Ebed-Melech

With 11000 words this is a long read. If you will take your time and read it through, you will learn things that no one else will teach you.

This essay begins with an exposé of how the translations of the bible have taken the straightforward Hebrew term ‘a servant of the king’ and turned it into a personal name Ebed-Melech. I discuss various aspects of the ancient Hebrew language which the translators needed to ignore in doing so.

Then we look at the word ebed and note how it is likely the root of English words such as evade and obedience. I posit the notion that servants or slaves during the time of Yirmeyahu usually have no known name but consider that people in stories need to be identified; if not by name, then by another identifier. Using the format of a screenplay I demonstrate how that works in the case of the servant who pulled out Yirmeyahu from the muddy well.

Following on, we try to understand why theologians are very clever yet somehow don’t seem to know the meaning of the name Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah). Are they deceiving us? We notice that YHWH’s name has been erased, after which we return to Yirmeyahu’s name, now with the tools to understand what it really means.

This takes us to exploring the meaning of another Hebrew word, batach, which has been translated with abstract English words such as trust en safety, but which has the much clearer concrete meaning of ‘holding on to,’ or ‘clinging to.’

After also considering the difference between if and because, we then conclude with the reason why we should cling to YHWH.

Translations of Jeremiah 38

Christians who read in the book of Jeremiah are acquainted with a person whom has been called Ebed-Melech. In for instance chapter 39 it says in the translation of the NIV:

While Jeremiah had been confined in the courtyard of the guard, the word of the LORD came to him:
“Go and tell Ebed-Melech the Cushite, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I am about to fulfil my words against this city through disaster, not prosperity. At that time they will be fulfilled before your eyes.
But I will rescue you on that day, declares the LORD; you will not be handed over to those you fear.
I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust in me, declares the LORD.’”

— Jeremiah 39:15-18, NIV

And this is how you would read these same verses if you could find a translation which honours the original Hebrew names, and does not translate the term eḇed־melekh:

While Yirmeyahu had been confined in the courtyard of the guard, the word of YHWH came to him: “Go and tell eḇed־melekh the Kushite, ‘This is what YHWH Tseva’ot, the Elohiym of Yisra’el, says: I am about to fulfil my words against this city through disaster, not prosperity. At that time they will be fulfilled before your eyes. But I will rescue you on that day, declares YHWH; you will not be handed over to those you fear. I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your soul, because you trusted in me, declares YHWH.’”

— Jeremiah 39:15-18, Not the NIV

The task of bible translators is to translate Hebrew words in the old manuscripts of the scriptures into English words with corresponding meanings. For instance, whenever they come across the Hebrew word ish they translate it to ‘man’ and where the Hebrew text has isha they translate ‘woman.’ All very well. But as for the Hebrew term eḇed־melekh they decided to do something different for a change: every time they came across eḇed־melekh in the book of Jeremiah, they did not translate it, as they should have done, with the term ‘a servant of the king’ (because that is what eḇed־melekh actually means) but they made it into a name by writing both words with an initial capital, Ebed-Melech.

As I will argue in this essay, this is wrong. To illustrate how the Hebrew should have been translated, let me give you a paraphrase of the passage about the same eḇed־melekh when he was first introduced in Yirmeyahu chapter 38.

Now there was Ebed-Melech a servant of the king, he was from Kush (Ethiopia), a eunuch, and he had seen how Yirmeyahu’s enemies had lowered him into a muddy well, from which he could not escape. So this ebed-melech servant of the king went to the King and explained how Yirmeyahu’s enemies had captured him and had left him to die from starvation. The king then commanded ebed-melech his servant to take 30 men with him and rescue Yirmeyahu from the well, which ebed-melech the Ethiopian then did.

— Jeremiah 38:7-10, a paraphrase

Hebrew spelling & grammar

The letter kaf – כ and ך

The English translations have transliterated the Hebrew word melekh with ‘ch’ at the end, rather than ‘kh.’ That was wrong. The word consists of the three letters MLK. When there appears a dagesh (a dot) in the letter kaf it is pronounced with a hard k-sound. Without such a dagesh, it is pronounced differently. Think of Johann Bach or a Scottish Loch.

The letter kaf in the word MLK in our text appears without the dagesh, so one should pronounce it with that ch-sound. To indicate the required pronunciation, the letter ‘h’ should be added after the ‘k’ as an alert to that particular sound. That’s why it is written as ‘melekh.’ Another, well known, word is Tanakh, where the same mechanism is at play, as this should be pronounced ‘tanach.’

The word kaf is pronounced just as you’d expect. But when written as khaf it is pronounced as ‘chaf.’ However, it is wrong to actually write ‘chaf’ because then the meaning of ‘kaf’ is lost, for chaf and kaf are different words.

Yet this is precisely what the translators, all of them, in all languages, have done. They have taken the word MLK, which should be written out as melekh to retain the meaning of ‘king,’ but they have changed it into a different word, ‘melech,’ which no longer means ‘king’ because it has lost the essential constituent letter K.

Incidentally, some letters in Hebrew, such as the letter kaf, change in appearance when they are written at the end of a word. But that’s another exposé.

Meaning of MLK - מלך

Let’s analyse the word MLK. It contains the letter L, lamed, which represents the staff of authority. The letter K, kaf, represents the palm of the hand. Together, this means that LK means ‘the staff of authority in the palm of the hand.’ Or, one who holds the staff.

The letter M, mem, has a variety of meanings, amongst which is the notion of derivation. Think ‘from.’ So MLK means ‘from having the staff of authority in the palm of the hand.’ What follows from someone holding the staff of authority? The answer: that someone is the king.

A ‘thought’ is ‘from thinking.’ Similarly, a king is ‘from holding the staff of authority.’

The letter bet – ב

Another Hebrew letter with two markedly different sounds, is the letter B, bet. With a dagesh, it is vocalised as a b-sound, but without it is spoken with a v-sound. The Spanish language, by the way, also has two different pronunciations for the same letter B. A remarkable coincidence? Or an indication that Spain is one of the countries where the ten lost tribes of Israel landed?

The word ebed appears in the text without the dagesh, so it should be pronounced as ‘eved’ and not ebed. The proper way to transliterate this word is to write it with an underscored b, like so: eḇed. Sadly, it is notoriously difficult to use these kind of accented letters in English becasue even extended keyboards don’t have the option for an underscored letter B built in.

In this essay I will use eved to indicate it’s proper pronunciation, and now we all know that this refers to the word eḇed.

Consistency

Notwithstanding what I’ve just said, I can’t see much reason to insist on writing melekh with ‘kh’ if an article is aimed at the general public, because hardly anyone would know to pronounce this ‘kh’ with a ‘ch’-sound.

However, if a professional bible scholar opts for the transliteration of Hebrew words and chooses a spelling which reveals consideration for phonetics, they should be consistent and do so for all Hebrew words. Especially if they occur in the same sentence.

So if they write melech with ‘ch’ to indicate that particular sound, then the word eved should be written with a ‘v’ to indicate its pronunciation. Thus it should be eved-melech. Otherwise it’s eḇed-melekh. However, all English translations write ebed with a ‘b’ but melech with ‘ch,’ which means that they are all! inconsistent and wrong.

Construct chain

A typical aspect of the Hebrew language is the ‘construct chain,’ “which is the Hebrew method of combining two (or more) nouns so that one noun describes the other noun in some way.¹” A similar kind of construction is known in English when one writes two nouns with the word ‘of’ in between. A hat of straw. A box of wood.

a. Often in Hebrew, the two nouns forming the construct chain are joined by a maqaf which is a raised dash. Joining these two words in that way points out that they belong together and function as one.

In eḇed-melekh, that maqaf appears in the Hebrew text in all instances in Yirmeyahu 38 and 39. This on its own is enough to conclude that eḇed-melekh is a construct chain with the meaning ‘a servant of the king.’

b. A construct chain can be definite or indefinite, depending on whether there is the definite article ‘ha’ in front of the so-called absolute noun, which is the last noun in the chain. An instance of a definite construct chain is therefore beyt-hammelekh, “the house of the king”, because the definite article appears in front of the word melekh.

In the term eḇed-melekh, however, there is no definite article. From this we can conclude, that the translation should be a servant of the king.

One of the problems with translating from Hebrew to English lies in the difficulty that English often requires an article before a noun, whether definite or indefinite, whereas Hebrew doesn’t because when a term does not have the definite article ha, it is automatically indefinite.

Hebrew has no indefinite article whereas to make sentences compliant with English grammar rules, translations need them. This problem is addressed below.

The grammar of articles

It makes sense to think that King Tzideqiyahu (the righteousness of YHWH) had more than one servant, rather then to assume that there was only one servant in the royal palace. So this is the first reason to opt for understanding the Hebrew text in this way: a servant of the king.

But Ebed-Melech, a Cushite, an official in the royal palace, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. While the king was sitting in the Benjamin Gate, Ebed-Melech went out of the palace and said to him…

— Jeremiah 38:7 - NIV

Should therefore be,

Now a servant of the king, the Kushi, an eunuch in the royal palace, heard that they had put Yirmeyahu in the well. And the king was sitting in the gate of Binyamin. And (this) servant of the king went out of the king’s house, and spoke to the king, saying…

— Jeremiah 38:7 - corrected NIV

The problem here is the absence of the article before the second occurrence of ‘servant of the king.’ The term appears in the continuation of the previous sentence, so the referent is obvious. And Hebrew sentences do not look odd without an article before a noun.

But English requires an article, either ‘a’ or ‘the.’ And to prove this point, if you would read: “But English requires article, either ‘a’ or ‘the,’” you would immediately notice that the sentence is wrong. The English language just doesn’t function without articles before nouns and therefore translators add them in tens of thousands of cases where Hebrew hasn’t.

In the above passage, I have inserted ‘(this)’ where the Hebrew text has no article. And where the English translations have no article either, but that’s because they have treated the term as a personal name.

Another place where the NIV translators have gotten the article wrong is in front of the word Kushi, or Ethiopian. The NIV writes a Cushite… The King James, however, in line with other more traditional translations, writes ‘the Ethiopian.’ Because the original Hebrew does indeed have the definite article ha in front of the word ‘kushi,’ the King James bible is correct and the NIV bible has jumbled the issue.

The third term with which to indicate this particular servant, is the term iysh sariys, another indefinite construct chain, which means ‘a man of castration’ or ‘a man without genitals.’ The common English word is eunuch.

It seems as if the NIV has deemed the notion of a castrated man too sensitive for us, for whereas many other translations have employed the word “eunuch,” the scribes of the International Bible Society have made him into “an official in the royal palace.”

Servant of the king

From these considerations about the definite and indefinite article, we can deduce that the man who saves Yirmeyahu from sinking down in the mud is identified as a servant of the king, the Kushi, a eunuch in the royal palace.

Which makes perfect sense. The King of Yehudah will have had more than one servant, and he will likely also have had more than one eunuch to supervise his harem, but it is not unthinkable that the king only had one Ethiopian servant. Kushi means black people, used to indicate people from Ethiopia. Kush was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah who went to live south of the Nile.

When referring to this man, it makes sense to call him the black servant of the king, or the Ethiopian servant of the king. Unless the man had a name.

The servant has no name

Generally, we encounter the term Ebed-Melech written with initial capital letters because most translators and theologians regard it as a proper name. The King James bible writes it with capital E and as one word Ebedmelech. The NIV writes Ebed-Melech, the ASV has Ebed-melech and Brenton’s English Septuagint has invented Abdemelech. Obviously, they all feel the need to enrich the world with their own particular spelling.

So here we have a Hebrew term of two words with clear and unambiguous grammatical markers to figure out its meaning, but the translators have nevertheless decided to present this to us as name, and not translate the meaning of this term into English but leave it in the Hebrew language. And then they cannot agree with each other on how to even spell this name!

There are three reasons why I think that all the translators and all the theologians are wrong to treat the Hebrew term eḇed-melekh as a name.

All theologians? No. As far as I can tell, there was one bible commentator, Adam Clarke, who realised that maybe eḇed-melekh was not a name at all. In 1832 he wrote,

**Ebed-melech** The servant of the king, one of the eunuchs who belonged to the palace. Perhaps it should be read, “Now, a servant of the king, a Cushite, one of the eunuchs,” &c.

— Adam Clarke. Commentary on Jeremiah 38:7. 1832.

So let’s look at why Ebed-Melech is not a name.

1) - Grammar

The first reason, as explained above, is because of the grammar of the sentence and the deliberate use of the definite article in front of the word ‘Kushi’ and the indefinite construct chains with servant and eunuch. The choice of articles in the Hebrew leads us to the perfectly reasonable sentence about a servant of the king, the Ethiopian, a eunuch in the palace.

It makes much more sense to read about this man that he is a servant of the king, rather than to think that this man somehow has the name Servant of the King.

2) - Servants have no names

We are calling the man a servant of the king, but in those days, servants were slaves. They were not domestic servants as we have become accustomed to thinking about servants, like servants in a household or personal attendants who serve on a voluntary basis. Or civil servants, people who choose a career in government. Rather, slaves were people who were captured, or who were born in captivity, and they served their master whether they wanted to or not.

The Hebrew does not distinguish between slave and servant, there is simply one word: eḇed pronounced eved.

It would be unusual to refer to a servant by name. And it would be even more unusual to refer to a slave by his name. So this is the second reason for rejecting the translators and theologians who have treated the Hebrew term for ‘a servant of the king’ as a proper name Ebed-Melech. It simply doesn’t fit the custom of the time.

2bis) - Evade

There are words in the English language which derive from old Hebrew, even though you’ll be hard pressed to find allusions to their Hebrew etymology when dictionaries such as the Oxford Dictionary of English list the development of these words in the English language. Here is an example of the English word ‘evade’ which I believe can be traced back to ancient Hebrew.

evade

meaning

escape or avoid (someone or something)

origin

late 15th century: from French évader, from Latin evadere from e- (variant of ex-) ‘out of’ + vadere ‘go’.

evadere

intransitive verb (Italian)

to escape, to break out, to get away; to break free – (evadere dal carcere [prigioniero] - to escape from prison)

Fuggire da un luogo in cui si è rinchiusi o sorvegliati (flee from a place in which he was locked up or watched over)

The meaning of the Italian evàdere is more closely related to eved (slave) than the Latin which Oxford claims as the origin of evade.

In old Hebrew, a slave is an eḇed, with the b spoken with a v-sound: eved. And some slaves get away, some eved evade being locked up or watched over.

All these words relate to the same concept of ‘slave.’ Slaves were owned by, for instance, the king. They were watched and guarded.

The Oxford declaration, stating that evade derives from the Latin for ‘going’ and ‘out of’ is much too vague. Of course, someone who escapes prison is literally going out of prison, but someone who is going out of town is also going out of a place, and then it has nothing to do at all with the concept of evading.

In other words, the meaning of the word ‘evade’ is much more closely related to the Hebrew word which is vocalised as ‘eved’ rather than to a person who leaves town for the weekend. Thus I propose that evade derives from the Hebrew eved, and not primarily from the Latin ‘going out of.’

2cis) - Obadiah

One of the so called ‘lesser prophets’ in the bible is known by the name Obadiah. This name, too, should have been kept in its Hebrew form, which is Abadyah. Servant of YHWH. Or slave of YHWH. However, because the form is slightly different, and because I don’t think that YHWH has slaves, I believe it would be better to understand it as ‘serving YHWH.’

My understanding is that eḇed-yahu would mean ‘the² servant of YHWH,’ just as eḇed-melekh means ‘a servant of the king’ and for various reasons I think that eḇed-yahu is unlikely. One, in the word abadyah, the second part, which points to YHWH’s name, is written in Hebrew in more abbreviated form compared to eḇed-yahu. And two, as explained in the footnote, the name abadyah must be translated with the definite article, and so the name would mean ‘the servant of YHWH’, and that, in turn, would express the idea that YHWH has no other people serving him than only this minor prophet. So I believe that abadyah is construct of a verb (rather than a noun) and the personal name of YHWH, with the meaning ‘serving YHWH’ or ‘someone who is serving YHWH.’

All this, incidentally, presents another opportunity for a detour about the origin of English words. Oxford claims that the origin of the word ‘obedience” is

Middle English: via Old French from Latin oboedientia, from the verb oboedire (see obey).

And the Latin ‘oboedire’ derives from ‘ubbedire’ which is related to audire (listening) and so again I partly disagree. A slave submits to his master. The noun eḇed for slave is a conjugation from the same root word YBD, just as the verb abad for to serve, to work for, is a conjugation of that same root. Both conjugations express the same concept: acting, including working, for someone else by obligation.

So the Hebrew word abad is a verb, and because of some rules, the letter ‘a’ is sometimes vocalised as ‘o’ and thus we find it in the name of Obadiah and in what I think is the true origin of the English word ‘obedience.’

The Oxford Dictionary of English, 3nd edition 2013

obedience ~ mass noun

compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority.

The Merriam-Webster, on page 692

obedience ~ noun

submission of one’s own will to the will expressed or otherwise, of another or to an impersonal embodiment of authority.

An old edition of the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary has a different leaning in describing the meaning of the noun ‘obedience’ than Oxford. Next to both referring to the notion of submission, only Oxford additionally suggests that it can be voluntary (compliance).

By relating ‘obedience’ to the Hebrew name of the prophet Obadiah and the Hebrew verb abad, with the related concepts of slave, and being in bondage to the will of another, has led me to the conviction that compliance and submission are not the same thing. I believe, therefore, that Oxford is wrong to suggest that both terms are equally characteristic of obedience. Compliance is voluntary, an act of one’s own free will to yield to the will of someone else, and which one can revoke on one’s own initiative. Submission on the other hand is irrevocable and not necessarily voluntary, and involves the binding surrender of one’s own free will.

3 - Script writing

The third indicator for why eḇed-melekh is not a name, becomes clear when we consider one of the basic principles of screenwriting. When working on a screenplay, the first time a new character is introduced, that character must be briefly described. And to be able to refer to that character in the continuation of the story, there are two options to consider for the introduction.

One is to provide a unique name for that character. Suppose a new character is introduced with the name John Barlowy, then whenever this character appears again, he can simply be referred to by his name John Barlowy.

Another option, especially when a name is not important to the story, is to provide some unique detail so that the character can be referred to by that detail in the continuation of the story. This is often the more effective method, because referring to a person’s unique detail causes a more rapid recall by the reader or viewer. And with short stories it is often the only proper way, because a short story is, by its nature, not long enough for a reader to get fully acquainted with every character.

3bis) - The story

In Yirmeyahu chapters 38 and 39, a slave or servant is introduced according to the second principle, by providing unique detail. And in the continuation of the narrative, he is referred to by that unique detail which sets him apart from all the others.

In screenwriting, when the action moves to another location, it requires a new scene heading. Let’s apply the format of a screenplay to illustrate how this works out.

FADE IN:

INT. YERUSHALAYIM - THE KING’s HOUSE - DAY

A servant of the King, THE ETHIOPIAN, one of the eunuchs who was in the King’s house, hears that the princes have put YIRMEYAHU into the well. The servant of the King goes forth out of the King’s house to talk to the King.

EXT. YERUSHALAYIM - GATE OF BENJAMIN - DAY

TZIDQIYAHU THE KING (aka Zedekiah) sits in the Gate of Benjamin. One of his servants, the Ethiopian, approaches.

THE ETHIOPIAN

My Lord the King, the princes have done evil in all that they have done to Yirmeyahu the prophet. They have cast him into the well and he is likely to die from hunger in the place where he is, for there is no more bread in the city.

TZIDQIYAHU THE KING

Take thirty men with thee, and pull up Yirmeyahu the prophet out of the well, before he dies. (Yirmeyahu 38:10)

INT. YERUSHALAYIM - KING’s HOUSE - DAY

The servant of the king takes the men with him, and goes into the house of the King. From under the treasury he gets some old cast-away clothes and rags.

EXT. YERUSHALAYIM - COURTYARD OF THE PRISON - WELL OF MALKHIYAHU THE SON OF THE KING - DAY

The servant of the King lets down by cords the clothes and rags into the well to Yirmeyahu.

THE ETHIOPIAN

Put now these old cast clothes and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords! (Yirmeyahu 38:12)

Yirmeyahu does as instructed. The servant of the King with the help of the men then pull up Yirmeyahu with the cords, and rescue him out of the well; and Yirmeyahu remains in the court of the prison.

Thus far in the original Hebrew there is talk of a servant of the king, and he was a eunuch at the royal palace. Neither are unique. However, the bible provides us with the definite article in front of the word Kushi, therefore we can deduce that there was only one of the servants of the king who was black, and this, therefore, is this character’s unique detail.

ACT II

EXT. YERUSHALAYIM - COURT OF THE PRISON - DAY

The word of YHWH comes unto Jeremiah.

YHWH

Go speak to this servant of the King, the Ethiopian, and tell him, Thus says YHWH Tseva’ot, the Elohiym of Yisra’el; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished in that day before thee. But I will deliver thee in that day, says YHWH: and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely deliver thee, and you shall not fall by the sword, and your soul shall be a prey for yourself; because you have trusted me, says YHWH.

FADE OUT

So we see that also YHWH himself refers to this servant of the King by his unique characteristic: the Ethiopian, and that Yirmeyahu of course understands without a doubt.

Another not-a-name: Hammelekh

The King James Version has chapter 38 verse 6:

Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech…

This is an exactly similar issue as with eḇed-melekh. Hammelekh means: the King. Hammelekh is not a name, just as eḇed-melekh is not a name. These words are appellations. Malkhiyahu is introduced to us: he was Malkhiyahu ben Hammelekh, the son of the King.

Incidentally, Malkhiyahu means: ‘My King is YHWH.’ You may notice the three letters MLK in the first part of the name.

Most later versions have correctly done away with treating Hammelekh as a name and translated correctly ‘the King.

The New Living Translation, by the way, has this:

Malkijah, a member of the royal family.

It’s now easy to understand why this is wrong. Ben־Hammelekh is again a construct chain, written with a maqaf, and definite, because of the definite article in front of melekh. So it is the son of the king, which is much more than merely ‘a member of the royal family.’

Moreover, the appellation Ben Hammelekh indicates either of two things:

1. Malkhiyahu is the son of the king, and not a son of the king, which could indicate that King Zedekyahu had only one son.
2. There were more people called Malkhiyahu because it was a common name, and the appellation Ben-Hammelekh is to distinguish this one from the others. Which Malkhiyahu? Malkhiyahu the son of the king. Oh, that Malkhiyahu.

Later on we learn that the King of Babylon killed the sons (plural) of King Tzidqiyahu (Zedekiah), so option two is the correct one.

Name of Jeremiah unclear

The name of Yirmeyahu has been twisted to Jeremiah in English and Jeremia in Luther’s German. These names are artificial, unhappy transliterations of the Greek corruption Ieremias.

Below are commentaries and bible dictionaries which I consider to be all wrong.

Gill on the name Jeremiah

The name of the writer of this book, Jeremiah, signifies, “the Lord shall exalt”, or “be exalted”; or, “exalting the Lord”; being composed of “he shall exalt”, and “Jehovah”, according to Hillerus {b}. Though others {c} take it to be “the Lord shall cast down”; as he did his enemies, and also himself, he being greatly afflicted; and which suits with the argument of his book, foretelling the casting away of the people of the Jews.

— John Gill. Exposition of the Old and New Testament. 1809

John Gill was one of the great theologians of his time, and even today, 200 years later, his nine volume Exposition from 1809 is still reckoned among the most influential bible commentaries of all time. Yet he could not tell for certain what the name Jeremiah means. On the contrary, he offers two possible interpretations which are polar opposites, which itself is the opposite an explanation.

Matthew Henry

Jeremiah signifies one raised up by the Lord.

— Matthew Henry. Comment on Jeremiah 1:1-3

Dictionaries

Jeremia = “Jehova moge verhogen” — Thayer’s Greek Lexicon in Dutch.

Jeremia = “door JHWH aangesteld” — Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon in Dutch.

Jeremiah = “whom Jehovah has appointed” — Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

Raised up or appointed by Jehovah. — Easton

Jeremiah, exaltation of the Lord. — Hitchcock

The name of one of the greatest prophets of Israel. The Hebrew yirmeyahu, abbreviated to yirmeyah, signifies either “Yahweh hurls” or “Yahweh founds.” — ISBE

yirmeyahu, or shorter form, yirmeyah, both differently explained as “Yah establishes (so Giesebrecht), whom Yahweh casts,” i.e. possibly, as Gesenius suggests, “appoints” (A. B. Davidson in HDB, II, 569a), and “Yahweh looseneth” (the womb). — David Francis Roberts

The name has been variously explained: by Jerome and Simonis (Onomast. p. 535), as “the exalted of the Lord;” by Gesenius (s. v.), as “appointed of the Lord;” by Carpzov (Introd. ad lib. V. T. p. iii. c. 3), followed by Hengstenberg (Christologie des A. B. vol. i.), as “the Lord throws”—the latter seeing in the name a prophetic reference to the work described in i. 10; [by Dietrich, “whom Jehovah founds,” i. e. establishes.] — Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. William Smith

The NIV Study Bible

The meaning of his name is uncertain. Suggestions include “The LORD exalts” and “The LORD establishes”, but a probable interpretation is “The LORD throws”, either in the sense of “hurling” the prophet into a hostile world or of “throwing down” the nations in divine judgment for their sins.

— NIV Study Bible. 1998. p. 1096, introduction to the book of Jeremiah.

The NIV Study Bible is a project of highly esteemed bible scholars. And the quote above is from the preface to the book of Jeremiah in this best-selling modern bible translation in the English speaking world, in which these mighty men of theology declare the meaning of the name Jeremiah to be uncertain! Just as their predecessor John Gill did.

Does anyone really believe that? Do these scholars think we would fall for their deception? No, I believe that they know perfectly well what the name means of one of the most important prophets in the bible, it’s just that they refuse to acknowledge it! For explaining the name of Jeremiah requires referencing the original Hebrew Yirmeyahu and this involves addressing the name YHWH which is a constituent part of that name. Many theologians, and especially the scribes from the NIV, seem to abhor the name YHWH so much, that they do everything in their power to remove that name, bury it, destroy it, trample it down and carry it to emptiness.

YHWH’s name erased

Everyone who reads the bible and who is somehow interested in knowing about the relationship between themselves and the maker of heaven and earth should understand this clearly: the translators of the bible, in all modern languages from at least Luther onwards, have given a personal name to the servant of the king, the Ethiopian (or Moorman, or Kushite). A servant of the king, who had no recorded name, has posthumously received one from the theologians. They haven taken the Hebrew title (eḇed־melekh) and then changed that appellation into a proper name by raising the first letters to capitals (Ebed-Melekh) and changing the pronunciation (Ebed-Melech), and from then on they have kept that ‘name’ in the Hebrew language and they explain his ‘name’ in every bible commentary on these verses.

The NIV Study Bible even explains this ‘name’ in a study note in the bible itself.

38:7 Ebed-Melech. Means “king’s servant”. — {NIV. p 1168}

At the same time, these same theologians have erased YHWH’s name, which actually does appear in the Hebrew manuscripts about SEVENTHOUSAND times. Bible translators have removed YHWH’s name from his own book. He who made heaven and earth, the highest elohiym, has been demoted to a nameless deity with a generic title as identifier, whereas an Ethiopian servant who had no recorded name has been given one.

So a slave of the King of Yehuda had his title a servant of the king made into a name because the theologians have decided that all believers should remember this slave by his name.

Yet these theologians have torn out from the entire bible the set-apart (holy) name of YHWH and then used the most common title they could think of, the word ‘lord,’ and raised the letters of this common word to capitals (LORD), thus tacitly telling the maker of heaven and earth, the highest elohiym, that henceforth he should have to deal with the fact that he has lost his name.

There are no words to fully describe the gravity of the transgression of theologians and bible translators who participate in the evil conspiracy to bury the name of YHWH.

Why did YHWH save the Ethiopian?

The bible informs us that Yirmeyahu had to go and see the Ethiopian servant to tell him that YHWH, the almighty Elohiym himself, had decided to assure the servant that he would not fall by the sword during the siege of Yerushalayim.

YHWH decides to protect a servant of the king, and at first glance this may simply be considered a fair deal. The Ethiopian saves YHWH’s prophet from drowing in the pit, and in return YHWH saves the Ethiopian from being killed by the sword of the conquerors. If the account had told it in this way, all would have been completely clear.

But the bibles we read in English and Dutch and German have a different perspective. They talk about the Ethiopian’s trust in YHWH as the reason for his escape. Do they accurately reflect the Hebrew original?

YHWH takes the initiative

Before further analysing the text, I’d like to reflect on an incidental significance of the episode.

A nameless servant of the king, an eunuch from Ethiopia, performs a deed of kindness to one of YHWH’s prophets, and as far as we can learn from the account, he acts without any thought of a reward. Then because of his consideration for the prophet, the servant is rewarded the highest honour imaginable: YHWH Elohiym, the almighty adon of the universe is looking after him, actually mentioning him in person, and promising to save him from the sword of the enemy.

I have met with and know of some people whose motivation to do certain things is that they want to be remembered by their children and grandchildren for having done such or so. But they’ll be lucky if the memory of their heroic actions or daring adventure even lasts the life of their immediate children, let alone their grandchildren.

Yet here we have a nameless servant and three thousand years later, people still read about him and remember him.

Why? Was he the only one who has ever saved a stranger? No, of course not, but he was unique because YHWH remembered him, and therefore we do too.

I have not found a single bible commentary that mentions this aspect.

The bible doesn’t seem to mention a reason

Verse 18 informs us that the reason for YHWH’s concern for the servant’s safety is,

because thou hast put thy trust in me, saith YHWH.

This is the issue which triggered my curiosity. The description around verse seven is that the servant of the king saw wat the officials had done to Yirmeyahu. He was concerned for the life of the prophet, which is why he went to the king and received the monarch’s instruction to take 30 men and get Yirmeyahu out of the pit. He also took padding material with him, so that Yirmeyahu would not suffer physically from the experience of being forcefully pulled out of the mud.

There is no mention that the servant did any of this out of trust in YHWH. Yet according to our bibles, YHWH informs him that he will be saved because of that trust. So the question is, in what way, exactly, did the servant put his trust in YHWH?

The answer hinges on three considerations.

1. The meaning of the Hebrew word yirme in the name Yirmeyahu.
2. The meaning of the Hebrew word which has been translated as ‘put thy trust.’
3. Understanding that ‘because’ is not a fitting translation of the Hebrew word כּי kîy in this verse.

1a - Meaning of the name Yirmeyahu

The name Yirmeyahu means ‘raised up, or set higher, by YHWH.’ Theologians interpret this in their usual way by declaring it symbolic. Bible scholars hardly ever choose a literal meaning when they see a chance to invent a fancy interpretation to a figurative meaning. So with the name of Yirmeyahu. ‘The Lord exalts;’ or ‘the Lord establishes,’ are symbolic. But these are meaningless because they do not explain what, exactly, the Lord establishes. He establishes what? Exalts how? Or whom?

In order for a term such as ‘the Lord exalts’ to have any meaning, it requires an object of the verb ‘exalt.’ The Lord exalts James Jamieson, for instance. Or the Lord establishes his kingdom. With an object for the verb the sentences make sense, but without object they are mere empty phrases.

The Oxford Dictionary of English lists the word ‘exalt’ as a ‘verb with object.’ And the German - English bilingual dictionary defines ‘exalt’ as a transitive verb. And such a verb requires an object.

a verb (or verb construction) that requires an object in order to be grammatical.

— Terminology Dictionary

So we can safely conclude that the term “The Lord exalts” does not meet the requirement for a grammatically correct phrase and is, in fact, meaningless. The explanations of the NIV and the various bible dictionaries theologians are plain false. But if the name Yirmeyahu does not mean what theologians assert, then what does it mean?

1b - Yirmeyahu

The name Yirmeyahu is a compound of two words. The first is a conjugated verb, the second word is an abbreviation of the name YHWH. Because the first word is a verb, in Hebrew it expresses action. And because the second word is YHWH, the name expresses an action by or to YHWH.

• For example: Netanyahu means given by YHWH.
• Yirmeyahu means raised up, or set up higher, by YHWH.

Some of the explanations mentioned earlier were grammatically correct, but fail because they are contradictory. The name Yirmeyahu cannot mean ‘raised up by YHWH’ and mean ‘thrown down by ‘YHWH.’

1c - Yirme

The Hebrew verb conjugation yirme derives from the Hebrew root רום (RWM) with the ו (waw) in the middle of the word here serving as vocal with an ‘oe’ sound.

If we speak this aloud, it sounds ‘roem.’ This may not mean much in English, but in Dutch it is a much used word with the meaning: glory, renown, fame. In fact, the Dutch word ‘roem’ is related to my first name Robert although I can’t say that I have lived up to its meaning³.

By the way, the correlation between the Dutch word ‘roem’ meaning renown and the name Robert may explain why three Scottish kings were so named⁴. Here is what the dictionary Terminology writes,

king of Scotland from 1306 to 1329; defeated the English army under Edward II at Bannockburn and gained recognition of Scottish independence (1274-1329)

And this is the entry at Wikipedia for Robert the Bruce.

Robert was one of the most famous warriors of his generation and eventually led Scotland during the First War of Scottish Independence against England.

So Robert the Bruce defeated the English and gained recognition, and he was one of the most famous warriors of his generation, which is the meaning of the name Robert, and which meaning is expressed by the Hebrew word רום.

This is more or less the same as what Strong’s Hebrew dictionary declares about the meaning of the Hebrew word yirme which is explained as meaning, to be high or to raise or to lift up, in a figurative way: to exalt, extol (Strong’s 07311).

Roem is how the word רום is pronounced and means glory, fame and renown. Roem is the result of yirme, which means in a concrete sense: raising up and setting up high, and in an abstract sense: praising, glorifying and honouring. And the meaning of the name Robert is renown and bright and famous. It’s impossible, of course, to prove any direct link between a Hebrew prophet and a Dutch word and the pronunciation of the root of a Hebrew word and the meaning of the name of a series of Scottish kings from the Middle Ages, but it’s also difficult to overlook how their meanings tie together:

• physically (or concrete) raising up, lifting up high
• notionally (abstract) becoming famous, gaining renown, being honoured.

1d - Yirme and Yahu

Theology is based on Greek words and Greek thought patterns which are abstract in their nature. It is therefore not difficult to understand why theologians, too, focus on abstract notions. That is why they explain the name of Yirmeyahu in various abstract ways.

• appointed by Jehovah. — Easton
• “…whom Yahweh casts,” i.e. possibly, as Gesenius suggests, “appoints” — ISBE
• “whom Jehovah founds,” i. e. establishes. — Smith

Let’s put two hundred years of theology aside and look instead at a concrete meaning for the name Yirmeyahu. After all, these abstract senses are derived from the concrete meaning of yirme, which is ‘raising up.’

When I take a child in my arms and lift it and put it into a chair, I am literally raising the child up. And when someone is lowered into a deep well, and later someone else comes along, and throws down a rope and calls for help, and together they pull a man out of the well, what they are doing, in a literal, concrete sense, is to raising that man up.

Oxford tells us that to raise means to lift or move to a higher position or level. This is physical. This is not spiritual or abstract or figurative.

Yirmeyahu was down in the pit, and a servant of the king, you know, the Ethiopian, found out and he went to the king and was commissioned to pull Yirmeyahu out, and so what the servant of the king did, this Ethiopian, is to throw down rags and a rope and with the aid of some of the thirty soldiers, these people physically lifted Yirmeyahu to a higher level.

1e - Story

Many people know the story of the man who was at sea, shipwrecked, and who prayed to God. This is also known in similar vein as a drowning man on a rooftop during a flood. Here it is based on a version on Trutbook.com⁵

---

FADE IN

EXT. A FLOODED LAND - DAY

A FELLOW is stuck on his rooftop during a devastating flood. The waters rise. He prays to GOD to save him. Shortly after, a MAN IN A ROWBOAT comes by. He shouts to the fellow on the rooftop.

MAN IN A ROWBOAT

Jump in, I can save you!

FELLOW ON ROOFTOP

No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.

The rowboat rows on. The waters rise further. Shortly after, a motorboat comes by.

MAN IN A MOTORBOAT

Jump in, I can save you.

FELLOW ON ROOFTOP

No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.

So the motorboat motors on. The waters rise further still. Shortly after, a helicopter comes along. The pilot lets down a thick rope.

PILOT OF A HELICOPTER

Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.

FELLOW ON ROOFTOP

No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.

So the helicopter reluctantly flies away. Shortly after, the waters rise above the rooftop level and the fellow on the rooftop drowns.

INT. HEAVEN - DAY

The drowned fellow, previously known as the fellow on the rooftop, was a true christian. So he had a ticket to heaven for the moment he died. One of the roaming angels found the ticket in the man’s pocket and carried him to heaven. He arrives and is admitted free of charge. One day, God walks by and the drowned fellow sees an opportunity to discuss his sad experience with God.

DROWNED FELLOW

Sir God! I had faith in you! I prayed for you to save me, but you let me drown. I don’t understand why?

GOD

I know you had faith in me. Therefore I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?

FADE OUT

---

Keeping this story in mind, now think again about the name Yirmeyahu. The prophet was down in the pit, and his name literally means ‘raised up by YHWH’ or ‘lifted up by YHWH.’ Wouldn’t you agree that the Ethiopian was performing the actualisation of Yirmeyahu’s name when he pulled the prophet out of the pit?

A rowboat, a motorboat and a helicopter were sent to save the drowning man.

The Ethiopian servant of the King of Yehuda was not sent, but he went of his own accord⁶ to save Yirmeyahu from the pit, and in doing do he made Yirmeyahu’s name come true. The prophet was lifted up, and if we consider the Ethiopian slave as YHWH’s arm, he was raised up by YHWH to a higher position.

2a the word Batachtha

We’re almost there, but not quite yet, for although the name of Yirmeyahu literally comes true at the moment that he was raised up out of the pit, we have one more issue to address, which is why did YHWH say that the slave had trusted in him?

YHWH tells Yirmeyahu: go to that servant, the Ethiopian, and tell him not to be afraid when he sees the city being destroyed because I will save him, and I will do so because he trusted in me. But how did the Ethiopian trust in YHWH?

To find out we’ll need to discuss the Hebrew word which has been translated as ‘trust’. Our final deliberation, therefore, is about the Hebrew word בטחת batachtha.

בטח   and   בטחת

The word בטחת BTHhTh, batachtha is found in Yirmeyahu 39:18 - I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust (batachtha), declares YHWH.

BTHhTh, batachtha is a conjugation of the Hebrew root word בָּטַח BTHh, batach. Let’s look at both.

2b - The Hebrew word בטח BTHh, batach

Just as with almost all other words, so, too, does the word batach have a Hebrew concrete meaning, which, when translated into Greek and our Western languages becomes an abstract notion.

The abstract meanings comprise trust and security. The NIV often translates it with safety and security. The Hebrew word BTHh appears 63 times in the Biblia Hebraica.

To illustrate, here are the NIV translations of where BTHh appears in the Psalms and Proverbs. Note that the translators have variously treated batach as a noun, a verb, an adjective, and an adverb, which indicates glaring inconsistency.

Translations of בטח

Psalms 4:8 - I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.

Psalms 16:9 - Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure,

Psalms 21:7 - For the king trusts in the LORD; through the unfailing love of the Most High he will not be shaken.

Psalms 28:7 - The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.

Psalms 37:3 - Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.

Psalms 37:5 - Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this:

Psalms 78:53 - He guided them safely, so they were unafraid; but the sea engulfed their enemies.

Psalms 84:12 - O LORD Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in you.

Psalms 112:7 - He will have no fear of bad news; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the LORD.

Psalms 115:8, 9 - Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them. O house of Israel, trust in the LORD—he is their help and shield.

Psalms 118:8, 9 - It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.

Psalms 135:18 - Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.

Proverbs 1:33 - but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm.

Proverbs 3:5 - Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

Proverbs 3:23 - Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble;

Proverbs 3:29 – Do not plot harm against your neighbour, who lives trustfully near you.

Proverbs 10:9 - The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.

Proverbs 31:11 - Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.

— New International Version

Safety, confidence, trust, what are these? Abstract notions because they do not exist autonomously. There is only people’s perception of them.

To say that my door is secure, what does that mean? But to say that my door has a strong lock means that people cannot get in without a key. It is not the abstract notion of ‘a secure door’ that helps one sleep at night without worrying about an intruder, but it is the reality of the strong lock on the door.

And trustfully, what does that mean?

Proverbs 3:29 – Do not plot harm against your neighbour, who lives trustfully near you.

Do not plot harm against your neighbour and he’ll dwell as bonded near you.

The word ‘trustfully’ is part of a subordinate clause in an English sentence which describes how your neighbour lives near you. And the sentence is structured as a command. But this is not what the Hebrew text conveys. The original is not a command but a promise. Do not plot harm against your neighbour and (as a result) ‘he’ll be living as bonded to you.’

Think about this. What does it actually mean that your neighbour lives trustfully near you? Nothing more than that he does not suspect you of betraying him. But a neighbour who dwells near you, and he and you are bonded to each other, means that both of you can rely on each other, help each other, walk with one another, and share when one has more and the other has less. You can go away for a month and he will look after your property and water your plants.

The Hebrew bible is full of words with concrete meaning, the English bible is full of empty words and abstract notions.

2c - The Hebrew word בטחת BTHhTh, batachta

Batachta is the 2nd person masculine singular conjugation of the root word batach. The NIV, for instance, has ‘you trusted’ or ‘confidence of yours’ or ‘you are depending’ which are the same abstract notions as previous, but now with the personal pronoun ‘you’. The more concrete meaning in Hebrew is you cling to, or you hold onto, or you grasp.

Again some examples.

בטחת abstract translations

2 Kings 18:19-21 - The field commander said to them, “Tell Hezekiah: “‘This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: On what are you basing this confidence of yours? 20 You say you have strategy and military strength—but you speak only empty words. On whom are you depending, that you rebel against me? 21 Look now, you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man’s hand and wounds him if he leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him.”

Job 11:18 - You will be secure, because there is hope; you will look about you and take your rest in safety.”

Isaiah 36:4-6 - The field commander said to them, “Tell Hezekiah, “‘This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: On what are you basing this confidence of yours? 5 You say you have strategy and military strength—but you speak only empty words. On whom are you depending, that you rebel against me? 6 Look now, you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man’s hand and wounds him if he leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him.”

Jeremiah 39:18 - I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust in me, declares the LORD.’””

Hosea 10:13 - But you have planted wickedness, you have reaped evil, you have eaten the fruit of deception. Because you have depended on your own strength and on your many warriors”

— NIV

.

To illustrate how these verses could be translated with a concrete meaning, a few examples.

בטחת concrete translations

Isaiah 36:4-6 - The field commander said to them, “Tell Hezekiah, “‘This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: On what are you basing this confidence of yours? What are you holding onto? 5 You say you have strategy and military strength—but you speak only empty words. On whom are you depending, Whom are you clinging to, that you rebel against me? 6 Look now, you are depending on you are clinging to Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man’s hand and wounds him if he leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him cling to him.

Jeremiah 39:18 - I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, if you trust in me you cling to me, declares the LORD.

— NIV

3 - The Hebrew word כּי kîy

All translations have understood the word kîy in Yirmeyahu 39:18 to mean ‘because’: YHWH saves the Ethopian because he trusted in YHWH. The NLT places the word even at the beginning of the sentence to emphasize the causal relationship.

Because you trusted me, I will preserve your life and keep you safe. I, the LORD, have spoken!

— New Living Translation

But I was puzzled for two reasons.

1. It cannot be deducted from the text. No where do we read that the servant of the king acted out of trust in YHWH.
2. Translations have messed up with the grammar. The Hebrew word batach translated as ‘trust’ or ‘trusted’ is a noun, but many translations have changed it into a verb, using present tense or past tense. And the few that have correctly kept it as a noun then added another verb to turn it into an English sentence. ‘because you have put (added) your trust (noun) in me.’

Fortunately, the solution is remarkably easy. The Hebrew word kîy* is, according to Strong’s,

a particle […] indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent;

and the Brown Driver Briggs dictionary gives some ways to translate it:

• when (of time)
• when, if, though (with a concessive force)
• because, since (causal connection)

The earliest translators choose to see a causal connection. God will save the servant because the servant trusted in him. And from then on, all translators in all languages simply went along the same path.

But they were all wrong. For although there is indeed a connection, it is not causal, but conditional. And it is not event already accomplished, but a promise for the future, because the conquest of the city had not yet taken place.

I will save you (future), you will not fall by the sword (future), but will escape with your life (future), if you hold on to me, declares YHWH.

Cling to YHWH

Whenever we see the term ‘trusting in’ or ‘depending on’ as a translation of the Hebrew word batachtha, we would greatly benefit from understanding that in Hebrew that word means that someone is clinging to, or tenaciously holding on to someone or something. The examples of Psalms and Proverbs demonstrate that ‘trusting in’ and ‘depending on’ are abstract notions, but ‘clinging to’ describes actual reality.

The lesson is that we should tenaciously hold on to YHWH. And the bible further teaches, that only those who cling to YWHW will be rescued when the times get rough. Which means that everyone who trusts in money, will not. Or who trusts in other gods. Or status. Or who trusts in the promises of deceptive theologians or corrupt politicians or career scientists.

Most people believe in the empty promises of men and women whom they have never met. And they stubbornly keep on trusting them, so when a promise doesn’t come true, they don’t hesitate to put their trust in the next empty promise.

Millions of christians believe in the false promises of theologians who tell them that the christian ‘God’ will save them from harm and hunger if they only believe in the name of Jesus. These christians do not cling to the bible, but they trust in the biased interpretations of deceptive theologians and woke church pastors and misguided reli-bloggers.

Sadly, there are only few believers who, having left the church, do not trust in an abstract sense, and do not hold on to the lies and deceptions of the devil’s disciples, but cling tenaciously to YHWH and act according to his commandments. Acting according to YHWH’s commandments is the visible, real-word actualisation of clinging to him. They are the ones who know YHWH’s name and because of that, YHWH has written their names in a book.

The majority of christians believe in God⁷ and Jesus and going to heaven when they die. They refuse to call YHWH by his name. They trust in their triune godhead composed of three persons who are supposed to be coeternal and coequal God. But the word ‘coeternal’ is an empty adjective, and God and godhead are abstract nouns, words devoid of any meaning, so there’s nothing to hold on to.

He who does actually exist, is YHWH Elohiym, the very same who caused our existence to begin with! The thing he asks of us to call him by his name YHWH. Then he will listen to us, and we have a real, actual, literal person to cling to.

Don’t worry, said YHWH to the servant of the king, the Ethiopian who had raised Yirmeyahu out of the pit, I will save you if you cling to me.

We would do good if we do the same. Here’s how it works:

• Believe in the death and resurrection of Y’hoshua (YHWH saves) who is the promised mashiyach. On account of this belief righteousness is accredited onto the believer, making it possible to commune with YHWH. So now one’s prayers have a pathway to reach heaven, where they will be heard.
• Obey YHWH’s commandments, including the commandment to refer to him by his name YHWH. Knowing the name YHWH causes one’s name to be written in a special book.
• Call on the name of YHWH. And cling to him.

Notes

❧