prayerful approach that seeks refuge in appropriate, temporary ways while steadfastly maintaining our core spiritual commitments? Ultimately, while physical fortresses like Jerusalem offer temporary safety, true and lasting refuge is found only in God, who is our ultimate strong tower and deliverer.

Questions for Reflection

  • How do I balance my core convictions with pragmatic decisions in times of crisis or fear?
  • What "armies" (threats, fears, anxieties) currently compel me to seek refuge, and where do I primarily seek that refuge?
  • In what ways might my "temporary dwelling" in a place of safety or comfort inadvertently prevent me from fully trusting in God as my ultimate and eternal refuge?

FAQ

Why did the Rechabites, who lived in tents, enter Jerusalem?

Answer:The Rechabites entered Jerusalem for their immediate safety and survival. As Jeremiah 35:11 explicitly states, they did so "for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians." These were powerful invading forces under Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who were sweeping through the land. While their ancestral vow (mentioned in Jeremiah 35:6-7) prohibited building houses, sowing fields, or planting vineyards, it did not forbid seeking temporary shelter in a fortified city during a military emergency. Their action was a pragmatic and necessary response to an existential threat, not a permanent abandonment of their nomadic identity or a violation of their core principles.

Who were the Chaldeans and Syrians mentioned here?

Answer:The "Chaldeans" (Hebrew: Kasdîy) refer to the Babylonians, specifically the dominant ethnic group and ruling class of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Under King Nebuchadnezzar, they were the primary military power threatening Judah during Jeremiah's prophetic ministry. The "Syrians" (Hebrew: ʼĂrâm) refer to the people from the region of Aram, located north of Israel. At this historical juncture, Syrian forces were likely either allied with Babylon or subjugated by them, participating in the broader Babylonian campaigns against Judah and other regional powers. Their combined presence represented a formidable and terrifying threat to the inhabitants of the land.

Does this act of the Rechabites contradict their vow?

Answer:No, the Rechabites' act of entering Jerusalem did not contradict the spirit or letter of their ancestral vow. Their vow, as detailed in Jeremiah 35:6-7, was primarily about a commitment to a specific, simple, nomadic way of life that rejected permanent settlement, agriculture, and wine consumption. Their temporary relocation to Jerusalem was a matter of immediate survival, a pragmatic decision to seek refuge from an overwhelming military threat, not an intent to permanently settle or abandon their core principles. God Himself later commends their unwavering obedience in Jeremiah 35:18-19, indicating that their action was understood as a necessary and temporary exception, not a permanent violation of their fidelity.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

Jeremiah 35:11, with its depiction of the Rechabites seeking refuge from an overwhelming external threat, finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The Rechabites, driven by fear, sought a physical fortress in Jerusalem; however, this earthly city would eventually be destroyed, symbolizing the temporary and ultimately insufficient nature of human strongholds and earthly security. In profound contrast, Christ offers an eternal, unshakeable, and perfect refuge for all who place their faith in Him. He is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, providing deliverance not just from temporal armies but from the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and the righteous wrath of God.

The Rechabites' commendable obedience was to an ancestral human command. Jesus, however, demonstrated perfect, unblemished obedience to His Heavenly Father's divine will, even to the point of sacrificial death on a cross (see Philippians 2:8). He is the one who graciously invites all who are weary and burdened by the weight of sin and life's struggles to come to Him for rest, offering a profound and abiding peace that the world cannot give or take away (see John 14:27). The fear that drove the Rechabites to seek physical sanctuary foreshadows the spiritual fear and eternal judgment that humanity faces apart from Christ. Through His atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection, He has become our ultimate sanctuary, a sure and steadfast anchor for the soul, providing eternal security and a dwelling place not made with human hands, but in the very presence of God Himself. Thus, the temporary physical refuge sought by the Rechabites powerfully points forward to the everlasting spiritual refuge found uniquely and completely in Jesus Christ.

Copy as

Commentary on Jeremiah 35 verses 1–11

I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points

This chapter is of an earlier date than many of those before; for what is contained in it was said and done in the days of Jehoiakim (Jer 35:1); but then it must be in the latter part of his reign, for it was after the king of Babylon with his army came up into the land (Jer 35:11), which seems to refer to the invasion mentioned Kg2 24:2, which was upon occasion of Jehoiakim's rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar. After the judgments of God had broken in upon this rebellious people he continued to deal with them by his prophets to turn them from sin, that his wrath might turn away from the. For this purpose Jeremiah sets before them the example of the Rechabites, a family that kept distinct by themselves and were no more numbered with the families of Israel than they with the nations. They were originally Kenites, as appears Ch1 2:55, These are the Kenites that came out of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab. The Kenites, at least those of them that gained a settlement in the land of Israel, were of the posterity of Hobab, Moses's father-in-law, Jdg 1:16. We find them separated from the Amalekites, Sa1 15:6. See Jdg 4:17. One family of these Kenites had their denomination from Rechab. His son, or a lineal descendant from him, was Jonadab, a man famous in his time for wisdom and piety. he flourished in the days of Jehu, king of Israel, nearly 300 years before this; for there we find him courted by that rising prince, when he affected to appear zealous for God (Kg2 10:15, Kg2 10:16), which he thought nothing more likely to confirm people in the opinion of than to have so good a man as Jonadab ride in the chariot with him. Now here we are told,

I. What the rules of living were which Jonadab, probably by his last will and testament, in writing, and duly executed, charged his children, and his posterity after him throughout all generations, religiously to observe; and we have reason to think that they were such as he himself had all his days observed.

1.They were comprised in two remarkable precepts: - (1.) He forbade them to drink wine, according to the law of the Nazarites. Wine is indeed given to make glad the heart of man and we are allowed the sober and moderate use of it; but we are so apt to abuse it and get hurt by it, and a good man, who has his heart made continually glad with the light of God's countenance, has so little need of it for that purpose (Psa 4:6, Psa 4:7), that it is a commendable piece of self-denial either not to use it at all or very sparingly and medicinally, as Timothy used it, Ti1 5:23. (2.) He appointed them to dwell in tents, and not to build houses, nor purchase lands, nor rent or occupy either, Jer 35:7. This was an instance of strictness and mortification beyond what the Nazarenes were obliged to. Tents were mean dwellings, so that this would teach them to be humble; they were cold dwellings, so that this would teach them to be hardy and not to indulge the body; they were movable dwellings, so that this would teach them not to think of settling or taking root any where in this world. They must dwell in tents all their days. They must from the beginning thus accustom themselves to endure hardness, and then it would be no difficulty to them, no, not under the decays of old age. Now,

2.Why did Jonadab prescribe these rules of living to his posterity? It was not merely to show his authority, and to exercise a dominion over them, by imposing upon them what he thought fit; but it was to show his wisdom, and the real concern he had for their welfare, by recommending to them what he knew would be beneficial to them, yet not tying them by any oath or vow, or under any penalty, to observe these rules, but only advising them to conform to this discipline as far as they found it for edification, yet to be dispensed with in any case of necessity, as here, Jer 35:11. He prescribed these rules to them, (1.) That they might preserve the ancient character of their family, which, however looked upon by some with contempt, he thought its real reputation. His ancestors had addicted themselves to a pastoral life (Exo 2:16), and he would have his posterity keep to it, and not degenerate from it, as Israel had done, who originally were shepherds and dwelt in tents, Gen 46:34. Note, We ought not to be ashamed of the honest employments of our ancestors, though they were but mean. (2.) That they might comport with their lot and bring their mind to their condition. Moses had put them in hopes that they should be naturalized (Num 10:32); but, it seems they were not; they were still strangers in the land (Jer 35:7), had no inheritance in it, and therefore must live by their employments, which was a good reason why they should accustom themselves to hard fare and hard lodging; for strangers, such as they were, must not expect to live as the landed men, so plentifully and delicately. Note, It is our wisdom and duty to accommodate ourselves to our place and rank, and not aim to live above it. What has been the lot of our fathers why may we not be content that it should be our lot, and live according to it? Mind not high things. (3.) That they might not be envied and disturbed by their neighbours among whom they lived. If they that were strangers should live great, raise estates, and fare sumptuously, the natives would grudge them their abundance, and have a jealous eye upon them, as the Philistines had upon Isaac (Gen 26:14), and would seek occasions to quarrel with them and do them a mischief; therefore he thought it would be their prudence to keep low, for that would be the way to continue long-to live meanly, that they might live many days in the land where they were strangers. Note, Humility and contentment in obscurity are often the best policy and men's surest protection. (4.) That they might be armed against temptations to luxury and sensuality, the prevailing sin of the age and place they lived in. Jonadab saw a general corruption of manners; the drunkards of Ephraim abounded, and he was afraid lest his children should be debauched and ruined by them; and therefore he obliged them to live by themselves, retired in the country; and, that they might not run into any unlawful pleasures, to deny themselves the use even of lawful delights. They must be very sober, and temperate, and abstemious, which would contribute to the health both of mind and body, and to their living many days, and easy ones, and such as they might reflect upon with comfort in the land where they were strangers. Note, The consideration of this, that we are strangers and pilgrims, should oblige us to abstain from all fleshly lusts, to live above the things of sense, and look upon them with a generous and gracious contempt. (5.) That they might be prepared for times of trouble and calamity. Jonadab might, without a spirit of prophecy, foresee the destruction of a people so wretchedly degenerated, and he would have his family provide, that, if they could not in the peace thereof, yet even in the midst of the troubles thereof, they might have peace. Let them therefore have little to lose, and then losing times would be the less dreadful to them: let them sit loose to what they had, and then they might with less pain be stripped of it. Note, Those are in the best frame to meet sufferings who are mortified to the world and life a life of self-denial. (6.) That in general they might learn to live by rule and under discipline. It is good for us all to do so, and to teach our children to do so. Those that have lived long, as Jonadab probably had done when he left this charge to his posterity, can speak by experience of the vanity of the world and the dangerous snares that are in the abundance of its wealth and pleasures, and therefore ought to be regarded when they warn those that come after them to stand upon their guard.

II. How strictly his posterity observed these rules, Jer 35:8-10. They had in their respective generations all of them obeyed the voice of Jonadab their father, had done according to all that he commanded them. They drank no wine, though they dwelt in a country where was plenty of it; their wives and children drank no wine, for those that are temperate themselves should take care that all under their charge should be so too. They built no houses, tilled no ground, but lived upon the products of their cattle. This they did partly in obedience to their ancestor, and out of a veneration they had for his name and authority, and partly from the experience they themselves had of the benefit of living such a mortified life. See the force of tradition, and the influence that antiquity, example, and great names, have upon men, and how that which seems very difficult will by long usage and custom become easy and in a manner natural. Now, 1. As to one of the particulars he had given them in charge, we are here told how in a case of necessity they dispensed with the violation of it (Jer 35:11): When the king of Babylon came into the land with his army, though they had hitherto dwelt in tents, they now quitted their tents, and came and dwelt in Jerusalem, and in such houses as they could furnish themselves with there. Note, The rules of a strict discipline must not be made too strict, but so as to admit of a dispensation when the necessity of a case calls for it, which therefore, in making vows of that nature, it is wisdom to provide expressly for, that the way may be made the more clear, and we may not afterwards be forced to say, It was an error, Ecc 5:6. Commands of that nature are to be understood with such limitations. These Rechabites would have tempted God, and not trusted him, if they had not used proper means for their own safety in a time of common calamity, notwithstanding the law and custom of their family. 2. As to the other particular, we are here told how, notwithstanding the greatest urgency, they religiously adhered to it. Jeremiah took them into the temple (Jer 35:2), into a prophet's chamber, there, rather than into the chamber of the princes, that joined to it, because he had a message from God, which would look more like itself when it was delivered in the chambers of a man of God. There he not only asked the Rechabites whether they would drink any wine, but he set pots full of wine before them, and cups to drink out of, made the temptation as strong as possible, and said, "Drink you wine, you shall have it on free cost. You have broken one of the rules of your order, in coming to live at Jerusalem; why may you not break this too, and when you are in the city do as they there do?" But they peremptorily refused. They all agreed in the refusal. "No, we will drink no wine; for with us it is against the law." The prophet knew very well they would deny it, and, when they did, urged it no further, for he saw they were stedfastly resolved. Note, Those temptations are of no force with men of confirmed sobriety which yet daily overcome such as, notwithstanding their convictions, are of no resolution in the paths of virtue.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 1–11. Public domain.
Copy as
JeromeAD 420
St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER SEVEN
[Daniel 7:1] "In the first year of Belshazzar, King of Babylon, Daniel beheld a dream. And a vision of his head upon his bed. And when he wrote the dream down, he comprehended it in a few words and gave a brief summary of it, saying..." This section which we now undertake to explain, and also the subsequent section which we are going to discuss, is historically prior to the two previous sections. For this present section and that which follows it are recorded to have taken place in the first and third years of the reign of King Belshazzar (Jeremiah 39) [Jerome's citation of Jeremiah 39 seems quite pointless in this connection]. But the section which we read previously to the one just preceding this, is recorded to have taken place in the last year, indeed on the final day, of Belshaz-zar's reign. And we meet this phenomenon not only in Daniel but also in Jeremiah [cf. Jeremiah 35 and Jeremiah 34] and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 17), as we shall be able to show, if life spares us that long. But in the earlier portion of the book, the historical order has been followed, namely the events which occurred in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar, and Darius or Cyrus. But in the passages now before us an account is given of various visions which were beheld on particular occasions and of which only the prophet himself was aware, and which therefore lacked any importance as signs or revelations so far as the barbarian nations were concerned. But they were written down only that a record of the things beheld might be preserved for posterity.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying Jeremiah 35:11 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.